[House Prints 118-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th 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
__________
NOVEMBER 20, 2024
__________
Serial No. CP:118-14
__________
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
57-443 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Ryan Giachetti, Parliamentarian
Lauren Hassett, Professional Staff Member
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 November 20, 2024................................ 1
BILLS CONSIDERED
----------
* H.R. 10133, the Timely Stock Disclosure Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 1
* H.R. 10132, the Federal Agency Performance Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 4
* H.R. 10155, the Financial Management Risk Reduction Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 6
* H.R. 9040, the Taxpayer Exposure Risk Reduction Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 24
* H.R. 10062, the Freedom to Petition the Government Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 74
* H.R. 8690, the Stop Secret Spending Act of 2024
Bill Discussed................................................... 75
* H.R. 10151, the Modernizing Data Practices to Improve
Government Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 75
* H.R. 8706, the Dismantle DEI Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 76
* H.R. 8753, to direct the United States Postal Service to
designate single unique zip codes for certain communities and
for other purposes
Bill Discussed................................................... 78
* Several Postal-Naming Measures
Measures Discussed............................................... 78
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Statement regarding votes; submitted by Rep. Porter.
* U.S. Postal Service FY 2025 Performance Targets; submitted by
Rep. Raskin.
* Chapter 4 - DC Code; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter, November 13, 2023, B. Schwalb to J. Jordan and J.
Comer; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter, January 2, 2024, B. Schwalb to J. Jordan and J.
Comer; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter, October 30, 2023, JDJ JC to Schwalb-D.C. AG, re:
Leonard Leo; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter, December 18, 2023, JDJ JC to Schwalb, re: response;
submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 8706-DREDF; submitted by Rep.
Brown.
* Article, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, ``Milwaukee's new sales
tax is wrongly affecting some suburbs''; submitted by Chairman
Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 10151-Data Foundation;
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 8706-Heritage Action For
America; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 9040-CIAB RAA; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 8706-Human Rights Campaign;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 8706-National Urban League;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 8706-AFL-CIO; submitted by
Reps. Mfume and Brown.
* Letter, November 19, 2024, from Chairman Phil Mendelson
opposing H.R. 10062; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Coalition Letter, Statement for the Record, H.R. 9040;
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, November 20, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx,
Grothman, Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace,
LaTurner, Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, McClain,
Boebert, Fry, Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin, Norton,
Lynch, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Bush,
Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Crockett, Goldman,
Moskowitz, Tlaib, and Pressley.
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A
quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Pursuant to Rule Committee 5(b) [sic] 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 first item for consideration is H.R. 10133, the Timely
Stock Disclosure Act. The Clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 10133, the Timely Stock Disclosure Act, a
bill to amend Title 5, United States Code, to require the
reporting of periodic transaction reports not later than 15
days after receiving notification of the requirement to report
a transaction, but in no case later than 30 days after such
transaction and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment 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. 10133, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
I support H.R. 10133, the Timely Stock Disclosure Act. Over
45 years ago, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act.
This landmark legislation addressed conflicts of interest and
the appearance of corruption. The goal was and remains
preventing real and perceived conflicts of interest among those
fortunate enough to receive the public trust. Our ethics laws
accomplish this by requiring certain Federal employees and
candidates for office to disclose financial interest that may
relate to their official duties.
Over the years, Congress has advocated additional
legislation with similar intent, including by passing the STOCK
Act in 2012, which required financial disclosure flyers to
publicly report certain stock transactions within 30 days. That
law is intended to provide an additional layer of protection
against potentially illegal insider trading that may occur if
senior Federal employees and congressional members and senior
staff use special knowledge from their official service to
trade stocks in a way that benefits them personally.
H.R. 10133 would strengthen the STOCK Act reporting
requirements by shortening the current 30-day reporting
requirement to 15 days. The idea is that the faster that the
public can view the disclosures, the sooner authorities may
intervene to address potentially illegal insider trading. I
want to thank my colleague, Mr. Burchett from Tennessee, for
introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support the Burchett bill. I now recognize Ranking Member
Raskin for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to
support the Timely Stock Disclosure Act today. The Stop Trading
on congressional Knowledge Act, or the STOCK Act, was signed
into law in 2012 to address the problem of insider trading in
Congress and the executive branch, among other things. It
requires the President, VP, senior executive branch officers,
Members of Congress, senior congressional staff, and others to
report all transactions over $1,000 involving stocks, bonds,
and commodities within 30 days of learning that such
transaction has taken place, and no later than 45 days after
such transaction.
H.R. 10133 would reduce those reporting requirements to 15
days and 30 days, respectively, requiring more timely
disclosure. While this is a modest step in the right direction,
it fails to meaningfully and comprehensively address the
public's concern that Members of Congress are able to use their
access to confidential information to enrich themselves in the
stock market, and that their Federal policy-making decisions
may be shaped by their own personal financial interests instead
of the common good. Members of Congress simply should not be
allowed to trade individual stocks in office. The Floor of the
House of Representatives should not be like the Floor of the
New York Stock Exchange.
Many bills have been introduced to take this step, which
has the support of 88 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of
Republicans according to a 2023 poll. The public's position on
this is clear, it is compelling, and we should work with the
other committees of jurisdiction to pursue legislation to
completely ban the trading of individual stocks by Members of
Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working
with you on that, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Burchett from Tennessee, for his
statement on the bill.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel like I should
withdraw this bill with all the support I am receiving. That
kind of scares me just a little bit. I have to go back and
reread the bill, but the Timely Stock Disclosure Act is a much-
needed step toward transparency. And for the record, my $9,000
portfolio, which is mutual funds, as managed by my buddy, Tommy
Seiler, in Knoxville, Tennessee, so I totally support removing
individual stock trades, and I will vote accordingly.
But this bill would amend the STOCK Act of 2012 to reduce
the periodic transaction reporting timeline from 30 to 45 days
to 15 to 30 days. You are right, Ranking Member, of this: I
wish we could go farther. We are trying to eat this hog one
bite at a time. And specifically, this bill requires the
President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and senior
government officials, at G15 or higher and are making over
$120,000 per year, to report their stock trades within 15 days
after they are notified that they need to submit the report,
but under no circumstances later than 30 days after the
transaction itself. Congress has a 19-percent approval rating,
and most of the country thinks this body is corrupt, I being
one of those, and I do not blame them. Our constituents elected
us to write laws directly impacting the American people, yet
certain Members consistently outperform even the best hedge
funds in the stock market, raising questions about the intent
behind the bills we passed, rightfully so.
But Congress does not have a monopoly on government
corruption. We have seen it through all branches of government,
and additionally, our Federal agencies are constantly writing
rules that have the force of law while continue to trade
stocks. If Federal employees and officials want to continue to
participate in the market they regulate, there needs to be some
dadgum transparency. While I believe there should be a total
ban on Members of Congress and high-ranking government
employees trading stocks, passing this legislation is a
necessary step in the right direction in helping restore
confidence in the U.S. Government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Ranking Member, for your support.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 10133, 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--the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. I request a roll call vote please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs. As previously announced,
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 10132, the Federal
Agency Performance Act. The Clerk will please designate the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 10132, the Federal Agency Performance Act,
a bill to improve performance and accountability in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 10132, 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 Federal Agency Performance Act of 2024, which
provides additional transparency, accountability, and
priorities for the Federal Government. Federal agencies have
many different missions. To meet these missions, they are
required to develop goals and objectives. Developing the goal
is an important first step toward progress. However, we know
that more must be done to ensure that these goals and
objectives are being achieved.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as
later modernized in 2010 by a reform act known as GPRAMA,
collectively established a solid foundation of reforms to
improve the overall performance and outcomes of Federal
agencies. GPRAMA addressed a number of issues, such as focusing
attention on cross-cutting management issues, enhancing the
usefulness of performance information, increasing transparency,
and ensuring leadership commitment and attention to improving
the performance of Federal agencies. H.R. 10132 builds upon
existing law to codify the performance management practices
that have shown the most positive results.
This bill requires agencies to proactively assess their
progress toward achieving their strategic goals and objectives.
It ensures that merely developing the goal is not enough.
Agencies would be required to track their progress and develop
plans to address identified risk to not achieving their stated
goals. This bill also requires agencies to determine whether
they need more evidence to better assess their progress.
Agencies would also be required to assign senior leadership
attention to completing these efforts, a commonsense reform
that ensures that the work gets done.
I would like to thank Committee Members, William Timmons
and Ro Khanna for leading this bill in the House of
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this
important, sensible, and bipartisan legislation. I now
recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks
to our colleagues, Mr. Timmons and Mr. Khanna, for leading this
bill to modernize the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, which I thought we referred to as GPRA, not GPRAMA. I do
not know.
Chairman Comer. Yes, I am sure that is probably right.
Mr. Raskin. But I am pleased to support the legislation. I
want to thank the Senate Homeland Security and Government
Affairs Committee Chairman, Gary Peters, for his leadership
over on the Senate side. GPRA first established a performance
management framework for government agencies and was last
modernized in 2010, so we are definitely overdue for another
look to make sure that the framework is operating as
effectively and efficiently as it can.
The Federal Agency Performance Act would codify OMB's
practice of conducting regular strategic reviews of Federal
Agency performance goals and ensure that all priority goals are
tied explicitly to the President's budget with milestones that
can be achieved within a single Presidential term. It would
also set new requirements to improve publicly available data on
Performance.gov, allowing greater transparency into agency
progress. Additionally, it would require each governmentwide
priority goal to be led by at least one OMB official and one
agency official. The bill makes other commonsense updates to
ensure Federal agencies are providing services to the American
people as efficiently as possible.
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you are bringing this up for a
vote today and encourage my colleagues to support the
legislative handiwork of Mr. Timmons and Mr. Khanna. I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Correctly
pronouncing acronyms is not my strong suit, so I am sure you
are right.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
Mr. Khanna for partnering with me on this important
legislation.
Today, I rise in favor of H.R. 10132, the Federal Agency
Performance Act of 2024. If enacted, this legislation would
hold Federal agencies more accountable for their performance
and ensure greater transparency in how they spend taxpayer
dollars. The Government Performance and Results Modernization
Act of 2010 already made significant reforms to improve agency
performance outcomes. This bill builds on those reforms by
adding new proven practices that will deliver even better
results.
Specifically, the bill requires agencies to develop
strategic plans for how taxpayer money should be spent, and
just as importantly, it forces agency employees to report their
progress toward achieving their goals. Agencies will also need
to assess the risks that could prevent them from meeting those
goals and put in place strategies to address those risks. By
establishing a more rigorous strategic review process,
improving access to publicly available data, and incorporating
evidence-based activities into planning, we create a stronger
framework for how taxpayer money is spent. This will lead to
greater transparency and accountability for both governmentwide
and agency-specific performance goals.
The Federal Agency Performance Act of 2024 also
incorporates key recommendations from the Government
Accountability Office, which advocates for a more comprehensive
approach to planning and management in the Federal Government.
It also codifies a success benchmark by requiring annual
strategic reviews of each agency's priority goals. These
reviews are essential, helping leadership focus on top-level
objectives and ensure that we stay on track. As Members of the
Oversight Committee, it is our responsibility to protect
taxpayer dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse. This bill takes
an important step in establishing the guardrails needed to
ensure government spending is efficient and effective, while
rooting out wasteful practices within our Federal agencies. An
identical version of this legislation unanimously passed the
Senate in February, and I hope this body will soon follow.
I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation which codifies practices that have proven to
encourage greater transparency, accountability, and improve
agency performance, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The sponsor of the bill yields back. Do any
other Members wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none. The question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 10132, 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--the Chair recognizes Mr.
Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs
from Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings on
the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 10155, the
Financial Management Risk Reduction Act. The Clerk will please
designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 10155, the Financial Management Risk
Reduction Act, a bill to amend Section 7504 of Title 31, United
States Code, to improve the single audit requirements.
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. 10155, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
I support the Financial Management Risk Reduction Act of
2024, which will improve the quality and completeness of
financial audit data of large Federal grant recipients. If an
entity receives a Federal financial assistance from the Federal
Government, we should be able to closely review their financial
statements and expenditures of Federal funds to ensure that
every transaction is legitimate.
The law requires that non-Federal entities that receive
more than $300,000 in Federal awards annually undergo this
close review, otherwise known as a financial single audit.
Unfortunately, longstanding issues prevent efforts from
identifying recipients that should have submitted a single
audit but did not. Even more troubling, the Office of
Management and Budget has not designated any entity to conduct
a governmentwide single audit quality check since 2007. Why is
this important?
For example, trillions of dollars of COVID-19-related
financial assistance was distributed, in many cases to first-
time award recipients who were non-Federal entities. The
recipients were receiving substantial sums of Federal funds
that needed this oversight. Routine governmentwide reviews of
these audits is important to ensure the information is both
reliable and useful, which in turn helps the agency officials
monitor the spending of these Federal dollars. That is
important, but having the right analytical tools to use this
data is important, too.
H.R. 10155 will require the development of these analytic
tools to use this data to identify fraud risks across the
government. Rather than waiting to find out that there are
pervasive or severe issues with the use of Federal financial
assistance funds, the Federal Government should be proactive in
identifying and addressing any issues. This bill will also
target effectiveness. The bill includes a requirement for the
Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to review the
effectiveness of strategies and tools that come from these
governmentwide reviews. It also calls for an assessment of the
reporting burdens for these auditors and audited entities.
Last, the bill asks GAO to evaluate the responsiveness of the
Federal agencies to the finding of these audits. This holds
them accountable.
I want to thank Committee Member Marjorie Taylor Greene
from Georgia for leading this bill in the House of
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible
reform. I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for his
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am pleased
to support this legislation which would indeed improve the
quality and usability of independent audit data and enhance
oversight of Federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984
requires Federal grant recipients who get more than $750,000 to
report an independent audit of their internal financial
controls annually to the government. It sought to increase
accountability while reducing burden on grant recipients by
mandating one single consolidated audit rather than audits on a
grant-by-grant basis. In 2022, over 40,000 state, local, tribal
and territorial governments, and not-for-profits submitted
single audits.
The Financial Management Risk Reduction Act addresses
recommendations made by the GAO which were aimed at increasing
the useability of single-audit information to reduce Federal
financial management risk. The bill codifies certain portions
of OMB's uniform grants guidance requiring agencies to conduct
quality control reviews on its audits, and directs OMB to
coordinate a governmentwide audit quality review once every 6
years. Finally, the bill would direct OMB to create a
governmentwide strategy on financial risk regarding single
audits, and instructs GSA to create analytical tools to use
single audit data more effectively. It is a good bill. It will
improve the quality and accessibility of audit data. It will
increase transparency and accountability of Federal funds. I
urge all of our colleagues to support it. I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. [Presiding.] Do any other Members wish to be
heard?
[No response.]
Mr. Fallon. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signifying by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Fallon. All those opposed signify by saying nay.
[No response.]
Mr. Fallon. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 10155, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Fallon. All opposed, signifying by saying no.
[No response.]
Mr. Fallon. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Fallon. Yes. Sorry.
Mr. Biggs. I request a recorded vote.
Mr. Fallon. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item up for consideration is H.R. 10062, the
Freedom to Petition the Government Act. The Clerk will
designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 10062, the Freedom to Petition the
Government Act, a bill to amend Title 29 of the District of
Columbia Official Code to treat meetings held with officials of
the Federal Government, which are held in the District of
Columbia, as activities not constituting doing business in the
District of Columbia for purposes of determining whether
organizations are required to register with the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Fallon. 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 designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 10062, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Mr. Fallon. Without objection, the amendment is considered
as read, and the substitute will be considered as original for
the text for the purposes of further amendment.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
I am happy to support H.R. 10062, the Freedom to Petition
the Government Act. The bill amends D.C. Code to ensure that
nonprofit organizations who are headquartered outside of the
District of Columbia are not considered to be doing business
within the District if their work is only with the Federal
Government. Requiring nonprofits who are trying to petition
their Federal Government on various issues to register with the
District Government opens them up to additional and unnecessary
liabilities. It also creates a chilling effect for these
nonprofits.
The D.C. Attorney General has already tried exploiting this
situation to investigate nonprofits whose only advocacy is with
the Federal, not the District Government. These nonprofits have
not availed themselves to the District, only to the Federal
offices they are meeting with. H.R. 10062 fixes this problem by
giving these nonprofit organizations the freedom to petition
their government without threat of reprisal from a jurisdiction
they would otherwise not be subject to. The fix is a win for
free speech and for the various organizations that advocate in
front of Federal officials.
I thank Representative Biggs for introducing this important
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I now
yield to the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We were
doing so well there. In bill after bill, we had real bipartisan
unity. Now I am afraid I have got to oppose this one, which I
cannot say I fully understand yet, but it clearly looks like
one more attempt to interfere in the local affairs of the
people of the District of Columbia, which has been a favorite
political target of some in the Majority of this Congress.
The Majority has worked to overturn a variety of local D.C.
laws and to put the home rule government representing more than
700,000 tax-paying American citizens in a straitjacket. And
there are obviously some people who prefer to govern the
District of Columbia directly as a colonial population rather
than to grant its statehood petition.
But let us look at what this so-called Freedom to Petition
the Government Act does. The title suggests nicely that the
bill is about protecting the rights to free speech,
association, petition, and privacy. Of course, nobody's right
to petition the government or to engage in free speech or
association has been violated in any way, or at least nobody
has explained how it has been. Businesses, both not-for-profit
and for-profit businesses, have to register to do business in
any state or in the District of Columbia where they do
business, and that is not a violation of their First Amendment
Rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it
is perfectly OK for a state or for Washington, DC. to require
businesses that are doing business there to register, you know,
even if they are lawfully incorporated in a different
jurisdiction.
So, I am not quite sure why this is getting blown up into a
big First Amendment question. It might have something to do
with an investigation that has reportedly been launched by the
Attorney General for the District of Columbia into the business
dealings of Leonard Leo and certain allied not-for-profit
organizations. There was an article in Politico which said,
``What Happens When an Attorney General Dares to Investigate
Leonard Leo's Network,'' and the article began by saying,
``Allies of Leonard Leo have mounted a months-long offensive
against the man investigating the judicial activist network,''
and I think that may explain what this bill is about, but I
would invite the legislative sponsors to really explain what is
going on here.
The District of Columbia, of course, is not unique in
requiring business organizations, whether for-profit or not-
for-profit, to register when they are doing business in the
jurisdiction, and it is very hard to see why there should be
some kind of exception carved out here. Anybody who does
business in any state or in the District of Columbia should be
subject to the laws of that state. And if any state or the
District of Columbia is violating anybody's right to petition
government or right to engage in First Amendment activity, then
that should be struck down. But this looks like a little bit of
a wolf in sheep's clothing, and so I am going to oppose it, and
would invite you, Mr. Chairman or the sponsor, to explain what
this is really all about and what is the genesis of this
legislation. I yield back. Thanks.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Do any other Members wish to be
heard? The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this
markup and for consideration of my bill, the Freedom to
Petition the Government Act. Federal Government officials,
officials at the White House, at Federal agencies, Members of
Congress, our staff, and others are constantly meeting with
nonprofits to discuss their work. So, let us clarify that:
these are nonprofits. They are not just any corporate or sole
proprietor. These are nonprofit organizations, and they are
meeting solely with Federal officials on Federal property. That
is what the bill says. I do not know why that is that is
confusing to you.
Anyway, we meet with them constantly. They want to talk
about the impact of Federal Government action on it. These
nonprofits must comply with existing Federal law to maintain
nonprofit status. Currently, District of Columbia law requires
that a nonprofit not headquartered within the District must
register with the District to hold meetings with Members of
Congress or other Federal officials. That is what their law
requires. D.C. Code requires a nonprofit to register when it is
doing business within the District, even if that business has
nothing to do with D.C. That is like, if they are going to meet
with the representatives of the Federal Government on Federal
Government property, they include that in there, which is why
we actually tried to clarify that with the ANS, with
negotiations with the D.C. Government. So, this law opens these
nonprofits to unnecessary, frivolous, and partisan
investigation from the D.C. Attorney General, and that creates
additional liabilities and a clear chilling effect for
nonprofits that want to engage with the Federal Government.
And, by the way, we are not interfering with D.C. law. D.C. law
is interfering with Americans' right to meet with their Federal
Government officials.
The Freedom to Petition the Government Act amends the D.C.
Code to stop this practice. Nonprofits should be able to travel
to the seat of our Nation's Capital to advocate, inquire, and
engage with the Federal Government, free of retribution from
partisan efforts to stop such outreach. It explicitly states
within the D.C. Code that nonprofits not headquartered in the
District do not need to register with the District. That is
what this bill does. This protects nonprofits from opening
themselves up to overzealous investigations in a jurisdiction
that would otherwise have no claim over these nonprofit's
actions, which is very distinct from what the Ranking Member
was describing.
This provides these organizations the freedom to engage
with Federal officials, and I urge my colleagues to support
this commonsense legislation. And I would point out we have
acceded to some of the requests of the D.C. officials, and that
is reflected in the ANS. I am not representing in any way that
they support this. I am just saying that we tried to meet them
where they had concerns, and that is what the ANS is doing, and
so I urge passage of this, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for one question?
Mr. Biggs. Happily.
Mr. Raskin. Do you understand that the District of Columbia
has the exact same law that exists in your state and in every
other state with respect to the requirement to register if you
are doing business in the state, and that language does not
mention Congress or lobbying anybody? It simply says that if
you are a corporation from another state or foreign
corporation, you are doing business there, you have got to
register, and that exists in Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. So, I will respond and say this. Here is
the deal. The seat of the Federal Government is not in Arizona,
it is not in Maryland, it is here. And these nongovernment
operations, they are coming here to meet, as we say in the
bill, on Federal property, to meet with Federal officials.
Mr. Raskin. If that is all they are doing----
Mr. Biggs. That is what it says right there.
Mr. Raskin. But they are not doing business, no? But in
other words, they are not there----
Mr. Biggs. But the bill, if you read the law----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. Their current law----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. It does not provide that exception.
Mr. Raskin. It does not need an exception. If they are
not----
Mr. Biggs. Sure it does. They chose to investigate Mr. Leo.
Why?
Mr. Raskin. If he has offices.
Mr. Biggs. He did not have offices here.
Mr. Raskin. He has no not-for-profit----
Mr. Biggs. He had a post office box that he checked
periodically. That is what you are saying is business.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, then I think that goes to the
question of whether or not he is doing business.
Mr. Biggs. That is correct.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. And that is the point that we are trying to
clarify. I am glad you agree that that was the question in the
Leo case. We are clarifying it now.
Mr. Raskin. Can you just explain why? Again, I am just
trying to find out because this is the first I am learning of
this whole thing. Why? Why do we need to intervene to pass a
Federal law about this? If they are not doing business in the
District of Columbia, it should not be an issue, right?
Mr. Biggs. That is correct. It should not be, but it has
proven to be, and your position would be, well, Leo was doing
business, and my position would be, he was not doing business--
--
Mr. Raskin. Well, I have no idea whether or not he was. Is
there a case on that? Is there a case brought on it within the
District of Columbia?
Mr. Biggs. Yes, they brought action against him. So, the
point I am trying to make to you is, basically you are kind of
agreeing with me, I think.
Mr. Raskin. I agree. If he is not doing business in the
District of Columbia----
Mr. Biggs. And I am trying to provide clarity saying, look,
if you are coming in here and you want to meet with us and you
are meeting on Federal property, then why would D.C. even
consider it has jurisdiction? And in the correspondence that we
have had with the D.C. Attorney General, he was adamant that
they did at first. I think he has kind of walked back away from
that. That is one of the reasons I think it has to be
clarified.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Fallon. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Fallon. Ms. Norton first.
Mr. Cloud. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Fallon. Ms. Norton, you are recognized.
Ms. Norton. I would like to start by asking unanimous
consent to enter into the record a letter from D.C. Council
Chairman, Phil Mendelson, opposing this bill.
Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Norton. I strongly oppose this bill which violates the
District of Columbia's right to self-government. This bill
amends D.C. law to exempt certain business organizations doing
business in D.C. from registering with D.C. even though each
state requires business organizations, whether for profit or
nonprofit, doing business in that state to register there. The
intent of this bill is to reduce D.C.'s authority to apply its
law to nonprofits that are formed under the laws of another
jurisdiction doing business in D.C. Why would this Committee
amend D.C.'s business registration law which is like the
business registration law of each state?
Contrary to Republicans' claims, this bill is not about the
First Amendment, which, of course, no enforceable law can
violate. There are two reasons for this bill. First, this
Committee has abused its undemocratic authority over D.C. more
this Congress than in any time in at least 2 decades. This is
the eighth bill this Committee has marked up or brought
directly to the Floor to repeal or amend D.C. laws or
regulations. These bills have ranged from stripping D.C. of its
authority to increase criminal penalties, to repealing a D.C.
environmental regulation, to amending D.C. public-sector
employment laws.
Second, the D.C. Attorney General apparently did something
this Committee considers radical. He enforced D.C.'s Nonprofit
Corporation Act. The D.C. Attorney General reportedly is
investigating nonprofits affiliated with a conservative legal
activist for misusing charitable funds for the activist's
personal benefit. This bill is step two in this Committee's
response to the D.C. Attorney General's reported investigation.
Step one occurred last year when this Committee launched an
investigation of the D.C. Attorney General's reported
investigation. My Republican colleagues are correct that D.C.
has the constitutional authority to legislate on D.C. matters,
but they are wrong that Congress has a constitutional duty to
do so. Legislation on D.C. matters is a choice. As the Supreme
Court held in 1953, ``There is no constitutional barrier to the
delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full
legislative power.''
The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the
governed and end taxation without representation. Yet D.C.
residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress,
whether on national or local D.C. matters, and pay full Federal
taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any
state, and more total Federal taxes than 19 states. If House
Republicans cared about democratic principles, they would bring
my D.C. Statehood bill, which gives D.C. residents voting
representation in Congress and full local self-government, to
the Floor. Congress has the constitutional authority to admit
the state of Washington D.C. It simply lacks the will to do so.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Fallon. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. I yield my time to Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
yielding, Mr. Cloud. So, let us talk about what was just read
from one member of the D.C. Council. The council person, I do
not know who it was, mentioned jurisdictions of other states,
that other states require entities that are doing business in
those states to register. We agree with that. That is what
happens. D.C. does that. We are not taking that away. But one
thing that they did not mention in there is that we are talking
about the Federal Government, and we are talking about where
are those meetings are taking place, what are these NGOs coming
in to do, and they are dealing with Federal officers. And I
want to read something here that I find intriguing from a
letter from the D.C. Attorney General. This is his defense of
this: ``Out-of-state nonprofits that choose to register and do
business in the District enjoy a number of benefits by virtue
of that choice, including unparalleled proximity to key players
and decisionmakers across the Federal Government, such as
Members of Congress and their staff.'' But here is the deal, if
you are a foreign non-government organization or a not-for-
profit, and you are coming in and you want to visit with us,
under the D.C. Code, that could be interpreted to be conducting
business. And if that is the case, then you are chilling free
speech, and you are chilling NGOs, not-for-profits coming in.
That is the problem, I mean, because he is requiring
registering.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Well, has that happened? In other words--I was
not aware that the District of Columbia was interceding with
not-for-profit corporations that just come to Washington for
the purposes of meeting a Member of Congress and saying you
have got to register to do that.
Mr. Biggs. So, he has claimed that authority, essentially,
in the Leo case. So, if you look at the Leo case, which even
Politico, which broke that story, admits there was nothing
there. There was rumor and innuendo. But he chose to
investigate that, even though it looks like Mr. Leo and
whatever his nonprofits are, and I do not know anything about
his case, but they all seem to be located outside and actually
perhaps even based in Arlington, and he has chosen to
investigate that. He has not defended that saying, yes, I think
they are doing business here.
Mr. Raskin. Can I just ask two other questions about the
scope of your bill, just to understand? I am really trying to
understand this.
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. So, one is the not-for-profit corporations that
are, you know, say, organized in Arizona or in Maryland, may
have to also go and talk to state legislatures as well. Should
they be exempt from having to register in those states doing
business? Why is it not written to deal with people who are
going to the state capitals, you know, in Annapolis or Albany
or whatever, what have you?
Mr. Biggs. So, I think that becomes a state issue, and D.C.
is under the Federal control of Congress. So, let me just
clarify additionally----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. If I am--because I used to work with a nonprofit
in Phoenix. If we have to go to, say, let us say Dallas, or
something like that, we do not have to register in Dallas for
me to go in and stop in and meet with them.
Mr. Raskin. Right.
Mr. Biggs. That is what we are saying.
Mr. Raskin. But is that the rule here? Because I had not
heard any complaints about that happening.
Mr. Biggs. Well, I think you should. I am sure you are
privy to the responses that the local AG gave to the letters
written by Mr. Comer and Mr. Jordan those are the two
Chairmen--and that colloquy through verse that they gave,
through prose that they gave. But it looks to me like he is
making the assertion that, yes, yes, that he could do that if
they chose, and so that is why I think the bill is important.
And if, by the way, if you do not think that that is happening,
then this bill will do no harm either. But the point is, if it
is happening, which I would suggest to you, this attorney
general, at least in one case, potentially did that, then maybe
we should intercede.
Mr. Raskin. And again, if I could just ask one other
question about the dimensions of the proposal, it says this
applies to all entities, presumably under 501(c), so that means
501(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6), or is it just (c)(3)s?
Mr. Biggs. You are talking about the ANS.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. You think about ANS?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, it looks like it----
Mr. Biggs. It is all, yes, all 501(c)s.
Mr. Raskin. OK. So, have we looked at the implications of
that, if there is a (c)(4), (c)(6).
Mr. Biggs. If they are not coming in, if they are actually
conducting business here, I do not know that this statute is
going to provide that exemption for them. That is----
Mr. Raskin. I guess it is the grammar of it that puzzles
me. When say ``holding a meeting with a Member of Congress,''
does this only apply to those 501(c) organizations that are
holding a meeting, or is that sufficient to make them exempt to
go and hold one meeting, even if they are doing other business
in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Biggs. Well, that is one of the reasons that we have
limited it because if they are conducting business here, we get
it, we understand. But in reality, if they are trying to
exercise fundamental rights, then the D.C. AG should not be
investigating, prosecuting, whatever you choose to say.
Mr. Raskin. OK. I would agree with this, and I would get on
this if you just put the word ``only'' in there, only holding a
meeting with a Member of Congress because that would be
ridiculous.
Mr. Biggs. Well, what about if you go to lunch with a
Member of Congress?
Mr. Raskin. Only holding a meeting or having lunch with a
Member of Congress. I mean, I think having lunch would
incorporate. But what I do not want this to become, suddenly,
like an escape hatch for people who are actually doing business
here and saying ``well, we did a meeting with a Member of
Congress,'' so now everybody would acknowledge we are doing
business, we are suddenly exempt from the law.
Mr. Biggs. I think you are straining at a gnat.
Mr. Raskin. I really do not think I am. I think I went
right to the heart of it.
Mr. Biggs. I do not think you are going to the heart of it.
I think you are saying, because I think as the council member
said, ``gee, this whole body has been out to get D.C.'' We are
not out to get D.C. What I am trying to do is protect, and we
are trying to carve out protections for the D.C. Government as
well as for citizens to competition the government.
Mr. Raskin. But is holding a meeting enough to exempt
someone from D.C. law with respect to registration, even if
everybody would concede that they are also engaging in
business?
Mr. Biggs. I do not think so. I do not think so.
Mr. Raskin. I think we have got to still rework the
language.
Mr. Biggs. So, to that end, Mr. Chairman, I would ask
unanimous request that the two letters written by yourself and
Chairman Jordan, as well as the two responses from the Attorney
General from the District of Columbia, be admitted into the
record.
Chairman Comer. [Presiding.] Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. And also, I would also request that Chapter 4 of
the District of Columbia Code be admitted into the record as
well.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you. I am going to followup on the
Ranking Member's questions because I do want to get down to the
rub because the appearance here is that the D.C. AG began an
investigation into Leonard Leo and all of his various
nonprofits because there were allegations that Mr. Leo was
misusing the nonprofits for his personal gain. And I assume Mr.
Biggs, you agree, that if true, that is a valid basis for an
investigation. Is that right?
Mr. Biggs. By the appropriate authority, yes.
Mr. Goldman. OK. So, then you are saying that the D.C.
Attorney General is not the appropriate authority because the
D.C. Attorney General does not have jurisdiction or should not
have jurisdiction if the nonprofit that they are investigating
only has a drop box in the District of Columbia. Is that right?
Mr. Biggs. Well, I mean, you have asked a compound question
and asked me isn't that right? What I would suggest to you is,
I think that I think that is probably right.
Mr. Goldman. All right. Well, let me ask it this way then.
Fine, does this bill--and I am going to get to what Mr. Raskin
was getting at here--does this bill, in your view, say that if
a 501(c) organization has a meeting with the Federal Government
or Congress, then there is no jurisdiction for the District of
Columbia's Attorney General to conduct an investigation into
that 501(c) organization, regardless of all of the other
activity that that 501(c) is doing?
Mr. Biggs. I would disagree with your interpretation. We
have defined, quite frankly, I think a minimal carveout
ultimately saying and intimating this is not doing business in
D.C.
Mr. Goldman. So, you are saying that if you have a meeting
or if you are addressing the Federal Government in some
fashion, Congress, some other executive branch agency, that
that does not qualify as jurisdiction. That is what this bill
does. It says that if that is the conduct you are doing in
D.C., then that does not qualify. That does not satisfy D.C.'s
jurisdiction to investigate.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, I am looking at and I am comparing it to
29-105.05 of the D.C. Code. And we are saying, if you are here,
and you notice we just said holding meetings with Members of
Congress. That does not constitute under 29-105.05 the activity
for which you should be required to register with the District
of Columbia.
Mr. Goldman. OK. What happens if a 501(c) has a meeting
with another 501(c) that is in D.C., headquartered in D.C.,
perhaps gives money to that other 501(c) in D.C., and then
separately goes and has a meeting with Mr. Biggs about
something else? Does D.C. have jurisdiction over that 501(c)?
Mr. Biggs. Well, that is a baffling question, and you truly
have a dizzying interpretation of this, I will tell you. What
we have done, is we have carved out a spot, and we said if you
are going there for meetings with Members of Congress, their
staff, if you are meeting on Federal property, you do not fall
within the jurisdiction. And what you are saying is, if they
come in here and they are actually conducting business, other
business, well, that is a different animal, isn't it? Do you
think it is a different animal?
Mr. Goldman. I do not think this bill makes it clear. I
think this bill allows for stripping jurisdiction.
Mr. Biggs. And if I can----
Mr. Goldman. The way it is written, it allows for stripping
jurisdiction of any organization, any 501(c) organization, that
has a meeting with Congress, regardless of whether they are
doing other business in D.C., and that is why Mr. Raskin's
suggestion that you say ``will strip jurisdiction.'' If your
only business in D.C. is meeting with the Federal Government,
that is one thing, but that is not what this bill says. So, if
you want to clarify that, I will happily support that well. So,
the problem is, this is----
Mr. Biggs. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Goldman. One minute. I am just finishing up my time. I
am happy to continue. But the problem with this bill is what
you are doing and what is very clear that you are doing, based
on Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan's letters, is you are
trying to interfere and intervene in an ongoing investigation
by the D.C. Attorney General into the Republicans' biggest
benefactor. And when we talk about the weaponization of
government, the idea that the Federal Government would try to
interfere and intervene and supersede an investigation based on
very vague language when we all know that Mr. Leo does a lot
more than meet with Federal Government officials, and that all
of his organizations do a lot more business in Washington than
meet with Congress, you are trying to backdoor in a way to
strip jurisdiction over Leonard Leo by the D.C. Attorney
General by including very vague language that can be
interpreted to say as long as you are meeting with Congress,
you have one meeting, if you have 100 meetings with other
people, it does not matter, you are exempt from jurisdiction.
And that is the problem with this bill, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Boebert.
Ms. Boebert. I yield to my colleague from Arizona, Andy
Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I felt we
were having some kind of rational colloquy there until we kind
of left the universe here, and now we are wandering in space. I
am going to try to bring us back down and say--I happen to have
the Code here, and I encourage you to read the Code. Because
the way we have crafted this language is, basically, if you are
here for a fly-in, then the D.C. AG does not have jurisdiction
over you, OK? That is the point. Well, you guys are trying to
come up with every nefarious thing and every rationale you can
possibly come up with and say, ``well, gee, we got to expand
this thing.'' This is a very simple, straightforward language,
says, if you are having a meeting, that is not conducting
business in D.C., but the ordinance defines all kinds of other
stuff that is business. We did not touch that other stuff. We
touched if you are coming in for a fly-in to meet with
Moskowitz, or anybody, particularly Moskowitz. In particular, I
was thinking about that. You are protected from investigation,
hassle from the D.C. AG. You do not have to register with them,
but if you are conducting business, we have not touched you.
That is what is baffling to me.
Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Biggs. Well, you have to ask the gentlelady. It is her
time.
Ms. Boebert. I yield.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Ms. Boebert. You are avoiding the
question, Mr. Biggs, and it seems intentional, and the reason
why we are skeptical over here is that Mr. Leo has declared he
is not cooperating with the investigation. Chairman Comer and
Chairman Jordan have tried to intervene and interfere in this
investigation, and now we have a jurisdiction-stripping bill in
the Oversight Committee that is clearly directly related to
this investigation. So, please spare me the outrage that we are
skeptical given the timeline here. But the question I have for
you is, as you interpret this bill, if you are saying a fly-in
is exempt from jurisdiction, you do not have to register. If
somebody does a fly-in and also satisfies one of those other
elements of the Code that would establish doing business in
D.C., does that organization still have to register because of
that other conduct, separate and apart from the fly-in?
Mr. Biggs. That is the way I interpret it. That is why I
said if you read the ordinance, you will get a pretty good idea
how they are attacking registration for business activities. We
are simply saying you are here, you are having a meeting with
Members of Congress, that is not a business activity. Now, if
you go out and you start conducting other business, then there
is nothing in here that protects you from that jurisdiction. We
are not stripping jurisdiction. We are trying to refine and
define and protect fundamental civil rights to speak out and
meet with and petition your government. That is what we are
trying to protect.
Mr. Goldman. And, by the way----
Mr. Biggs. And by the way, you know, I am not outraged. I
mean, I am happy to have the colloquy. I think it is fine. It
is good. But if you are saying that you do not trust me, that
is fine, too, but for all of you guys who are on the other side
now saying, oh, guys, we have to have bipartisanship, we have
to have trust, I am telling you what I think this bill does, I
am telling you why we did it. And you are approaching it with
this massive amount of skepticism, and that is fine, because we
have a history of skepticism, particularly in this Committee.
But if we are ever going to get past it, at some point you got
to say, well, this really does not do everything we said. We
could create every hypothetical in the world because we are a
bunch of stinking lawyers who went to law school. We spent all
of our time getting hypotheticals all the time. But the bottom
line is, we are saying, look, you are coming in, you are
meeting with a Member of Congress. For purposes of the D.C.
Code, which we otherwise are holding harmless, that does not
constitute doing business in the District. That is the point.
Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady needs to yield.
Ms. Boebert. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. I appreciate that. The skepticism is because
laws are interpreted and they are implemented, and so you have
to consider hypotheticals to anticipate how they will be
interpreted and implemented. And the concern I have here is if
what this bill is actually intending to do what you say it is,
A, it is not written clearly, and B, it would not accomplish
the goals of Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan because it
would almost certainly not strip jurisdiction from the D.C.
Attorney General against Leonard Leo.
Mr. Biggs. Reclaiming Ms. Boebert's time, I will say, and
you have just undercut your whole stinking argument where you
have developed your skepticism because I would not protect
Leonard Leo with this. What we are doing is we are protecting
the people who are flying in from any kind of overreach on the
part of the D.C. AG. That is the point.
Mr. Goldman. Is there an example of, that you can cite, of
that happening?
Mr. Biggs. Well, if you cannot find an example, then why do
you care because then it is no harm, no foul.
Mr. Goldman. Well, I am asking you, is there an actual
example of a D.C. Attorney General doing an investigation of a
501(c) that its only business and only contact with Washington
D.C. is to fly in to meet with a Member of Congress?
Mr. Biggs. I would refer you to the responses of the D.C.
AG to the letters from Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan,
where, at least the way I interpret it, he is implying that he
has that authority.
Mr. Goldman. Well, it is weird----
Chairman Comer. OK. Ms. Boebert's time has expired. Mr.
Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
think this is healthy, right? Having a discussion about a bill,
I think that is the whole point of workshopping things. So,
just to go back to Ranking Member Raskin's question, which I
think you are answering, I think we just want it to be just a
tiny bit clearer because obviously legislative intent is part
of the record. So, your intent, and you believe the language is
not an exemption if you are doing business in D.C.
Mr. Biggs. That is correct.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Yes, that is what we want to hear. It is
not an exemption, right? So, coming in and meeting with a
Member, right? If you do business in D.C., is not an exemption.
Mr. Biggs. That is correct because you would still be
subject to the Code because the only thing that would not be
doing business. So, we are just basically saying you are not
doing business pursuant to the D.C. Code if you are meeting
with Members of Congress or the staff.
Mr. Moskowitz. All right. So, I will say it in reverse. If
you do not do business in D.C., coming and meeting with a
Member of Congress does not give D.C. jurisdiction.
Mr. Biggs. Correct.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK.
Mr. Raskin. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Moskowitz. I will yield.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I actually think we have
made tremendous progress here because I think, substantively,
we agree. I think we are converging around the idea that a not-
for-profit that is incorporated elsewhere does not ``do
business'' in the District of Columbia simply because there is
a meeting with a Member of Congress, or, as you have said,
another Federal representative or employee. If you come in to
meet with the IRS, you come in to meet with the Department of
state, that does not turn you into someone doing business in
the District of Columbia. I think that the language is a bit
inartful, so it could be open to different available
interpretations. But and, you know, I would be prepared to
support that idea if we could, you know, work that language out
more specifically, you know, despite the fact that it is not
clear that it is necessary, but I think we all would agree to
that.
Mr. Biggs. So, if you would yield, Mr. Moskowitz. So, the
language we have here was developed in consultation with the
Mayor's Office. That is that is how we ended up with that
specific, which is--I cannot see it without my glasses.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. 11. It is bracketed 11. So, that language itself
was developed in consultation with the Mayor's Office, which is
why it says what it says.
Mr. Raskin. I mean, given the legislative history that is
involved in this conversation, I really have no particular
problem with it. I do not quite see its necessity, but there is
a lot of stuff around here that is not necessary.
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. But, you know, I would not fight it. I do not
know that I would support it, because I do not see it as being
necessary. But I like your clarifying explanation that just the
activity of holding a meeting itself does not confer the status
of doing business in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Biggs. That is correct.
Mr. Raskin. All right, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Moskowitz.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Moskowitz, may I yield?
Mr. Moskowitz. I yield.
Mr. Goldman. I want to just clarify that this is part of
the reason of the skepticism, is that if that is the intent of
the bill, it is a useless bill. It is redundant, it is
unnecessary because I do not think anyone can cite a particular
case or investigation that hinges on jurisdiction based solely
on one fly-in or one meeting with Congress or one meeting with
the Federal Government. And that is where the skepticism
becomes, is that it is unusual to write a law to address
something that is not a problem, where a problem does not
exist. If you are making clear that jurisdiction is not
conferred based on only a meeting with Congress or the Federal
Government, I do not have objection to that.
If what this bill says, and this is where it is not clear,
that if you have a meeting with Congress or the Federal
Government, then it exempts you from jurisdiction, that would
mean that entities that do lots of business in Washington, DC,
and also have a meeting in Congress are no longer a subject to
the jurisdiction of Washington, DC, and that obviously would be
a very problematic bill. So, I urge you to correct and clarify
that, Mr. Biggs, and I do not think you will get a lot of
objection, because it is not clear in the bill.
Mr. Moskowitz. [Inaudible].
Voice. [Inaudible] microphone, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. I can be loud without the microphone. You
mentioned something about the Mayor's Office. Can you expand
about that? Did you work with the Mayor's Office?
Mr. Biggs. Our staff did. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Giving you the rest of----
Mr. Biggs. OK. Thanks. The statement was made that we do
not normally get ahead of issues, so I would say, No. 1, we are
getting ahead of issues. No. 2, who around here has been around
here a little while and has not seen superfluous bills come to
the Floor? Now, I am not saying this bill is superfluous. I am
just saying that that is not a reason not to support the bill.
Third thing is, I will give you an example, because we are
amending the Code section which is entitled ``activities not
constituting doing business,'' which is why it is worded or
framed the way it is. It may not be artful necessarily, but
that is--that is why I think it came up the way it was.
But let me give you an example one. If solely maintaining
accounts and financial institutions, you are not doing business
here, does anybody find issue with that? That that was
superfluous? And that is the point I am trying to make,
ultimately, is I think it is necessary, and it is clarifying.
And I think, you know, and I would offer this to the Ranking
Member, if at the conclusion of the day, if this is moving
forward, I am happy to sit down and craft more artful language,
if that is something that the Ranking Member would like to do.
So, with that, I yield back to Mr. Moskowitz.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Moskowitz's time has expired. Any other
Member seek recognition? Mr. Mfume? Yes, Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to cast all
caution to the wind and extend this colloquy just a little
longer. But I would like to extend it--I would like to extend
it by yielding my time to my Marylander on this Committee, my
colleague who is the Ranking Member, so that he might, in fact,
have the last word to conclude his position. I yield to Mr.
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Mfume, for that, and I
really have nothing to add. I appreciate the comments of the
gentleman from Arizona. I think that we have arrived at
substantive agreement on this. I think we probably differ only
as to the necessity of passing it at this point, but I am happy
to engage in further discussion with you about that, and I am
happy to yield back to the distinguished gentleman from
Baltimore.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, all is well
that ends well. I yield.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member 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 Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 162, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes----
Mr. Biggs. I request a recorded vote, please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs
from Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings on
the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8690, the Stop
Secret Spending Act of 2024. The Clerk will please designate
the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8690, the Stop Secret Spending Act of 2024,
a bill to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006 to ensure that other transaction
agreements are reported to USAspending.gov, 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. 8690, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
I support the Stop Secret Spending Act of 2024, which
requires Federal agencies to report complete and accurate
information on USAspending.gov for how they spend appropriated
funds. Since 2006, agencies have been required to be more
transparent with how they are spending taxpayer dollars. The
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and later
amended by the DATA Act of 2014, established USAspending.gov, a
public data base of all government spending. This transparency
is critical because it ensures the American people that
agencies are using their hard-earned money appropriately.
Unfortunately, over the years, we have found that there are
gaps in USAspending.gov. Agencies more and more have been
utilizing authorities for contracting mechanisms known as other
transaction agreements, or OTAs. OTAs are not subject to
certain Federal acquisition laws and requirements and, most
importantly, are not required to be reported to USAspending.gov
under current law. The Government Accountability Office has
found that agencies use different methods to report the
billions in spending related to OTAs. However, it is unknown if
they are reporting consistently or if this information is even
complete. That means we do not have full transparency over how
billions of dollars are spent by Federal agencies. This bill
corrects that issue by requiring OTA spending be reported to
USAspending.gov under DATA Act. The bill also requires agencies
to report annually on funds that previously were unreported for
a variety of exemptions. Agencies will need to report the
amounts and reasons why these appropriated dollars were not
reported. This provides more transparency to the public and
allows all of us to hold these agencies accountable.
Last, this bill restores the requirement for agency
inspectors general to review the entirety of data submitted by
USAspending.gov to ensure that it is complete and accurate.
Transparency does not mean anything if the information is not
complete or accurate. This bill will ensure that information
will be both, complete and accurate.
I thank representatives, Barry Moore and Jimmy Panetta, for
leading this bill in the House of Representatives. I urge my
colleagues to support this commonsense bill. I now yield to the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
Representatives Moore and Panetta for their strong bipartisan
work on this bill, and to Senator Ernst for her work on the
Senate companion. USAspending.gov, the official source of
government spending data, is a public data base of Federal
agencies' direct expenditures, displaying Federal contract,
grant, loan, and other financial assistance awards totaling
more than $25,000. Prime contract recipients are required to
report details on their first-tier sub recipient awards. The
website is maintained by the Department of Treasury. It
provides accurate, consistent, reliable, and searchable data so
the public can trace the use of our taxpayer dollars.
However, agency reporting requirements are ambiguous when
it comes to reporting so-called other transaction agreements,
OTAs, which are legally binding agreements that are considered
different from standard Federal contracts and grants. The GAO
review found over $40 billion in agency OTAs from Fiscal Year
2020 through 2022 that were, therefore, not reported on
USAspending.gov. H.R. 8690 would enact a GAO recommendation to
require agencies to include these OTAs in their reports to
USAspending.gov, taking a big step toward making the public
record of Federal spending far more complete. H.R. 8690 would
require the Treasury Department to report annually on the total
Federal spending on awards for which data has not been posted
on USAspending.gov as well as the reason such data has not been
posted. It would implement two more GAO recommendations,
including requiring Treasury, OMB, and other agencies to ensure
that USAspending.gov data is complete and accurate, and
requiring Treasury and OMB to periodically assess and determine
which agencies have to report data to the USAspending.gov
website.
The public deserves transparency and accountability in how
our tax dollars are being spent. This bill would strengthen
accountability and transparency and empower USAspending.gov to
further meet its mission. I encourage all of our colleagues to
support this bipartisan legislation. I yield back to you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Do any 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 those opposed 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. 8690 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. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I request a roll call, please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9040, the Taxpayer
Exposure Risk Reduction Act. The Clerk will please designate
the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9040, the Taxpayer Exposure Risk Reduction
Act, a bill to require covered agencies to issue strategy and
implementation plans for the transfer of credit guarantee and
insurance risk to the private sector and to require the
implementation of such plans, 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. 9040, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill.
Currently, the Federal Government manages nearly 148
Federal programs or activities that put Federal agencies at
risk of bearing financial losses. Inherently, these financial
risks are assumed by the American taxpayer and create
uncertainty when budgeting for dramatic costs arising from
unpredictable covered events. Rarely do Federal agencies
explore the potential budgetary benefits of shifting some of
these costs to the private sector, which specializes in
managing these financial risks. As a result, American taxpayers
are left suddenly footing the entire cost of activities ranging
from managing mortgage financing, to student loans, to crop
insurance.
Mr. Donalds' and Mr. Krishnamoorthi's Taxpayer Exposure
Risk Reduction Act would direct Federal agencies to assess the
budgetary and cost-saving potential of transferring risk to the
private sector. Agencies would then publicly report the
findings of these assessments. The bill would provide
implementation authority for them to do so in instances where
such transfers do not increase costs to the Federal Government
or program beneficiaries. H.R. 9040 represents a creative,
straightforward effort to improve government budgeting and
efficiency. I thank the sponsors for introducing the bill--the
sponsors, Mr. Donalds and Krishnamoorthi--and I now recognize
the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regrettably, I have
got to oppose H.R. 9040, the so-called Taxpayer Exposure Risk
Reduction Act. This is a staggeringly broad and momentous bill
that would make dramatic changes to how Federal agencies manage
financial risk, allowing public agencies to transfer credit
risk to the private sector. And obviously, the private sector
is not doing this on an altruistic, not-for-profit,
philanthropic basis. The private sector is only going to be
involved if they believe that there is profit to be made in
doing this.
Now, Federal risk guarantees exist in a number of areas and
agencies, including home mortgages, college student debt, farm
business loans, small business loans, and disaster insurance.
None of those areas, Mr. Chairman, are within the jurisdiction
of this Committee, and we have not had a single hearing on this
extremely complicated bill that could have sweeping economic
and fiscal consequences, whether or not they are intended. The
Federal Government also directly assumes risk in certain
insurance programs and Federal pension programs. Making it the
policy of the Federal Government to transfer credit guarantee
or insurance risk to the private sector is a massive change and
raises very complex concerns about this one-size-fits-all,
master approach to addressing insurance and government
programs.
I want to ask unanimous consent that a letter from a number
of concerned groups, including Americans for Financial Reform
and the Center for Responsible Lending and others describing
their concerns with this legislation, to be entered into the
record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. The authors of the letter argue that this
mandate would put Wall Street in the driver's seat in the
rollout, access, pricing, and servicing of critical Federal
guarantee programs ranging from home mortgage lending to small
business and farm loans, and could result in significantly
increased costs for taxpayers and diminished or more expensive
access to credit for American citizens, families, farms, and
small businesses. Transferring credit risk to the private
sector does not necessarily minimize the cost of such risk to
the taxpayers. The private sector obviously must be compensated
to accept the credit risk, and I do not think we know the first
thing about the market of that risk, and we have not looked at
historical analogies to doing this. In times of financial
recession and stress, I know that private sector guarantors are
far more likely to be unable to execute on their credit
guarantees than the Federal Government is.
Experience has shown that in times of economic stress,
investors far more prefer to deal with the government, and
private sector guarantors may simply fail to be able to deliver
on credit guarantees. A number of striking examples of this, of
course, occurred during the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis.
At the very least, Mr. Chairman, I would say this is a
subject that should not be rushed through in some kind of hasty
way. We need to have serious hearings about this, along with
the committees of substantive jurisdiction over all of the
specific questions, like home mortgages, college student debt,
small business loans, the farm sector, and so on. So, I am not
prepared to gamble on this approach right now, and I would
strongly oppose H.R. 9040, the Taxpayer Exposure Risk Reduction
Act. And I am happy to yield back to you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I would like to
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from
the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers and Reinsurance
Association of America, addressed to myself and Mr. Raskin, in
support of the Donalds-Krishnamoorthi bill.
Without objection, so ordered.
Do any other Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes
the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Donalds from Florida.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Chairman, for convening this
important markup today. I appreciate your leadership in
addressing the critical issue of reducing taxpayer exposure to
financial risks while maintaining a balanced and effective
approach to risk management.
The Taxpayer Exposure Act represents a thoughtful step
forward in identifying and mitigating obstacles that place
undue financial burdens on taxpayers. This legislation aims to
enhance the efficiency and stability of Federal credit
guarantee and insurance programs, while transferring risks to
the private sector where feasible, ensuring that taxpayers'
ultimately benefit. This bill builds upon successful models
already in practice, such as FEMA's National Flood Insurance
Program, the Federal Housing Finance Agency credit risk
transfer programs with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the
Export-Import Bank's initiatives. By requiring Federal agencies
to develop and implement robust strategies for transferring
risk, we empower these programs to operate more effectively
while reducing costs to taxpayers. This legislation strikes the
right balance between prudent financial management and the
essential support these programs provide to communities and
industries nationwide.
I look forward to discussing this proposal and working with
my colleagues to advance this important legislation. Again,
Chairman, I want to thank you for your dedication to this
issue. Additionally, I would like to thank Congressman
Krishnamoorthi for his valued work on this bill, and I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The sponsor of the bill 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 the Chair, the ayes have it,
and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now in----
Mr. Raskin. Can I request a roll call vote on that?
Chairman Comer. Yes. Well, we got one more. Yes, you want
to request it on the full bill, right? That was the substitute.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. OK.
Chairman Comer. OK. Yes. The question is now in favorably
reporting H.R. 9040, as amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. And recorded vote has been requested by Mr.
Raskin. As previously announced, further proceedings on the
question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 10151, the
Modernizing Data Practices to Improve Government Act. The Clerk
will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 10151, the Modernizing Data Practices to
Improve Government Act, a bill to amend Title 44 United States
Code to modernize data practices to improve government, and for
other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill will 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. 10151, 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.
Data is the backbone of modern technologies, like
artificial intelligence, which are being used to improve
Federal Government processes, save taxpayer dollars, and
increase oversight and accountability of Federal agencies.
Federal agencies should be encouraged to use these emerging
technologies when appropriate and with the necessary safeguards
to benefit everyday Americans. However, these tools are only as
good as the data that informs them, which is why the Federal
Government needs a coordinated effort toward data management
and governance.
In 2019, Congress established the Chief Data Officer, or
CDO, Council to promote data sharing between agencies and
further data-driven decisionmaking at agencies. Data is not
going anywhere. It is increasingly the most valuable asset of
organizations across the world. In fact, some have argued that
data is the new oil, the most valuable resource on the planet.
That is why I am excited to support the Modernizing Data
Practices to Improve Government Act which has been brought
forward by Representatives Summer Lee and Nancy Mace, as well
as Senators Gary Peters and Todd Young.
This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the Federal
Government's leading coordination body on this increasingly
valuable resource, the CDO Council. To ensure this is done
responsibly, a senior agency official for privacy is added to
the Council to make the privacy and security of the American
people central to governmentwide data policies. In doing so,
agencies will be better equipped to establish safeguards that
prevent inappropriate disclosure of personally identifiable
information in publicly available data.
Data management challenges are not new, but the effects of
their failures are more pronounced in the age of AI and
emerging technologies. So, we must ensure the Federal
Government's use of AI will benefit the American people in a
way that fosters public trust and upholds American values. It
is necessary to ensure that the data leadership of Federal
agencies have a clear role in helping inform the adoptions and
responsible use of emerging technologies like AI. The
Modernizing Data Practices to Improve Government Act provides
this assurance.
Again, I thank Representatives Summer Lee and Nancy Mace
for their work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to
support this timely and important piece of legislation. I yield
to the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this
good government bill before the Committee today, and thanks
again to Summer Lee and Representative Mace for their
leadership. The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policy Making
Act of 2018 established the Chief Data Officer Council, or the
CDO Council, to improve the way that the Federal Government
manages, uses, protects, disseminates, and generates data in
our decisionmaking and operations. Since its inception, the
Council has undertaken significant work to ensure that Federal
agencies use data to direct, streamline, and to enhance the
transparency of government programs and services.
Congresswoman Lee's excellent bill would extend the CDO
Council's authorization for 7 years from the date of enactment,
ensuring that the work continues. It also updates the Council's
purpose and functions to include a direct focus on data
governance in order to improve data collection and use, ensure
the transparency and quality of public data assets, and better
support the reliable and secure use of emerging technology and
AI. Additionally, the bill would amend the Council's reporting
requirements, directing it to provide a biennial report to
Congress and OMB on its progress in establishing the
governmentwide best practices for data governance, promoting
interagency data sharing agreements, supporting agency use of
evidence in policy-making, and improving access to Federal data
assets.
Data is a crucial strategic asset, and this bill will help
ensure that the Federal Government continues to leverage this
asset for the good of the entire public. I am happy to support
it, and I encourage all colleagues to do the same. I yield back
to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous
consent to enter the following letter of support into the
record, a letter from Data Foundation in support of the
legislation.
Without objection, so ordered.
Do any Members wish to be heard? The Chair recognizes the
sponsor of the bill, Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Chairman Comer and Ranking Member
Raskin. I am happy to speak today about my legislation, the
Modernizing Data Practices to Improve Government Acts, a bill
rooted in a simple concept. Our government works best when it
makes evidence-based decisions. That starts with having high-
quality, reliable data, and the tools to evaluate and use it
effectively.
For many, the idea of building a data-driven culture within
the Federal Government might sound abstract or unrelated to
everyday life, but that could not be further from the truth.
Data is not just numbers on a spreadsheet. It is how the
Federal Government makes smarter decisions, improves services,
and ensures resources reach the people who need them most. It
is how agencies anticipate challenges and create policies that
reflect the realities of the communities we serve. When our
Federal agencies fail to use data and make evidence-backed
decisions, we risk making uninformed choices, and that is why
the Chief Data Officer Council has been such a critical
resource for Federal agencies.
Since its creation in 2018, the CDO Council has helped
Federal agencies treat data as a strategic asset and improve
how they govern and use it. But as we move forward into the age
of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, the
stakes and challenges are higher than ever. A 2023 survey from
the Data Foundation found that more than 55 percent of Federal
chief data officers are already using AI, 95 percent plan to
adopt it within the next year, yet nearly half of these CDOs
cited the lack of clear guidance as one of the biggest barriers
to using AI responsibly.
High-quality data and smart data practices are the
foundation of any successful AI system. When Federal agencies
use AI responsibly, it can improve efficiency, foster
innovation, reduce waste, and better meet the needs of people.
But without strong data governance, poor quality data does not
just create inefficiencies, it amplifies risk, deepens
inequities, and undermines trust in public institutions. As the
CDO Council approaches its 2025 sunset date, its role has never
been more critical.
The Modernizing Data Practices to Improve Government Act
extends the Council's authority for 7 more years, enabling it
to continue supporting Federal agencies and establishing the
data protections and governance needed for the responsible
adoption of AI and other emerging technologies. This bill also
requires the CDO Council to report to the Office of Management
and Budget and Congress on key data governance challenges,
including strategies to mitigate risk posed by emerging
technologies, assessments of barriers to their adoption across
agencies, and guidelines for the ethical use of synthetic data.
Additionally, it directs OMB to recommend ways to clarify
and enhance the roles of chief data officers, equipping them
with the tools, resources, and expertise they need to
strengthen Federal data practices and ensure responsible use of
AI. At a time when Congress is rightly focused on building up
our public AI ecosystem through investments like the CHIPS and
Science Act, we cannot overlook the importance of building
strong data governance practices to make these technologies
work. Without reliable, high-quality data, even the best
intentions behind AI tools can fall short. This bill ensures we
are not just chasing innovation, but creating the solid
foundation needed for innovation to succeed and serve people
equitably.
I want to thank the Chairman of Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, Gary Peters, and Senator Todd
Young for their bipartisan leadership on this issue in the
Senate, as well the Subcommittee on Cyber Security, Information
Technology, and Government Innovation Chairwoman for her
support. I look forward to working with the Committee to
advance this bill, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The sponsor of the bill 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. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting, H.R. 10151, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signified by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I request a recorded vote, please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by Mr.
Biggs from Arizona. As previously announced, further proceeding
on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8706, the Dismantle
DEI Act. The Clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8706, the Dismantle DEI Act, a bill to
ensure equal protection of the law, to prevent racism in the
Federal Government, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 8706, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for statement on the
bill and the amendment.
The Biden-Harris Administration has forced DEI initiatives
into nearly every agency and program within the Federal
Government. DEI initiatives destroy morale, decrease
recruitment, and potentially violate Federal law. These
initiatives spread divisive and exclusive ideologies in our
Federal Government workplaces, and taxpayers are left footing
the bill. For these reasons, I support the Dismantle DEI Act.
H.R. 8706 aims to repeal the Federal DEI programs across
the Federal Government. This bill prohibits funding for such
programs and creates a new Civil Rights Act protection against
requiring individuals to participate in such programs. The bill
will lend legislative support to the incoming Trump
Administration's efforts to eradicate the Biden-Harris
Administration's entrenchment of leftist DEI policies in the
executive branch. I urge my colleagues to support this
necessary bill.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for his statement on the
bill.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
recognizing me. I strongly oppose the so-called Dismantle DEI
Act of 2024, and I confess that I am really baffled as to where
it is coming from or what it means. It directly overturns five
or six different executive orders by President Biden. I do not
have time to go through all of the executive orders that would
become road kill under this legislation, but let us just take
one of them, which simply says that there should be equity in
hiring for people who belong to communities who have
traditionally faced systematic denial of equal treatment under
the law. And then, illustratively, it identifies disabled
people, people who have faced discrimination based on their
religion, people who live in rural communities in the country,
veterans and military spouses, people from communities of
color, individuals from communities that have faced
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,
people who face discrimination based on their status as
students or not students, people who have limited English
proficiency, and pregnant women, as well as people who face
discrimination based on older age.
Now look, the Biden-Harris Administration, as you say, has
made it a priority to bring in more veterans, military spouses,
people living in rural communities, people who are parents,
older Americans, people who have faced discrimination, and so
on. That is because we are a lot stronger when we include
everybody. That is what I understand these efforts are all
about. A Federal workforce that actually reflects the diversity
of our country makes us stronger, and the largest employer in
the United States has a responsibility to lead the way and to
model what it means to be open to everybody. We know of our
history where lots of the groups that I just mentioned were, by
law or by custom or simply by discrimination, excluded from
participation in the Federal workforce. And we know that that
has been true of African Americans. We know it has been true of
Asian Americans. We know it has been true of Hispanic
Americans. There has been discrimination against pregnant women
and so on.
So, all these executive orders do is to articulate a policy
that is based on Federal law now because it is against the law
to discriminate on the basis of all of those different
categories that I mentioned. Now that is my first serious
objection I have looking at this legislation, which I do not
believe we have had a hearing on. Please correct me if I am
wrong, but I do not think there has been a hearing on it.
Here is my second major problem with it. It not only says
we are going to dismantle any effort that is taking place in
every agency and department of the Federal Government to make
sure that hiring is taking place consistent with American law
and American values, but then it says anybody who was working
in one of those offices suddenly becomes ineligible to be
rehired or reassigned anywhere else in the Federal Government.
I have never seen something like that, I mean, but you know, we
can have the policy debate about whether or not it is, you
know, good to have an H.R. effort that opens the doors to
everybody and consciously tries to do that. But if you decide
that you want to do a U-turn on what the Biden-Harris
Administration has done, I just do not see how you can turn it
into a permanent scarlet letter for people who were assigned to
those offices or who went to work in those offices to never get
a job again in the Federal Government.
I mean, that is remarkable that it comes very close to
being a bill of attainder in the Constitution. I know a bill of
attainder applies only to affixing a criminal stigma or penalty
to someone. This affixes a professional stigma or penalty, a
real scarlet letter to somebody who has just been doing their
job. They might have been doing a great job at it, but suddenly
we are declaring them a pariah, someone who is in exile from
the Federal workforce that they may have given, 5, 10, 15, 18,
20 years to. That just makes no sense, and I would love to have
somebody explain the logic of doing that.
Imagine a veteran, say, who is a doctor. I know someone who
is a doctor in the VA who then goes to work in a diversity
office to make sure that the VA is hiring diverse members from
the field of veterans in the country. Well, now we are saying
we are going to close down your office, we are going to shut
down your operation, we are going to send the message that all
efforts toward diversity and inclusion stop, and then we are
going to say you cannot go back to be a doctor at the VA
hospital, or you cannot get a job even in another agency or
department. You cannot go work at the Transportation
Department. You cannot go work at HHS. And that, to me,
reflects the sloppiness and the recklessness of this
legislation, which is an attempt to take an absolute
sledgehammer to efforts across the entire Federal Government to
promote what I think is an essential American value, which is
making sure that the Federal Government itself be open to
people from every walk of life and every American community.
And with that, I will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent to enter the
following letter of support for the bill, a letter from
Heritage Action in support of the Cloud bill.
I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Cloud from
Texas.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Diversity, equity,
inclusion are three words that do not necessarily mean what we
think they mean. And in spite of the altruistic motives of some
of the purveyors of it, diversity, equity, inclusion, as it has
been initiated in our Federal Government as an ideology, seeks
to categorize individuals based on their immutable
characteristics. It is a rejection of the principle that people
should be judged on the content of their character and their
individual achievement rather than their sex, race, national
origin, or ethnicity.
DEI is a huge step backward for our country. It has taken
generations, not to mention a Civil War, a Civil Rights
Movement, to move past a stain on our Nation's history, but we
have made tremendous progress. But to codify discrimination in
an effort to remove discrimination is a woeful, woeful
initiative, and would undo generations of progress we have made
as a Nation on this. Every tear, every drop of blood, the sweat
of our founders, our forefathers that have fallen would be in
vain for us to continue and to reverse the path that we have.
True justice is blind. It should not consider race or sex, and
it is the duty of us as lawmakers to write just laws, and it is
the duty the executive branch to be just in administering them,
without deference to race, creed, religion. Yet the Biden
Administration has pushed through DEI initiatives into every
policy and government department.
What this bill seeks to do is really three things. It seeks
to close the DEI offices that have been set up in virtually
every single agency. As well, this Federal Government has
pushed these policies and sort of force fed them on the
American population by requiring that anyone who does business
with the Federal Government, contractors, also have to adhere
to these DEI policies, as well as the grant writing process.
So, this would right, what may be a well-intended policy, but
has done great harm to our country. It has been very divisive.
A new report from Do No Harm counted 500 DEI actions that
the Biden Administration took or plan to take. DEI ideology
simply does not work and only serves to divide our country. DEI
ideology also results in absurd government-funded programs, and
it has been a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, and is
dangerous as sometimes people who do not have the competencies
to carry out the job are placed in jobs for DEI reasons. It is
time for us to unwind this bureaucratic initiative and restore
a functioning government that does not give preference to race,
sex or any of these characteristics. Thank you, Chair, and I
yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Will
the author yield for one question?
Mr. Cloud. Sure.
Mr. Raskin. I am just curious if you would explain the
meaning and import of the provision that would make someone who
works in one of those offices ineligible for rehiring or
reassignment in a Federal department or hiring somewhere else--
--
Mr. Cloud. They could reapply for another office. What we
are not going to do is take an office that has been stood up
for the purposes of DEI and mandate that the Federal Government
has to somehow find a place for people who have, if they are
there, as in their credentials are to be DEI officer, we do not
have to find a way to place them somewhere else. These were
initiatives that were placed by the Federal Government and--or
by the executive actions of the President, and they need to be
pushed back on. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. If I could, could I just pursue that for 1
second?
Mr. Cloud. I yielded back to the Chair.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition? Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member, and to the gentleman for bringing this bill
before this markup here today. I will have an amendment on the
bill later on in the debate.
But, you know, as I say often in this Committee, I am a
former Federal employee. I used to work at OMB. One of OMB's
jobs is to help manage the Federal workforce. They work very
closely with OPM. And we deal a lot with, you know, the
regulations and the legal system around Federal employment. And
I really want to emphasize the comments that were made by the
Ranking Member about how unusual this bill is. You know, we
just had a letter introduced into the record from the Heritage
Foundation that is supporting this bill because of misguided
efforts to essentially stoke segregation, division, and create
a victim-oppressor narrative, essentially, is what this letter
of support says.
But what is particularly peculiar about this massive bill
that has been introduced, and I want to note that the co-
sponsor of this bill, or the primary sponsor of this bill, in
the Senate is Mr. J.D. Vance, our Vice President-elect. It
literally, as the title says, is about dismantling diversity,
equity, and inclusion programs in the Federal Government. It
revokes executive orders. It amends the Civil Rights Act, and
it amends other parts of the Federal code that protect our
Federal employees. And then it has this peculiar section that
the Ranking Member talked about, which is actually essentially
creating lists of Federal employees and contractors that would
never be eligible to work for the Federal Government again.
Now we have a word for that in common parlance. We call it
blacklisting, and blacklisting comes from the 1950's when, here
in this House of Representatives, there was a Committee on
American Affairs that was convened under Joe McCarthy. The
purpose of that was to purge the Federal Government and to
accuse Federal employees and blacklist them from future Federal
employment. So, I would like to say welcome to the new House
Committee on un-American affairs and to the new McCarthyism,
because we have arrived here today with this bill.
Mr. Cloud. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Stansbury. So, let us talk about what exactly is----
Mr. Cloud. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Trying to be accomplished----
Mr. Cloud. No?
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. By this bill and by the
upcoming administration, which the Vice President-elect is
participating in here. Now, OK, let us take the argument to its
logical extension, that this is really about making sure that
we have qualified individuals inside the Federal Government.
So, my question is, then why is the President-elect choosing
absolutely unqualified Cabinet secretaries to be at the head of
every single agency? We have got now a worldwide wrestling
executive who is going to run Education. We have got a sexual
predator who was about to have a bipartisan report released by
the House of Representatives to be our AG. We have got a Fox
News commentator who is going to run the military for us.
So, if my colleagues across the aisle want to talk about
qualifications, they want to talk about efficiency, they want
to talk about the Federal workforce, then let us talk about it
because you are talking about putting into place leadership in
these Federal agencies who are absolutely unqualified, who are
dangerous, and know nothing about the agencies that they are
about to be appointed to lead. So, this is not about
qualifications. This is not about having a qualified Federal
workforce. This is about laying the ground for the purge that
they plan on January 20 and in the days afterwards.
And we know that because the very organization for whom the
Chairman just submitted this letter of support is the Heritage
Foundation, who wrote Project 2025, which gave us the blueprint
for the purge itself, and what they are planning inside every
single one of these agencies. So, we need to be clear-eyed
about what this actually is and about what is trying to be
accomplished, and why 4 weeks before we are about to adjourn
for the holidays, the Republicans are bringing this bill to a
markup without an actual hearing.
This is modern McCarthyism. They are preparing for a purge.
They are going after members of the Federal Government who are
advancing because they are people of color, women, LGBTQ+,
other members of our community who have been excluded
systematically from participating in Federal service and
leadership positions, and then they are going to put their own
unqualified loyalists in there to take out our Federal
workforce. That is what this bill is about. It is about
creating a statutory framework to do that, and we are going to
fight it every step of the way. With that I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Any other
Member seek recognition?
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. We will rotate back and forth.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Biggs from Arizona is recognized, then
we will go back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady's
statement. I assume that she is referring to Pete Buttigieg or
Xavier Becerra or Mr. Mayorkas who were unqualified appointees
of the current Administration. I find that interesting, but I
also find it interesting because this bill has some interesting
things in here. The first section, Section 3, which is 1201,
says that you cannot discriminate for or against any person on
the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex,
or national origin. You read that to my constituency, and most
Americans, I think they are going to say, hey, that is not a
bad idea. You cannot require as a condition for employment, as
a condition for promotion or advancement, or as a condition for
speaking, making a presentation or submitting written
materials, that an employee undergo training, education or
coursework, or other pedagogy that asserts that a particular
race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex, or national
origin is inherently or systemically superior or inferior,
oppressive or oppressed, or privileged or unprivileged.
I do not know. As we look at this, you can either celebrate
moving together unitedly as the United States of America, we as
a people, where we accept each other and try to move the
country forward, or you can say, look, we are going to divide
everybody. And that is what has happened under this
Administration through the codification--well, they have not
been codified, but through these executive orders which are
designed to actually separate instead of bring people together.
That is a shame. And I respect that we have differences across
the aisle on this issue, but I hope that 1 day we really will
be a united country, united. And I think this bill is trying to
make the point that systemically established, these executive
orders have done the exact opposite than that. So, with that,
Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Texas if he
needs the time.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. There was an insinuation that this is
McCarthyism, that it creates some sort of list. I would
challenge the questioner to find that in the bill text. It is
simply not there. The bill says that, ``The head of a Federal
Agency that closes or terminates or winds up a program or
office,'' under the paragraph, ``shall undertake an appropriate
reduction of force.'' So, if we have stood up an agency for the
purposes of DEI, that we will reduce that force load on our
Federal Government for the same amount that was added. It went
on to say, ``may not transfer, reassign, redesignate any
employer/contractor with position or function that is
eliminated.'' It does not prohibit anyone from reapplying for
an office or using their background, their experience in
another initiative or area of expertise in our Federal
Government. It does not create a list of that employee or ban
them from ever participating in government. It just says if we
have created an agency for the purposes of DEI, we are going to
reduce that office and not have it be a burden on the American
people.
If we hired people for the purpose of something that we are
not going to be doing anymore--public service, as we all know
in our offices, is not a right, it is a privilege, and if there
is a need for that office, then great. But being employed for
the purposes of something does not automatically guarantee you
continued employment in our Federal Government, unless you are
meeting a need that provides an ROI to the taxpayer, which this
does not.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Who else seeks
recognition? Mr. Garcia or Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Yes.
Chairman Comer. OK. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
stand in strong opposition to this, and I look forward to the
larger debate, both in the Committee and certainly on the
Floor. I just think it is a bad way to go about trying to solve
a problem. And, you know, when I look at this, I have to look
through the lens of history in terms of how we got here. And
so, for me, historically, this really all found its weight in
trying to deal with a very real American problem of
discrimination and servitude.
For me, this was about a race of people who had suffered,
endured, and survived 2 centuries of slavery, oppression,
deprivation, degradation, denial, and dis-privilege. And so,
the culmination of the act of Congress on July 2, 1964, with
President Johnson, was to put in place once and for all the
gateway to that opportunity, and so that has put us on a course
of evolution. This initially was about Black Americans. That
umbrella opened over the years, and it went on to include other
defected or affected groups--Latinos, the disabled, gay
Americans--and I could go on and on and on.
If this is all about President Biden's executive order,
then I would strongly suggest that it ought to be a executive
order that countermands that, that goes against it, if that is
the goal you are trying to get to. However, stepping and wading
into this as the Congress to now amend that 1964 Civil Rights
Act sends the wrong message, whether intended or not, to most
affected groups. And I can tell you it definitely sends the
wrong message to Black people in this country. I do not think
that this is going to cure a situation that, quite frankly, has
yet to be proven to me that it exists. And so, if we follow the
mandates of Project 2025, and if we are reducing force,
threatening Federal employees by changing Schedule F
requirements, doing other things that put us on a slippery
slope, I do not want to be a part of that. I really do not.
And so, I will fight this, and I will ask other Members of
this Committee to fight it. Let the incoming Administration do
what it wants to do on this, but do not pull the U.S. Congress
in to amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act in a way where all of
these communities are going to be severely affected down the
road. I just think it is bad policy. I do not believe it is
insightful. And we are going to debate this over and over and
over again because I do not think that too many minds on this
side of the aisle are ever going to be changed. There are too
many people who are the great grandchildren and great, great
grandchildren of a system that worked against them to now see
this effort. And I am not impugning the gentleman's integrity
by any means. I just think that this is the wrong way to go
about doing it. I stand opposed, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Mfume. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Mfume. Thank you for your
eloquent statement of purpose, which I think describes how we
all feel on the Oversight Committee. This is a very sweeping
attack on the progress that we have been making as a country to
leave behind the legacy of racism and sexism, discrimination
against veterans, discrimination against the disabled,
discrimination against pregnant women, and so on.
I want to say to the distinguished gentleman whose bill it
is, I appreciate the clarification that this is not an attempt
to keep people who work in such offices ever from being rehired
again, so that is a step forward. But I hope he understands
that he is treating people who work in these offices completely
differently from everybody else in the Federal Government
because right now we have several regulations and laws,
including one that applies specifically to veterans. So that is
the one in my mind, and let me tell you what it says.
If a veteran is working for the Federal Government and the
office closes that the person is in, then they have the ability
to be reassigned to another office if they are qualified for
the job, and if, obviously, the job has got to be legal, you
are making jobs, like that exist in a DEI office illegal now.
But if there is another lawful position open, these people
would not be able to be reassigned to them or be put into them
simply because they had worked on diversity before. And that
strikes me as a very radical statement, and I do not know
anything like it in the civil service or the personal law. And
thank you for yielding Mr. Mfume. I yield back.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, and reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman,
I have got three unanimous consent requests for submission into
the record: an official statement from the American Federation
of Government Employees, of the AFL-CIO; an official statement
from Marc Morial, the President and CEO of the National Urban
League; and an official statement of The Human Rights Campaign,
all in stark opposition to the bill.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Who else seeks recognition on the bill? Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do agree with the
comments that have been said from House Democrats on the
Committee. I wanted to say a few things. I think we all want
our agencies to serve the American people as efficiently as
possible. We want to make sure that our Federal employees are
the most qualified and dedicated people to our country and our
government. When I was Mayor of Long Beach for the last 8
years, I had a workforce of about 6,000 people, including an
incredible police department, firefighters, an efficient port.
And one thing that I will tell you that folks in my community
value about working in our city was that they were working with
diverse personalities, diverse people, folks that they learn
from, that they made their work better and vice versa.
And so, we know that inclusive workplaces actually also
retain and are ways to recruit top talent. And so, this type of
actions and this bill does exactly the opposite of that, and,
in fact, I believe we will recruit less qualified individuals
when you start removing incentives for diversity and for
creativity in the workplace. And clearly, this bill has nothing
to do with good government, there is no commonsense, and
unfortunately, it is about purging, in my opinion, Donald
Trump's enemies. Now, if the Majority wants to make sure that
our government runs more efficiently, they should start, and
certainly the President-elect should start, by actually
appointing qualified people to run these government agencies. I
mean the nominees so far has been quite embarrassing as we have
heard them from the President-elect. And you have a Fox News
personality for Defense Secretary. You have RFK, Jr., who does
not believe in vaccines, for Health and Human Services. You
have Tulsi Gabbard, who has praised dictators and, essentially,
in my opinion, is a Russian propagandist for our intelligence
services. You have Matt Gaetz, who has been accused, credibly,
of sexual misconduct and a bunch of other horrific actions.
These are the people, by the way, who the incoming
Administration would actually bypass security clearances, FBI
tests, yet many of these same managers that are in these
current agencies are required to take those same exact tests
and exams. And so, I think this is incredibly hypocritical when
there are some Members of this Committee who are praising those
Agency heads that are going to be coming in who have little
scrutiny, and yet they want to remove important programs around
diversity, around supporting all people, around uplifting
equality within our government. So, I strongly oppose this
bill. I think this is moving us completely backward and, quite
frankly, violates a lot of the progress that we have made in
the civil rights era. And so, with that, Mr. Chairman and our
Ranking Member, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins from
Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, I am an original cosponsor to this
bill, and I have noted some of the comments here. And I believe
we should take a step back and ask ourselves, you know, what do
we seek in our republic regarding individual rights, liberties,
and freedoms? And do you believe in those core tenets of our
republic or not? We have an opportunity before us with this
bill to push back against, the Ranking Member mentioned, a
sweeping attack. Yes, this is what we have suffered. We have
suffered as a Nation, sweeping attack against equality. That is
exactly what we are fighting against. Another colleague
mentioned oppression and degradation. It is exactly what we are
pushing back against. This is a bill that eliminates
government-sponsored oppression of individual rights,
liberties, and freedoms in the land of the free, freedom of
opportunity, not result.
I reflected upon the gentleman's comments, my former
colleague, former Representative Gaetz, is not here to defend
himself. So, let me speak on his behalf for all Americans
accused of any crime at any level. I refer you again to our
Constitution. Every American has the right to be recognized as
innocent until proven guilty. Representative Gaetz has
certainly demonstrated that he is a brilliant litigator, has
represented the interest of his district, and his own
principles would sometimes vary from mine. He and I have very
different opinions about some things. He is a highly qualified
and brilliant man, and to attack him with accusations by name
in this Committee is wrong. The man is not here to defend
himself.
So, I support the bill, Mr. Chairman. It is quite simply a
strong response to the oppression of our individual rights,
liberties, and freedoms as Americans regardless of color or
creed or political affiliation or where you stand upon the
economic strata, what your background is, or your heritage. All
of us should be counted as Americans equal as we move forward
through the course of our life on our journey, and we should
not face obstructions that are baked into our government
bureaucracies that exclude citizens strictly based upon their
color, their heritage, their creed. This removes those
oppressions. Mr. Chairman, I yield to you, good sir, the
balance of my time.
Chairman Comer. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cloud. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Mfume,
for realizing we can have different views with the same goal
and have altruistic motives on both sides. I just want to thank
you. I appreciate that.
Our founding documents talked about having a Nation where
we recognize that all people were created equal. Martin Luther
King talked about that being a promissory note because as we
know, that had not always been the case and has not always been
the case in our country, and it took too long and has taken too
long for us to get where we need to go, but he also said that
we should not use the results of segregation, and I think we
could also say discrimination, as the justification for future
segregation or discrimination. That is what this bill seeks to
do.
It seeks to reverse some of the policies that have instead
of looked at merit or qualifications or the like, and institute
a policy where you are hired on those things instead of where
the first thing we look at is factors about our character, our
personality, our skin color, our sex, whatever the case is in
qualifications for a job. And I will just point out, there are
many examples, but the Air Force's Diversity and Inclusion
Resource book has recommendations for unconscious bias, race-
specific learning, cognitive diversity teaming, general
diversity, and inclusion and belonging, and it includes a book
title called ``White Rage.'' This is the kind of things that
are going. We should not discriminate at all in our government.
This bill supports that, if you read the first title, and we
just do not want to go down the path where we have spent
decades and literally generations moving away from these sort
of discriminatory practices. The idea is not to codify these as
we continue to move forward and work toward a more perfect
union. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Mfume. Would you yield? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cloud. My time is up. It is not my time either, but it
is up to the Chair. I would be happy to.
Chairman Comer. Yes. Do you want to yield? Go ahead.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mfume. Would the gentleman agree that what this bill
does, in essence, is to come up with a new definition for
discrimination?
Mr. Cloud. I do not agree with that.
Mr. Mfume. Well, then if we use the old definition, the
bill is way out of line, in my opinion. And the notion about
government-sponsored oppression, which my colleague from
Louisiana talked about, for me, government-sponsored oppression
was the Black codes; for my parents, the Dred Scott decision;
the Runaway Slave Act. I mean, that is going hard core to when
the government is actually sponsoring oppression. But if we are
talking about doing away with diversification initiatives, this
is an axe. This is not a knife. It is not pinpoint. It is an
axe just to do away with everything under this new
discrimination, which leaves a lot of people unprotected, a lot
of people out of work, government employees and private sector
employees to some extent.
But most of all, it does not solve the problem. It does not
deal with the real problem of discrimination, racism, and the
things that we have come to abhor and say and pledge that we
are all against. This is just so broad that I believe that, as
I have said before, I am going to stand in opposition to it,
and I can only talk about this from my perspective as a Black
man living in America. And I am telling you, it is the wrong
thing and the wrong way to do it, and I would strongly suggest,
as I said, and I will yield back to the gentleman who was kind
enough and the Chair. I really believe that in this instance,
the Congress should not be wading in to amend the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 because of an executive order by a President that
you may or may not like. That ought to be undone, I think, by
another executive order if you are going to do it that way. But
to do this, I just cannot support. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. Any other
Members seek recognition? Ms. Lee? Yes, Ms. Lee, you are
recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not in favor of the
dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion act or what it maybe
would more aptly be called the dismantling of any semblance of
support or opportunity for certain American acts. We know who
those Americans are: Americans who have not enjoyed centuries
of unfair advantages by keeping others enslaved or segregated,
or disenfranchised, or incarcerated, or redlined, or
gerrymandered, or excluded by law; Americans who have lived
with disabilities or had their relationships criminalized or
their gender expression demonized.
If we are being honest here, this bill, which will wipe out
every diversity, equity, and inclusion program in our Federal
agencies, plus those who contract with us, plus those who
receive grant money, plus our schools, is nothing new. This is
just the final piece of a decades-long obsession with targeting
and dismantling anything that might give marginalized people a
fair shot, including DEI programs, which, honestly, started the
second the Civil Rights Act passed. Policies like affirmative
action and diversity, equity, and inclusion are the closest
things we have had to the mythical bootstraps that some of my
colleagues insist historically and currently harmed communities
need to pick themselves up by.
After centuries of efforts to keep us out of schools and
universities from jobs and elected office, Republicans
targeting these policies are no accident. Why do predominantly
conservative White men believe that the success of a Black
person or the opportunity or access of a Black person is an
existential threat to them? DEI has not given any unfair
advantage that society itself does not already confer on
certain Americans. It merely exists to ensure that all other
people, that women, minoritized folks, queer folks, disabled
folks have the same opportunities to succeed and thrive in our
workforce and our schools as people who have not had those
opportunities systematically and legally stripped from them do.
Is our country not greater when all of us have opportunities to
succeed and contribute and survive? Our success and our
survival as a Nation is bound together. Diversity, equity, and
inclusion programs only exist to band-aid over decades, hell,
centuries, of discrimination against people's skin color, their
religion, disabilities, gender, or sexual orientations, you
name it.
Contrary to Republican conjecture, remedying past
discrimination is not, in turn, a discrimination. And we are
not going to sit here and pretend racism is over just because
one Black person on the Supreme Court agreed that it should be.
What DEI does not do is give some kind of magical pass to
better jobs, like some of our colleagues are implying. That
middle word, ``equity,'' does not mean more than or better
than. It means treating people fairly and impartially. It means
working to fix generational and systemic discrimination to the
betterment of all of us in all of our institutions. But
instead, Republicans are trying to bastardize the term,
``DEI,'' to be a slur. When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was
up for confirmation and when Vice President Harris was added to
the ticket, they called them DEI hires. They want you to
believe that a Harvard graduate with over 20 years of
experience, who happens to be a Black woman, is not qualified,
but a Fox News personality is qualified to run the Department
of Defense, and a WWE executive is qualified to run the
Department of Education.
Let us be real. There is an attempt to create a direct
correlation between our race, being a Black person, and our
qualifications so much as to say that there is no way to be a
Black woman. There is no resume that a Black person could have
that would qualify them, unless that Black person is a
Republican and there is a quota there. And while all of this
has happened at the top level of our government, I can promise
you, these same things are happening on every single level of
government and private sector. But those people do not have a
national platform to speak out against discriminatory
treatment.
Where is a Federal worker supposed to turn when another co-
worker says a racist comment to them in the break room? Where
is the same-sex couple who is denied housing because of their
relationship supposed to turn? Where is a pregnant woman who
was fired for being pregnant supposed to go? Often the only
place that they have to give them recourse are the diversity,
equity, and inclusion programs. These folks just want to do
their jobs, serving the American people in an environment that
feels safe and supports them. Making work a better, safer
environment for some does not mean it automatically is worse
for others, and those complaining about DEI training are
probably the ones who need it the most. My Republican
colleagues have got to stop punching down on already
marginalized communities and face their own fears of a level
playing field privately. It is shameful. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Any other
Members seek recognition? Mr. Burlison from Missouri.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we just
left this room last night listening to a FEMA director who was
apologizing for the failures of her Agency, an Agency that, by
the way, made its top priority and its focus and mission on
diversity, equity, and inclusion. You would think that their
mission and goal should be on providing aid and support to the
American people in times of disasters. Just months ago, we had
another individual sitting at this table during a hearing who
was apologizing for the failures of Secret Service because of
the events that happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, a same Agency
who made it their No. 1 priority not to protect key
individuals. It is not their No. 1 priority. The No. 1 priority
is diversity, equity, and inclusion.
And look, I think that what has happened here and what I
think that we may not understand is, I think we perceive DEI as
a shift from the Civil Rights Act. Instead of discussing
equality of opportunity, we are now focused on the equality of
outcome. And it is only common sense, it is only logical that
you cannot dictate an equality of outcome unless you eliminate
the equality of opportunity. This Agency has done that. In my
opinion, they have moved on from the Civil Rights Act and moved
on toward this equality of outcome, which, in my opinion, is
shoehorning some form of Marxism into what is a noble cause,
which is to try to root out and eliminate discrimination in the
workplace. And so, that is the motivation behind this and that
is why I will be supporting it.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Stansbury. Does the gentleman yield?
Chairman Comer. Someone asked if----
Ms. Stansbury. Does the gentleman yield?
Chairman Comer. OK. Ms. Stansbury asked. OK. No. The
gentleman's time has expired. Any other Members seek
recognition? Yes, Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. This bill titled the Dismantling
DEI Act is an utter disgrace. Having sat and read the text in
preparation for today's markup, I have yet another example to
tell my constituents about the unserious work of the Republican
Party. Now, I will work with anyone serious about progress who
wants to center the people who call this country home. This is
not it. The Committee on Oversight has the broadest
jurisdiction in the entire House of Representatives to
investigate any topic it chooses, but we are debating
legislation that denies the sky is blue, water is wet, and
racism is real.
The major provision of the bill says to ban anything that
acknowledges racism, and a few pages later in the exact same
bill, there are multiple provisions discussing the presence of
racism. This Republican approach is as predictable as it is
nonsensical. On one hand, they are saying that racism does not
exist. On the other hand, they are saying there is rampant
reverse racism. Well, how do you reverse something that never
existed in the first place? Riddle me that. While this
Republican policy may have a new name, it is the same old tired
game.
Look, you all are entitled to your opinions, but not a
denial of the facts. Do you all know your history? Do you know
American history? The original Constitution counted enslaved
individuals as three-fifths of a person. During World War II,
the Federal Government forcibly relocated and incarcerated
110,000 Japanese Americans. The FHA practiced redlining in the
1930s and 1960s to deny mortgages to Black Americans, which is
why we have a racial wealth gap today. I can go on. The GI
Bill, which is supposed to be race-neutral, denied access to
Black Americans, denying them equal access to education and
housing benefits, which is why we do not have generational
wealth. Do not talk to me about merit when those Black
servicemen fought for our freedoms.
And I would also just like to take a personal note of
privilege to say, please keep Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
name out of your mouths, your perversion of his words and his
mission, when his children have asked you to stop invoking his
name and perverting his work when he was a proud and
unapologetic Black man fighting for equality for Black
Americans and all marginalized people.
So, you all are entitled to your opinions, but not a denial
of the facts, but I am not surprised that you would deny
American history. What I am, though, is committed: committed to
speaking truth to power; committed to standing up for
marginalized communities and vulnerable people; committed to
ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity to buy a house, to
work a job, to pursue higher education, and to live in a
society that is fair and just. A colleague across the aisle
invoked the phrase of, we must do everything to stop
government-sponsored oppression. Well, I have just enumerated
numerous examples, which is exactly why we have legislation and
an executive order to reverse this harm, and that is why I am
committed to opposing this bill and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. We will go
back--we will rotate sides. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from
Pennsylvania, then we will recognize Tlaib after that.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time, such
time as he may consume, to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. I thank my colleague, and I appreciate my
Democrat colleague for exemplifying exactly the kind of
oppression of freedoms that we are referencing. How about we
will quote whoever we want to quote? How about that is my First
Amendment right? That is exactly the kind of baked-in
oppression. Like, how dare a White Republican quote Martin
Luther King? We actually had a Congressman [sic] say that just
now in this Committee.
Ms. Pressley. And I will say it again.
Mr. Higgins. And thank you, good lady, for once again
exemplifying the type of oppression that we stand against. You
know I am right. You know I am right.
Ms. Pressley. [Inaudible].
Chairman Comer. Order, order. Mr. Higgins has the Floor.
Mr. Higgins. And we will quote who we please to quote.
Ms. Pressley. Shameful. A disgrace.
Mr. Higgins. And we will continue to speak freely because I
am a veteran. That is the country that I serve. That is the
Constitution I swore an allegiance to, and that oath has no
expiration date. I will fight for it with my last life's blood,
for my right to speak freely and yours, good lady. You will
never hear me saying how dare you quote anybody you please to
quote. And that exemplifies, America, precisely the type of
institutional oppression that my colleague, Mr. Cloud's bill,
for which I am an original co-sponsor, hopes to push back
against. I yield my time.
Ms. Stansbury. But Mr. Higgins, have you read your own
bill? Have you read your own bill because it is trying to
regulate speech. It is actually regulating speech.
Mr. Higgins. I yield my time. The time has been yielded to
me and I yield it back to Mr. Perry.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Stansbury, you are out of order. Ms.
Stansbury, you are out of order. It is Mr. Perry's time. The
Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of
the time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Perry. I will just say I think
this is what makes progress hard on this front, the idea that
we cannot have a conversation on government policies that have
been put in place. My intent--in my opening remarks, I
acknowledged many of the things that have been talked about,
the stain on our Nation's history that we have, in some ways,
moved past, but there will continue to be work to be done. It
is sad and sickening that in a fallen world, in a Nation as
diverse as ours, and we are one of the most diverse Nations in
the world, there still remain people who cling to old, racist,
ignorant ideologies. My concern is that the way this has been
implemented into many of the agencies in our Federal
Government, this has been listed as the No. 1 agenda in
agencies that are supposed to be doing other things.
Yesterday, Mr. Burlison mentioned FEMA, and one of the
things is they are trying to weigh someone's religion in how
they give out aid. That is crazy. That kind of stuff should not
be happening in the United States of America. There is research
that has gone into this. Journalist and researcher, Jesse
Singal, wrote in the New York Times that ``there is very little
evidence that many of the initiatives work. The specific type
of diversity training that is currently in vogue, mandatory
training that blames dominant groups for DEI problems, may well
have a net negative effect on the outcome managers claim to
care about.'' Forbes senior editor, Jena McGregor, wrote,
``Compulsory diversity training aimed at people's biases or
preventing discrimination behavior appears to actually do more
harm than good.''
Well, I did not benign the intents or the motivations in
these policies, but what we are finding and what businesses are
finding now, a number of them have implemented these policies
and realizing they are not working. They are not accomplishing
the desired ends for us to continue to move toward a more
perfect union, and that is why we are seeing a retraction from
them. My concern is getting our Federal Government to a place
where race, and sexism, and all these things are not the first
thing we look at in our hiring, in our grant writing, in our
contracting. I think it would make us a better country.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes Ms. Tlaib from Michigan.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. You know, I
sometimes remind people I grew up in the most beautiful
Blackest city in the country, the city of Detroit, because I
need you to understand sometimes your lens becomes different
when you are in a community just embodied with the constant, I
think, struggle--because you will never truly understand what
it means to be Black in America. Never. You have to acknowledge
that. If you do not, I do not think we will ever be able to
pass--you have to know. I believe it in my heart that you do.
And this Black pastor told me, I am sitting in the pew. Of
course, I am sticking out. And Pastor Bland, Jr. looks at me in
the audience and I just felt like he was just looking at me,
but you are a good pastor and you know what you are doing. You
always think he is just talking to you. And he said, our
country is not divided, it is disconnected.
And when I think about that, I think about the fact that we
continue to disconnect because we allow segregation to live and
breathe in a way because people are more comfortable that way.
You hear people say, well, that is not my fault. I really am a
better public servant, a better American, and everything
because I went to a beautiful, diverse high school because
where I lived, that is the high school you had to go to. We all
went to those neighborhood high schools.
There was something beautiful, though, because I went to
school with Hungarians, and Polish, and Latinos, and Black
folks, and Muslims, I mean, just all different kinds of
backgrounds of people from all different likes. And it was
something, I think, that many of our neighbors across the
country will never, ever really experience, and I think it
keeps us divided.
When I think about this bill, I think about not just,
obviously, the importance of diversity and inclusion and trying
to make sure that our government is reflective of who we serve,
but many of the people we hire, it is also their lived
experience. Their lived experience is going to have them lead
with some sort of compassion that we will never again have
similar because we have not lived the life that they have in
our country, and I am talking about all different backgrounds.
And I just feel like we are in here talking about this in a way
that I feel like is just going to continue to divide us, and
the acknowledgement that everything is OK, there is no way you
have not been in spaces where you hear it. In the Michigan
Legislature, Chairman Comer, a man, you know, was a minority
witness in the Michigan House and used the ``N'' word, such a
derogatory word. My own state representative was in tears
afterwards, thinking of her child, her beautiful, lovely son,
adult son, but just thinking, my god, he thought that it was OK
that he was somehow emboldened to use that word in the people's
capital in Lansing, Michigan.
We have a lot of work to do. I just think this is not it.
We have got to make sure--no, really, we got to make sure that
we are putting people in the room, that sometimes we got to
make sure they are in the room together because you are not
going to come in the room together unless we require it or urge
it to happen because we know if we do that, then all the
services, the way we move as a Federal Government, will be
reflective in a way of leading with that compassion. I think
that is needed. I just urge us to please just step back and
understand that. And I am not going to tell you, you know, I
fully understand, like, because I just know that there is no
way you do not know that racism is very clear in these spaces,
especially here, in an institution that was not ready for
someone like me and sure the heck sometimes is not even ready
for the American people, our own neighbors across our country,
that will have to be inflicted in coming to get whatever
services.
God, it is something beautiful, if they can look at
somebody that is reflective of them and understand their lived
experience, and I think we are getting farther away from that.
And I know you do not see it, but I am an attorney. I read
this. You are going to allow these protections to fall apart
when you do this kind of legislation. You know you will. It
will allow these protections to fall apart because you are
going to allow people to get fired, fired solely because you
are dismantling, again, a policy and a process of creating a
culture, again, that is reflective of our country. With that, I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Any other
Member seek recognition? Which one do you want? Crockett or
Moskowitz? Frost? I am going by Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Moskowitz.
Chairman Comer. Moskowitz is recognized.
Mr. Moskowitz. So, I really have a question for the
sponsor. So, I have been sitting and listening and trying to
hear your intent, and talking about discrimination, but the
problem is that argument falls apart on page 6, line 17 through
line 20. And, in fact, if you are sincere about your intent of
the bill, what I would tell you is you should delete those
lines because actually those lines are actual new
discrimination. See, you want to get rid of an office. We may
disagree with it, but you can get rid of an office. You want to
change policy. We may disagree with the policy you want to
change. But here, actually, in those lines, you are creating
second-class Federal employees. You are creating new
discrimination: ``may not transfer''--discrimination. ``May not
reassign''--discrimination. ``May not redesignate any
employee''--discrimination. Those are protections that every
other Federal employee in every other office in the Federal
Government gets. It is a right and a privilege that they get,
but you are going to remove that from these people, not an
office. Fine, I disagree with it, but it is an office, not a
policy. Fine, we disagree with it. It is a policy. This is
people now. Now, you are going to the people. You are saying
because you worked in an office that we do not think should
exist, because you worked there, we are going to remove
protections that every other Federal employee gets, but not
you, because we disagree with the office you worked in. That is
straight-up discrimination.
And so, listen, if you are serious about wanting to change
the office and the policy, you should remove those lines
because the entire argument falls apart when you want to treat
the people who work there completely different than anybody
else. And I am happy to yield the rest of my time to the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much, Mr. Moskowitz, and thanks
for that powerful statement. That was the thing that jumped out
at me when I first read this. This was not just a change in
programmatic direction. It was an attempt to strip Federal
workers who were doing nothing other than their job, as it was
defined to them and described to them, of essential civil
service protections that occur to everybody who works in the
civil service. And again, there is a general regulation that
deals with that. There is one specifically for veterans saying
if a veteran is working for an office, say it is one of these
offices that closes, that veteran has the opportunity to be
reassigned to another job that he or she is qualified for,
doing not the same work, but the new work of the new office.
And yet this seems to paste a scarlet letter on them, saying
you worked in now the politically incorrect, ideologically
disapproved office, the reviled DEI office, and now you are
going to have less rights than everybody else in the workforce,
you will be fired.
And it does sound like from the author, at least they could
reapply. I think it would clearly violate equal protection in
the First Amendment for them not even to be allowed to reapply.
But why would we set up a two-tier system where there are
people who work in the Federal Government and then people who
worked in the Federal Government for DEI? And it does, I think,
cast a pall over the whole legislation, which obviously is
touching, you know, a lot of nerves.
And you know, Mr. Cloud, I respect, you know, the spirit
with which you offer this legislation. And I respect the fact
that you are not in denial of what so many of our Members want
to point out, which is that our history is one that begins, of
course, with slavery, and the denial of rights of African
Americans in the Dred Scott decision. Chief Justice Taney,
unfortunately of Maryland, said that the African American has
no rights that the White man is bound to respect. And then,
even after the Civil War, we fought a whole war to overthrow
the system of White supremacy, to emancipate people from
slavery. Still, the Supreme Court said in 1896 in Plessy v.
Ferguson that it was perfectly OK for government to segregate
people according to local racial customs, and we know that that
means discrimination and second-class services. So, the
legislation you offer is part of a long history and goes back
to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act 1965. I
will yield back to you, Mr. Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. Just reclaiming my time. And so I would want
the sponsor to answer that question, because look, if Donald
Trump were to create a new agency, right, and years later, if
when we get power back, we were to eliminate that agency or
eliminate that office, but we then said those people who worked
in this area of government that we disagreed with, they are
going to get less rights and privileges than every other
Federal employee, you would be jumping up and down that we were
treating Trump supporters different. And so, what I am saying
to you is, if your intent is to change policy and if your
intent is to eliminate an office, we may disagree with that,
but do not punish the people who work there and treat them
different than everybody else and then say this is about trying
to change discrimination. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. I think
we go back and forth.
Mr. Cloud. You want me to answer?
Chairman Comer. If you want to answer the question, feel
free.
Mr. Cloud. Sure. The first thing I would say is, sometimes
in Washington, and this is a bipartisan issue, we can tend to
think that the American people exist to support the Federal
bureaucracy. I do not adhere to that belief. I think the
bureaucracy exists to serve the American people. Having said
that, we do want our Federal workforce treated right, and
properly, and justly. I would point out that this legislation
upholds the Civil Rights Act. The first title it goes through
and virtually says the same definitions about what
discrimination is. The reason and the intent behind that is,
and I will give you one example, the Department of Health and
Human Services currently has 294 DEI employees, costing the
Federal taxpayer about $38.7 million in taxpayer funds. Now we
can debate whether we think the program or the office has
merit. My viewpoint is that for all what the altruistic
purposes may have been, as some of the quotes and studies I
have read, it is having even an adverse effect at best, or at
best it is having a negligent effect and possibly having an
adverse effect toward the stated goals.
So, having said that, I am thinking, OK, in the example of
HHS, we have a $38 million office that is actually having an
adverse effect and that $38 million burden should not be on the
American taxpayer. That is how my calculus is working. Mr.
Garcia, I wish he was here, because he made the comment that we
were trying to get rid of DEI officers because we were going
after Mr. Trump's enemies. His words, not mine. I did not view
DEI officers as Mr. Trump's enemies. That was a new idea to me,
a new concept that, apparently, he thinks that DEI officers are
Mr. Trump's enemy. I think that would be an issue if they were.
I did not think that they were. But having said that, you know,
if you wanted to offer an amendment and that would help you get
to support of this bill, if you thought that would make the
difference, I----
Mr. Raskin. That is the first amendment coming. That is my
amendment.
Mr. Cloud. OK.
Mr. Raskin. So, we can get there.
Mr. Cloud. And if it passes, will you vote for it?
Mr. Raskin. But I am definitely voting for the amendment. I
am introducing the amendment itself.
Mr. Cloud. I mean, for the bill?
Mr. Raskin. Oh, well, I have to look and see what happens
to your bill. There are more amendments coming.
Chairman Comer. OK. Ms. Crockett, she is next.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Chairman Comer. OK. Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. So, many of you know that I practice law, but
some of you do not realize that I actually was a business major
out of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee and the emphasis
that I got in my business degree was on finance. And as I
traveled the country campaigning this election cycle, one of
the things that I talked about was this idea that in finance,
we always promote this idea of diversity. If you know anything
about a portfolio, the one thing that you want to do is make
sure that it is as diverse as possible because at times,
certain stocks will perform better than others and they will
exemplify various strengths and weaknesses, and together, a
diverse portfolio is usually what any good finance person would
promote. They would not promote that you solely invest in
vanilla wafers believing that that is going to be the strongest
portfolio, but instead, they may want to add some chocolate
cake and some Twinkies into the mix to make sure that we have
the best portfolio because there will be different preferences
by different people and again, there will be different
strengths.
But as I sit here and I think about what we say, and what I
am hearing as it relates to diversity when it comes to anything
outside of making money, and to be clear, we are losing GDP
every time we try to push back on this idea of diversity
because all of us bring something different to the table. But
you consistently said over and over the word ``oppression,''
and every time that you said it, it was almost as if I was
hearing nails on a chalkboard because it seems like you do not
understand the definition of ``oppression,'' and I would ask
you to just refer to Google to help you out. Oppression is the
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. That is the
definition of ``oppression.''
And so, as I sit here as a Black woman who practiced civil
rights, let me tell you, the reason that my colleagues wanted
to make sure you understood the same Black history that your
side of the aisle wants to delete out of classrooms is because
you can then misuse words like ``oppression.'' There has been
no oppression for the White man in this country. You tell me
which White men were dragged out of their homes. You tell me
which one of them got dragged all the way across an ocean and
told that you are going to go and work, we are going to steal
your wives, we are going to rape your wife. That did not
happen. That is oppression. We did not ask to be here. We are
not the same migrants that you all constantly come up against.
We did not run away from home. We were stolen.
So, yes, we are going to sit here and be offended when you
want to sit here and act like, and do not let it escape you
that it is White men on this side of the aisle telling us
people of color on this side of the aisle that you all are the
ones being oppressed, that you all are the ones that are being
harmed. That is not the definition of ``oppression.'' You tell
me the prolonged, cruel, or unjust treatment that you have had,
and we can have a conversation.
Mr. Higgins. You can start with Exodus.
Ms. Crockett. The final thing that I will say on this
particular issue, two things. There is an article from The
Guardian and it is a little old. It is from 2021, so I
apologize, but it said that back then, just 3 years ago, White
men represent 30 percent of the population, but 62 percent of
office holders. These are the issues that we are constantly
looking at and recognizing and trying to say is this just. I
cannot even tell you how many White men have served in this
chamber, but I can tell you that I am only the 55th Black woman
to be elected to Congress. And so, when you want to talk about
history and pretend as if it was so long ago, it was not,
because, again, I am just number 55.
Finally, when we started to talk about what do these
numbers do, as we are trying to say, the diversity, equity,
inclusion is the problem, the reality is that when it comes to
financial performance, companies with more diverse workforces
are more likely to outperform their competitors. Companies in
the top quartile for racial diversity are 35 percent more
likely to outperform their peers on profitability. Companies
with diverse executive teams are 25 percent more likely to
generate greater profits. Diverse companies earn 2.5 times
higher cash-flow per employee. Diversity works, and until you
can show me data that says otherwise, I think that we need to
go back to being a country that listens to experts and gets out
of our feelings and recognizes, again, that racism is real in
this country. And until we stop pretending that it is not, we
will not solve the problems that we are consistently facing and
that will bring real unity that we seek when we are looking for
a more perfect union.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition?
Seeing not--for what purpose does the Ranking Member seek
recognition?
Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Biggs. I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. State your point?
Mr. Biggs. I will reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. OK. Yes. The Clerk will distribute the
amendment to all Members. The Committee will suspend while we
distribute the amendment.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8706, as offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The Ranking Member is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This has
been an edifying, if often heated, conversation we are having
today, and I think it is actually befitting the First Amendment
and the Speech and Debate Clause. We are the world's greatest
multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious constitutional
democracy, and it is not easy. The far more common destiny for
countries with different ethnic and racial groups is one of
tribal violence and racial apartheid and ceaseless ethnic
conflict, so we are getting there, and then we have different
approaches to how to do it.
Some of our colleagues have somewhat dabbled in the
language of race silence now, not talking about the past, not
talking about what we have gone through, and everything will be
all right. Well, that was definitely not the position of the
Radical Republicans who led us through the Civil War and the
Reconstruction period. They passed all kinds of race-conscious
legislation in the Reconstruction period. They passed the
Freedmen's Bureau with the explicit provision of resources for
the purposes of transfer to the recently emancipated Black
population. The Radical Republicans led Congress in passing
legislation to establish schools for Black people, not
integrated schools, but schools for Black children, explicitly
race conscious, because they understood that the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection and the
Reconstruction legislation was not just to create some sterile
notion of color blindness, which was not in the Fourteenth
Amendment or any of the debates about it. It was to actually
help people get up after centuries of oppression, as my
colleagues have described it, after centuries of violence and
dispossession, and legalized slavery, and subjugation, and
control.
So, we have a difference now, I think, substantively about
whether it is best to deliberately and consciously open
government up and not just to Black people and Latino people,
but open it up to other people who have been traditionally left
out, including veterans, including people in rural areas. Your
legislation would overturn all the executive orders that
deliberately try to get the government just to think about
getting applicants in the door who come from traditionally
disfavored and discriminated against communities, but we
understand, all right, we have got an honest difference of
opinion about that.
But I want to go back to what Mr. Moskowitz was saying,
which is, even if we disagree about the validity or the utility
of these programs, and we think that they have been very
successful in terms of opening the government up to the whole
country and being very effective and productive for America.
But even if we disagree about that and we are going to change
the program, this language is intolerable, which says that
people who have worked in those programs have lesser rights
than anybody else who has worked for the people of the United
States in our Federal Government.
So, my amendment would lift the bill's egregious ban on
transferring, redesignating, or reassigning employees who work
in one of these offices that gets eliminated by the bill. In
other words, if we eliminate this language, we treat them like
any other Federal worker whose job has been eliminated by
virtue of Federal action. So, I think that that sends a far
better statement about the motivations and the purposes of this
legislation, and I think this is one that everybody should be
able to agree to. And with that, I submit it to the wisdom of
the Committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself to speak on the amendment.
I oppose the amendment. The amendment seeks to increase
bloat in the Federal workforce. It does this by preventing the
dismissal of employees whose offices, functions, and positions
are eliminated by the bill. The Federal workforce is already
massively oversized. We should be doing everything possible to
reduce the size of the Federal workforce, not to keep it filled
with unnecessary employees, as the amendment seeks to do. And
of course, nothing in the bill precludes dismissed employees
from reapplying for a job elsewhere in the Federal Government.
This was an issue in the Presidential race, reducing the size
of the Federal Government. The overall bill eliminates taxpayer
funding for Federal offices, programs, and grants affiliated
with DEI. It is already Federal law to discriminate against
anyone based on their race, and the President-elect was
transparent in saying this is one of the specific areas where
they were going to seek to cut waste in the Federal Government.
We cannot continue to spend $1.5 trillion a year, more than we
take in, and I think that the President-elect was transparent.
I feel like this issue was talked about, with all due
respect to the Democrat nominee, Vice President Harris. I do
not know a lot of specific things she was going to do as
President. I do not think she articulated very many specific
proposals. One of the proposals that President Trump talked
about was eliminating all the unnecessary DEI, and we have
talked about how many positions have been created over the last
4 years. Instead of fighting for bureaucratic jobs, I believe--
I represent a poor area, and obviously they are poor minority
districts. We should be fighting for investment, fighting for
entrepreneurism, fighting for ways that we can lift up
communities that have been impacted by poverty, like many of
the communities I represent, many of the communities that are
represented by minority Members. We can do this, and I think
that is what the American people want. The government is not
the answer. The private sector is the answer. We need to be
more efficient in government, and we are going to be more
efficient in government. That is the mandate of the American
people.
So, I oppose the amendment. I support the bill. And now I
see, Mr. Moskowitz, you seek recognition?
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, listen, I have
agreement with my colleagues across the aisle on wanting to
shrink bureaucracy, wanting to decrease the size of Federal
Government. That is a valid point. I think DOGE is going to try
to do that, right, and you are seeing Democrats come out and
support that. Senator Coons did that the other day. What this
amendment is saying is it is not allowing the Federal
Government to stay the same size, but what we are saying is, as
you eliminate an office, as you change a policy, if there are
jobs available that they can transfer to, just like every other
Federal employee, then they should be able to do that. What you
are doing is that Federal employees have certain protections
and rights that they get. And what you are saying is the
Federal employees that worked in this office are not going to
get those rights. All these people are not going to get to
stay, right? They are not all going to get to stay.
That is not what this amendment is doing. This amendment is
not saying, OK, yes, change the policy, eliminate the office,
but then let everybody stay somewhere else. That is not what
the amendment is doing. What the amendment is doing is saying
they have certain protections, certain rights, as every other
Federal employee and every other office. And what you are
saying is, because you worked there, you are not going to get
those protections. I am telling you, it is very dangerous, and
I can guarantee you the favor will be returned because that is
how this place works, right? You did not like the other day
that Trump houses were skipped in FEMA. I agree with you. It
was unacceptable. They were specifically given less rights and
privileges and available Federal help because they supported
the President. If Trump creates an office that later gets
removed, those people who worked in that office should not get
less protection, they should not, but that is what you are now
saying. You are now saying where we have political differences
and policy differences, if you work in that office of political
difference and policy difference, you are not going to be
treated like every other Federal employee.
So, it is not about keeping the Federal Government the same
size. Do not mix the message here because I am with you on
that, but I really think you should take the Ranking Member's
amendment. It really does not change your bill. It just does
not allow a new precedent to be started that we are creating
different classes of Federal employees.
Mr. Higgins. Will the gentleman yield for a brief response?
Mr. Moskowitz. Sure.
Mr. Higgins. It is your time, correct?
Mr. Moskowitz. It is.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Moskowitz. He made valid points earlier. He makes valid
points now. And having read the sections and sentence that Mr.
Moskowitz has referenced very specifically on page 6, paragraph
2 says no reassignment. The head of a Federal Agency that
closes, terminates, and winds up a program or office under
Paragraph 1, then in the Subparagraphs A and B, Subparagraph B
says, ``may not transfer, reassign, or redesignate any employee
or contractor with the position or function that is eliminated
by operation of this subsection.'' I believe that the gentleman
is stating that if you close down a DEI Department and you have
a qualified employee that would like to transfer to the
Construction Supervision Department, that that executive
authority within that bureaucracy should be able to transfer
that person from the DEI Department to the other department. Is
that correct?
Mr. Moskowitz. If that job were available.
Mr. Higgins. If that job was available, yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. That would be a right that every other
Federal employee would have.
Mr. Higgins. I confer with that concept, but the Ranking
Member's amendment is far more broad. So, I am going to oppose
the ranking member's amendment because it eliminates the entire
Section of 101, but if you were to offer an amendment
specifically what we are just describing, I would support that
amendment. I yield.
Chairman Comer. Everybody yields back? Any other Members
seek recognition? Mr. Cloud? Well, we moved to Mr. Moskowitz,
now Mr. Cloud. OK. Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to rise in support of the amendment and reiterate but
also explicate a little bit on this concept. So, you know, you
learn a lot about a bill not only by what it says, but by what
it does not say. So, if the explicit purpose of this bill,
like, we are just going to take your logical argument here, is
to do away with these DEI offices which you believe are not
necessary, which obviously we disagree with on the premise,
then why not just be silent about what happens to Federal
employees that are involved in these offices? But the bill is
not silent about them. The bill includes these phrases that the
Ranking Member's amendment is striking because, literally, the
bill has punitive outcomes for employees that work in these
offices, and that is what this amendment is trying to strike,
is the punitive measures that are put into place.
I know that we have already read pieces of this, but one of
the sections that it would strike says ``no reassignment,'' so
the heads of a Federal Agency that closes, terminates, blah,
blah, blah, may not transfer, reassign, or redesignate an
employee or contractor. So, if this was just, like, OK, we are
going to shut these offices down, there is no reason to have
punitive language to the employees that would work in these
offices, but it does not just state it once. It states it twice
in the bill. And that is why we are invoking McCarthyism, these
blacklists, like, these are folks who are being penalized for
working in offices that deal with anything doing with diversity
and, like, helping work with our Federal workforce to address
these issues. So, that is what the amendment is trying to
achieve.
I also want to just take a moment while we are on this
topic is, almost all of the discussion today has been about the
first several sections of the bill and, basically, the Federal
workforce. But if the stated purpose of this bill was really
just about, like, oh, we are going to, you know, change the way
the Federal Government does its DEI stuff, then why on earth
does this bill includes sections at the end that is tinkering
with the entire financial sector? This bill has language in it
that says that publicly traded companies on the stock market
cannot use diversity as a measure of their boards, and it also
says that stock brokers and licensed folks who work in our
financial system cannot engage with that. In addition to that,
there are multiple sections in this bill that prohibit Federal
funding, whether it is grant money or it is money that would go
to Federal contractors who even discuss diversity. So, there
were some comments made here a moment ago about, you know, we
need to fight to defend free speech. This bill is literally
trying to regulate the free speech of the free market, private
companies, the financial sector, nonprofits, and our Federal
agencies.
So, I appreciate the intent of trying to maybe make the
Federal workforce more streamlined, if I was to give the
benefit of the doubt to this, but, like, this is a wholesale
effort to basically do away with every initiative that has made
it possible for women, people of color, and LGBTQ people to
participate in the Federal Government, our financial sector,
the military, nonprofits, and in the services that our Federal
Government provides. So, I find it laughable that we would even
entertain the premise of it. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you. Thank you for yielding. I am just
going to go back to my point and conversation with
Representative Higgins, what the Ranking Member's amendment
does is that language that we just discussed, that identical
language appears 3 times in the bill. It is not just there
once. I pointed it out once, but it is there verbatim 3 times.
So, it just eliminates the identical language in the three
places it is in the bill.
Mr. Higgins. It is five sections.
Mr. Moskowitz. Yes, no, it is five, sorry. It is in the
bill 5 times. I stand corrected. It is in the bill 5 times, but
it eliminates the identical language, and let me just again go
back. You guys won the White House. You are going to be in
charge of this. You are going to be the one deciding if they
get to transfer to a job. It is going to be Trump people who
will get to approve that. All we are saying is, do not make
them second-class Federal employees. Do not create a new subset
of Federal-class employee. That is what we are saying to you.
Your bill is going to move out of this Committee, but this is a
weakness in your bill.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition?
Ms. Stansbury. I yield back.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. First of all, I just wanted to thank the Ranking
Member for your kind and generous acknowledgement of history
and what Republicans have done in the past to work on this
issue. I had thought to bring that up, because there have been
allegations like we would not want history taught in schools. I
would actually want all of history taught in schools. You know,
I do not view this as--I realize it has political undertones. I
think this is an issue of the human condition and heart that
needs to be addressed more than a political one, although I am
not ambivalent to the political undertones here. But anyway, in
an effort to not raise the temperature, I had not brought that
up, but I appreciate you bringing that up and acknowledging
that.
I also appreciate the intent in what you are stating on the
Federal workforce. I would be happy to work with you on that. I
do think that this amendment goes beyond that on the
reassignment provision. If this were, for example, to be the
last line of this amendment, strike Section 502(a)(2), that
would be something I could support. But in its current state,
and, again, we did not get an advanced copy of this, so we are
dissecting this live, but it seems to also prohibit the
reduction in force, which if we have agencies, if we have
workforce, that, again, are not required by the American
people. I do not think that Federal workforce should be
discriminated because they worked in a certain Agency. In the
same way, I do not think that the American people, who, while I
appreciate the Federal Government, my first allegiance is
always going to be to the American people. I do not think the
Federal or the American people should have to have the burden
of hiring and funding someone just for the sake of them getting
preference in priority in transferring. So, if we could limit
it to that, you know, I could accept that or I would be happy
to work with you, but in its current state, I would have to
oppose the amendment.
Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cloud. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly for the offer. I see what you
mean about the language about closing and terminating and
undertaking appropriate reduction in force. Of course, if that
language is gone, still the whole operative meaning of the bill
is to close the program and the office, but, you know, that
language that could presumably be, you know, preserved or put
someplace else. But what we are talking about is just the
impact on Federal workers who have done nothing wrong other
than their jobs. Presumably, if they did something wrong, they
could be terminated for those reasons. But those people, they
are not guaranteed a job, but they should have the same
opportunities as other Federal workers potentially to be
transferred or, you know, reassigned to another lawful purpose.
What you are creating here with the legislation is a statement
this is no longer a lawful purpose to be engaged in various
activities you have enumerated. So, I am happy to work with you
on that. You know, I do not think it is necessary to say that
the workforce can be reduced because, obviously, it will be if
the program is closed, but no problem there. Happy to yield
back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment offered by Mr. Raskin from Maryland.
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----
Mr. Raskin. Can I just seek a roll call vote on that, Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Comer. OK. A recorded vote is ordered. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
Do any other Members wish to speak? Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members. We will pause so that Members have a chance to
read the amendment.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8706, as offered by Ms. Pressley of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Biggs. I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point
of order.
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pressley. My amendment is straightforward, Mr. Chair.
The text of it reads, ``On page 30, line 22, Application to
HBCUs, nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent
the maintenance and funding of historically Black colleges and
universities.'' This amendment would exempt HBCUs from the
Federal ban that this bill places on funding for institutions
that acknowledge racial oppression. As everyone on this
Committee can read, this bill prohibits funding for DEI
practices and it defines prohibited DEI practices very broadly,
including banning the acknowledgement of racial oppression.
Thus, for Title IV of this bill, it bans any organization that
recognizes racial oppression from receiving grant funding. This
has a direct impact on our Nation's HBCUs.
HBCUs were founded to provide higher education
opportunities to Black Americans who were denied access due to
slavery and segregation and systemic racism. These institutions
are pillars of resilience, history, and excellence. Many of our
congressional aides and, in fact, our congressional colleagues
are graduates from HBCUs. HBCUs enroll and graduate a diverse
student population, including first-generation college students
and those from low-income families. While they make up only 3
percent of colleges and universities, they produce nearly 20
percent of all Black graduates, and they accomplish this feat
despite chronic underfunding.
This Republican bill, the Dismantle DEI Act, would result
in HBCUs being banned from receiving Federal grant funding.
HBCU professors, researchers, and students would be cutoff if
this bill passes as it is currently written. That is why my
amendment is necessary to protect HBCUs. I would also like to
add that some of the oldest HBCUs are in Cheyney and Lincoln in
Pennsylvania, Wilberforce in Ohio, and UDC right here in the
District of Columbia. Each of them was first created before the
Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. Further, several
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have HBCUs in their
home states, including Chairman Comer and many of those serving
on this Committee. There are HBCUs in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. All stand
to be harmed by this legislation. But it is not just the
schools who will suffer. It is the professors who teach at
them, the students who enroll, the community members who live
near them, and the entire country that benefits from HBCU
success.
Finally, when it comes to our bottom line, HBCUs generate
$16.5 billion into direct national impact across the country.
If they were a company, they would be placed in the top 50 of
Fortune 500 companies when it comes to job creation, and that
is why this amendment is necessary to protect our HBCUs, and I
urge my colleagues to support them through this amendment. I
yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I will
recognize myself. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud to speak on
the amendment.
Mr. Cloud. I have no opposition to this, and as a former
member of the Ag Committee, I have supported funding for this,
and so I do not see an issue with this amendment.
Chairman Comer. OK. Any other Members seek recognition?
Ms. Pressley. Yes, I would like to request yeas and nays,
and thank you.
Chairman Comer. OK. Any other Members seek recognition?
Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment offered by
Ms. Pressley.
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.
Ms. Pressley. I request the--a point of order.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Ms. Pressley.
As previously announced, further proceedings on the question
will be postponed.
For what purpose does the gentlelady from Massachusetts
seek recognition?
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, sir.
Chairman Comer. A point of order is reserved by Mr.
Higgins. We are distributing the amendment.
Ms. Pressley. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Yes. The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. The second amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 8706, as offered by Ms. Pressley
of Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. The amendment is considered read.
I now recognize Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to ensure
that this legislation does not erase or ignore the undeniable
history of systemic racism in our country. It adds a section to
the top of the bill that is a straightforward acknowledgment
that ``the Federal Government has implemented policies that
perpetuate systemic racism.'' Systemic racism refers to a
network of public policies, institutional practices, cultural
norms, and social structures that work together to maintain
racial inequities. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a
matter of fact that originates in the founding of this Nation
and its implications to this very day.
Our government has been deeply intertwined with this system
from enshrining slavery and the three-fifths compromise into
United States Constitution to implementing redlining,
segregation, and other discriminatory policies based on race.
No, I know that talking about the existence of racism in
America makes some uncomfortable, but remember, this is a bill
that you all brought up. So, to my colleagues, let me just say
that acknowledging these truths is not an act of blame. It is
an act of responsibility. We must take responsibility. If you
are serious about ending reverse racism, you need to
acknowledge that it exists in the first place, and that means
voting in favor of this amendment.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I will
recognize myself. I oppose the amendment which adds a rule of
construction to the bill's amendment to the Civil Rights Act to
state that nothing in the bill should be interpreted as denying
that the Federal Government has implemented policies that
perpetuate systematic racism. Nothing in the bill speaks to the
issue. Therefore, no rule of construction is necessary. I urge
my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
Amendment Number 2, offered by Ms. Presley.
All those in favor----
Ms. Pressley. I am sorry, can I be recognized?
Chairman Comer. Are you seeking recognition, Ms. Pressley?
Ms. Pressley. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. I thought we had already recognized you to
speak. Can you yield? Can somebody yield Ms. Pressley time? Mr.
Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would yield time to the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Mfume yields his time to Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Ignoring systemic racism will not
make it go away. By supporting this amendment, Congress can
acknowledge a truth and set us on a path to fairness, justice,
and progress for all. If Republicans are genuinely interested
in denying racism exists against Black people, indigenous
people, and all people of color, it is a reflection of your
values and explains the policies they put forth, including this
bill. Now, we acknowledge that progress has been made. The
progress is real and worth celebrating, but that does not mean
that our work is done. Recognizing injustices and their impacts
is essential to building on their progress and ensuring that it
lasts. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Any further
discussion? Seeing none--yes?
Ms. Brown. I just want a point of clarification here. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is being proposed to address
reverse racism, yet we are not willing to acknowledge racism.
Chairman Comer. Just a point? What are you doing here?
Ms. Brown. I am asking for clarification. If the bill or
the amendment that Ms. Pressley is proposing suggests that we
just simply acknowledge that racism exists and the fundamental
point of your legislation is to deal with reverse racism, then
I should ask you, what are we doing here?
Chairman Comer. I would assume you are asking Ms. Pressley
the question?
Ms. Brown. No, I am asking you.
Chairman Comer. You might as well ask Ms. Pressley the
question.
Ms. Brown. Well, maybe I should ask the author of this
legislation. Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Yes, ma'am, I apologize. I was reading.
Ms. Brown. OK. Just trying to get clarity here. If we
cannot agree that racism exists, but this legislation you are
proposing is to deal with reverse racism, why are we here?
Mr. Cloud. I think you answered the question in your
question.
Ms. Brown. I do not think I did. Reverse racism. Racism is
included in the language, yet you do not want to acknowledge
that racism exists, which is simply Ms. Pressley's request
here.
Mr. Cloud. We have discussed that over and over. There has
been no denouncement or statement that racism does not exist.
We have talked about the fact that it indeed does and it is a
horrible condition of the human heart of some people, that that
still does exist.
Ms. Brown. So, you are supportive of Ms. Pressley's
amendment then? It sounds like you are.
Mr. Cloud. This rule of construction that is, by the way,
being given to us at the last minute, one, us coming through
figuring out what the intended consequences are, as these were
not submitted in advance, as my bill was, is one of the
challenges. There is no legal definition of what systemic
racism is. I think we would want to talk about what government,
what policies, and all those sort of things, so this is a
pretty broad statement that I am not sure I could support in
the time I have to look at this.
Ms. Brown. I will yield to Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you to the gentlelady from Ohio. This
bill is all about racism, which is exactly why my amendment is
relevant, and the congressional record needs a clear vote on my
amendment so that the American people will know where Members
of this Committee stand on this issue. For all people who know
racism exists and want to end it, I urge you to vote yes. I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition? Seeing
none----
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, setting aside the rule of
construction in an interest for transparent and candid response
to my colleague's query, the amendment is poorly written. It
uses past tense and current tense in the same subject matter
without indicating a shift in time. You are not just saying a
statement that we acknowledge that racism is a part of human
nature and exists as part of the human construct. Of course,
corruption is born of the heart of man, not the mechanisms of
man. We here, every one of us, would recognize that racism
exists throughout human history, in every culture, in every
land. The sun never sets, nor has it, on some manifestation of
racism throughout the history of man. Yes, there you go,
statement in Oversight Committee, part of the historical record
now. But the good lady has introduced an amendment which I
oppose because it is very poorly written, and it is quite
condemning of the American people and American society. What
her amendment is saying, is that prior acts of our Nation and
our forefathers before us have perpetuated systemic racism that
currently exists in our country. You are asking us to say that
America is systemically racist, and that is not the same as
saying that just admit that racism exists, which is what you
are stating when you discuss this, but in writ, it is quite
different. So, I oppose the amendment. I appreciate the effort,
but no.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition? Mr.
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a fascinating
colloquy now, and I wanted to just suggest one thought for Mr.
Higgins. I actually think this is a very well-written
amendment. It says ``nothing in this act shall be construed to
deny that the Federal Government has implemented policies that
perpetuate systemic racism.'' And I will give you one good
example, Mr. Higgins, I think----
Mr. Higgins. It does not say has implemented policies that
have perpetuated systemic racism, nor does it say has
implemented policies that have perpetuated racism. It
identifies systemic racism and does not refer to the past tense
versus the current.
Mr. Raskin. I am happy to have inaudibly yielded to you on
that point, but let me just reclaim my time for one sec because
I want to suggest a really excellent book for people who are
interested in just this question of how the Federal Government
itself has implemented policies that indeed perpetuate in the
present tense, systemic racism. The book is called, ``The Color
of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated
America,'' and it is about Federal housing policy and the FHA
and veterans' policy, all of which deliberately segregated
America and deliberately gave certain kinds of benefits to
Whites that were not available to Blacks, and then deliberately
and consciously redlined areas.
And I read it, I think, about, I do not know, 6 or 7 years
ago, so forgive me for not being able to detail more precisely
what it is talking about. But the author, Richard Rothstein,
explains how Federal housing policies in the 1940's and 1950's
explicitly mandated segregation and destroyed the capacity of
African-American families to be in integrated neighborhoods and
of White families to be in integrated neighborhoods. That was a
deliberate policy.
So, I mean, it would be nice to believe that when the
Thirteenth Amendment was adopted and slavery was abolished and
the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, that everything was OK.
There was an effort in the Reconstruction, and again, with the
radical Republicans' efforts, to transfer resources to the
recently freed population to lift people up who had been
downtrodden by law for centuries, but then Reconstruction was
undone. And we got into Jim Crow and poll taxes, literacy
tests, grandfather clauses, and the whole system of inequality
in the law, which lasted at least up until the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but it did not end
there either. And so, there is a real history to it, and I
think that is what makes all of these issues so difficult.
And I know that there is a theory which is, well, let us
not focus on it, let us wave a magic wand and say, everything
is OK as opposed to continuing to engage in inclusive and open
efforts to redress the injuries of the past and to move
forward. And look, I agree with people who think that
bureaucracies are awkward. All bureaucracies are awkward. There
is no doubt about that. Everybody finds bureaucracy awkward,
but the process we have been going through as a country is far
better than what we have seen in other places in the world,
like racial stratification and violence and tribal violence and
apartheid, and all of those things. So, this is what we get in
the greatest multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic
constitutional democracy, efforts to be conscious of the past
and to move forward. So, I like Ms. Pressley's amendment. I
think it is actually very well worded, and I definitely plan to
vote for it, and I am happy to yield, and I will yield to the
author of the amendment.
Ms. Pressley. To my colleagues, let me just reiterate again
that acknowledging these truths is not an act of blame. This is
not a blame amendment. It is just simply an act of
responsibility. So, let us take the responsibility.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none----
Ms. Stansbury. Sorry. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes. Have you already been recognized, Ms.
Stansbury, on this amendment?
Ms. Stansbury. Not on this one, no, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. OK. I recognize Ms. Stansbury for 5
minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. I do not want to beat a dead
horse, but I do have to say that I could not have imagined that
I would be debating the existence of racism this morning. I did
not have that on my Bingo card. But I just want to point out
the irony of the debate that we are having right now because
there has been some discussion again this morning about free
speech. And when you read the actual underlying bill as it is
introduced, the bill is seeking to essentially make it illegal
for the Federal Government and Federal employees to discuss
racism in the workplace. And so, the irony is, we are having a
conversation here in the Committee room that would probably be
prohibited by the bill itself. That is what the bill is trying
to stop, is having these kinds of conversations, so I just want
to point that out, and I yield back.
Mr. Cloud. Will the gentlelady yield? I think I have time
actually. Chairman, do I have time?
Chairman Comer. Yes. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. That is a misstatement, while maybe well
intended. What this does say, is that if you are a Federal
contractor, you cannot force your employees to attend DEI
training. You cannot make them sign a paper that says that they
recognize that they are from a privileged race or the like. All
these things are happening. It does not prohibit a discussion
about people. The freedom of speech will still exist at
companies all over the place, will still exist at contractors,
at any organization getting a grant. So, I think you are
overstating what this bill does in that regard.
Ms. Stansbury. Gentleman, would you allow me a moment,
yield me a moment, for me to read the language of the bill?
Mr. Cloud. Sure.
Ms. Stansbury. OK. Multiple places in the bill, the bill
specifically makes it illegal for the Federal Government to
enter into agreements, to provide grant funding, to otherwise
engage with public, private, or nonprofit entities that do the
following, and this is the exact language: ``maintain an office
relating to diversity, equity, or inclusion; ``maintaining or
employing a chief diversity officer or substantially similar
officer;'' ``developing, implementing, distributing,
publishing, or purchasing a training course relating to
diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility,'' which is
folks with disabilities; ``critical theory relating to race or
gender.'' You are not even allowed to talk about
intersectionality, folks, sexual orientation, or gender
identity.
Mr. Cloud. I will take back my time.
Ms. Stansbury. That is what the bill actually says, people.
It says it in multiple places.
Mr. Cloud. The key provision was the first part, ``no
taxpayer funds will go to.'' It does not prohibit those things
from happening. If you own a business and you want to have a
DEI office, you can have a DEI office, but we are not going to
make the American taxpayer pay for it. That is simply what it
says. Not funding something is not prohibiting something.
Chairman Comer. All right. Now, are we ready to vote? Good
deal.
The question is on the amendment No. 2 offered by Ms.
Pressley.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Ms. Pressley. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair--a recorded
vote has been requested by Ms. Pressley. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Pressley seek recognition? You
seek more recognition? We are done. Good deal. All right. Ms.
Stansbury, do you seek recognition?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will distribute the amendment to
all the Members.
Mr. Cloud. Can I reserve a point of order?
Chairman Comer. And Mr. Cloud reserves a point of order.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Does everyone have the amendment? The Clerk
will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8076, as offered by Ms. Stansbury of New
Mexico.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
Mr. Cloud reserved a point of order. The gentlewoman from
New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
and I do thank my colleagues across the aisle for what has been
an interesting journey this morning to discuss the history of
this country and how we continue our long march on the road to
justice and equity. The purpose of this amendment is to try to
get at protecting the Federal workforce. We know from hearings
that we have had in this Committee over the last several months
as authors of Project 2025, even including one of the chapters
was written by a recent appointee nominee to be in Trump's
cabinet, that part of the plan of Project 2025 and the Trump
Administration is to purge the Federal workforce.
And when you read the actual text of the underlying bill,
it appears that this is one of the tools that they are using to
purge the Federal workforce. Of course, it goes much farther,
as has been discussed this morning. It also interferes with the
military, which, of course, is also part of the Federal
workforce, but also the private sector. It is looking to
regulate what the private sector does, including boards of
stock-market-traded companies, publicly traded companies, as
well as folks who work in the financial markets.
So, what this amendment would do is simple. It would strike
the entire bill and all that follows, and it would replace it
with very simple language to protect our Federal employees:
``Federal employees shall be selected and advanced on the basis
of competence rather than political or personal favoritism, and
no executive branch agency may take action counter to the
intent of the law or against the fundamental rights of Federal
workers who comprise the civil service.'' And in many ways,
this is just a reaffirmation of existing Federal employment
law, which, it is important to note, was put in place largely a
number of the protections that this bill attacks, not only
through the Civil Rights Act, to make our Federal workforce
more diverse, but also to protect Federal employees after
Richard Nixon tried to purge the Federal workforce.
And so, we have seen this playbook before. We saw in the
1950's with McCarthyism. We saw it during Nixon's tenure in the
White House when he tried to purge the Federal workforce. This
is like a reboot. This is, like, the new season. This is the
new reality TV show. And if you needed any evidence of the fact
that we are living in a reality TV show, look at some of the
nominees who have been nominated to be the heads of these
agencies. So, we just want to make sure we are protecting the
Federal workforce and that our reality TV Cabinet secretaries
do not go after them, and that is what this amendment is all
about.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chair, I invoke my point of order based on
germaneness.
Chairman Comer. State your point.
Mr. Cloud. I raise a point of order on germaneness.
Chairman Comer. OK. I am prepared to rule. The amendment is
not germane to the bill. Therefore, the amendment is not in
order. For what purpose does Mr. Frost seek recognition?
Mr. Frost. Mr. Chairman, 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. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8706, as offered by Mr. Frost of Florida.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, before I
talk about my amendment, I just want to be clear. My amendment
is going to focus specifically on veterans serving in the
Federal Government from the harms of this bill, but I oppose
the impacts that the underlying bill will have on every single
employee in the Federal Government.
Today, veterans make up more than 30 percent of the
workforce, according to OPM. That is over 636,000 people who
have served their country in uniform and continue to do it as
civilians. H.R. 8706 would completely overturn 150 years of
precedent for supporting our veterans. The government has a
longstanding, careful, considered procedures for orderly
reductions in force dating back to 1944 with the enactment of
the Veterans' Preference Act. These procedures are codified and
implemented through OPM regulations, building on a principle
established far back as the Civil War that veterans who have
sacrificed for this country should be given preference in
Federal hiring and retention.
The law requires that any reduction in force, from the
government, that we retain ``equally qualified'' veterans over
others. Under this misguided bill, a qualified veteran could
immediately be fired for simply working in a diversity, equity,
and inclusion office, regardless of their combat service,
disability status, or their decades of exemplary performance,
or their proven value to the agency. You can just imagine a
veteran who served in combat, became disabled, worked 30 years
in the Federal service, spent the final few weeks, final few
months, final few years working in a DEI office. Under this
bill, that veteran would be immediately terminated without any
opportunity to demonstrate their value to the Agency. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment to ensure reductions in
force comply with the law, respect veterans' preference, and
uphold the principles of good governance.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, and I certainly appreciate the
gentleman's intent in this. Both sides of the aisle certainly
respect those who have served in uniform. I am proud to
represent a district that is a place people flock to because of
how our community supports veterans. I have a concern about
this and would love to work with you on it, but my concerns are
of a technical nature in us getting at this at the last minute
to understand the potential unintended consequences. Very
specifically, I could speak to the provision that says, ``Code
of Federal Regulations.'' We do not have the time in the moment
to go through the entire Code of Regulations related to this
and see what is there, not to mention that could change
tomorrow without Congress doing anything. So, we certainly want
to protect veterans.
I do not think that this would negate the longstanding
status quo we have toward veterans, but the moment, I think we
would have to object to this until we could work that out, but
I would certainly be happy to work with you on making sure that
we get the intent of what you are doing before this goes to the
Floor.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other
Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment offered by Mr. Frost from Florida.
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.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Frost. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by Mr.
Frost. As previously announced, further proceedings on the
question will be postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Brown seek recognition?
Ms. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Everybody have the amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8706, as offered by Ms. Brown of Ohio.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill completely
contradicts the vision and principles of this Nation and would
erode the Federal Government's enforcement of nondiscrimination
protections in communities that are uniquely underserved. It
will strip the Federal Government of a workforce focused on the
mission of their agency and ensuring an inclusive, positive,
and safe workplace for all employees. And to make matters
worse, it would force Federal agencies to close down all
Federal offices that operate diversity, equity, and inclusion
programs, fire employees who work in those positions, and
prevent them from finding a new job elsewhere in the Federal
Government. My amendment would ensure any employee or
contractor from an underserved community in danger of getting
removed from Federal service is afforded appropriate
opportunities to remain in Federal service, pursuant with
current Federal law.
On February 16, 2023, President Biden issued an executive
order that sought to build a Federal workforce that reflects
the fabric of our Nation and deliver resources and benefits to
the American people consistent with the needs of the public.
This landmark executive order ensures equity for people that
belong to communities that have been systematically denied
equal treatment under the law. That includes employees who are
from communities of color; individuals from communities that
face discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and
gender, including LGBTQ+ people; individuals who face
discrimination based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related
conditions, parents and caregivers; individuals who belong to
communities that face discrimination based on their religion or
disability; people who live in rural communities and veterans
and military spouses; first generation professionals or college
students; immigrants; people with limited English proficiency;
and the formerly incarcerated; or individuals facing employment
barriers based on older age.
The people who fall under these categories are your
friends, your neighbors. They are also Federal employees. H.R.
8706 would fire people simply because they had the misfortune
to work in an office that our Majority does not like. The bill
as written would mean that a pregnant woman, who is already
likely to face persistent discrimination in the workplace,
would be fired simply on the basis that they worked for a
Federal or contracting office that supports diversity, equity,
and inclusion activities. It would mean that a person who lives
in a rural town would be let go with no possibility of
reassignment just because they worked in a diversity, equity,
and inclusion office. It would eradicate positions for people
with disabilities who currently work in these programs,
regardless of their level in the office, who are making
progress toward Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's rules
to make up 12 percent of the Federal workforce.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter
from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund stating
its concerns with H.R. 8706 and its potential effect on Federal
workers with disabilities and broader disabilities community.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. It would allow the firing of LGBTQ+
people for the sole reason that they took a position that
upholds a mission of building a Federal workforce that reflects
the communities it serves, and it would coldly fire veterans
and their spouses who make up more than 30 percent of all
Federal employees, with no possibility of reassignment because
they want to continue serving their country in a different
capacity. This legislation would provide a chilling downstream
effect across Federal agencies in all offices and Federal
workers across all levels of government.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
American Federation of Government Employees statement against
H.R. 8706 in which they write, ``While AFGE certainly applauds
any legislative proposal to curb and eliminate employment
discrimination in the Federal workplace, we regard H.R. 8706 as
actually setting back that cause, not advancing it, under the
broad pretext of combating discrimination, which has long been
illegal. H.R. 8706 would, if enacted, eliminate virtually all
agency initiatives currently in place to develop and maintain a
dignified, respectful, and safe workplace that enables Federal
agencies to carry out laws and directives in a professional and
efficient manner.'' Without objection? Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Brown. OK. Our Nation's strength is in its diversity.
Our Federal workforce must embody that strength. This bill
exemplifies our Nation's weaknesses. For these reasons, I
respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment, which
will protect dedicated workers in our Federal Government.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. I will
recognize myself.
Ms. Brown's amendment adds a new section to the end of the
bill that, in the name of fighting discrimination, entrenches
discrimination in favor of a host of specially defined groups.
We should all be able to agree to be against all forms of
discrimination. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
Ms. Brown. We should all be able to agree racism exists.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition? Mr.
Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. I will just say, I concur with the Chairman.
This amendment, in the name of nondiscrimination, actually
would be, if adopted, systemic racism in excluding people from
a cut of an agency based on all these determinant factors that
we have discussed all day. It would be very concerning if this
were to pass.
And I will just point out that no matter how many times it
is said that this bill prohibits people from continuing and
ever working in the workforce, you can say it a thousand times,
and it will be as untrue on the thousandth time as it was the
first time. People can still reapply. This bill simply
eliminates offices that are not providing value to the American
taxpayer. It is probably 1 initiative of a 100 or more that
need to happen for us to get back to some sort of fiscal
restraint, which is maybe our No. 1 national security issue
that this country is facing. And so, with that, I will yield
back to the Chair.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none. The question is on the
amendment offered by Ms. Brown.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
All right. Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8753, to
direct the United States Postal Service to designate single,
unique zip codes for certain communities and for other
purposes. The Clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8753, to direct the United States Postal
Service to designate single unique zip codes for certain
communities 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. 8753, 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 the sponsor of the bill, who has championed
this bill, for 5 minutes on a statement. I recognize Ms.
Boebert from Colorado.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of
my bill, H.R. 8753, to direct the United States Postal Service
to designate single unique zip codes for certain communities,
and for other purposes. My bill will benefit Colorado and
communities throughout the country by providing unique zip
codes for cities and towns, including the Colorado communities
of Castle Pines, Centennial, Cherry Hills, Greenwood Village,
Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, Silver Cliff, Severance, and
Superior. More than 30 communities, and I suspect it could be
more than 40 communities by the time this markup is finished,
throughout America are being negatively impacted by not having
their own unique zip code. These municipalities deserve
consistent mail service, their fair share of tax revenue, and
the other economic benefits associated with having their own
zip code. My bill will solve a host of real-world problems for
these cities and towns by finally providing them with a
definite, representative, and accurate zip code. Sexy, right? I
think so.
The zip code system was instituted in America in the 1960's
and the Postal Service utilizes the zip code system to deliver
mail, but it is also heavily used and relied on by economic
developers, insurers, and emergency personnel, amongst others.
Communities that do not have a unique zip code often experience
associated problems that include loss of economic development,
loss of sales tax, unjustifiably high insurance rates, tax
remittance and commercial licensing issues, diminished public
safety, and reduced emergency response times, identity issues,
and efficiency issues.
On behalf of my colleague, Congressman Troy Nehls, I would
like to highlight his concerns for the Village of Somers in
Wisconsin, which applied for a zip code boundary review through
the United States Postal Service in 2022 and did not receive an
answer until 2024, letting them know that the review had been
denied. This is not something that is rare. In fact, it is very
common to be denied when requesting this issue, and this area
affects approximately 3,200 individual mailing addresses in
this particular community. Some of Somers includes confusion
over state sales tax revenue going to other municipalities
rather than where it is actually collected; companies refusing
to pay for emergency calls by the Somers Fire & Rescue
Department, stating that the wrong department was dispatched
because their residence was listed in the next county over.
Customers, employees, deliveries, and contractors experience
confusion when the mailing address of a business is located in
Somers but has a Kenosha mailing address.
These are all extremely important issues, and there are
others that would be addressed by this legislation. This
current process allows small towns and cities to petition the
Postal Service for a new zip code, but it is rarely approved,
and if it is denied, they cannot appeal this decision for up to
10 years. Congress has intervened on these matters in the past
and passed law enacting four new zip codes through the Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, so there is
precedence for this type of legislation.
My bipartisan bill has support of communities and Members
throughout the country, and while this may seem like a niche
issue to some, it is a very important issue to these cities and
towns who asked us to put forward this bill on their behalf. I
urge adoption of this bipartisan bill and Members of this
Committee to support small cities and towns throughout America.
This is an issue that I have been championing for nearly 4
years now. It started in the small town of Silver Cliff,
Colorado in Custer County, and this was their No. 1 issue that
they had brought to previous Members of Congress and asked to
be addressed. And I am so happy that they are one of the many
communities that are listed in this piece of legislation, and
we can proudly and finally bring government efficiency to our
communities. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields. The Chair recognizes
Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor and my
pleasure to endorse this amendment brought forth by the very
distinguished gentlelady from Colorado. The unique zip code
issue is a common problem actually, and I admire her bipartisan
perseverance in advocating for a whole bunch of different
districts that find themselves in the same situation with
respect to this problem. So, I am happy to endorse it, and I
will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself.
The Postal Service organizes delivery of mail zip codes,
five-digit numbers that organize how to deliver the mail. There
are currently over 41,000 zip codes in the United States. While
zip codes are usually aligned with local boundaries, this is
sometimes not the case. H.R. 8753, sponsored by Ms. Boebert,
will create new zip codes for communities across the Nation.
This is the product of various Members' advocacy. The bill
creates 39 new zip codes, including in Eastvale, California;
Oakland Park, Florida; and Sargent, Texas. And last, I would
like to thank Representative Boebert, the sponsor of the bill,
for her work representing her constituents in Silver Cliff,
Colorado. Congratulations. Any other Members seek recognition?
For what purpose does Mr. Moskowitz seek recognition?
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
on the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk designate the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8753, as offered by Mr. Moskowitz of
Florida.
Chairman Comer. The staff will distribute the amendment.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support
Representative Boebert's bill to give certain communities a
single unique zip code. This has been an issue plaguing many
towns for years. Mail gets redirected, delayed, lost when
different towns have the same street names and the same zip
codes. Changing the zip codes will alleviate everyday stress
for our constituents and make our postal system work better for
everyone. My amendment is very simple. It would add five
additional towns in my district to the list who have been
trying to fix this issue for over 15 years. I urge my
colleagues to support this simple amendment and a commonsense
fix, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition? Ms.
Boebert.
Ms. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I
support this amendment from my colleague from Florida, Mr.
Moskowitz, by adding these five towns that he represents, towns
that have asked for this to be designated to receive these
unique zip codes for some 15 years now. Unfortunately, my bill
will not address every city and town that is having this issue
throughout our country, so hopefully this will encourage the
USPS to be more responsive and to avoid denying some of these
cities, who we are helping put in requests in the future. I
would urge those who are having this issue to contact your
representative.
My legislation comes from many bills that have been
submitted over the years by Members of Congress who were
individually trying to solve the zip code issue, who have
written legislation, who have written letters to the USPS, and
just were not getting anywhere with it. So, we have combined
all of these cities and towns, these communities, to designate
their unique zip codes, and I am very proud to have the support
of Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Raskin, and also to have
this amendment with these five towns from Congressman Jared
Moskowitz added to my bill. Again, this is not going to fix all
of them, but we have more than 40 here that we will be able to
address, and I hope that we can get this to the House Floor
quickly and pass the bill in its entirety before the 118th
Congress is adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Comer. OK. We are going to vote on this one first,
right?
Mr. Langworthy. OK. Yes.
Chairman Comer. OK. Does any other Member seek recognition
on the Moskowitz Amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the Chair recognizes Mr.
Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Does anybody know what the Post Office thinks
of this stuff?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. Do they think it is going to cost money?
Ms. Boebert. [Inaudible].
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
Chairman Comer. They oppose.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, well, OK.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment offered by Mr. Moskowitz.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Do any other Members seek recognition? Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would also----
Chairman Comer. You have an amendment at the desk?
Mr. Langworthy. At the desk.
Chairman Comer. Would the Clerk designate the Langworthy
amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8753, as offered by Mr. Langworthy of New
York.
Mr. Langworthy. So, my amendment would also afford this
opportunity----
Chairman Comer. Hold on 1 second. Without objection, the
amendment is considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from Buffalo, New York, is recognized for 5
minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much. I salute the
work of the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms.
Boebert, on this. This is something that I have been working on
in New York's 23rd Congressional District, back to my staff
days 15 years ago, in asking for inclusion of the community of
Pendleton, New York, to have a unique zip code as well. They
are currently split in a very confusing manner, and it has been
very troublesome for this growing community, and would
appreciate any opportunities that this has to be considered by
this Committee. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Very good. Any other Members seek
recognition?
Ms. Boebert. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Ms. Boebert.
Ms. Boebert. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just say that I
also support Mr. Langworthy's amendment to the ANS adding
Pendleton, New York, to this list. He mentioned that there are
split zip codes here in this location. I just spoke with the
Mayor of Severance, Colorado, and I was under the impression
they shared one zip code with Windsor, Colorado. But after
talking with the Mayor, an issue that they have been working on
for about a decade now, there are six zip codes that the city
of Severance shares with, and so that is why they have been
included in this legislation. And so, I do not oppose the
adding of Pendleton, New York, and, again, I urge the adoption
of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, all those in favor of the
amendment offered by Mr. Langworthy from New York, signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose, 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.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose, 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. 8753, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Mr. Higgins. Recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair--the Chair
recognizes Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins requests a recorded vote.
As previously announced, further proceedings on the question
will be postponed.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Committee stands in
recess until 3:05, that is in 7 minutes, 3:05 for official
votes.
Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will come back to order.
Before we begin to vote, I ask unanimous consent to enter
the following article from Representative Scott Fitzgerald into
the record, an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
titled, ``Milwaukee's New Sales Tax is Wrongly Affecting Some
of its Suburbs.''
Without objection, so ordered.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 10133. Members
will record their votes using the electronic--we will suspend.
And let me make an announcement. If you did not get the
memo, at the conclusion of the vote, after the postal naming
bills--that is always the last vote--we are going to take a
Committee picture, and we are going to look like one big, happy
family. It is going to be a great picture. Yes. Now, you can
kind of move, scoot to the right a little bit.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. All right. We will come back to order, and
we will begin voting.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 10133. Members
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The
Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 10133.
[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 38. The
nays are zero.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it. The bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 10132.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 10132.
[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 38. The
nays are zero.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it. The bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 10155.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 10155.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members voted 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 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. 10062.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 10062.
[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 17.
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. 8690.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 8690.
[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 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. 9040.
Members will record the votes using the electronic voting
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9040.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Have all members been recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 24. The
nays are 15.
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. 10151.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 10151.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will close the vote.
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 Committee will now resume consideration of H.R. 8706,
the Dismantle DEI Act.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
Ranking Member. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system. The Clerk will now open the vote on
the amendment to the amendment of H.R. 8706.
[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 18. The
nays are 21.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley. This is the
Pressley Amendment Number 1. Members will record their votes
using the electronic voting system. The Clerk will now open the
vote on the amendment.
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Chairman, is this the HBCU amendment?
Chairman Comer. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. OK. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Yes, the historically Black college and
university amendment.
Have all Members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. This is the amendment dealing with the
historically Black colleges and universities.
Have all Members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 40. The
nays are zero.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the amendment is
agreed to.
Ms. Pressley. Wow. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the previously
postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts. This is
the Pressley Number 2 Amendment. Members will record their vote
using the electronic voting system. The Clerk will now open the
vote on the amendment to the amendment of H.R. 8706.
[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 17. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the amendment is not
approved.
The question is now on previously postponed amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Mr.
Frost from Florida. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system. The Clerk will now open the vote on
the amendment to the amendment of H.R. 8706, the Frost
Amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total. Everybody voted? We are good?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will please report the total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 17. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the
gentlewoman, Ms. Brown. Members will record their votes using
the electronic voting system.
OK. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8706, as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8706 is agreed
to.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 8706, as
amended. Members will record their votes using the electronic
voting system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably
reporting H.R. 8706.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Have all members been recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The
nays are 17.
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. 8753.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 8753.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 40. The
nays are zero.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the Boebert bill is
ordered favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the following en bloc
postal-naming bills which were distributed in advance of this
markup. And remember, we are taking a picture after this, so
stick around. H.R.s 9360, 9544, 9775, and 10065.
Without objection, the bills are considered read.
If any Member would like to speak on any of the measures,
they may do so now.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mfume from
Maryland.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Raskin, for obviously holding the markup, but also moving us to
these postal renamings.
Congressman and former Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings
was born in Baltimore. Both parents came from Southern
sharecropping families, but they managed to raise seven
children, among them, our friend, Elijah. Elected to the
Maryland House of Delegates in 1982, he became the youngest
chair of the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus and the first
African-American elected speaker pro tem by that body, a
permanent role which now stands in the Maryland House of
Delegates. In 1996, Delegate Cummings won his seat to the U.S.
House of Representatives that I had previously vacated,
starting his 23-year tenure in Congress, during which he
advocated, as we know, for all people.
Congressman Cummings became the Chair of the congressional
Black Caucus in 2002, where he pushed to increase funding for
public education and the crucial Head Start program. As Ranking
Member and then Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Mr.
Cummings admirably led the Committee in holding anyone
accountable who went astray, regardless of party or position.
The presence of Elijah's portrait hanging over us here in this
Committee room is a powerful reminder of the promise of our
Nation. This renaming is another way for all of us in this body
on both sides of the aisle to say thank you to him for his hard
work on behalf of our country and the way of doing things that
meant so much to many of us.
In my role as his predecessor and his successor, I want to
thank again the Ranking Member, who serves out of the state of
Maryland with me; Chairman Comer, for keeping your word on this
naming measure; and Members of this Committee who have voted to
move it forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
member seek recognition on the postal naming bills?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on favorably
reporting the en bloc package.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose, 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.
Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, I ask that Committee
Members have the right to file with the Clerk--and remember we
are going to take pictures, guys. We are going to take
pictures. 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.
Now we take our picture, one happy family.
[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]