▶ 0:17:58Us two. Speaker 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.
▶ 0:18:25Any procedural or motion related votes during today's markup will be dispensed with by traditional roll call vote. The first order of business is ratifying the new subcommittee roster. The clerks have distributed the roster electronically. I ask unanimous consent that the committee approved the appointments and assignments as shown on the roster. Without objection, the subcommittee roster is approved.
▶ 0:18:49I would like to welcome representative christian menefee from texas to the committee. We'll welcome him when he gets here later. Uh, we're glad to have him on the committee. I now yield. Well, okay. Alright. We'll we'll take care of that later. Our first item for consideration is h.r. 6610. The pharmacist. Fight back. Uh, the clerk will please designate the bill. Speaker 3: h.r. 6610.
▶ 0:19:19The pharmacist fight back in federal employee health benefit plans act, a bill to amend chapter 89 of title five, united states code to limit the cost of pharmacy benefit managers with respect to federal employee health benefit plans and for other purposes. Speaker 2: 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. The nature of. Substitute the clerk. Designate the amendment. Speaker 3: an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 6610 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. Speaker 2: without objection to.
▶ 0:19:49The amendment is considered as read and substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. Now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. Rarely a day goes by that I don't hear from kentuckians concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs.
▶ 0:20:10Over the last several years, I've worked closely with kentucky pharmacists to learn more about the pharmacy benefit managers, or pbms that are lurking behind the scenes, keeping patients from accessing the most effective medications for them. I'm pleased that today we have an opportunity to address an issue that is so important to so many americans. I'm thankful to have led this bill with my democrat colleague, representative from massachusetts. H.r. 6610.
▶ 0:20:39The pharmacists fight back act will make much needed, meaningful changes to the pharmacy benefit market serving federal employees. For too long, federal employees and taxpayer funded federal agencies have been held captive by a health care system manipulated at every turn by three large pbms and their affiliate companies. Originally designed to facilitate negotiations to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for patients.
▶ 0:21:09Consolidation has left us with three pharmacy benefit managers controlling over 80% of the private market. Dominant pbms utilize their market leverage and control over drug prices, rebates, pharmacy reimbursements, insurers and pharmacy networks for their own financial gain. Meanwhile, americans are forced to pay higher prices for drugs by skimming discounts meant for local pharmacies.
▶ 0:21:34Certain pbm practices actually drive up prices for patients. Some some pbms have been found civilly liable for these practices and the harmful impacts on americans who need whose need of access to affordable prescription drugs in multiple states across the country. Earlier this year, the office of personnel management office of inspector general found that caremark alone had overcharged the federal employee health benefits program insurance carrier more than $615 million.
▶ 0:22:06The inspector general highlighted how caremark used its complexity and size to hoard discounts, credits and financial benefits it was receiving. Rather than pass those savings along to patients or the federal government like they're supposed to do. The oversight committee is moving the pharmacist's fight back act to rein in pbms and curb abusive practices. The bill restricts massive price markups and increases transparency in pharmacy reimbursement.
▶ 0:22:35Some may argue that this legislation will increase premiums. However, we have real world evidence out of west virginia's insurance commissioner's office which demonstrate that the policies in this bill actually reduced premiums. Similarly, in georgia, the georgia state auditor and director of the office of planning and budget projects millions each year in savings from these policies.
▶ 0:22:57The bill also prevents a pbm from steering beneficiaries towards pharmacies owned by the pbm, so that a consumer can go to the pharmacy of their choice, and the bill enforces these ground rules through noncompliance penalties. This bill is a good start, but we have a lot more work to do to make sure that specialty drugs and oncology drugs are reimbursed appropriately.
▶ 0:23:24We must also guarantee that long term care pharmacies and other specialty pharmacies are paid not only for the medications they dispense, but also for other core clinical and specialized services. As is currently recognized in opm guidance. While this bill may address may not address every single possible cause of high health care costs, it represents a giant step in the right direction.
▶ 0:23:48This bill is supported by over 60 state and national pharmacy groups, including the kentucky independent pharmacist alliance, kentucky pharmacist association, the american pharmacy cooperative community oncology alliance, and transparency rising.
▶ 0:24:04This bill is is part of a result of our ongoing investigation in this committee of the pbms and three full committee hearings we've had discussing the the problems with pharmacy benefit managers and how they actually lead to higher prescription drug costs for most americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and I now yield to the ranking member.
▶ 0:24:35Speaker 4: thank you, Mr. chairman. I also support this bill, and I think it's clear that the american people are facing an affordability crisis, and the price of nearly everything has gone up. Groceries, gas, housing, health care and families are definitely struggling to make ends meet. It's important for congress to continue to address the costs of health care by addressing every part of the health care system. Now, pharmacy benefit managers, of course, are companies that manage drug benefits on behalf of health insurance companies and federal health care programs.
▶ 0:25:01And also recently, under the biden administration, the ftc also cracked down on some of pbms activities. The ftc had found that the artificially raised drug prices in some cases. I want to thank congressman jake auchincloss also for his incredible work. I know how important this bill is to him and how important this bill is to chairman comer as well. It is a bipartisan bill, and certainly this bill will ensure that discounts on prescription drugs go to patients, and that's what's most important. So we support this bill.
▶ 0:25:30And this bill gets us one step closer to meeting the goals of health care. Thanks again. And I yield back. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Before I recognize anyone who wants to speak on the bill, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following into the record. A letter from the kentucky independent pharmacist alliance in support of the bill. A letter from the senior care pharmacy coalition. Uh, a letter from more than 60 state national pharmacy groups in support of the bill, a letter from the community oncology alliance in support of the bill.
▶ 0:26:00Letter from the transparency rising. A letter from the national association for federal employees and retirees in support of the bill. Letter from the american pharmacist association in support of the bill. Letter from the national taxpayers union in support of the bill without objection, so ordered. Does anyone seek recognition on the bill? Mr. burleson. Speaker 5: thank you, Mr. chairman, and I appreciate you holding this markup today.
▶ 0:26:29I agree with you. I think 99% of the time, um. Speaker 2: this isn't starting off good. Speaker 5: and you and I are very good, good friends. Um, I respectfully disagree on this topic. Um, from my personal experience and background. Um, look, the high cost of prescription drugs are a serious issue that, that we're facing in america and it deserves our attention.
▶ 0:26:55However, um, this, I disagree with this approach. We all want to lower prescription drug prices, but the policy matters. This bill requires pharmacies to be reimbursed at the national average drug acquisition cost, plus the lesser of 4% or $50, along with state medicaid dispensing fees.
▶ 0:27:16These are added costs for pbms or insurance companies, which are passed to the customer that would normally provide savings to our constituents. Similar rate setting legislation proposed in louisiana under hb 529 in april of 2023 was projected to increase costs by $37 million in just the very first year.
▶ 0:27:39Additionally, the bill requires point of sale application of manufacturer rebates so that patient cost sharing is based on the net cost of the drug, and it requires full pass through of rebates to carriers. The legislation also prohibits pbms from directing patients to specific pharmacies. In essence, I mean, my my comparison here would be it'd be like requiring someone who has a costco membership to be allowed to go to, to sam's club.
▶ 0:28:09Um, this will just essentially drive up costs regarding stakeholders and the hb program, many of the voiced have voiced opposition to the bill, including government employee health association and the mail handlers benefit plan.
▶ 0:28:25These groups understand, because they see the purchasing side of this decision and that it will cause their their plans to go up, they have specific concerns that it would interfere with the mail order pharmacy option that currently help improve medication adherence and control costs.
▶ 0:28:44I said this last year, pbms use their economies of scale to drive down costs in the same way that walmart uses its economy of scale to drive down costs, who we all know does a great job of selling things in bulk pbms paid based on their paid based on performance. And you don't have to pick them if they are doing their job and and being effective, then they'll get the business.
▶ 0:29:10If not, then then the, the, the purchaser, the, the, the employer will go somewhere else. At the end of the day, I want people to know on this committee, I had the exact same opinion that you have if you support this bill. I used to believe this. I used to see them as a boogeyman, and because I didn't understand the intricacies and the complexities of how it all worked, I thought that they were the part. They were part of the problem.
▶ 0:29:37But after serving specifically on the board of missouri consolidated insurance, where I was tasked with the responsibility of purchasing the insurance and deciding whether we get a pbm or not, um, or which company we're going to use.
▶ 0:29:53And, and having seeing firsthand that you have direct control over the mechanisms and how exactly your, your pharmacy benefit manager is managing you as the employer and the, and the decisions that you want to want to make. It completely changed my attitude. Um, and so respectfully, I will be voting against this bill and with that, I yield back. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Chair. Mr. walker. Speaker 6: thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:30:22I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. A july 21st, 2026 letter from naaf, the national active and retired federal employees association. Speaker 2: without objection. So score closely. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Uh, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following into the record. A study from west virginia's insurance commissioner, which shows how similar policies actually reduce premiums rather than increase them.
▶ 0:30:47Testimony from the west virginia insurance commissioner that similar pass through and nadac policies reduce costs rather than increase them. A study from the american pharmacy cooperative, which showed the positive impacts of these policy changes, will have on the federal employees health benefits plan. An examination by the georgia state auditor and director of the office of planning and budget, showing no similar policies would save georgia taxpayer millions each year.
▶ 0:31:15And lastly, a report from the cabinet. Kentucky cabinet for health and family services. Without objection, so ordered. Any other members, Mr. palmer? Speaker 7: thank you, Mr. chairman. I agree with you 98% of the time in this case, I agree with you 100%. Speaker 2: all right. Speaker 7: um this has been a problem for years.
▶ 0:31:36Um, uh, prior to serving in congress, I, as you know, I ran a think tank and I was meeting with folks who, who were trying to explain to me how the pbms work and why this runs up. Price, uh, their profits are tied to the list price of the drug, which incentivizes drug makers to, uh, set a high price because it gives them preferential treatment.
▶ 0:32:04Uh, they know that the pbms will prefer a higher priced drug over a lower priced drug, which does nothing to benefit the consumer. It's not just prescription drugs, it's also prescription eyeglasses. And talking with doctors in that field, uh, they're often locked into labs that might not be providing the best work because that's how their their plan works.
▶ 0:32:33They're locked into that. So I think what we're trying to do here is something that is, is long overdue. It's like I said, it's been a problem for years talking with independent pharmacies. Uh, they struggle dealing with this. And I think it's high time that we do something that puts the patient first instead of the corporate profits. I yield back. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Uh. Yes, sir. Mr. lynch from massachusetts.
▶ 0:33:03Speaker 8: thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I want to express my strong support for this for this bill. Um, so I've been on this committee a while. We actually did a, uh, a deep dive on pbms a number of years ago. Um, we were helped enormously by a group called change to win, which was a group of labor unions that felt that pbms were jacking up the price of their, uh, of their, the cost to their members.
▶ 0:33:32Um, and so they did a deep dive as well, a study. Um, I'll give you one example of, of, uh, of what we found this committee when we looked at pbms. So, uh, we oversee our committee oversees the federal employees health benefit plan febp.
▶ 0:33:51And, uh, we found that because of the pbms that were, that were regulating the prices of, of the, uh, and this is a cost to the taxpayer, right? This is a cost of government, uh, what we're talking about health care for federal employees.
▶ 0:34:09We found that the pbms, uh, put us in a situation where, and we this was one of the stark examples, uh, cvs had a, had a, uh, uh, a coupon program where you could walk into a drugstore, a cvs drugstore, and they had a formulary and you could get those drugs at their, their, their special price. You didn't have to have insurance. You could walk in right off the street.
▶ 0:34:38And here were the prices that you'd have to pay for certain certain drugs. We found that it was better because of the pbms jacking up the price. It was better for a union member, a union, a federal employee on fhbp, whether they were unionized or non-unionized. It was it was cheaper for them to just put their insurance card that they had paid for.
▶ 0:35:03Now we have 18 million, uh, uh, federal employees and retirees that that qualify for fhbp, the collective bargaining power of those 18 employees and their contributions to their insurance meant nothing.
▶ 0:35:20It was cheaper for them to put their federal insurance card in their pocket, because the pbms, you the prices were higher for people with insurance than it was just walking in off the street. And. And we found that that was because of the pbms. So we took them to court. And what we wanted to know, what the federal government wanted to know was, what are you doing with these rebates?
▶ 0:35:50And how is that affecting the the cost to the consumer, in this case, the federal employees? We took them to court and we lost because they fought us. They did not want to provide transparency on how the pbms were working, how they operated. They said that that was a proprietary, uh, secret.
▶ 0:36:14And so the pbms fought, fought the federal government, fought the federal employees, fought the public from knowing how they were operating. Pbms are jacking up the price of drugs in this country, plain and simple. It's another layer of cost. Buying drugs shouldn't be that complicated, right?
▶ 0:36:47You've got insurance. There's an insurance company already involved. You go in to your drugstore, hopefully a local drugstore, although those are disappearing as well. And all my local pharmacies are opposed to these pbms and are supporting this bill. That should tell you something that all these local. Go to your local druggist. If you still have one, go to your local drugstore. If you still have one, ask them about pbms. They're ripping people off.
▶ 0:37:18They're squeezing. They're monopolizing that that whole sector. They're eliminating these small drugstores. I probably had five of them in my little neighborhood at one point. Now I got one. I got a cvs. Sometimes it swaps into a walgreens, but that's basically it. So so this is really, really important. We're at a critical point here. We can do the american people a big, big, big favor. Get rid of these pbms. Get rid of them.
▶ 0:37:46There's another that's another person taking, taking a profit in the chain of providing drugs to the american public. Get rid of these pbms. That's what this bill does. And, uh, I'm 100% for it. And I and I ask my colleagues to vote supportively as well. Thank you. I yield back. Speaker 2: thank you, Mr. lynch. Mr. perry. Speaker 9: thank you, Mr. chairman. It's not too often I find myself in solidarity with Mr. lynch.
▶ 0:38:17Speaker 2: I was thinking the same thing. Speaker 9: but on this occasion, uh, I do find some distress in the fact that I'm not in solidarity with my friend Mr. burleson. And from my part, I want to be clear. I'm not really interested in the federal government getting involved in private contractual agreements between private entities. However, in this case, a private entity involved with the government. So the government's a party to it.
▶ 0:38:45And I think the government, as the representative of the people, should have the information. My concern, among other things, is it's hard for all of us up here to figure out who's hiding the ball. Seems like, and I'm not here to pick on anybody I don't know, it seems like the pbms make money. The the the big pharma makes money, but your local consumer, the average citizen, can't afford it.
▶ 0:39:11And your local pharmacies, especially independents, are being driven out of business. Now the money's going somewhere. Somebody's making a lot of money, but we can't find out who it is because we can't get the information on private contractual agreements and where they're between private businesses and private entities. That's between them.
▶ 0:39:34But when it involves the federal government, as the representatives of the federal government and of the people that pay the taxes and pay for these things, we have not only the right to know, we have the obligation to know what the information is.
▶ 0:39:50And so it is my hope that with this, at a minimum, we will have the information so we can figure out who's hiding the ball and make sure that the consumer is being represented, represented, and that there will be a broader, um. That we will, we will figure out eventually exactly where the money's going.
▶ 0:40:20And this is on one occasion, this is just one account. This is just one instance, but I think this will inform us of the greater landscape, the greater battlefield of this, so that we can make appropriate decisions. The problem in my mind has been nobody wants to say anybody's a bad actor here. Nobody wants to accuse anybody because we don't know. And the point is, is we need to know. And once we do know, then we can take appropriate action.
▶ 0:40:49And I think this is a step in the right direction. I'm glad that this is a bipartisan effort. I support the chairman on. I support the bill. With that, I yield back. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. The question is now on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no.
▶ 0:41:19And the chair? The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favor of reporting h.r. 6610, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no, Mr. chairman, the gentleman from texas seek recognition. Speaker 10: I'd like to ask for a recorded vote. Speaker 2: recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r. 9720, the D.C. taxing authority review act.
▶ 0:41:48The clerk please designate the bill. Speaker 3: h.r. 9720, the D.C. taxing authority review act, a bill to require resolution of approval by congress on acts of the district of columbia with respect to title 47 of the district of columbia code, or which impose or increase a tax or fee and for other purposes. Speaker 2: without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection. So ordered the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute the clerk. Please designate the amendment. Speaker 3: an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r.
▶ 0:42:199720 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. Speaker 2: 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 five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. I support h.r. 9720, the D.C. taxing authority review act, which requires congressional approval of any act. The district of columbia that imposes or increases a tax or fee. Radical D.C.
▶ 0:42:42Democrats want to solve their spending problem by reaching deeper into taxpayers pockets and driving further on the path to socialism. The D.C. council recently supported a feasibility study for the implementation of a new business activity tax. This would add to the already high tax burden that businesses in the district already face. Additionally, the council proposed a new tax on D.C. residents who are already one of the highest taxed populations in the country. The D.C.
▶ 0:43:10Council is also planning on imposing new fees on deliveries of everyday groceries and essentials. Actions like these only serve to hurt small businesses, and the district's already vulnerable residents. These are just more examples of bad policy that disincentivize investment, drive residents out and undermine the economic competitiveness of the city. Rather than cutting spending. The ultra progressive and socialist democrat candidate for mayor and the D.C. council want to tax D.C.
▶ 0:43:38Business and residents into oblivion to fund their unmaintainable extension of public programs. This comes as D.C. s chief financial officer has identified a $1.1 billion budget hole, choosing to reject necessary spending reforms and instead increasing taxes penalizes residents and burdens businesses, further weakening the district's lagging economy. To improve the economic competitiveness of the district.
▶ 0:44:07I'm working with treasury secretary vincent best to find ways to make D.C. more attractive to businesses. The D.C. council cannot tax the way out of financial devastation that their policies have created. It's our congressional duty to act. When the radical D.C. council's reckless fiscal policies jeopardize dc's future, the bill. This bill enhances congress's constitutional oversight authority over D.C.
▶ 0:44:33To restrain irresponsible policies pursued by future socialist and ultra progressive D.C. democrats. This bill is supported by the ama, c action, independent women's voice, national taxpayers union, the taxpayers protection alliance and doordash. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and recognize the ranking member for his statement. Speaker 4: thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose this bill, which is another direct attack on the 700,000 residents of the district and on democratic principles.
▶ 0:45:02Now, this congress and this committee has passed more bills on local D.C. matters than on any other matter in front of this committee. In fact, this is the 20th bill we are considering that would interfere with local D.C. residents and their governance. Now, D.C. s locally elected officials are accountable to D.C. residents, and local leaders should be empowered to address local matters without congressional interference.
▶ 0:45:27And I know I've said this many times, but if donald trump or congressional republicans want to run D.C. they should run for mayor and city council. But the bill in front of us, which takes away dc's authority to impose or increase a tax or revenue unless congress approves, is a direct attack on the residents that elect officials to make these decisions. Currently, a law enacted by D.C.
▶ 0:45:55Takes effect after a congressional review period unless a disapproval resolution is enacted into law during that period. Now, this bill flips that process completely. Under this bill, a law enacted by D.C. that imposes or increases a tax or fee could not take effect unless an approval resolution is enacted into law during the congressional review period. Now, D.C. has more residents than two states, pays more federal taxes in 26 states and more per capita than any state.
▶ 0:46:27Instead of acting as a super city council, the congress should be considering D.C. statehood. Today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition. Speaker 11: Mr. chairman? Speaker 2: Mr. Mr. Mr. higgins. Speaker 11: thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:46:49I just wanted to thank you and the oversight staff for responding over the course of several days, allowing us to to correct some of the what we believe was, was, um, unintended consequences and the granular detail of this bill, we studied it very carefully and accommodations were allowed, um, intended to, to facilitate the, the administrative operation of the
▶ 0:47:21City of D.C. at the municipal level, uh, without, without, um, uncalled for interference by congress and the executive branch, while at the same time fully supporting the overall measure of conducting our, our constitutional responsibility as it relates to our nation's capital and the operation thereof.
▶ 0:47:49So, so we did make those adjustments. And I thank the chairman and the committee staff for, um, for accommodating those those conversations and arriving at a final product that I'm able to fully support and endorse, I yield. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes miss norton from washington, D.C. speaker 12: thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:48:20Chairman. I strongly oppose this radical, undemocratic, paternalistic and unworkable bill. This bill would be the biggest reduction in the district of columbia's authority to govern itself since congress passed the D.C. home rule act in 1973. This bill takes away dc's authority over its tax code, turning the D.C.
▶ 0:48:48Council into an advisory body for taxation. D.C. could not impose or increase or cut or eliminate a tax without congressional approval. I will repeat that for my republican colleagues. D.C. could not cut or eliminate a tax without congressional approval.
▶ 0:49:18In fact, the scope of this bill is much broader than republicans have claimed. This bill applies only to taxation only, only to taxation, but to all of title 47 of the D.C. code.
▶ 0:49:38That title has more than 50 chapters and encompasses not only taxation, but also licensing permits, assessments and fees, among other things. This bill flips the current congressional review process for D.C. law on its head. Currently, a D.C.
▶ 0:50:06Law takes effect after a review period. Unless this approval resolution is enacted into law during that period. This bill prohibits a D.C. law that imposes or increases a tax or fee or men's title 47 of the D.C. code from taking effect after 60 day period.
▶ 0:50:33Uh, unless approval resolution is enacted into law during the period. The only exception is that this bill does not apply to a D.C. law that imposes or increases a fee.
▶ 0:50:55If that fee is less than a $500 and the law does not impose or increase any other tax or fee, this congress. Republicans have introduced more than 130 bills, amendments and riders that interfere in local D.C.
▶ 0:51:20Matters, including a bill to repeal the home rule act. The. The 700,000 D.C. residents, majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. If D.C. residents do not like how members uh. Of the D.C. council vote, residents can vote them out of office. That is democracy. If D.C.
▶ 0:51:49Residents do not like how members of congress vote on local D.C. matters, uh, residents cannot vote them out of office. That is an and and and antithesis of democracy. D.C. residents have all the obligations of american citizenship, including paying all federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with selective service.
▶ 0:52:18Yet congress denies them full local government and voting representation in congress. The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. D.C. statehood. Congress has the authority to admit D.C. as a state. The D.C.
▶ 0:52:43Statehood bill will reduce the size of the federal district from 68mi to 2mi, consisting of the white house, the capitol, the supreme court and the national mall. The residential and commercial areas of D.C. would be a new state. I urge members to vote no on D.C. chairmen's bill three, D.C. I ask unanimous consent to enter the record, a letter of the D.C.
▶ 0:53:12Chairman opposing this bill. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the index of title 47 of the D.C. code, so that the committee committee is on notice that this bill applies to much more than D.C. law that imposes or increases a tax or fee. And I yield back. Speaker 2: without objection. So ordered.
▶ 0:53:41Uh, gentleman yields back. Before I recognize Mr. perry, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the a mac action in support of this bill. Statements from the taxpayers protection alliance supporting the bill, letter from the national taxpayers union supporting the bill, a letter from the independent women's voice supporting this bill and a letter from doordash supporting this bill. I got a lot. Doordash chair recognizes Mr. perry from pennsylvania.
▶ 0:54:11Speaker 9: thank you, Mr. chairman. Just remind everybody that D.C. is not only home to the great residents of washington, D.C. it's the nation's capital. And people from across the country come here because they have to they have to do business with the federal government. They don't have any option to vote for or vote against the people on the D.C. council that affect their lives and their business when they when they come here. Now, I'm an original co-sponsor of the bill, and so I support it.
▶ 0:54:40After watching the district subject its residents and visitors to years, years worth of petty fines, predatory fees and tax hikes, it's become necessary for congress to reluctantly intervene. Let's be clear in recognizing the district has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. They got a lot of money. Since 2015, the D.C. government has increased its revenue by 62%. But somehow the D.C.
▶ 0:55:07Council has also managed to maintain a $1.1 billion hole in its annual budget. We have watched the council withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars from its reserves, but it still attempts to collect millions in additional fines and dollars, with suspiciously sensitive automatic traffic cameras and other making money making schemes without residents approval.
▶ 0:55:30Residents of the district of columbia already have one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, but somehow the response to that is to implement a future traffic congestion. Congestion toll on hardworking residents, commuters and visitors. Visitors from across the nation who are already plagued with excess expenses throughout the 119th congress, this committee has managed to pass two of the bills I've offered with bipartisan support that stopped dc's predatory money making schemes.
▶ 0:56:00The bill that one of the bills I offered, 5525 that stop D.C. cameras act would ban the city's use of these highly unpopular, unpopular automated traffic cameras. Another bill 8801, the D.C. roads act, would preemptively prevent the district from implementing a traffic congestion toll in the future. D.C.
▶ 0:56:22By the way, has one of the worst traffic problems in the country, and that the fact that they don't allow a right turn on red or find you for that, I don't know what world D.C. is like. Are they living in the dark ages? I mean, if they want traffic to get better, let people use their discretion and be responsible for themselves. With D.C.
▶ 0:56:43Mayor elect janice lewis george already discussing plans for a new congestion toll upon taking office, the timeline is the time to act. Is is more critical than ever on the D.C. roads act. Fortunately, the $500 aggregate threshold in chairman comer's bill would successfully prohibit the city from ever implementing this burdensome idea without congress's approval.
▶ 0:57:08In tandem, all three pieces of legislation will help restore the district's fiscal sanity and prevent a new wave of unprecedented taxes and fees that we can expect to see in 2027. It is clear that the intent of congress here is to stop the district from preying upon its residents, nationwide, visitors and daily commuters alike. I urge adoption final passage, and I yield the balance. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back. Sheri biggs Mr. frost.
▶ 0:57:41Speaker 13: thank you so much, Mr. chairman. Um. I am in deep, deep opposition to this ill conceived and foolish bill. Um, listen, this was said already. This is the worst attack on home rule since the bill was passed in 1973. This bill would take control of D.C. s taxes, fees, budget. And so people know how this works. Currently, when D.C. city council passes a local tax or budget law, it will take effect unless congress steps in to stop it.
▶ 0:58:11This bill completely changes that. It would make it so. That way these bills don't take effect unless congress votes to approve them within 60 days. Seriously, we we can't even pass our own bills. Now, you want to add to that and pass the bills of D.C. you want to run the D.C. budget?
▶ 0:58:33Why don't we run our own budget instead of letting the president have the power of the purse and decide what happens in this country? This is one of the most unproductive congresses we've had in the history of this country. And I believe it. Of course, I'm against trampling on D.C.
▶ 0:58:51Home rule and local rule fully against that, but it's also just foolish to add to our plate when we can't even get our mass, must pass legislation across the finish line. It is foolish to add this. This bill would block changes that residents and businesses in D.C. need. Imagine that D.C. dcs budget makes changes to D.C. s rules around building permits. Congress would have to review and agree on those changes and move them forward.
▶ 0:59:21Federal actions that are just continuing to squeeze D.C. s budget cuts to health and food assistance have increased costs for residents last year due to doge, which doesn't exist now, thousands of D.C. workers lost their federal jobs and thousands more lost their private sector jobs due to the ripple effects. And last spring, let's not forget that congress forced D.C. to reduce its spending by more than $1 billion through changes to the cr. And.
▶ 0:59:46And many republicans even came up, and republican leadership even came out and said that was a mistake. This is the problem. And so I'm fully opposed to this legislation, and I would encourage my colleagues to maybe focus in on the things your own constituents want you to focus on, because I promise you, this bill is in the top first, second, third, fourth, fifth, not the top ten, top 20, top 30 priorities that our own constituents want us to focus
▶ 1:00:17On. Let D.C. be D.C. let them elect their leaders and let their leaders do what they want to do. And if you have a problem with it, if you have a problem with the turning on red or whatever it was said, pick up a clipboard, move to D.C. and run for the city council. And if you win, you can make a change there. I encourage all my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:00:41I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an annual economic assessment from the tax foundation entitled 2026 state tax competitive index, and this assessment ranks washington, D.C. tax code 48th least competitive compared to the 50 us states. Without objection. So ordered chair recognizes Mr. walkinshaw. Speaker 6: thank you, Mr. chairman. Financial devastation. That's the phrase you use to describe dc's budget.
▶ 1:01:10That is an apt phrase to describe what this republican majority has done to the federal budget. We're we're considering this week reconciliation bill number three. Let's go through them. Number one, blue, a $4.7 trillion hole in the federal budget. The deficit skyrocketed. The trillion dollar cut to health care reconciliation bill.
▶ 1:01:42Number two. Maybe you all don't think this is a lot of money, $72 billion deficit spending this week. We're looking at reconciliation bill number three to fund the failed war in iran, $95 billion. And we're hearing that there will be a reconciliation bill, number four. And finally, then the republicans will get around to reducing the deficit.
▶ 1:02:10Now, if you believe that, maybe Mr. perry and I would agree on this, if you believe the speaker, when he says, finally with number four, we'll get around to reducing the deficit. I got a bridge over the potomac. I'll sell you because it ain't going to happen. In addition to devastating the finances of our nation, you're devastating the finances of the american people. Gas prices, skyrocketing groceries, skyrocketing tariffs costing families money, the war raging as we speak.
▶ 1:02:39And you want to talk about dc? The district of columbia is legally required to balance its budget, and it will this year, as it has every year for decades. Mr. frost said it. Well, if you don't like dc's budget, its policies, tax policies, you can run for mayor or city council or anc commissioner.
▶ 1:03:09And some of my republican colleagues have been here in washington long enough. You're probably eligible. Speaker 2: okay, okay. All right. Speaker 6: until then. Okay. Maybe we should focus on getting our own financial house in order. So, Mr. chairman, I'm opposed to this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Speaker 11: Mr. gentleman, yield for a question, Mr. walkinshaw, before I yield back. Speaker 6: sure, sure. Speaker 11: we we look forward to your support.
▶ 1:03:37I can presume, for a balanced budget amendment when we bring that to the floor. Speaker 6: I'm looking forward to reconciliation. Number four, where you all promise you're finally going to get around to reducing the deficit. Speaker 11: number four. Speaker 6: I'm looking forward. I look forward to reviewing it. Speaker 11: do you support a balanced budget? Speaker 6: I look. Forward to reconciliation. Speaker 11: number four, I'm asking you right. Speaker 6: now, you finally get around to reducing. Speaker 11: support, a balanced budget amendment. Speaker 6: you have blown a $5 trillion hole in the debt. Speaker 11: we're bringing that bill to the floor.
▶ 1:04:07Speaker 6: my time, my time, Mr. chairman, to. Speaker 11: give you an opportunity. Speaker 6: reclaiming my time, Mr. chairman. I yield back yielded my time. Speaker 2: actually, everybody's time is expired. Speaker 6: thank you, Mr. chairman. Speaker 2: Mr. higgins, I support a balanced budget amendment. I'll vote for that. Speaker 11: thank you, Mr. chairman. So shall I. Speaker 2: uh, before I recognize Mr. lynch, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from the dc line entitled the dc council's election year budget panders and jeopardizes. Without objection.
▶ 1:04:36So ordered chair recognizes Mr. lynch. Speaker 8: thank you. I, I want to, first of all associate myself with the remarks of Mr. frost and Mr. walkinshaw. Uh, I think they've addressed the major issues I. I do want to point out here, first of all, you know, I am totally opposed to this this bill, it takes the the right of the the people of the district of columbia to actually govern themselves.
▶ 1:05:00Uh, and I, and I think they are entitled to that, especially, you know, I've been here long enough where, uh, you know, we were, we had deep concerns about the way, uh, the government in dc managed its affairs. But I have to say that in the past 20 years, uh, they have been, uh, aggressive in terms of getting their house in order and, uh, balancing that budget. And that was not always the case.
▶ 1:05:28So I, I think, uh, recent administrations of dc deserve some credit for that. And also I think the residents demanded it. I think, uh, you know, in terms of educating their children and. And managing the, the, the affairs of the district, they've done an excellent job.
▶ 1:05:48Uh, this bill, if you look at it closely, it, it requires that when the city council passes an ordinance or, uh, passes a licensing agreement or a permit makes an assessment, uh, in dealing with the, the regular operations of the district of columbia, they, they must after they pass it, they must sit and wait for 60 days, uh, to determine whether
▶ 1:06:18Or not congress will have the time or the interest to actually approve that resolution. So, uh, it's unworkable in what they're doing. You think about think about dc. We all spend at least 4 or 5 days a week here. These people like their protests, uh, you know, uh, you know, there's not a day that goes by that. And I only live, you know, several blocks from here.
▶ 1:06:41But, um, when you think about this government and, and, uh, this, this city is where people come to petition their federal government. Uh, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of events in this city every single year that require permitting, that require fees to be collected.
▶ 1:07:02Uh, and because there are costs to this city, because it is the, the center of federal government and people from all over the country come here. And in a very real way, the people of dc have to pick up the tab for that, uh, with their police and, and first responders and their city council has to review these.
▶ 1:07:26And the city government itself has to review these permits and licensing requests and assessments and fees for the daily operation of this city. And, uh, if they have to wait, you have to wait 60 days after every single request for a permit or a fee or a petition to actually hold a protest here or, or some other activity in order that american citizens can exercise their right to petition their government.
▶ 1:07:55This is not helpful. This is not helpful. So, uh, and I, again, I, I do go back to Mr. frost's comments about is congress really doing such a great job with our own responsibilities that we face every single day that have a federal impact that we can we can now jettison those or put those off to the side while we manage the parades and protests and
▶ 1:08:26Licensing requests and permits and fees, uh, that that should be handled by, by the government of the district of columbia. So, uh, this, this is wacky. This, this whole idea that, that, that congress is now going to become, you know, the de facto, uh, washington dc city council. That's what, that's what this proposes here.
▶ 1:08:48And we aren't doing such a great job at our own, our own jobs, the ones that we ran for, uh, never mind taking on the responsibilities that should rightly lie with the washington, dc city council and its own government. So, uh, with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Speaker 2: gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:09:08I ask you consent to enter into the record the following article from the washington post entitled dc's economy shrank by 8.3% in the fourth quarter. Without objection. So ordered. The washington post. Uh. Yes, ma'am. Speaker 14: all right. Well, good morning everyone. I'm actually quite sad that, uh, Mr.
▶ 1:09:37Perry has stepped out of the room because the exact quote that he said was, D.C. has a spending problem, which I do find quite preposterous. The day that we are actually going to vote on a budget resolution to blow another $95 billion hole through the federal deficit. So I did want to ask Mr. perry about that and how he plans to vote. But unfortunately, he stepped out of the room.
▶ 1:10:02But I do think this is a good time to maybe pull back the curtain a little bit, Mr. chairman, and I would love to have a little colloquy or debate with you, just to understand where this bill came from, because what I find peculiar, I'm always interested, as a former staffer, uh, when you see bills like this that are sponsored by somebody who's not from the area that they represent, and the leadership of the committee are the co-sponsors of it.
▶ 1:10:30And there's 21 co-sponsors from this committee, the vast majority of which are from across the country. That usually indicates that these bills are are being asked to be carried by the leadership by somebody else. So, Mr. comer, where did this bill come from? Speaker 2: well, this is consistent with what we've tried to do successfully. Uh, the last time we had a budget review bill was to undo the dc excessive criminal justice legislation that the D.C. council passed. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:10:59Raskin raised teetotal. Heck, most of the democrats on the committee. I think all the democrats on the committee voted against it. Can I ask the floor? It passed the senate and joe biden signed it into law. Speaker 14: so my. Speaker 2: question but you one other thing. Speaker 14: no, no, hold on a second. Let me ask you the real question. I really want to know, did this spring from your mind like I like. So just let me ask. The bill basically says that any D.C. law that creates a new tax or fee, like any law that D.C.
▶ 1:11:28Passes, could not take effect until congress votes on it. Was that your idea? Speaker 2: we all have. Speaker 14: your idea, Mr. comer. Speaker 2: who's whose idea do you think it would be? I mean. Speaker 14: I don't know, that's. Speaker 2: why I'm here. We spend half our hat at least half our time here. This is this is where we work. But I'm. I've spent three nights in a row, but. Speaker 14: so. Okay, uh, you're in local law enforcement right before you came here. Speaker 2: I'm with what? Speaker 14: weren't you in local law enforcement before you came to serve in congress?
▶ 1:11:59Speaker 2: no, no. Speaker 14: oh, I. Speaker 2: thought you'd be Mr. higgins. Speaker 14: no. Oh, okay. What did. But you did something in local government before you came here. Speaker 2: I was a state representative and commissioner of agriculture. Speaker 14: okay, so you worked in state government. Can you imagine? Speaker 2: I'm a farmer. That's if you ask, what am I doing? I'm a farmer. Speaker 14: okay. Even better. Speaker 2: there you go. Speaker 14: um, okay. So as a former state official, just think about this from the business perspective and the way this bill is drafted.
▶ 1:12:23If you had to have every single decision that you made about bringing in revenue and spending, go through washington, dc, would you approve that? Speaker 2: there's a real concern with the dc council and the socialism and the a cry from the people of washington, dc budget approved, that. What do you think the state of kentucky should have to come to congress to get their state budget?
▶ 1:12:49Speaker 2: the state of kentucky and and federal delegation need to have communication so we can work together. Speaker 14: can you imagine having to go through congress to get your tax and revenue for the state of kentucky approved? Speaker 2: well, there's things that we have to work with on a daily basis. I mean, you act like there's no communication. I don't know if the new mexico people don't communicate with you, but we communicate with the kentucky. Speaker 14: I would never ask the state of new mexico to have to go through washington, dc to get their budget approved, because we have sovereignty.
▶ 1:13:19Speaker 11: so you don't. Speaker 2: communicate back and forth with new mexico on state and federal issues at all. Speaker 14: we don't ask them to have their state budget approved by washington, dc and congress. Speaker 2: uh, you know. Speaker 14: is that what you're I know you're going to run for governor soon. Is that what you would. Speaker 2: advocate for? Budget involves medicare, medicaid. I mean, that that's a big whether you like it or not, a big part of the new mexico state budget. Speaker 14: but that is not. Do you believe in states rights? Speaker 2: I do believe in states rights.
▶ 1:13:48Speaker 14: well, then why do you not support the sovereignty and independence of dc to make its own budgetary decisions. Speaker 2: a state. And it's it's we have legislative jurisdiction over washington dc. We don't want to see more economic decline in this city as a result of a socialist takeover of this city with more taxes. Speaker 14: okay. Well, let me ask you one last time. Would you like to tell the good people of washington, dc, where this bill came from? Did you write it?
▶ 1:14:19Speaker 2: have filed this bill? Speaker 14: did you personally vote against it? Speaker 2: like you, you. Speaker 14: voted. You write it. Speaker 2: did I. Speaker 14: did you write. Speaker 2: the bill? We have bill drafters that write the bill. Speaker 14: but where did the bill come from? And why is all of. Speaker 2: your theory? What's your conspiracy theory? Speaker 14: I don't have a I just want to know. The people are here. For here. This is a public hearing. So we want to know where the bill. Speaker 2: where do you think it came. I, I have no idea what you're. Speaker 14: why I'm asking. Speaker 2: you, I I'm curious. I mean. Speaker 14: can you just answer the question.
▶ 1:14:49Speaker 11: like a question from a third grader? Did you write the bill? Speaker 14: I'm sorry, sir, you're not recognized. Speaker 11: it's a collaborative effort. You know it. Let let. Speaker 14: me just say this. I think it's. Obvious this bill was not written by the people of dc. And I think it's obvious that you're trying to make this happen without their consent. Speaker 15: all right. Speaker 2: chair recognizes anybody seek recognition, Mr. palmer. Speaker 7: I will be happy to answer the question.
▶ 1:15:16Article one, section eight, clause 17 gives congress absolute authority over the district of columbia. It was set up that way, james madison wrote in federalist 43. Federal government must have absolute authority over its own seat of government to ensure its security and operational integrity. That's the issue. The operational integrity of the district of columbia. You do not have states rights. It was never intended for district of columbia to have states rights.
▶ 1:15:44Uh, so in terms of, of congress, uh, congress has absolute authority in all cases whatsoever, but also, uh, add that the communist wing of the democratic party that is threatening to take over the democratic party wants to eliminate the senate. They want to eliminate the presidency, and they really want to eliminate the constitution. To raise a question about whether or not we have authority here, Mr.
▶ 1:16:14Chairman, the house is not the committee is not in order. Speaker 2: please. Speaker 7: you will refrain. Uh, I like to start the clock again, sir. Speaker 2: yes, sir. Speaker 7: we have the responsibility. The question was raised, or the point was made to Mr. perry that he should run for the D.C. city council. That would be a reduction in authority. Congress has ultimate authority over the district of columbia.
▶ 1:16:41In terms of the whole issue of spending. Uh, I just want to they raised the issue about doge and what we're trying to do to make the federal government more effective, more efficient, and less expensive during the clinton administration had the national partnership for reinventing government. I don't know how many of you people in here realize this.
▶ 1:17:00There are a few members of the democratic party that are still in office that were in office then, but there were 426,000 federal jobs eliminated by the clinton administration. Uh, 13 of 14 federal departments were impacted. They saved $136 billion. They closed 2000/2000 field offices and eliminated 250 programs. I thought that was a great start.
▶ 1:17:27Uh, full disclosure, when I ran a think tank, I was invited by the clinton administration to come up to make recommendations in terms of deficit spending, the biden administration set a record $8.4 trillion. So when you talk about authority, it rests in the constitution. Every member of congress took an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. All of it. Not part of it.
▶ 1:17:56Not the parts that you like, not the you can't disregard the parts you don't like. So what we're trying to do is make washington, D.C. a successful city. It's not a successful city. I mean, I remember, uh, marion barry, the former mayor, said if it weren't for the murders, washington's crime rate wouldn't be so bad. That's an embarrassment.
▶ 1:18:18So what we're trying to do is make this a livable city, a place where families can prosper, where businesses can prosper, where people can walk the streets in safety. We're trying to right size the federal government. That effort is not over by a long shot. So my democratic colleagues can say whatever they want to. Uh, they're scared to death about the communist wing of the party that might take their seat, as some of them have already lost their seats.
▶ 1:18:45I'm afraid of that, too. I do not want to see us lose our constitution. I don't want to see anyone lose their constitutional rights. I don't want a government so stinkin big that it can tell you what you can have and what you can't have. That's what this is about. You have full authority, Mr. chairman, to have the bill written. We, every member of congress uses legislative reference to write bills.
▶ 1:19:10We don't sit down and write the bills ourselves because most of us, uh, particularly someone like me, I don't have a law degree. I worked in engineering. I'm more about solving a problem. We have people who have expertise in that to write bills. So it's an absurd argument to make. But I want to reiterate, sir. Speaker 8: please. We'll have order if anyone continues. Unnecessary outburst. We're going to ask you to leave.
▶ 1:19:40Speaker 13: you might not like what I've just laid out, but it is the constitution. You can read it for yourself. I'm tempted to ask that the constitution be entered into the record, but I know most of the people on the other side of the aisle won't read it. I yield back. Speaker 8: gentleman yields back. Uh, chair, recognize any other member? Seek recognition. Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed say no. In the chair.
▶ 1:20:09The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favor of reporting h.r. 9720, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair. The chair recognizes. Mr. higgins. Speaker 3: Mr. chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. Speaker 8: a recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r. 9725. The.
▶ 1:20:39Restoring integrity and efficiency to inspector general oversight act of 2025. The clerk please designate the bill. Speaker 9: h.r. 9725, the restoring integrity and efficiency to inspector general oversight act of 2025. Without objection. Amend. Speaker 8: oh. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Speaker 9: title five, united states code to abolish the council of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency and for other purposes. Speaker 8: without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment. Without objection. So ordered, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment. The nature of substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 1:21:08Speaker 9: an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 9725 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. Speaker 8: without objection, the matter is considered as. Read and substitute be considered as original text nowe sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from louisiana, Mr. higgins. Speaker 3: thank you, Mr. chairman. We've been working on this bill for a long time because she has been a serious problem and focus of concern. Let me set the stage for this, for the american people.
▶ 1:21:37And then during the course of debate, I'm happy to answer all questions. The council of inspectors general for integrity and efficiency, referred to as cigi cigie, is an independent entity within the executive branch. Siggy's membership consists of more or less 75 inspectors general, some of whom are appointed by the president with senate confirmation.
▶ 1:22:07Uh, but the majority of siggy's members are appointed by heads of executive branch agencies, the heads of entities in the legislative branch or the in some cases, a private citizens appointed by the leaders of government chartered corporations. The members of cigi elect one member to serve as chairperson. So cigi as a whole maybe was born of.
▶ 1:22:34Of good intentions, but it has operated and come to be recognized clearly as a rogue government, politicized and all too frequently weaponized government entity now within cigi exists was called an integrity committee.
▶ 1:22:58The integrity committee consists of four inspectors, generals chosen by the chairperson of cigi, a designee from the f, b, I and a designate from the office of government ethics. The members of the integrity committee elect one member to serve as chairperson.
▶ 1:23:17So you have cigi as an overall entity, and then within cigi you have the star chamber of the integrity committee, the cgt cigi and the integrity committee have operated in in manners contrary to the constitution for a long time.
▶ 1:23:39The integrity committee's investigations into inspector generals or employee of inspector generals in his or her personal capacity. Quote unquote, is inconsistent with long established legal principles.
▶ 1:23:58Integrity committees improperly shifts the burden of proof to the respondent, which is essentially the opposite of our long standing criminal justice procedures. The integrity committee's access rule regarding evidence and review of data is invalid. Cigi and the integrity committee have historically been biased.
▶ 1:24:27Actors with a partizan alignment. The integrity committee has acted against the legal interest of the united states, even interfering with litigation before an adjudicator with exclusive jurisdiction integrity committee has abused its authority by obtaining privileged information.
▶ 1:24:47Listen to this america by compulsion and then disclosing that information outside the executive branch without consent or court allowance. The integrity committee has unlawfully expanded its jurisdiction by examining an inspector general's actions as a private citizen far outside its original parameters for the
▶ 1:25:18Past five years, Mr. chairman, the house oversight committee has raised bipartisan concerns regarding the failures of the integrity committee to effectively manage misconduct allegations in a transparent manner with congress and recent findings of the government accountability office documented significant failures in how cigi I.
▶ 1:25:43C reviews and investigates complaints against igs and their staff, which calls into question siga's ability to effectively conduct investigations into misconduct and wrongdoing. Continued failures and abuses by cigi and the integrity committee.
▶ 1:26:04The star chamber within cigi have shown the inspectors general cannot be trusted to investigate wrongdoing within their own ranks, and therefore it's necessary to end cigi and integrity committee transferring sergey's core functions to the appropriate authorities within the federal government that conduct criminal investigations in a fair and unbiased manner. Mr.
▶ 1:26:34Chairman, I look forward to what will no doubt be a vigorous debate of this bill. I urge its support from both sides, and I yield. Speaker 8: thank you. Gentlemen. Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. garcia, for his statement. Speaker 10: thank you, Mr. chairman. And of course, with with respect to Mr. higgins, who I know has been working on this issue, I just want to note that we strongly oppose this effort.
▶ 1:26:58Uh, the restoring integrity and efficiency to inspector general oversight act, we believe, is an effort to weaken nonpartisan inspector generals and make it easier for the trump administration's corruption to spread across government. Now, the council of inspectors general on integrity and efficiency is an independent oversight body created by congress in 2008 with strong bipartisan support supported by both republicans and democrats, which performs important functions for the oversight community.
▶ 1:27:26Responsibility is to conduct oversight work, promote accountability within the inspector general community, and develop training and quality standards. Cgy provides critical background support for 28 offices of inspector generals across the federal government. It helps all of these ig offices in different agencies find and fight waste, fraud and abuse. Now, limiting cg we don't believe actually helps the public. It enables more corruption throughout every agency at a time. Of course, where corruption in government is at an all time high.
▶ 1:27:55I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back. Speaker 8: gentleman yields back. Any other member seek recognition on the bill? Mr. walkinshaw? Speaker 12: thank you, Mr. chairman. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following letters in opposition to h.r. 9725, which would abolish sigi. First, a letter from 15 former inspectors general. Second, a letter from former inspector general of the department of homeland security, john roth.
▶ 1:28:24Third, a letter from project on government oversight. And fourth, a letter from citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington or crew. The government accountability project or gap project on government oversight, pogo protect democracy, public citizen and public employees for environmental responsibility. Speaker 8: without objection to order. Speaker 12: thank you, Mr. chairman. And I think the ranking member did a good job of outlining concerns that I share. I will just share one paragraph from Mr.
▶ 1:28:53Roth's letter that my republican colleagues might be interested in. He writes, for example, in 2015, during the obama administration. That's my word. Obama administration, the department of justice's office of legal counsel issued a legal opinion that cut back on the authority of igs to get information from their agencies to conduct audits. Siggi discussed the situation and its impact on oversight.
▶ 1:29:15Ultimately, siggi sponsored a letter signed by more than 45 inspectors general that notified this committee and other congressional committees of the issue. This ultimately resulted in this committee sponsoring and congress passing the ig empowerment act of 2016 to clarify and reinstate the authority of igs to receive information. The chair and ranking member of this committee stated, were pleased to see this bill become a reality.
▶ 1:29:40This bipartisan legislation will help inspectors general root out waste, fraud and abuse, and it will pave the way toward greater openness and transparency in government. So during the obama administration, siggi identified that the obama department of justice was restricting the ability of igs to get information and conduct their audits to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Because they have a degree of independence.
▶ 1:30:06They were able to alert this committee, democrats and republicans in this committee in a bipartisan way was able to address it. If this legislation passes, abolishing siggi. Something like that will never happen, whether it's in this trump administration or a future democratic administration. And that is the strength of siggi.
▶ 1:30:29And I think it's important to point out that, as we have had in this committee hearing, after hearing from my republican colleagues claiming that combating fraud is their top priority, they turn a blind eye to donald trump trading stocks, selling access to insider information, accepting lavish gifts, ripping off his supporters with digital schemes, sending taxpayer dollars to fund his son's tungsten mine in
▶ 1:31:02Kazakhstan, contracting fraud at dhs, waste, fraud and abuse in agency after agency. And as that is occurring, we have this bill to eliminate an entity that, across multiple administrations, democrats and republicans, has worked effectively to help inspectors general root out waste, fraud and abuse.
▶ 1:31:31I think the american people should ask why? Why this effort to kneecap the people whose job it is to drain the swamp? Because the swamp is getting deeper and deeper and smellier and smellier in this congress doesn't want to look at it. And that's what this bill is about, I yield back. Speaker 8: chairman sessions. Speaker 2: Mr. chairman, thank you very much.
▶ 1:31:58I do appreciate the gentleman for his thoughtfulness about aiming his comments at president trump, but this committee dealt with president biden and his son. Cocaine trips, all sorts of things.
▶ 1:32:16And that administration did everything that they could do to hide the truth, including the laptop and a lot of other things in this committee invested a lot of time and effort.
▶ 1:32:29I welcome the gentleman to go after all that that he wants, but simply to sit here and try and show that this is something that we should be doing, as opposed to the trillions of dollars that got away from the taxpayer during president biden's four years, is what we are on and what we will stay after.
▶ 1:32:56The gentleman knows that he's been involved in my hearings, he knows that that is a far more importance to this committee and to me. And so I think that what we're trying to do here is keep the issue directly ahead of us. I don't have to agree with the gentleman, Mr. higgins, but I do work with him. I don't have to agree with you, but I do work with you.
▶ 1:33:20And I just want you to know $2 trillion is what this effort is about. From this, the committee and at least my subcommittee. Mr. chairman, I'd like to yield the remaining time. The distinguished gentleman from louisiana. Speaker 16: Mr. higgins. Speaker 3: I thank my friend for yielding. I would presume that because it's my nature, I would presume. Goodness from both sides of the aisle here.
▶ 1:33:51Excellence of intent. The. The foundational methodology of cigi shifts the burden of proof in an investigation to the accused.
▶ 1:34:13This is the opposite, my fellow americans, from the long standing uniqueness of the american criminal justice system, which states that the accused need not prove his or her innocence. The accuser, whether it's a criminal, civil or civil service proceeding, it's.
▶ 1:34:41It's the burden of proof lies in the prosecution. We don't have to prove our innocence in america. Prosecutors have to prove our guilt. That's what makes our system so unique in the history of mankind. A criminal justice system, as I've just described, has not existed. But cigi reverses that. We have.
▶ 1:35:09We, we we built this government entity. Again, in deference to my colleagues prior from prior congresses, established cigi, perhaps with the best of intentions, but we have empowered them to create themselves into a monster. And this is what they have become.
▶ 1:35:35When the burden of proof requires a respondent in an inquiry to produce an explanation and evidence within 20 days, that no reasonable person could find that the respondent committed the misconduct that has been alleged. This is the complete reversal of our long standing criminal justice procedures.
▶ 1:36:03Now, the the integrity committee shifting that burden is reflective of the way it operates. Cigi conducts itself in a biased, targeted, weaponized manner. This is what we have. We have a duty to oppose. We have long identified it.
▶ 1:36:27We have we've had dozens and dozens of official interactions, hearings, uh, investigative endeavors through this committee, through various offices of members that serve upon this investigative committee, the oversight committee of congress. We've long established that cigi is rogue. It's biased. It's making its own rules.
▶ 1:36:51It's operated as a weaponized government entity against both parties. It should be abolished. That's what this bill does, and I thank the gentleman for yielding his time. I yield back. Speaker 8: gentleman yields back. Mr. stansberry. Speaker 6: all right. Well, as per usual, I have no idea what my colleagues across the aisle are talking about, because let's talk about what inspector generals actually are.
▶ 1:37:21But I just want to state affirmatively that it is very clear that this administration and unfortunately, their allies in congress have a real problem with corruption and accountability because the entities, the nonpartisan entities that are the watchdogs for the american taxpayers, are the inspectors general.
▶ 1:37:45And if you recall, last year in january, the president of the united states fired 17 inspectors general on one day. Now, what is an inspector general? An inspector general sits at an agency and their job is to investigate waste, fraud and abuse.
▶ 1:38:08Their job is to audit the books of agencies and make sure that they're not wasting taxpayer dollars and engaging in fraudulent behavior. They review and investigate unethical behavior, and then they publish all of that publicly.
▶ 1:38:26Now there is a council that sets standards, which is what is trying to be gutted today to make sure that it remains nonpartisan, to make sure that the inspector generals have general guidelines on how to operate, and that maintains the ethical oversight of the inspectors general. So I just want to you know, the american people are smart.
▶ 1:38:54The american people get when nefarious things are going on. Since last year, this administration has now removed 21 inspector generals. Now, they want to make you think that they created doge and that they're investigating waste, fraud and abuse. But all of that is a front, because doge is dead.
▶ 1:39:20Elon musk and the president admitted it didn't accomplish its goals. The president himself asked if it was a bunch of bull. I won't say the word, but he said it and they fired all of the officials who actually investigate waste, fraud and abuse. And this bill is to gut the council that sets the nonpartisan guidelines and ethical procedures for how that is done.
▶ 1:39:49Now, let me ask the american people, does that seem sketchy as hell to all of you? Because it sure seems sketchy as hell to me. And that is why myself and the democrats on this committee oppose this bill, oppose the firing of the inspector general's support, the nonpartisan federal officials who actually do this work day in and day out inside our federal agencies, even as they have been under attack by this administration every day.
▶ 1:40:22And I just want to say, the hypocrisy, if you are so concerned about waste, fraud and abuse, there is a vote today on the floor for a reconciliation bill that the president has asked the republicans to pass. They would give a $95 billion blank check to the white house to continue to fund an illegal war in the middle east.
▶ 1:40:49If you are so concerned about waste, fraud and abuse, why are you not investigating why the president is repeatedly coming to congress and asking for blank checks for the military, blank checks to terrorize our communities, blank checks to take away fundamental protections for food, for housing?
▶ 1:41:14If you really cared about waste, fraud, and abuse, why are you not investigating the waste, fraud, and abuse in chief? Sitting in the white house who literally filed a financial disclosure just a couple of weeks ago, saying that he made $2 billion off of the presidency while tearing apart our country and taking basically bribes through money laundering schemes, tearing apart our federal government.
▶ 1:41:44What is this actually about? Why would you dismantle the oversight bodies that look into waste, fraud and abuse, maintain ethical standards and audit federal behavior? The american people are smart. I think they can see what's going on. I yield. Speaker 8: back, gentlelady yields back. When I became chairman of the oversight committee, I was really excited about the opportunity to work with the inspector general.
▶ 1:42:13I believe in the concept, but the biggest disappointment over the last four years have been the igs and their lack of investigative curiosity, their lack of production, I mean, their igs that we haven't even heard from the entire four years I've been here. I think the igs have gotten a little bit like the pbms. They were created with good intentions, but they fallen victim to just.
▶ 1:42:48Mediocrity. And one of the most baffling federal entities has been the council of inspector general on integrity and efficiency, or sigue sigue. Sigue was created to coordinate cross-agency investigations, provide support for igs and share best practices to help ig officers root out waste, fraud and abuse. We all supported the concept, but cg has ballooned into bureaucratic mess that seeks to expand its power rather than do the job. It was created to do.
▶ 1:43:18Some igs have shared frustrations with being unable to get the assistance they need to investigate waste in their agencies. I know that was the case with several igs we've had in front of this committee, while others have shared that cig has tried to get overly involved in their investigation. Cig by statute has also been tasked with overseeing the integrity committee, the committee that reviews wrongdoing by inspectors general and their senior staff. Rather than ensuring the ig community is above reproach.
▶ 1:43:46The integrity committee has conducted politicized investigations and refused to be transparent with congress. I see miss stansbury left further. The I see is consistently blown past the deadlines for conducting investigations required by law, in some cases by as much as four years. This is simply unacceptable and sadly, evidence of the larger problems within segi. Segi has lost congress and the public's trust. That's why I support this bill, because I believe it's time to end the integrity committee.
▶ 1:44:15And transferring city's core functions is a good start to restoring trust in the ig community. Well, I've been explaining the problems with the with the igs and the lack of trust in city. This has become a bureaucratic mess. I compare it to the pbms. I want strong igs, but we've got igs that just aren't doing a good job and it's it's very frustrating. It's been a big disappointment and I appreciate the sponsor of the bill. Mr.
▶ 1:44:46Higgins has been a champion of this for several years. And, uh, you know, I hope that we can get some. Create a situation where we have independent igs that actually do something that don't work from home and, and take years and years and years to get something done. I mean, we've got all I'll use the post office as an example. We got everyone in here agrees. The post office is is a disaster.
▶ 1:45:16It's been a disaster for several years. And the ig, the postal ig was in the office and they're they're all the things that I would think we would agree that you should look at. They're studying. I think it was austria, how austria operates their postal service. I mean, give me a break. We've got to have some, uh. Some reform within this.
▶ 1:45:44And I think that this is just the city's created a bureaucracy that's just in the way kind of like the pbms do with the with the pharmaceutical drugs now. So I strongly encourage everyone to support this bill. And I appreciate the sponsor. Mr. higgins. Speaker 6: Mr. chairman, I want to yield and discuss since, you know. Okay, well, I came back. Speaker 8: we come in. Speaker 6: no, no. But you you you noted that I wasn't here, so I came back. Thank you, I. Appreciate it. Conversation.
▶ 1:46:15Speaker 8: alright. Would you like I hope you learned something. Speaker 6: so I learned that you all don't want to support accountability in the government. Speaker 8: no, not really. I, I, I think I, I do like, I appreciate you, miss stansbury, and I think you're a good member. Um, but the solution to every problem seems like from me on your side is create another bureaucracy, hire some more people, get, you know, uh, increase the, the, the bureaucracy. And it may sound good. It's just not working.
▶ 1:46:46Speaker 6: it's just I'm, I'm anti firing the cops who actually investigate fraud and crime. Speaker 8: I would, I would argue that, uh, there's not a lot of fraud being investigated and there hasn't been for several years. There's you're right, government is rife with fraud. And I don't agree. I don't disagree with a lot of of what you're saying. I just think we've got to beef up the ig operations. It's got bureaucratic and sig is part of the problem. So, uh, my time is expired.
▶ 1:47:14Any other member seek recognition? Speaker 17: Mr. chairman, I was going to ask you to be a time, but. Speaker 8: I'll yield. I've. It says I've got 45 seconds. I'll yield back to you then. Speaker 17: insufficient. But let me say. Speaker 3: it's it's not enough time.
▶ 1:47:30But let me say that I've never mentioned waste, fraud, abuse and theft in this in this debate today, I'm talking about fundamentally biased criminal justice procedure and weaponized prosecution coming out of cigie and the integrity committee, the star chamber within cigie is politicized. It's weaponized. It's it's behavior.
▶ 1:47:59Rogue behavior is long standing and proven, and it must be abolished, I yield. Speaker 8: gentleman yields back. Any other member seek recognition? Seeing none. The question is on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed say no. In the opinion. The chair the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favorably reporting h.r. 9725, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. What purpose?
▶ 1:48:29No. Speaker 12: Mr. chairman, ask for a recorded vote. Speaker 8: recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r. 9643, the community integrity and management act. The clerk will please designate the bill. Speaker 9: h.r. 9643 the comment, integrity and management act a bill to amend section 206 of the e-government act of 2002 to improve the integrity and management of mass comments and computer generated comments in the regulatory review process and for other purposes.
▶ 1:49:00Speaker 8: without objection, the bill should be considered as an open for a minute, any point without objection. So ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment. The nature of. Substitute the clerk. Please indicate the amendment. Speaker 9: amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 9643 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. Speaker 8: without objection the man is considered as read. This will be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. higgins from louisiana, for an opening statement. Speaker 3: thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:49:25This bill amend section 206 of the e-government act of 2002 to improve the management of electronic comments submitted during agency rulemaking. This is just crucial. We came to recognize this. Ladies and gentlemen, americans watching a few years ago. And this was before ai. Ai is a more recent phenomena, but a few years ago we.
▶ 1:49:53We started noting that during the the public comment time frame of government projects where it's. It's our responsibility to, to listen to legitimate comment from we the people and, and the, the impacted citizenry or that citizenry that have an opinion on a government project have every right to to register
▶ 1:50:24Their comment and their opinion on that project. And as a period of time that those comments are to be collected. So we started noting a few years ago that there seemed to be repetitive comments that were identical. And this was in the height of the of the digital age and the social media, uh, growth.
▶ 1:50:46And we found that many these comments were from was coming from false profiles. It was like one guy creating many emails and sending the same comments. What this does, it compromises the integrity of the comment collection that should truly be considered based upon its actual, um, its actual numbers and intent.
▶ 1:51:16So bottom line, without getting into the, the complex details of this bill, it requires some modicum of verification that a comment is coming from an actual human being and, and whereby the evaluation of those comments will more truly reflect the will of we the people. That's the bill in a nutshell. Mister.
▶ 1:51:49Mister chairman, uh, we've been working on it for a long time. We have made we have made amendments to the language in this congress to address concerns of the minority, which I appreciated that feedback and corroboration. We have included, uh, considerations for ai.
▶ 1:52:07For instance, if if if an american or a citizen or a human being, an actual human being, posting a comment uses ai to help draft their comment. And yet the comment is actually born of, of an, an existing citizen or human being. Then then that should be allowed.
▶ 1:52:34So we've, we've made we've made adjustments to this bill in the effort to, uh, to pursue the true intention of the bill, which is to restore full integrity and accuracy to, to comments during the comment window for government project so that so that we can effectively evaluate the will of we the people.
▶ 1:53:01So we, we have done our best to accommodate the concerns of the minority. I appreciate their input. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill. I appreciate the chairman for bringing this bill to markup, and I yield. Speaker 8: gentleman yields back. Chair james walkinshaw. Speaker 12: thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:53:22Chairman, and I appreciate the gentleman's work on this as as he noted, technology has made it easier for the public to comment on proposed agency rules and that increased public participation is a good thing. It's a great thing. But there have been in recent high profile rulemakings agencies receiving a very, very, very high number of repeat comments, which obviously creates challenges for agencies to get an accurate view of the public's perspective on a rule.
▶ 1:53:49And this bill is designed to help agencies manage mass comments and computer generated comments submitted in response to proposed rules, and I appreciate the gentleman working with the minority. Unfortunately, we still have some concerns that we hope could be addressed. The bill fails to differentiate fully between spam comments and comments developed by a human being, with the assistance of an ai tool.
▶ 1:54:14And look, people and businesses all over the country have already adopted ai to make their lives and their work more efficient and effective, and the public shouldn't be penalized for using these support functions. And we continue to have concerns as well about how the trump administration would implement this particular piece of legislation, given some actions they've taken to limit public comments.
▶ 1:54:40And while we'd be open to supporting the bill, uh, the concerns, these concerns need to be addressed and would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Mr. higgins and the other side, uh, to make improvements to the bill. So at this point, I have to urge my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back. Speaker 8: gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for five minutes, and I yield my time to Mr. higgins. Speaker 3: I thank the chairman, and I appreciate the ranking members.
▶ 1:55:08Um, consideration of the bill and his kind words regarding working with me. I would just clarify for the record that the concerns of the minority were presented to me prior to this markup within given time, um, for us to, to consider the concerns of the minority. And I communicated clearly that I would support an amendment.
▶ 1:55:37I thought it was it, it, it seemed to me it was a thoughtful, a thoughtful suggestion from the minority regarding the allowance of ai as an assist mechanism for any citizen making their own individual comment on a government project, I communicated to the minority officially and clearly that I felt that that was a thoughtful
▶ 1:56:08Suggestion. And if they would present that at amendment, I would thank them for that amendment. I would support that amendment. And ultimately, that amendment would be included in this bill. However, this the way this town works, america, they pulled the amendment because they want to oppose my bill.
▶ 1:56:31They want to oppose a republican's bill that restores integrity and and truthful count to the comments of a government project. Who would oppose that? So they had a concern. They voiced it, they communicated it properly and professionally. My staff delivered it to me, I considered it. I said, you know what, that's a that's a thoughtful suggestion.
▶ 1:57:00Have them draft an amendment reflective of this concern. I will support that amendment and markup. It will pass, and it will be included in the legislation. And I've been advised since last night and today that they've made a decision, a minority. Now we're pulling that amendment. We're just going to oppose the bill. Speaker 12: the gentleman yield. Speaker 3: I yield. Speaker 12: uh, thank you, Mr. higgins. And, you know, it sounds like.
▶ 1:57:30Speaker 3: it's actually not my time. I yield back to the chairman. Speaker 8: I yield back to. Speaker 12: and he'll yield to me. Speaker 3: yeah. All right. I'm happy to yield for a question to the gentleman of the time that's been yielded to me by the chairman. Speaker 8: it's higgins time. Speaker 12: yeah. It sounds like in conversation with staff from both sides, there still needs to be a little bit of work in dialog on that, and certainly would be very happy to work with you before this bill gets to the rules committee or the floor to to try to make sure we can.
▶ 1:57:58Speaker 3: that, good sir, is a reasonable suggestion and I accept it. Speaker 12: alright. Thank you sir. Speaker 8: see, we get along great. This committee, despite what they put on tiktok and everything else. So very good. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment. Speaker 3: the chairman it's unanimous consent. Speaker 8: yes, sir. Yes, sir. I recognize.
▶ 1:58:24Speaker 3: your unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the administrative conference of the united states on its recommendations that align with my bill, h.r. 9643. Speaker 8: without objection. So ordered. The question is now on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. In the chair. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favor of reporting h.r. 9643, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
▶ 1:58:52All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is. Chairman, Mr. higgins. Speaker 3: recorded vote, sir. Speaker 8: uh, recorded vote is ordered by Mr. higgins. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed pursuant to the previous order. The chair declares the committee in recess. Subject to the call of the chair, we will plan to reconvene at 115 sharp. The committee stands in recess.
▶ 3:33:23If we could please have order in here. Uh, before we begin the the mark, the actual mark up. I'd like to welcome our newest member to the oversight committee, representative christian menefee from texas. Uh, we're glad to have him on the committee. And I'm going to yield to ranking member garcia to to welcome representative menefee. Speaker 2: uh, thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:33:44I wanted to also just welcome our newest member of the committee, representative christian menefee, uh, new to the committee, but has already been in congress and doing the work and has already been working extremely hard on issues that relate to oversight and for his district. And of course, we know that he is incredible in his experience and brings with enormous knowledge as an attorney. He's a fighter, he's in a local government leader, and of course, he'll be a great champion on oversight. We're fortunate to have christian.
▶ 3:34:12I think we've all gotten to know him in this congress so far, and we want to welcome him to the committee, but also to oversight democrats. And so congratulations, uh, christian, and welcome to oversight. Speaker 1: all right. Speaker 3: Mr. chairman, Mr. chairman. Mr. chairman, why don't we yield about 8 or 9 seconds to him to let him tell us his life story? But you weren't recognized yet.
▶ 3:34:41Hang on the chair. Speaker 1: uh, we'll give him 10s. How about that? Speaker 4: happy to take a member of congress two hours to give my life story. Um, congressman christian menefee got sworn in february 2nd. Excited to be on the committee. Thank you all very much. Speaker 1: welcome. All right. He's a keeper. He. You you may have just become our favorite member on the other side. Uh, we. Stay away from walkinshaw.
▶ 3:35:11And jamie raskin. Alright, we'll we'll go, uh. The question we're going to go ahead and vote. We'll leave this first one open a little longer to make sure everybody's here. But the question is on favorably reporting h.r. 6610. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r.
▶ 3:35:416610 the pharmacists fight back act. For spreading in route. And I seen him work out. I've seen him work out. Uh, I've seen him. He can sprint. Speaker 5: there they are. Okay.
▶ 3:36:13Speaker 1: she may have been sprinting too, but it wasn't the member I was thinking of. But we were holding it open for you, Mr. randall. There's another member running in here.
▶ 3:36:44We're waiting for you. Speaker 5: you don't mind giving them. Speaker 1: another sprinter? Speaker 5: yeah. Speaker 1: alright. This is a bipartisan delay here.
▶ 3:38:02Speaker 5: oh, I'm still waiting. One more minute. You all had two, greg. Again. We've only had one. We got one more. We.
▶ 3:39:05Speaker 1: still not the one we're waiting on.
▶ 3:39:39See, I waited for you, miss stansberry. You would have waited for me, right?
▶ 3:40:20This is the sprinter we were waiting on. The guy works out. He's a beast. The president always references his win loss record in division one wrestling. Alright. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote total. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 6: Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:40:48On this vote the eyes are 40, the nays are two. Speaker 1: the ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Next up, the question is on favorably reporting. H.r. 9720. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting. H.r. 9720. The dc taxing authority review act.
▶ 3:41:15Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Speaker 5: one second sir. Mr. speaker 1: Mr. langworthy got it. Have all members been recorded? Any member wish to change your vote?
▶ 3:41:45Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote. Report the vote total. Speaker 6: Mr. chairman, on this vote the eyes are 23. The nays are 18. Speaker 1: the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Next up, the question is on february reporting h.r. 97, 25 members will record to vote using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on reporting h.r. 9725.
▶ 3:42:10Restoring integrity and efficiency to our inspector general oversight act of 2025. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Okay, one. Speaker 5: one moment. Speaker 1: does any member wish to change the vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote. Report to vote. Total.
▶ 3:42:43Speaker 6: Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 23. The nays are 20. Speaker 1: the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Next up, the question is on favorable reporting. H.r. 9643 members will record to vote using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting. H.r. 9643 comment integrity and management act.
▶ 3:43:08Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Speaker 5: one moment sir. There we go. Speaker 1: the clerk will close the vote. Report the vote total. Speaker 6: Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 24. The nays are 19. Speaker 1: the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported.
▶ 3:43:38Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Next up, pursuant to notice, I now call up the following en bloc postal naming bills, which were distributed in advance on this markup. H.r. 89, 99, 9026, 73, 65, 83, 59, 89, 45, 606, 42, 83, 84, 1995, 70 and 83, 26. Without objection, the en bloc package is considered.
▶ 3:44:08Read if any member would like to speak on any of these measures, they may do so now. Mr. palmer from alabama. Speaker 7: thank you, Mr. chairman. Last year, my colleagues shomari figures and I from alabama celebrated the life of lieutenant colonel george hardy, the last surviving combat pilot of the tuskegee airmen. He passed away at the age of 100. In his lifetime.
▶ 3:44:32He alone served in three wars and became the youngest tuskegee airman fighter pilot to fly his first solo combat mission over europe at the age of 19. The contributions he and his fellow tuskegee airmen made to our country as the first african american military aviators changed the course of world war two in our nation's history, tuskegee airmen flew over 15,000 missions, earning over 150 distinguished flying crosses.
▶ 3:45:00Their service contributed to the allied victory and paved the way for the desegregation of the military. That's why I'm honored today to pay tribute to the service of the tuskegee airmen by speaking in support of h.r. 66006, which was sponsored by my colleague representative figures. The bill would rename the north elm street post office in tuskegee, alabama, as the tuskegee airmen memorial post office. At the tuskegee army airfield.
▶ 3:45:29The program trained nearly a thousand african american pilots, mechanics and other servicemen who were all who were known as the red tails. It was only fitting that we honor their legacy in the very city of tuskegee, alabama, to pay tribute to their extraordinary contributions to this country. The recognition ensures that their sacrifice, bravery and historic contributions to our nation will never be forgotten. I thank my colleague representative figures for his leadership on this bill, and I yield back. Speaker 1: gentleman yields back.
▶ 3:45:59Any other member seek recognition? Miss norton? Speaker 7: uh. Speaker 8: I commend representative figures for introducing this bill. Congress and the executive branch must continue to find ways to honor the tuskegee airmen. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you.
▶ 3:46:30Speaker 1: gentlelady yields back any other members to recognition. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. A statement from congresswoman jean clay higgins jen kiggans of virginia, the sponsor of h.r. 7365. Without objection, so ordered. Any other member seek recognition? The question is now on favorably reporting the en bloc package. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
▶ 3:46:59The en bloc package is favorably reported. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table pursuant to house rule 11. Clause two. I ask the committee members have the right to file with the clerk of the committee. Supplemental, additional minority and dissenting views without objection. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the committee print, subject to the approval of the minority without objection, so ordered.
▶ 3:47:24If there's no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you all.