[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
                      MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND
                         POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES

=======================================================================

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             JULY 12, 2023
                               __________

                          Serial No. CP:118-5
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  

                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
53-367PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                              
                             

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina         Vacancy
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                   Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
                 Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
               Lauren Hassett, Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page
Meeting held on July 12, 2023....................................     1

                            BILLS CONSIDERED

                              ----------                              

  * H.R. 4502, Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity 
  Experts Act
Bill Discussed...................................................     3

  * H.R. 4503, AI Training Expansion Act
Bill Discussed...................................................     7

  * H.R. 1695, Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of 
  Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    10

  * H.R. 1209, Fair and Open Competition Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    14

  * H.R. 192, To Prohibit Individuals Who Are Not Citizens of the 
  United States from Voting in Elections in the District Of 
  Columbia
Bill Discussed...................................................    28

  * H.R. 3358, Mission Not Emissions Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    35

  * H.R. 890, Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    38

  * H.R. 4435, Unauthorized Spending Accountability (USA) Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    40

  * H.R. 3230, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency 
  Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    56

  * Several Postal-Naming Measures
Bill Discussed...................................................    98
                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Letter, July 10, 2023, from Associated Builders and 
  Contractors; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Letter, July 10, 2023, from Associated General Contractors of 
  America; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Letter, July 10, 2023, from diverse construction and business 
  associations; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Letter, July 12, 2023, from Heritage Action; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Letter, July 11, 2023, from Independent Electrical 
  Contractors; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Letter, July 7, 2023, from NFIB; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Letter, July 11, 2023, from Competitive Enterprise Institute; 
  submitted by Chairman Comer and Rep. Foxx.

  * Letter, July 11, 2023, from National Taxpayers Union; 
  submitted by Chairman Comer and Rep. Foxx.

  * Letter, July 10, 2023, from Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning 
  Contractors' National Association (SMACNA); submitted by Rep. 
  Connolly.

  * Report, from Independent Project Analysis (IPA) on Union 
  Labor; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Letter, July 11, 2023, from various industry groups; 
  submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Letter, from North America's Building Trades Union (NABTU) in 
  opposition to H.R. 1209; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
                      MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND
                         POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, July 12, 2023

                       House of Representatives,

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability,

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Turner, Gosar, Foxx, 
Grothman, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, 
Fallon, Armstrong, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, McClain, 
Boebert, Fry, Luna, Edwards, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin, 
Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-
Cortez, Porter, Bush, Gomez, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, 
Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, and Moskowitz.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A 
quorum is present.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule XI, Clause 
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the 
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an 
amendment of which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to make an opening statement.
    Today, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
will consider a range of bills that go to the core of this 
Committee's mission to root out waste, fraud, abuse in the 
Federal Government and improve efficiency and effectiveness.
    First, we will address the Federal Government's spending 
problem head on with the Unauthorized Spending Accountability 
Act, or USA Act, which would decrease and eventually eliminate 
funding for Federal programs that Congress fails to authorize. 
We will address the Biden Administration's regulatory overreach 
through two bills, the Fair and Open Competition Act and the 
Mission Not Emissions Act. Three bills, the Unfunded Mandates 
Accountability and Transparency Act, the Guidance Out Of 
Darkness Act, and the Guidance Clarity Act, propose necessary 
regulatory reforms. Committee Members will also have the 
opportunity to weigh in on non-citizen voting, which was 
recently authorized by the D.C. City Council.
    Last, we will consider three bipartisan bills to improve 
Federal Government cybersecurity readiness and artificial 
intelligence education, as well as agency software management: 
the Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts Act, 
the AI Training Expansion Act, and the Strengthening Agency 
Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act. Out of these 
10 bills, half have bipartisan co-sponsors. I am encouraged to 
see my colleagues coming together to improve our Federal 
Government. Congressional Republicans are committed to ensuring 
the accountability and effectiveness of the Federal Government. 
The Oversight Committee will continue to reform government 
spending, address regulatory burdens, and improve 
cybersecurity.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for an opening 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's agenda 
contains 10 substantive bills. The Majority employed a 
transparent and inclusive process with Democratic input and 
collaboration, but alas, on only a few of the 10. After close 
analysis of each bill, I plan to support four of them because 
they genuinely advance the transparency, efficiency, and 
accountability that the American people deserve from our 
government. But the remaining six are clear attempts to 
undermine the effectiveness of government, the will of 
Congress, and the will and the interests of the American 
people. They are part of a long, dismal process that began when 
Steve Bannon said he wanted to destroy the administrative 
state. I invite the public to closely examine these bills for 
themselves, so they do not start following this bunch of wolves 
in sheep's clothing deep into the forest.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
remind you that following the catastrophic train derailment in 
East Palestine, Ohio, Committee Democrats sent a letter to 
Norfolk Southern requesting critical information about the 
company's safety measures and practices. However, over the last 
4 months, Norfolk Southern has only produced a small set of 
already mostly public documents to our Committee. Bottom line 
is that Norfolk Southern has failed to provide nearly all of 
the information and documents we have requested, obstructing 
our investigation into an accident that has had devastating 
consequences for the people of that community.
    After Norfolk Southern produced an initial set of 
documents, their counsel falsely claimed the company cannot 
provide information to Congress, in part, because of the 
National Transportation Safety Board's investigation. In fact, 
NTSB told our staff that nothing in its regulations prevents 
Norfolk Southern from responding to our requests. I know that 
you will agree with me that agency regulations cannot bar the 
provision of documents to Congress, even if they try to. As you 
well know, Mr. Chairman, our Committee often conducts 
independent investigations even when other investigations are 
ongoing and that there is no real conflict here.
    Since the East Palestine derailment, Norfolk Southern 
trains have derailed several more times, including less than a 
week ago on July 6, near Elliston, Virginia. It is imperative 
that we get the answers and the information from Norfolk 
Southern that we need before another catastrophic incident 
occurs.
    At a hearing that you convened on March 9, Vice Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez asked for a bipartisan hearing on the East 
Palestine derailment, stating, ``The public needs answers,'' 
and you responded stating, ``I agree. Absolutely. I look 
forward to working with you on that.'' Mr. Chairman, I hope we 
can pursue that precise bipartisan agreement on rail safety, 
even though many weeks have passed since that terrible event 
occurred. In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
respectfully ask you to work with us to get those answers that 
the public, particularly the people of East Palestine, Ohio 
deserve. Will you schedule a public hearing with Norfolk 
Southern in the month of September?
    Chairman Comer. We will certainly look at that. I was told 
that the Energy and Commerce Committee was going to be doing 
hearings on that, and I was even told they were going to have a 
field hearing in East Palestine. And I do not know what the 
status of that is or not, but I will certainly find out, and 
that is something that I think we are interested in that we 
could maybe work together on----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, great. And if they are doing----
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. With Norfolk Southern and 
Transportation officials, too. I think that would be good. 
Maybe Buttigieg and Norfolk Southern----
    Mr. Raskin. Terrific. Well, if they are doing it, we could 
join them. If not, would you agree to schedule one ourselves 
for September?
    Chairman Comer. We will try to see what we can come up with 
on that.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I think September 20 would be a great date 
for us to move on that. So, I thank you for your indulgence, 
Mr. Chairman, and I hope we can move forward on that in 
September.
    Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member yields back. Without 
objection, the opening statements of all other Members will be 
included in the record.
    Chairman Comer. So, our first item for consideration is 
H.R. 4502, Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Act.
    The Clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4502, Modernizing the Acquisition of 
Cybersecurity Act, to allow Federal agencies to establish 
educational requirements for certain cybersecurity positions in 
the competitive service, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered to H.R. 4502, offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    The Federal Government relies on cybersecurity 
professionals to protect personally identifiable information to 
defend against cyber threats and build secure government 
technology. To ensure this work is done effectively, the 
Federal Government desperately needs to hire more cybersecurity 
experts. For many cybersecurity jobs, however, the Office of 
Personnel Management requires applicants to have achieved a 
certain level of education to even be considered for the role. 
This prevents the government from hiring some of the best and 
brightest cybersecurity professionals, many experts that have 
the right technical skills and experience, but Federal hiring 
managers are not allowed to consider them because they lack a 
formal college degree. Representative Nancy Mace's simple bill 
ensures that the Federal Government can hire any qualified 
cybersecurity professional as long as they have the right 
knowledge and skills, even if they do not have a fancy degree.
    I urge my colleagues to support this timely, necessary, and 
bipartisan bill, and I thank Nancy Mace, Chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and 
Government Innovation, for bringing this important reform bill 
to the full Committee's consideration. I now recognize the 
bill's sponsor for her remarks.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I 
want to thank you for bringing this bill forward today, and 
Ranking Member Raskin as well. I also want to thank my 
colleague across the aisle, Congresswoman Porter from 
California, for her partnership on H.R. 4502, the Modernizing 
Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts Act. This bill solves a 
simple problem. You cannot deem one applicant more qualified 
for a Federal cybersecurity job just because he or she has a 
degree in underwater basket weaving. And I actually have some 
experiences.
    I have a family member who just turned 22. He started his 
career in computer engineering and programming at the age of 16 
when he took a coding camp one summer, and because of dual 
enrollment, he was actually able to work full time starting at 
the age of 16 as a programmer. He just turned 22. He owns his 
own home, has a car, and is getting ready to buy another one. 
He knows more about technology and programming than any other 
Member of Congress, and he makes as much or more money than I 
do at 22. And so, we have some remarkable young people coming 
through this generation that have great talent because they 
have been around technology their entire life and should not be 
prevented from using those talents in the Federal IT workforce, 
and so this is an opportunity for us to work together.
    There is a shortage of over 700,000 cybersecurity 
professionals in the public and private sector. People who do 
not attend or finish college are often barred from 
consideration for jobs in this field. Really, they should not 
be. Today, a brilliant computer whiz who drops out of Harvard 
for a year or two, like Bill Gates and other billionaires, 
would stand little chance of securing a Federal job in IT and 
cybersecurity, and we should be welcoming that kind of talent 
in any way, shape, or form we can.
    While the cyber workforce is crucial to our national 
security is growing rapidly, according to a report issued last 
year, there are five times as many cybersecurity workers over 
the age of 55 as there are under the age of 30. Only 1 in 16 
Federal cybersecurity workers are actually under the age of 30. 
So, this bill prohibits mandatory degree requirements for 
Federal cybersecurity jobs unless those credentials are legally 
required to perform the duties of the position, which is rarely 
the case. Even entry-level positions require a 4-year degree in 
many cases with regards to these positions. Some of these young 
people literally have the skills to hack into critical Federal 
IT systems, but they cannot get their foot in the door for 
employment at Federal agencies or at the same agency. So, there 
are many unnecessary degree barriers that we are lifting today 
with this piece of legislation.
    Over the past few years, we have seen leaders from both 
parties at all levels of government rolling back degree 
requirements, resulting in greater economic opportunity for all 
Americans. Even many large companies today have done away with 
degree requirements. States are doing the same thing. And I 
have said many times, if only we can run the government like a 
business is run, we would save the taxpayers so much money and 
be so much more efficient, and this is an opportunity to do 
that today.
    There is nothing more bipartisan than a bill that codifies 
a Trump-era executive order that has been maintained by the 
Biden Administration, and we have colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle supporting the bill today. I especially, again, want 
to thank Representative Katie Porter of California for her 
support as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 4502. The bill is 
also endorsed by the Alliance for Digital Innovation, whose 
member companies include Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and 
others engaged in Federal and private sector cybersecurity. And 
we look forward to the Committee's careful consideration of 
this very important legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this bill. I now yield to the Ranking 
Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to commend 
our distinguished colleague, Nancy Mace, and Katie Porter from 
California for introducing the Modernizing Acquisition of 
Cybersecurity Experts Act, which will indeed eliminate the 
requirement that a Bachelor of Arts or Sciences degree must be 
a prerequisite to Federal hiring in qualifying cybersecurity-
related positions. The bill addresses the big shortage of 
cybersecurity workers for a growing number of relevant jobs.
    According to one recent study, the number of unfilled 
cybersecurity positions in U.S. rose to over 410,000, up 9 
percent over last year. This gap in the cybersecurity workforce 
continues to grow, and this bill is a smart and timely attempt 
to meet this rising demand. It is similar to an executive order 
that was issued by the previous administration and has been 
maintained by the Biden Administration, and I support it 
wholeheartedly. And I would like to recognize the democratic 
co-sponsor, Ms. Porter.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. I want to start by 
thanking Representative Mace for her leadership, for her 
advocacy, and for her partnership. Look, government employees 
should be the best in the business. Taxpayers deserve nothing 
less from the people that they employ, but how do we get the 
best in our Federal jobs? Just like in any market, it all comes 
down to one thing: fostering competition.
    When I hire staffers to represent California's 47th 
congressional District, I write job descriptions that describe 
exactly what work that person will need to accomplish, then I 
let candidates compete on who best demonstrates those skills. 
The beauty of that competition is that there is not just one 
credential or one requirement that guarantees someone will get 
the job. Sometimes I have had great staffers who have law 
degrees. They were successful in writing and analyzing policy 
because their education prepared them for it. Other times, I 
have had great policy staff who had no particular degree or 
education. They were successful because they spent years 
working on Capitol Hill or had other deep policy experience 
gained from being in the workforce. If I thought excelling in a 
government job always came down to one credential or one life 
experience, I would have missed out on some great employees, 
and, more importantly, taxpayers would have missed out.
    No part of the Federal Government should disqualify an 
individual from competing for a Federal job based on whether 
they have one type of educational credential. We are only going 
to find out who is best to fill a role if we let all qualified 
candidates show us all their qualifications. Today, I am happy 
to partner with Congresswoman Mace on legislation to allow just 
this kind of competition when it comes to our Federal 
cybersecurity jobs. Just like I have employed great policy 
professionals with and without law degrees, there is not one 
type of educational experience that is always going to make a 
cybersecurity professional the best of the best. I am a former 
professor, and I know that a lot of people will learn skills in 
college programs that prepare them to be a Federal 
cybersecurity professional. At the same time, I also know that 
college is not always affordable and accessible for everybody. 
And the reality is that many people gain the skills necessary 
to flourish and succeed at Federal cybersecurity jobs as part 
of other experiences, including military service, or training 
and apprenticeship programs. The door needs to be open to both 
kinds of qualified candidates, those with or without a degree, 
and the Federal Government should be able to pick who is most 
prepared to do the job based on a holistic view of the 
candidates.
    The Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts 
Act stops the Federal Government from ruling out people without 
a specific educational credential. Instead, it lets all 
qualified applicants compete, and it gives the Federal 
Government more choices. We should be able to agree to advance 
this bill regardless of party. As my colleague, Congresswoman 
Mace, said, there is very little as bipartisan as an executive 
order issued under President Trump that President Biden has 
chosen to keep in place, to keep on the books. This is a policy 
that is working under Administrations of both parties to make 
our government more successful. And now we need, in Congress, 
to do our job to make it permanent as a law.
    I urge all Democrats and Republicans on the Committee to 
support this bill. We can only hire the best Federal 
cybersecurity professionals when we have had the chance to 
consider all the qualified options, and the Modernizing the 
Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts will give us this chance. 
I am proud to support Representative Mace's bill, and I thank 
her for the opportunity to co-lead. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now in favorably reporting H.R. 4502, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill 
is ordered----
    Ms. Porter. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. OK. A recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to 
House rules, further proceedings on this measure are postponed. 
All recorded votes will be rolled to the end at a time to be 
announced.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 4503, the AI 
Training Expansion Act.
    The Clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4503, AI Training Expansion Act, a bill to 
amend the Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition 
Workforce Act to expand AI training within the executive branch 
of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered to H.R. 4503, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    We use AI-enabled products and services each and every day 
to simplify our lives and empower our work, and recently 
powerful advances in AI have raised serious questions about how 
such technologies will continue to impact our lives and work. 
Over the past several months, the Subcommittee on 
Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government 
Innovation, chaired by Nancy Mace, has held several hearings on 
new AI advancements. The hearings have raised questions about 
the government's readiness to adopt this new technology to 
improve service delivery and agency operations. This makes it 
the perfect time to ensure that Federal employees are properly 
trained on AI, can be responsibly used in agency operations. 
That is why I supported the AI Training for the Acquisition 
Workforce Act which this Committee helped pass into law last 
year.
    This law's newly established government-wide training 
program for AI was a great first step, but other Federal 
employees beyond the acquisition workforce should also be 
prepared for the changes AI is bringing. The AI Training 
Expansion Act expands the law to provide training access to 
more Federal employees and updates the training topics. I urge 
my colleagues to support this timely and forward-thinking bill, 
and I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman, Nancy Mace, and Ranking 
Member, Gerry Connolly, for their work addressing this 
important issue. I now recognize the bill's sponsor for her 
remarks.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank Ranking 
Member, as well, Jamie Raskin. I also want to thank my 
colleague from Virginia, Congressman Connolly, for supporting 
and being an original co-sponsor on this bill.
    The AI Training Expansion Act is a substantial bipartisan 
bill to help our Federal workforce win the race for AI. 
America, we all know, must be at the forefront of AI 
integration to counter our enemies abroad, but also use it for 
good, making our Federal systems more efficient as well. We all 
know that our Federal agencies are at risk of being hacked all 
the time. AI will only advance this technology bigger, faster, 
and more in the future.
    In recent years, we have seen dozens of Federal agencies 
hacked by agents of China and Russia, and we have got to be 
prepared for the future, and AI is the future. AI is changing 
the way we live, and we work. And at our very first hearing on 
the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and 
Government Innovation, our first hearing was on the advances 
and new applications of AI. And we even had Eric Schmidt here 
to testify who talked about the advances in AI, the great 
benefits to it in our lives and work, but also the existential 
risks, to quote him, as well. And the AI Training Act, which 
passed last Congress, established AI training requirements for 
some Federal employees, and this bill simply expands the 
availability of that training to even more Federal employees.
    AI is even further integrated. As AI further integrates 
into our daily lives, this is important more today than ever 
before. AI language models, like ChatGPT, have achieved better 
marks on the SAT, MCAT, and bar exams than most of our 
colleagues. While Hollywood writers are currently on strike 
over the very real possibility of being replaced by AI, 
yesterday there was the launch by Anthropic Claude 2, which is 
going to compete with ChatGPT. It was launched by Dario Amodei 
of Anthropic. The technology is expanding rapidly. In just the 
first few weeks of ChatGPT, for example, over 100 million 
people signed up for it.
    As the Federal Government continues to invest in these 
tools and more, decision-makers, supervisors, and data and tech 
specialists within the Federal bureaucracy must have a 
comprehensive understanding of the benefits, and uses, and 
risks of this technology and how we can implement it within our 
Federal agencies to make everyone more efficient. While the 
American private sector is dominant in this space, a 
competition for government integration of AI will be won by the 
side with the very best talent, and we want to make sure that 
our Federal employees are the best talent that is available in 
the world. While our workforce works from home and in their 
pajamas on legacy tech systems, China is preparing to use AI to 
further the regime's aggressive policy, so we, too, must be 
aggressive in AI. We must beat any of our adversaries, whether 
it is China, Russia, or other countries around the world, in 
the race for AI dominance, and the Federal Government must be 
ready to keep up with AI.
    This bill is bipartisan, bicameral, and just a simple 
commonsense step forward in this existential push for AI 
leadership. As a lead sponsor of the bill in Congress, I again 
want to thank Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, Senators Peters 
and Braun for their leadership on this legislation. Thank you, 
and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this bill. I now yield to the Ranking 
Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support 
this bipartisan bill which takes a positive step to ensure that 
the workforce in the Federal Government is equipped with both 
the educational training and the professional skills that are 
actually necessary to responsibly manage the risks and benefits 
and opportunities posed by artificial intelligence. I want to 
salute Ms. Mace for her great leadership on this matter.
    Advances in AI are changing society and the marketplace in 
fundamental ways, including the important work of the Federal 
Government to serve the people of the country. The advances 
pose evolving challenges to oversight and accountability 
efforts, requiring strong proficiencies in the highest 
transparency and governance standards to protect governmental 
efficiency, privacy, civil liberties, and the public interest 
itself. The AI Training Expansion Act will ensure that 
investments of taxpayer dollars in AI are leveraged ethically 
and responsibly with privacy and civil liberties protections 
right at the heart of our decisionmaking.
    I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Mace, and our Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee, Connolly, for their leadership on 
this bill in the House. I am happy to support it, and I yield 
back. Oh, actually, I will recognize Mr. Connolly, the bill co-
sponsor, for his remarks.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Ranking Member, and let me also 
thank Chairwoman Mace for her leadership on this and other 
cutting-edge technology issues we face. And I echo what she 
said that we got to have a Federal workforce that is conversant 
with AI and is trained both in the positive applications of AI 
and in the risks AI might pose in terms of public privacy 
especially, and the manipulation of AI to the detriment of the 
people we serve, and so making sure that basic training in the 
Federal workforce is really important.
    The Chairwoman also cited people in pajamas working legacy 
systems at home, and that is a continuing concern I have, and I 
hope the Subcommittee and full Committee has, that our work is 
not done in modernizing IT in the Federal Government. AI is one 
set of subjects we have to address, but we are not anywhere 
near close to making sure that the Federal Government has the 
IT platforms it needs to be cyber secure and to make sure that 
it is serving the American public as efficiently as possible. 
And that is why I continue to advocate for a rigorous and 
vigorous implementation of FITARA, the Federal Information 
Technology Acquisition Reform Act, which includes the 
retirement of legacy systems, some of which are 50-years-plus 
old, and to make sure that all of the IT platforms we have can 
be cyber secure.
    We also need to address the aging Federal workforce, and 
this bill helps us in guaranteeing that training, but we got to 
make sure that the next generation of Federal employees has 
this kind of training so that they can interact with the 
private sector in a knowledgeable and equal basis, and that 
they can protect the American public. So, I am glad to be an 
original co-sponsor. I thank Ms. Mace for her leadership, and I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. OK. A recorded vote is ordered. As 
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will 
be postponed. You do not want a recorded vote on----
    Ms. Mace Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Right, right.
    Ms. Mace Yes.
    Chairman Comer. You want to withdraw that. That was on 
the----
    Ms. Mace. Withdrawn.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. All right. The lady from South 
Carolina withdraws her request for a recorded vote on the last 
motion.
    Now the question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 4503, 
as amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair--the lady from South Carolina.
    Ms. Mace. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. All right. A recorded vote is ordered. As 
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will 
be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 1695, the 
Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software 
Assets Act.
    The Clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 1695, Strengthening Agency Management and 
Oversight of Software Assets, SAMOSA Act, a bill to improve the 
visibility, accountability, and oversight of Agency Software 
Asset Management Practices, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment in any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered to H.R. 1695, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Without objection, the amendment 
is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    Federal agencies spend billions of dollars a year on 
software licenses without a full understanding of what they are 
purchasing and how it compares to what they are already paying 
for. The result is wasteful spending on duplicative or 
unnecessary software licenses. As amended by my bipartisan and 
bicameral amendment in the nature of a substitute, this 
legislation will provide Congress better insight into how our 
Federal Agencies purchase and use software. The text we are 
considering today improves the introduced text of H.R. 1695 to 
improve government software purchasing without unduly limiting 
the procurement options of Federal Agencies. These changes 
reflect multiple rounds of feedback from industry groups and 
the Office of Management and Budget, as well as conversations 
between the bill sponsor and House and Senate committee staff.
    As amended, 1695 requires an agency to better manage its 
software and develop a plan for addressing any costly 
unnecessary licenses. This will reduce wasteful spending and 
improve government efficiency. I thank Mr. Cartwright, Ranking 
Member Raskin, and my colleagues in the Senate for working with 
the Committee staff to ensure that this legislation 
appropriately achieves its goals. I also thank Mr. Fallon and 
Ms. Mace for their early support of this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I now yield 
to the Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including on 
today's agenda this bipartisan good government bill that will 
achieve important cost savings for the public. I want to 
support H.R. 1695, the SAMOSA Act, which was introduced by our 
colleague, Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania. The government will 
need to spend tens of billions of dollars this year on software 
purchases and on maintenance. This makes up a big chunk of the 
estimated $100 billion that we will spend on information 
technology overall.
    Previous efforts to increase oversight and transparency of 
Federal expenditures on software, including the MEGABYTE Act of 
2016, have saved Federal agencies an estimated $450 million 
over just a 3-year period, but serious challenges remain. For 
example, a recent audit by GAO found that software license data 
reported by Federal agencies was inconsistent to wide variation 
in exactly how agencies track and maintain their inventories. 
Current software contract and asset management practices also 
fall short of achieving enough transparency to allow agencies 
to purchase software products and services that actually meet 
their specific needs and priorities.
    H.R. 1695 would require Federal agency CIOs to complete 
comprehensive assessments of the software paid for by, in use 
at, or deployed throughout the government. These assessments 
would update and expand the software inventories required by 
the MEGABYTE Act. The bill would require agencies to submit 
comprehensive assessments to GSA, OMB, GAO, and Congress to 
facilitate stronger oversight of software contracts and Federal 
spending. It would also require agencies to use these 
assessments to develop a plan to better manage agency software, 
procurement, and management, which would be required to include 
remediation of deficiencies, automation of management 
processes, and workforce training.
    One industry analysis estimates the cost savings of this 
Act at $500 to $750 million a year. The Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs estimates that the 
bill could save taxpayers up to $5 billion annually. I 
appreciate Chairman Gary Peters' leadership in developing and 
driving this legislation and his Republican co-lead, Senator 
Cassidy, of Louisiana. I also want to thank Representative Matt 
Cartwright for championing the bill over here in the House 
along with our Subcommittee Chairs, Mr. Fallon and Ms. Mace.
    This is a good bipartisan bill that will allow the 
government to operate more transparently and efficiently and 
cost-effectively, and I am very happy to support its passage 
today. And I yield back to you.
    Mr. Connolly. Would the Ranking Member yield?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Ranking Member. I just want to 
underscore, going back to FITARA, and the scorecard that this 
Committee created, and the 15 hearings we have had on its 
implementation, that software licensing management was one of 
the categories on the scorecard, and I think we were able to 
make progress. We need to continue to monitor that. But I think 
it just underscores the fact that vigorous oversight of FITARA 
and the use of that scorecard has, in fact, made a difference. 
I thank my friend for yielding.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you. Now, just to echo your point, 
since its inception in December 2014, FITARA has empowered the 
CIOs in Federal agencies. It has improved how the government 
acquires and manages IT, and it saved nearly $30 billion of 
taxpayer money. So, this is a tool that Congress, CIOs, agency 
heads, and outside stakeholders use to understand how the 
agencies manage and secure their IT assets. And the scorecard 
also helps Congress hold the Federal agencies accountable for 
implementing fundamental and evolving best IT practice.
    Mr. Connolly. If my friend would yield one more time.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank him so much for pointing that out. 
GAO has pointed out that we have almost saved $30 billion. I 
cannot think of another Federal piece of legislation that can 
claim to have saved, according to GAO, $30 billion since it was 
passed into law 7 or 8 years ago. So, I think our keeping our 
foot to the pedal with respect to implementation of that law 
continues to have a return on it. I thank my friend for 
pointing it out.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, and I will just close by saluting you, Mr. 
Connolly, for your leadership on FITARA and for making sure 
that we have had these biannual reviews, these hearings that 
have been so important in the FITARA context. And I am happy to 
yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Mace for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Ranking 
Member Raskin as well as the lead co-sponsor of this bipartisan 
measure. I also want to thank my colleague across the aisle, 
Representative Cartwright, for his leadership on the issue of 
government waste and software licenses, and I also want to 
thank Committee staff for their wise revisions.
    Sometimes small parts make a huge difference in the Federal 
Government. And imagine that today, as the media talks about 
how divisive we are up here on the Hill, and oftentimes we are, 
but in this room, one of the most divisive committees on the 
Hill, we are actually working together, working across the 
aisle to make government work better, run better, be more 
efficient and save taxpayer dollars. So, I want to thank the 
leadership today on that.
    Despite over $100 billion in spending on Federal software 
licenses, most agencies have no comprehensive record of what 
they are actually buying and what they have already paid for. 
It is shocking and blows my mind that most Federal agencies do 
not carry a record of what licenses they have purchased or what 
licenses they have, how many they have. The duplicity that is 
happening because they do not have a comprehensive record is a 
place where we can be more efficient, which is the entire 
purpose of this legislation. Our bureaucracy is likely wasting 
substantial sums of unused, duplicative, and unnecessary 
software licenses, wasting millions, maybe billions of taxpayer 
dollars. No American household would have three Netflix 
subscriptions or two cable bills, so why should a Federal 
agency, right? We should work smarter, not harder, here.
    The negotiated version before the Committee reflects 
extensive dialogs with agencies on how to best implement the 
goals of this legislation and slash wasteful spending. By 
requiring agencies to develop a plan to consolidate licenses, 
we give them the tools to identify and eliminate waste and 
improve efficiency within their operations. So, agencies 
spending money on software licenses without a comprehensive 
understanding of what they are buying and what they already 
have is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
    Agencies simply do not know how many employees are using 
which software or where, how many seats they have in those 
licenses, or what restrictions are associated with those 
licenses. Agencies sometimes unwittingly waste money on 
duplicative, unused, restrictive, and unnecessary licenses. So, 
this is inefficient, wasteful, and impedes important IT 
monetization work for the government that we need to focus on.
    H.R. 1695 will save money by cutting down these duplicative 
licenses and underused software licenses as well. It will 
require agencies to update and expand their software inventory 
so that they have a detailed insight into their software 
licenses, costs, usage rates, seats, et cetera. The amended 
bill addresses bloated, underutilized, and costly Federal 
agency software licenses by requiring agencies to develop a 
plan to consolidate them or to update them. This legislation 
removes unduly prescriptive provisions present in the version 
introduced last year and again earlier this year. Those 
provisions had pre-supposed the merits of certain software 
licensing solutions.
    Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
his staff for working to improve this particular legislation. I 
also want to thank Senate staff and Committee staff. I want to 
thank my colleagues across the aisle as well for working 
together.
    I have found, Mr. Chairman, that the Oversight Committee, 
although we have some of the most progressive and most far-
right Members, and some in the middle, that cybersecurity has 
been a place where we have been able to work together. And I 
would encourage us to show leadership on the Federal level and 
the national level how we all can join hands and do something 
for the good of every single taxpayer in this country, and I 
want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this.
    And I would also Mr. Chairman, like to ask for unanimous 
consent to enter into the record the following documents. I 
have a coalition letter to this Committee in support of the 
SAMOSA Act from the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing, the 
Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Alliance 
for Digital Innovation, and NetChoice.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. Do any other Members 
wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1695, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair----
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. A recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 1209, Fair and Open 
Competition Act.
    The Clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 1209, Fair and Open Competition, FOCA Act, 
a bill to preserve open competition and Federal Government 
neutrality toward the labor relations of Federal Government 
contractors on Federal and federally funded construction 
projects, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered to H.R. 1209, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    I am pleased to call up my bill, H.R. 1209, the Fair and 
Open Competition Act. As our Nation continues to recover from 
the COVID-19 pandemic and as tax dollars are used to fund 
infrastructure projects across the land, one thing should be 
clear. Every construction worker in every state should have a 
fair chance to work on any construction project funded by 
American tax dollars. That, however, is not what President 
Biden wants.
    On February 4, 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order 
14063, entitled, ``Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal 
Construction Projects.'' That executive order required Federal 
contracting agencies to mandate project labor agreements, also 
known as PLAs, on Federal construction projects worth $35 
million or more. Project labor agreements are, in laypersons 
terms, requirements to use only union workers for a project. 
President Biden further instructed the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Council to implement his order in the Code of 
Federal Regulations. That new regulation is currently in its 
final stages of review. If it goes into effect, it will be 
harder for a future President to reverse President Biden's 
policy.
    But that policy, put simply, is not a fair deal for the 
American construction workforce. Biden's regulation will raise 
taxpayer costs and prevent non-union workers from working on 
Federal projects. It will even force right-to-work states to 
freeze local workers out of cooperative Federal projects. In 
fact, over 80 percent of the U.S. construction workforce would 
be frozen out of Federal projects because over 80 percent of 
construction workers do not belong to a union.
    Congress kept these requirements out of the American Rescue 
Plan Act of 2021 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act. Congress should act again to overturn President Biden's 
order and prevent the Federal Government from discriminating 
against contractors based on labor affiliation. That is why I 
introduced the Fair and Open Competition Act. Unlike President 
Biden's order, my bill maintains Federal neutrality on project 
labor agreements. It neither mandates nor prevents them. It 
simply allows individual agencies, contractors, and 
subcontractors to decide project-by-project what is best for 
each given circumstance. This approach is fair, and it respects 
the diverse needs of a vast and diverse Nation.
    H.R. 1209 is an even-handed position all Committee Members 
should be willing to support. The bill is supported by a host 
of business groups, representing millions of workers. It is 
also supported by a broad range of taxpayer advocate groups, 
all of whom have the interests of Federal taxpayers in mind. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill. I now recognize the 
Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Alas, I have to 
strongly oppose this bill, which would prevent the Federal 
Government from using one of the very best tools we have got to 
ensure that large construction projects are completed 
effectively, efficiently, and safely.
    People are attempting to paint H.R. 1209 as a bill about 
instilling fairness and neutrality, but the process is already 
fair and neutral. Federal construction projects are, of course, 
highly complex, and if they are not managed properly, they can 
produce expensive delays, unsafe work sites, lengthy disputes, 
and unethical business practices, and that is why President 
Biden issued Executive Order 14063 earlier this year. The order 
requires the use of project labor agreements on Federal 
construction projects above $35 million in value to address 
these challenges and to ensure that taxpayers are getting the 
best mileage for their money.
    President Biden's executive order is estimated to improve 
the return on investment of $262 billion taxpayer dollars and 
the working conditions of nearly 200,000 workers on Federal 
construction projects. H.R. 1209 would reverse this progress 
and prohibit agencies from even considering the use of PLAs in 
funding construction contracts, even when the PLA would save 
the taxpayers money.
    PLAs are an essential tool to promote transparency and 
accountability in Federal construction. These pre-hire 
collective bargaining agreements, negotiated between unions and 
employers, lay out the terms and conditions of employment for 
construction projects. They guard against risk and ensure 
stability by promoting fairness and transparency in the 
project, including through compliance with different laws and 
rules. PLAs help resolve disputes ahead of time, they ensure 
safer work sites, and they avoid work disruptions that can 
cause protracted and expensive delays. A wide range of research 
demonstrates that PLAs are effective tools to ensure the 
stewardship of taxpayer dollars by controlling costs, enhancing 
efficiency, ensuring safe and equitable working conditions, and 
benefiting the local community. They increase budget accuracy, 
ensure that skilled workers are available for the whole 
duration of the project, and they protect against disruption 
and delay.
    Contrary to my colleagues' repeated claims, non-union 
contractors are perfectly free to bid on projects that require 
PLAs. Workers covered under a PLA are not required to join the 
union to work on the project, and PLAs are legal even in right-
to-work states. All that they do is to lift the floor up to 
increase the fairness and the efficiency of the worksite, 
generally.
    The markup of this anti-transparency legislation follows a 
series of letters from Committee Republicans to leaders at the 
OMB, which make outlandish and inaccurate claims about project 
labor agreements, including that they reduce competition and 
value for taxpayers and limit opportunities for communities. In 
fact, PLAs protect taxpayers from the inevitable race to the 
bottom that incentivizes contractors to underpay and undertrain 
their workers, cut corners that threaten project integrity, and 
bring in cheaper outside labor instead of providing high-
quality jobs locally to the community.
    PLAs are public documents that anyone can review for their 
fairness and their soundness. If my Republican colleagues have 
identified specific concerns with any of them, I invite them to 
identify those concerns publicly. But absent any specific 
unbiased evidence, we are left to conclude that H.R. 1209 and 
other attacks on PLAs are simply another example of the 
determination to erode transparency and accountability 
protections for the public, to undermine labor movements, and 
to put special interest profits before the well-being of 
workers.
    I urge my colleagues all to oppose this unnecessary bill, 
and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record the following documents: a 
letter to this Committee in support of FOCA from the Associated 
General Contractors of America; a letter to this Committee in 
support of the bill from the Associated Builders and 
Contractors; a coalition letter to this Committee in support of 
the bill from a diverse group of 25 construction and business 
associations; a letter to this Committee in support of the bill 
from the Independent Electrical Contractors; and a letter to 
this Committee in support of the bill from the National 
Taxpayers Union.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the Chairman and the Committee for 
marking up this legislation. And unlike so much legislation in 
Congress, the name of this bill actually accurately describes 
what it does, which is ensures that merit shop contractors, who 
employ 88 percent--so that is 12 percent otherwise--88 percent 
of the construction workforce which can fairly compete for 
Federal and federally funded construction projects. Government 
mandated, so the government requires it. That is freedom in 
America. Government-mandated project labor agreements simply 
drive up the cost of Federal projects.
    And look, the amount that is driving it up is a matter of 
conjecture. I know for certain in Pennsylvania, where contracts 
were bid without the agreement and then bid with the agreement, 
the cost was anywhere from 6 to 15 percent, but some estimate 
up to 20 percent, an increase through the prevention of 
competition combined with inefficient work rules required under 
the PLA.
    Now, let me be clear. I got no beef with private unions and 
private contractors that are unionized. I got no beef 
whatsoever. This is an issue of fairness across the board. 
Whatever standard we set should be set for everyone, not one 
standard for some and another standard for others. This is 
America. We should have one standard, and all should adhere to 
that standard. We should not be doing things as a Federal 
Government that inherently increase the cost to the people 
paying the bill, which are the taxpayers, and that is what PLAs 
do.
    PLAs are there to ensure a certain sector of the 
workforce--the 12-percent sector--have a carve out, a set 
aside, have a leg up, have a different standard than the 88 
percent who do not. That is why they are there. This is a 
special interest. This is exactly what this is, It is a special 
interest, and this bill seeks to end that special interest so 
that the taxpayers who we support, who we work for, who are our 
bosses, they are our special interest, they should be our 
special interest, we should be supporting them, and that is 
what this bill seeks to do.
    I marvel at my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, and the 
claims made that this actually saves money. I do not know other 
Members of the body that have been contractors, but I have been 
one, and a contract is pretty simple. I agree to do this work 
by this amount of time, to this standard, and you agree to pay. 
That is it. We do not need a special contract that says I am 
not going to strike, but that is what this is. That is the 
safety net that is included in PLAs. Well, I will not strike as 
long as we have this signed, and I get to do this work under a 
special agreement that no one else gets to participate in.
    Ladies and gentlemen, we expect people not to strike as 
long as they are being paid for doing the job correctly. That 
is the contractual relationship. I sign a contract, I say I am 
going to do the work at this time to this standard, and you are 
going to pay me for it. Well, I do not expect you to strike if 
you are being paid and you are doing the work appropriately. I 
do not expect you to strike if you do not get your way on some 
kind of negotiation. The Federal Government is contracting you 
to do the work, you agreed to it, here are the specifications, 
here are the plans, you understood what you are getting into, 
and that is why you bid on the project.
    Ladies and gentlemen, 88 percent of the construction force 
is in the merit shop business. That is who is doing 88 percent 
of the work. This bill seeks to make it fair across the board 
for not only 88 percent, but the 12 percent. Again, I have no 
beef at all with private sector unions in the contracting 
business, and there are contractors, there are bosses that 
would abuse their employees and have abused their employees. 
There is a thing called the National Labor Relations Board that 
can deal with people that violate, but what we should not do is 
have one rule that punishes everybody for the sake of a few bad 
actors. The few bad actors should be punished and punished 
resoundingly and appropriately. But what we should not do is 
punish every single American who gets up every morning, early, 
maybe misses their kids getting off to school, packs their 
lunchbox, and goes to work to pay their taxes so a few folks 
can have a special deal. This bill would solve that.
    I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield the 
balance, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be heard? The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the Ranking Member. I will 
start off by saying I was an ironworker for about 20 years, a 
union iron worker, so I have worked on the PLAs in the past. 
There have been instances where non-union contractors have been 
successful in getting work on PLA projects, but I would say 
that a great majority of the contracts are won by union firms. 
And I have worked all over the country, worked on projects in 
Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and 
Illinois, Ohio, and so I have seen how this has worked across 
the country.
    One of the great benefits of PLAs is the predictability 
that it offers on a major construction project, and that 
predictability is rare in an industry where every project is 
new and different. So, the challenges of, you know, building a 
major construction project in an area of the country that is in 
an environment that is exposed to the weather, is quite 
unpredictable. Oftentimes construction firms do not have a 
fixed workforce capable of handling these large projects, so 
they rely on apprenticeship programs that are run jointly by 
Taft-Hartley entities involving both contractor and union.
    So, under this PLA, they are guaranteed there is a steady 
flow of skilled workers, men and women who reflect the 
demographic of that area, and reflect the diversity of the 
cities in which many of these projects are going on in order to 
complete that project on time and on budget. Those are very 
valuable factors in terms of trying to meet the obligations 
that we have to taxpayers and also the entities that are the 
end user of these facilities.
    I just want to just comment on the previous gentleman's 
comments. Much of the disputes on these projects are between 
contractors. It is not between the union and the contractor. It 
is between the general contractor and the subcontractor. And 
because many of the complexities of these projects are 
unforeseen and they are not addressed in the original contract, 
it ends up in endless disputes that end up in court, and one of 
the things that the PLA does is it requires everybody to 
perform. It requires all the workers to show up every single 
day, no work stoppages, as the gentleman mentioned, but it also 
requires the contractor, the subcontractor to perform. You 
cannot stop this project from going forward. It needs to meet 
its deadline. And so, regardless of the differences you may 
have in how the wording of the language in the contract is, you 
must continue to work on the project, and you can arbitrate 
your disputes, but the project must go on, and the workers 
benefit by having, you know, a predictable pay level, although 
it is fixed.
    I have seen PLAs that the owner, in one case, Harvard 
University, that had a multi-billion building project. They 
said we want a discount because we are giving all this work for 
several buildings over several years. We want a discount on 
what the prevailing wage is out there in the area, and they got 
it in return for the steady work that was available. So, there 
are many benefits that flow from this. Dignity of work and 
respect for workers is paramount. I see that----
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lynch. I will. I will.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Yield for a question. Because of 
your expertise in labor law, Mr. Lynch, I wanted to ask you 
what you make of the suggestion that rather than have a project 
labor agreement where there would be presumably a no-strike 
clause, there are fair wages paid to everybody whether they are 
union or non-union workers who participate, why not instead 
just say, well, let us let the National Labor Relations Act 
figure it out--how effective has that been for workers? I know 
that the remedy under the NLRA if somebody gets fired for, say, 
organizing the union, is you spend a year, 2 years, 3 years 
before the NLRB, which is a famously cumbersome and 
dysfunctional body, and then at the very best, you get 
reinstated. That is not much of a punishment. How well does 
that work?
    Mr. Lynch. With 4 seconds, my contractor community and 
labor community would both be horrified by that prospect. That 
would take years and years and years and would not satisfy 
either the contractors or the people working out of them. Thank 
you. My time has expired.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair. And I listened with great 
interest to a friend from Pennsylvania who says, well, he had 
experience as a contractor and he has nothing against unions, 
but we ought not to be giving them special favors. By the way, 
I have experienced, as somebody who contracted with a multi-
billion dollar project, the Silver Line here in Northern 
Virginia, a line that otherwise took 62 years to complete from 
the idea being proffered in 1962 when we built Dulles Airport, 
the premier international airport of the Nation's Capital, 
until we finally cut the ribbon this year for phase two. Phase 
one was on time and largely on budget, you know why, because it 
was a PLA. I insisted on it as Chairman of Fairfax County, and 
that PLA worked. It was efficient. It guaranteed timelines, and 
both contractors and workers, as well as the client, were more 
than satisfied with the product.
    Phase two, under a Republican Governor and a Republican 
Secretary of Labor in the state of Virginia, who are hostile to 
labor, which seems to infuse a lot that is behind this, was not 
a PLA. In fact, they insisted it could not be a PLA or threaten 
the funding of phase two, and phase two was 3 years delayed: 
tens of millions of additional costs, substandard work product, 
and even material that required retrofitting brand new stations 
that have been constructed because of inferior material from 
the contractor.
    So, my experience is the opposite of Mr. Perry's. PLAs 
work, and legalizing their non-use, mandating their non-use is 
fraught with problems. Let us remember the genesis of PLAs. 
PLAs were a wartime product to guarantee labor peace during the 
largest industrial production buildup in human history in World 
War II, here in the United States. It worked. In less than 4 
years, the United States of America, using PLAs liberally in 
every industry, built more ships, more airplanes, more 
munitions, more aircraft than had ever been produced in human 
history and turned the tide of battle and defeated Nazi Germany 
and Imperialist Japan. That is one heck of a track record. So, 
PLAs are not some narrow special-interest provision. They are, 
in fact, a very nimble, and efficient, and proven tool to 
proceed with large projects on schedule, on budget with 
qualified labor working with management.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point to 
enter into the record a statement opposing this bill by the 
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National 
Association and an evaluation Quantifying the Value of Union 
Labor in Construction Projects prepared for the Mechanical 
Industry Advancement Fund.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair, and I yield back. I am 
sorry. I would yield to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted 
to request unanimous consent to introduce a letter from our 
friends at the North America's Building Trades Union, the 
NABTU, in opposition to H.R. 1209.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? The 
Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was Mayor of 
Long Beach, California, I was really proud to establish the 
first city-wide project labor agreement in the state. So, it 
was not just project specific, but any public project in our 
city actually went through a project labor agreement process, 
and other cities since then have adopted that in California. 
And we know that project labor agreements, not just in my 
state, but in places across the country, have been very 
successful. They have been around for decades and critical to a 
good workforce.
    We know they have been used from everything, not just in 
major construction projects, but also in our schools or 
universities, transportation, green energy, and they have been 
a key component to both public-and private-sector jobs as well. 
This has been a huge boon for the economy back in California 
and certainly back home in my city. We know that this policy 
has been good for working families and also makes financial 
sense.
    It is really, really important to note also there has been 
a lot of discussion about supply chain over the last couple of 
years and around strengthening ports, which bring in cargo in 
and out, of course, across the United States. Most of the port 
construction that is happening on the West Coast and much on 
the East Coast are under these project labor agreements 
specifically so that these important large infrastructure 
projects actually do not stop, that there is a clean process, 
and that they move forward to not interrupt the supply chain. 
So, the impact to the economy and to America's ports around 
project labor agreements is critically important.
    When Republicans attack project labor agreements, it is not 
just an attack on working people. It is an attack on the right 
to organize, it is an attack on historic investments, and it is 
a direct attack on our Nation's infrastructure. And this bill, 
of course, does not just stop at overturning President Biden's 
executive order. It would be essentially a blanket ban on all 
project labor agreements where any Federal funding is used. And 
so any project, whether it is Federal Government project, a 
state or local jurisdiction, or even in the private sector, 
could see these protections rolled back. It is really, again, 
an attack on working people.
    And we also now know that this bill is not just limited to 
new construction, but any facilities that receive Federal 
funding that are maintained under a project labor agreement, 
and we have many of these back home in the city of Long Beach 
and across the state of California. These will also be 
targeted, threatening even more American jobs. And so, even if 
you do not agree with PLAs or think they are not the best for 
any certain situation, a vote for this legislation completely 
eliminates their use for any project that uses Federal funding, 
and that is absolutely outrageous and shameful. It jeopardizes 
the livelihoods of constituents in every congressional 
district, opens essential projects up to the possibility of 
additional costs and delays, and harms your ability to maintain 
and improve infrastructure that we all depend on.
    We know that there has been study after study across the 
country that concluded that PLAs attract, by the way, a similar 
number of bidders and have been associated with equivalent or 
lower costs oftentimes than projects without them. So, 
eliminating PLAs across the board for projects with Federal 
funding is really an open attack on working people, on the 
American middle class. And Republicans on this Committee and 
across Congress are pushing for it at a moment when we should 
literally be doing the opposite. We should be increasing the 
workforce, we should be creating more local hiring jobs across 
the country.
    I find it also interesting that Republicans who voted and 
who have voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and 
who are now, by the way, praising these projects and going 
across the country and celebrating these projects back in their 
district, many of these projects were built with project labor 
agreements. So, we can go on and on talking about projects 
across the country that Republicans are now praising, that they 
voted against, that were actually project labor agreement 
projects. And so, I want to actually thank President Biden and 
his leadership for the Inflation Reduction Act, for his work on 
the bipartisan infrastructure agreement because communities are 
finally getting the resources that they need.
    I also want to just add that most project labor agreements 
have a local hiring component, and what that essentially means 
is that we are able to not just hire from the region or 
anywhere in the state, but actually from that community. So in 
California, in my city, we have a percentage where the actual 
workers need to come directly from the city and the region, so 
you are ensuring that your local folks actually get these jobs. 
And so, this is ensuring local residents and it is ensuring 
that projects get built on time across the state and back home. 
So, for us back home, project labor agreements have been a game 
changer. Above all, this bill, and this really attack, abandons 
a promise we have made to hardworking men and women across the 
country, and so I absolutely oppose any efforts to rollback 
project labor agreements. And with that, I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognized Mr. Palmer from 
Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the Chairman, and thank the Chairman 
for introducing this bill. I am not sure what bill some of my 
colleagues are reading because this is not an attack on project 
labor agreements. It just maintains a neutral status and a 
level playing field for all contractors. And I would just like 
to point out that more than 87 percent of U.S. construction 
workforce chooses not to belong to the union, so you are 
arguing something, an issue that does not exist.
    I would also like to point out that the construction 
industry is facing what has been described as a historic 
shortage of skilled workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 
projects that we need another 650,000 skilled workers. The 
Biden Administration version of the project labor agreement, 
again, is going to make that problem even worse. It is going to 
exacerbate the problem by trying to force these people who are 
in merit shops into union shops, further delaying major 
infrastructure projects that we desperately need to get 
underway. I just want to point out that a lot of the issues 
that we are dealing with with this are problems imposed on us 
by the Federal Government. And I think what you are trying to 
do with this bill, which I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to reconsider and support, is to put us in a position 
where we can get the workforce that we need rather than create 
one impediment after another to getting these people in the 
workforce to get these jobs done.
    I do want to emphasize again that this is neutral toward 
project labor agreements, and it allows competition for union 
job companies. It allows non-union companies. But the key thing 
that we cannot lose sight of, Mr. Chairman, is the need for 
getting infrastructure projects done. Our infrastructure is in 
decline, particularly on the transportation side, and we do not 
need another administration-imposed impediment to getting the 
workforce that we need to get these jobs done. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be heard? Mr. Casar for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in your 
opening remarks you mentioned that project labor agreements 
could discriminate against union versus non-union workers. But 
my understanding is that Federal law guarantees workers the 
right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not, 
regardless of a project labor agreement. Mr. Chairman, is that 
your understanding as well?
    Chairman Comer. Are you asking me a question?
    Mr. Casar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just think that it is 
important in this bill to make it clear that, in fact, all 
workers in this country can choose whether to be a member of a 
union or not. And in your laying out of the bill, you said that 
project labor agreements would discriminate against non-union 
workers, but my understanding is any worker on any project, PLA 
or not, has a Federal right to choose whether to be a part of a 
union or not.
    Chairman Comer. You have the right to be a part of union, 
but the mandate says you have to be a union worker to get the 
job.
    Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, it would be good for us to check 
up on that because I am pretty sure that project labor 
agreements do not require you to be a union member to be a part 
of the job because if it did, then that would be violating your 
Federal rights, whether to join a union or not. Again, project 
labor agreements, for everybody, to lay out, is a pre-
negotiated set of wages and benefits in order to make sure that 
we get good workers, train people locally, and then workers can 
decide whether they want to be a part of a union or not. And so 
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can----
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Casar. Yes, please.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. I thank you for the point. What the 
project labor agreement does is to agree upon a prevailing wage 
that union members may have bargained for, but then everybody 
has got to be paid, so--but nobody is compelled to join the 
union. That would indeed, as you are saying, Mr. Casar, violate 
the National Labor Relations Act, which gives the workers the 
right to decide whether or not they want to join a union. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Ranking Member. That is right. For 
example, when it is the weekend, and whether you are a union 
worker or not, you still get the weekend, and so many workers 
can benefit on project labor agreements while choosing whether 
or not they want to be a union member.
    Mr. Chairman, also as you laid the bill out, you said, and 
I think I am quoting this correctly, that there are a host of 
business groups representing thousands of workers supporting 
this bill. There were letters submitted for the bill and 
against the bill. Of course those business associations you 
listed, in fact, represent construction companies, 
corporations, but you said that they represent thousands of 
workers. Mr. Chairman, did we submit any letters from 
organizations supporting the bill that, in fact, are composed 
of construction workers instead of construction companies?
    Chairman Comer. These letters represent tens of thousands 
of construction workers that I think are pretty happy with 
where they were.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding----
    Chairman Comer. And I do not believe you are correct in 
your statement, but proceed.
    Mr. Palmer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Casar. I will in one moment because I do want to agree 
with one of your points, Mr. Palmer, and ask you a question if 
I have the time. My understanding is companies or associations, 
like the Builders and Contractors or General Contractors, 
represent corporations and not their workers. And organizations 
like SMART and NABTU represent workers and have elections where 
workers choose their leadership and choose the agenda.
    My next question, that could go to Mr. Palmer, for example, 
is, these PLAs, we have not talked that much about the fact 
that they get us local hiring at the local level and 
apprenticeship training for workers, and that is a key part of 
addressing the worker shortages we see. My question for anybody 
either in the Majority or Minority is whether folks know 
whether the Shawnee Power Plant, the Paradise Power Plant, and 
the Kentucky Dam, that I understand are in Mr. Comer's 
district, or the Department of Energy uranium cleanup in Oak 
Ridge in Mr. Burchett's district, or the DOE's Savannah River 
Site in Ms. Mace's district, or the Ascend Elements project 
battery recycling plant being built in Mr. Comer's district, or 
the Black Hills Airport in Ms. Boebert's district, or the Intel 
chip plant in Mr. Turner's district, or Resolution Copper Mine 
in Mr. Bigg and Mr. Gosar's districts, or the Alabama Power 
projects in Mr. Palmer's district, or the upcoming Honda LG 
battery plant in Mr. Jordan's district, or Lambeau Field just 
outside Mr. Grothman's district, or the Toyota power plant 
being built or that was built in my district, whether those 
were built successfully under project labor agreements or not.
    Mr. Palmer. If I may respond to that. Again, it is not an 
issue of project labor agreements. It is this project labor 
agreement as determined by the Biden Administration. And there 
is an issue with training workforce, and I will give you an 
example of that is a federally assisted project here in D.C., 
the South Capitol Street Corridor P, a phase one project, has 
the following language in this agreement. Now Article 13, for 
instance: ``The parties recognize the need to maintain 
continuing support of programs designed to develop adequate 
numbers of competent workers in the construction industry.'' 
Now, just remember that. ``Parties further recognize that 
apprenticeship and training shall be offered consistent with 
the applicable union's collective bargaining agreement, 
consistent with the apprenticeship and training programs 
currently maintained by the joint apprenticeship and training 
committee sponsored by the unions and their signatory 
contractors.'' In other words, if your company, a contractor 
that is doing the work is not union and they need to train 
workers, it has to come from the union shop.
    So again, I just want to make clear that what Mr. Comer is 
trying to do is not eliminate project labor agreements. It is 
to remain neutral on this, and, again, I want to emphasize the 
shortage of workers. I worked for two international engineering 
construction companies, and we had union workers on certain job 
sites, but most of our workforce was non-union. We were able to 
get things done. And what we do not want to do is create more 
impediments to developing the skilled labor force that we 
desperately need and getting the infrastructure projects done 
that we desperately need to get done.
    So, do not take this necessarily as anti-union. This is 
just trying to maintain a neutral status. And in my opinion, 
Mr. Chairman, the issue really here is the dire situation that 
we face with infrastructure and the need to get more skilled 
workers on the job, whether union or non-union, and get these 
projects completed. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. And if I may add, I just quote this from 
the U.S. Department of Labor. ``Non-union workers covered under 
PLAs may have to pay agency fees to cover costs associated with 
the duty of unions to fairly represent all workers union and 
non-union in the administration of collective bargaining 
agreements.'' So----
    Mr. Casar. So Mr. Chairman, that sounds like I am correct, 
that non-union workers work on project labor agreements all the 
time. They may, just like we have to all over the country, chip 
in for representation because we do not want free riders and 
freeloading. And I actually associate myself entirely with Mr. 
Palmer's remarks that we need good apprenticeship programs, and 
these are oftentimes managed both by contractors and unions 
alike.
    And the freeloading problem that we have started to find in 
the construction industry is that oftentimes those workers get 
trained up by unions. There may not be enough union work. Those 
trained workers then go work elsewhere, and there is not the 
economic incentive. There is a market failure for that kind of 
apprenticeship program, and that is part of where I believe the 
Federal Government can step in is when there is a market 
failure. That is why the Federal Government and local and state 
governments pay for schools because you cannot count on any one 
business to educate everybody in the country.
    In the same way, we need to make sure that when we are 
using our Federal purchasing power, that we are training the 
next generation to go into these jobs that are so, so critical 
to our economy, and that is exactly what the Biden 
Administration is doing. And the answer to my earlier question 
is that all of those projects in Republican districts, and then 
in mine as well, are all project labor agreement projects, are 
training the workforce of the future for the infrastructure 
projects of the future. We should be encouraging project labor 
agreements because on projects like Naval Base Kitsap in 2015, 
a multi-billion dollar project, it did not go over budget. It 
went $250 million under budget. Most of our home construction 
projects go over budget, so that is why I will be opposing this 
bill.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, again, I just wanted to make this point 
that 87 percent of your workforce is non-union in the 
construction trades, and they do an excellent job in those 
companies in training the workforce. Having worked in 
engineering and been involved in some major construction 
projects, I have seen that firsthand. So, I just want to 
emphasize again that, in my opinion, you are arguing against a 
position that harms our ability to train our workforce, to get 
more people into that workforce and to get these jobs done, but 
I understand your position on the issue and the position you 
are going to take on the bill. But I encourage my colleagues to 
reconsider this and to support this bill because it makes 
sense.
    Mr. Casar. I understand it, and I appreciate the 
conversation back and forth. Mr. Chairman, to clear up that 
this does not discriminate between union and non-union workers, 
and Mr. Palmer's reading of the project labor agreement 
language that, while we may disagree, I think what you read out 
actually solves the problem you are describing. I still do not 
understand how a project labor agreement having people jointly 
chip in for a state-of-the-art training program hurts workforce 
development. What you read, I think, actually shows exactly why 
project labor agreements are what we need to address the 
construction worker shortages in the future. So, I think we 
need that kind of article and many more construction contracts, 
if we want to solve that problem.
    Mr. Palmer. It actually forces the contractors to let the 
union apprentice shops do the training rather than their own 
shops, which they have invested heavily in, and again----
    Mr. Casar. Yes. My understanding is, overwhelmingly--and if 
you go talk to the Samsungs of the world, the Toyotas of the 
world, the Hondas of the world, they are showing up and saying 
let us set up joint union and contractor training programs 
where we both chip in. ``Forced'' is another word for a 
contract where we all agree and say let us jointly chip in, not 
just one side or the other, so that we all have skin in the 
game, and that is what actually gets people trained, so I do 
not think it is forcing. It is saying, hey, we all agree to do 
the best thing possible.
    Mr. Palmer. We are having an----
    Chairman Comer. I will let Gary Palmer conclude, then we 
will move on to the next.
    Mr. Palmer. And I will end with this, is that if this is 
the right thing to do, it will happen. You do not need the 
government to force it. And again, having worked in that 
industry, what we try to do is develop best practices, and if 
this is a best practice, it will happen. I yield back.
    Mr. Casar. One second. You have a construction worker die 
every 2-and-a-half days on the job, so not everything happens 
right on its own.
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired. Any other Member wish 
to be recognized?
    Mr. Goldman of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard?
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman of New York. I would just like to re-emphasize 
the point that my colleagues from Texas and Maryland have made 
that I think is really the important issue here, which is 
prevailing wage. That is what these project labor agreements 
are guaranteeing. And if you do not have a prevailing wage, 
what you find is the opportunity to abuse the workers, and it 
becomes a race to the bottom to find the lowest-cost worker to 
do the job. That means that you get worse quality of work, you 
have fewer protections for the workers, and, of course, it also 
means that the corporations make a disproportionate amount of 
the money available but to be split between the corporations 
and the workers.
    Unions and prevailing wage has been principally responsible 
for expanding the middle class in this country. That is what 
many strive for in order to be able to support their family, to 
have a homeownership, and to be able to live their American 
dream. And by eliminating of prevailing wage, what you are 
essentially doing is eliminating the opportunity for many to 
achieve their goal of becoming a productive middle class 
citizen in this country. And so, we can debate whether it is a 
union or non-union, but the point here and the point of these 
project labor agreements is to guarantee a certain standard of 
work and a certain wage for those who are working in order to 
ensure that there is quality of work, some worker protections, 
and an expansion of the middle class.
    And I do not know, Mr. Casar, if you would like me to yield 
any more time? Apparently he does not, so I will yield back to 
the Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other 
Members wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1209, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair--the Chair recognizes Mr. 
Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I call for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 192, to prohibit 
individuals who are not citizens of the United States from 
voting in elections in the District of Columbia.
    The Clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 192, a bill to prohibit an individual who 
is not a U.S. citizen from voting in any election in the 
District of Columbia.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for an amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 192, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    Since the voters entrusted Republicans with control of the 
House, this Committee has conducted long overdue oversight of 
our Nation's capital city by convening three hearings on the 
District of Columbia. Our most recent D.C. hearing, held 
jointly with the Committee on House Administration, examined 
the topic of election integrity in the District. On November 
21, 2022, the District Government enacted the Local Resident 
Voting Rights Amendment Act, allowing non-citizen residents to 
vote in D.C. local elections. This includes illegal immigrants 
and even foreign diplomats whose interests may be opposed to 
the interests of Americans. This radical change to our election 
laws upset lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. D.C. Mayor 
Bowser withheld her signature on the Act, something she has 
done only a handful times.
    On February 9, 2023, 260 Members of the House voted to 
overturn the D.C. Act through a resolution of disapproval, 
which I sponsored. In that vote, I was happy to see Committee 
colleague, Representative Jared Moskowitz, join 41 other House 
Democrats in voting to block this D.C. law. However, this 
bipartisan resolution of disapproval was not considered in the 
Senate, so D.C.'s non-citizen voting law has gone into effect. 
This is unacceptable.
    The only factor that differentiates American citizens from 
non-citizens is the right to vote. D.C. residents should be 
confident that their local government is not being diluted by 
lawful non-citizen residents or illegal immigrants. Article I 
of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over 
the Nation's Capital, and the House Rules charge the Oversight 
Committee with a duty to oversee the municipal affairs of the 
District of Columbia.
    I urge my colleagues to support Representative Pfluger's 
commonsense bill to ensure that only U.S. citizens have the 
right to vote in local D.C. elections, and repeal D.C.'s 
radical law. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would retitle this 
bill ``The Insult to Injury Bill.'' The injury begins with the 
massive and globally unique disenfranchisement of the residents 
of the Federal capital city. The United States is the only 
democratic Nation on earth which disenfranchises the people who 
live in the capital city, which means that there are 700,000 
taxpaying draftable American citizens who have participated in 
every war that America has ever fought, beginning with the 
American Revolution, and yet are denied voting representation, 
both in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate.
    But it is not enough for Mr. Pflueger and our friends in 
the GOP to deny 700,000 fellow citizens equal voting rights and 
representation in Congress. Now they have to deny D.C. even the 
right to decide who is going to vote in their local elections 
because that is all we are talking about, who is going to vote 
for school board and Advisory Neighborhood Commission and who 
is going to vote for City Council and Mayor. There is one 
Federal representative from the District of Columbia, Ms. 
Norton, the distinguished non-voting delegate from the District 
of Columbia. And under the legislation that H.R. 192 would 
repeal in D.C., the local population does not vote, even for 
the non-voting delegate, as I understand it. In any event, the 
non-voting delegate, by definition, does not get to vote in 
Congress, and so this is just really pretty much a symbolic 
effort to add insult to injury.
    It so happens, if you actually do any research on this, 
that the vast majority of states permitted non-citizens to vote 
for most of American history. Most of the states represented in 
this Committee allowed non-citizens to vote at the local level. 
Many of them allowed it even at the state and Federal level. 
But when the republic began, the relevant suffrage restrictions 
were based on wealth, property, race, and gender. And if you 
were a propertied white man, you could vote, regardless of what 
your citizenship was. Your citizenship was considered 
completely irrelevant to it. And this primarily became an issue 
there during the Civil War, where it was the Republican Party 
which championed non-citizen voting, which is why a number of 
newspapers in the South attacked Abraham Lincoln as an alien 
President, saying that he was carried to victory on the 
strength of the immigrant vote in New York, in Illinois, and in 
other states. The southern states opposed immigrant suffrage 
because they felt that immigrants were coming over to America 
with radical ideas against slavery as Lincoln defended the 
practice of non-citizen voting.
    In any event, nothing remotely so controversial as what the 
Republican Party of the 19th century endorsed is going on in 
D.C. They are just talking about allowing people to vote in 
school board elections. Now, our friends have made a big deal 
out of diplomatic personnel from China and Russia. And perhaps 
Chinese spies, like the one who apparently was going to be the 
star witness for the Majority in their continuing efforts to 
find something on Joe Biden, these people theoretically would 
be allowed to vote. If you want to go after those people, well, 
then say that diplomatic personnel and Chinese spies should not 
be allowed to vote. But if they are talking about, I do not 
know, 80,000 or 70,000 people, I do not know how many people 
exactly are affected by voting in their local school board 
elections, it is a very different matter than allowing 
diplomatic personnel from Russia or China, where conceivably 
there is some kind of Federal interest, although it has not 
been identified or elucidated, at least to my satisfaction, 
what that might be.
    So, what is this really about? It is just about kicking 
around the people of Washington, DC. I do not think we have had 
any hearings about how we can actually assist the people of 
Washington in any of their efforts to deal with the problems 
there. Including the problem of gun violence as guns continue 
to pour into Washington, DC, like other big cities across the 
country. If we want to actually help people in Washington, why 
don't we start by adopting the proposal which is advanced and 
endorsed by more than 90 percent American people, a universal 
violent criminal background check? Why don't we close the 
internet loophole? Why don't we close the private gun show 
loophole? There are things that we can do to help Washington 
along with other big cities that exist in all of our states, 
but this is not one of them. This is obviously a cheap shot 
against the people of Washington who have decided to use their 
very limited democratic rights to extend rights to people who 
live in the city.
    With that I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? Ms. 
Norton is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose this 
undemocratic, paternalistic bill. This Congress, House 
Republicans have become obsessed with overturning the District 
of Columbia's election laws. They have already introduced 17 
bills that would do so. Yet, they refuse to do the one and only 
thing D.C. residents have asked them to do about elections in 
D.C., which is to give D.C. residents voting representation in 
the House and Senate, as well as full control over their local 
affairs by passing the D.C. Statehood bill.
    It is true that Congress has the constitutional authority 
to legislate on local D.C. matters, but it is false that 
Congress has a constitutional duty to do so. Instead, 
legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. D.C. residents, 
a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy 
of governing themselves. I remind my Republican colleagues, who 
claim to revere the founders, what James Madison said in 
Federalist 43, about the residents of the Federal District: ``A 
municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their 
own suffrages, will, of course, be allowed them.''
    The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate full 
legislative power--their words--full legislative power to D.C. 
on local D.C. matters. Last year, the D.C. Council passed the 
Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, which 
allows non-citizens to vote but only in local D.C. elections. 
This year, the House passed a disapproval resolution that would 
have nullified this legislation, but the Senate never took it 
up. The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 is 
now law and it should remain law. The Local Resident Voting 
Rights Amendment Act of 2022 only applies to local, and I 
stress, local D.C. elections.
    But there is a long history in the United States of 
allowing non-citizens to vote in local, state, territorial and 
Federal elections. At various points, 40 states have permitted 
non-citizens to vote. For example, Texas, the home state of the 
sponsor of H.R. 192, and Kentucky, the home state of the Chair 
of this Committee, used to allow non-citizens to vote. Today, 
more than a dozen municipalities allow non-citizens to vote in 
local, and I stress, local elections.
    The D.C. Council has 13 members. The members are elected by 
D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote, 
they can vote them out of office. Congress has 535 voting 
Members. The Members are elected by residents of their states. 
None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not 
like how the Members vote, they cannot vote them out of office. 
The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the 
governed and taxation without representation. Yet D.C. 
residents cannot consent to any actions taken by Congress, 
including H.R. 192, and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. 
residents pay more Federal taxes per capita than residents of 
any state and more total Federal taxes than 19 states while 
being denied voting representation in Congress.
    I urge Members to vote no on this bill, and I urge this 
Committee to keep its hands off D.C. and pass the D.C. 
Statehood bill instead. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want 
to note that so far in this Congress, in this Committee, we 
have had 12 hearings of this full body total. Of those, three 
of them in its entirety have been devoted to the District of 
Columbia, so one-fourth of all of the hearings that we have had 
in this body have been about Washington, DC, the District of 
Columbia. Now, that is more attention that we have spent on any 
other single issue in this full Oversight Committee, and it is 
not even close, not government operations, not national 
security, not the Federal workforce, not healthcare, all topics 
that are the jurisdiction of this Committee in parts.
    So, we have spent more time instead on the District of 
Columbia, and I think that tells you everything what the 
priorities are here in this Republican Majority. We have real 
serious challenges that are facing our country, pressing issues 
that deserve the attention of this body. But instead of doing 
that work our constituents sent us here to accomplish, we have 
devoted 25 percent of our time to essentially have Washington, 
DC. be the political punching bag of this Committee. It is 
transparent, and, quite frankly, it should be embarrassing to 
this Committee.
    This bill is just another opportunity for far-right House 
Republicans to trample on the fundamental rights of 700,000 
people, create fear, and pander to an extremist base. They do 
not care about election integrity any more than they pretend to 
care about crime in our hearings earlier this year. And if they 
did, we would have been reviewing bills to strengthen campaign 
finance laws or invest in preventing foreign interference in 
our elections, but this is not about solutions. Obviously, this 
Committee is about just attacking Washington, DC. over and over 
and over again.
    And I have said it before, and I will say it again, the 
House Majority Members of this Committee, if they are really 
that interested in Washington, DC, they should run for the 
Washington, DC. City Council or even Mayor. It is a great job. 
I have done it before, and that is really the forum for these 
discussions about Washington, DC. And I am just curious, also 
you know, we have already held one-fourth of our hearings about 
Washington. And I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, should we expect 
more hearings about Washington, DC. as part of this Committee?
    Chairman Comer. Well, let me correct you. We have had, 
counting our Subcommittees which we said was going to be a very 
substantive part of this Committee process, we have had around 
60 Committee hearings total. And we have discussed a lot of 
things, from cybersecurity to pharmacy benefit managers. So, I 
think we have had a pretty substantive Committee schedule, and 
I would welcome you to compare our first 6 months to the first 
6 months of my predecessor's Oversight Committee schedule and 
the topics that have been discussed.
    Mr. Garcia. Well, sir, I appreciate that, but the truth is, 
we have had 12 full hearings of the Oversight Committee, where 
all Members----
    Chairman Comer. We do work in Subcommittees as well.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely, sir. And I just think it is 
interesting though of the 12 full hearings we have had of this 
Committee, 25 percent of them, more than any other single 
topic, have been about the District of Columbia, a majority 
Black and Brown city, of which people are disenfranchised by 
not having the fundamental rights of vote for representations. 
So to me, that is something that is transparent, and it is 
outrageous, quite frankly, and so I am hoping that that 25 
percent number gets reduced.
    And in closing, the name of this Committee, quite frankly, 
should be the House Oversight Committee on the District of 
Columbia, and with that, I yield back the rest of my time.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Comer. Let me just reiterate the point that our 
conference is serious about not letting non-citizens vote. We 
do not want this to be a trend across America. We want to 
respect our election integrity. And this is an important issue, 
as is crime, and the crime rate in Washington, DC. is out of 
control, and when we have to step in, we will do that. That is 
granted in the Constitution. We will continue to do that. I 
wish we did not have to do that, but we are opposed to letting 
non-citizens vote. That is a very important part of our 
platform.
    Mr. Raskin. Gentleman?
    Mr. Garcia. I yield to Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for yielding. The first point I would 
like to make is that gun violence is crime. Some people talk 
about crime and hope that it evokes images that do not relate 
to the massacres that are taking place across the country in 
churches, synagogues, Walmarts, grocery stores, everywhere you 
turn. But the second thing is if we are really concerned about 
the influence of non-citizens, a much bigger problem would be 
non-citizen ownership of private stock in U.S. corporations, 
and I wonder how our colleagues feel about that. Would you be 
interested in a ban on non-citizens owning stock in large 
corporations that have power in our country? That is a much 
bigger threat than some non-citizens in Washington, DC, a vote-
less colony, essentially, being able to vote for an advisory 
neighborhood commissioner.
    Chairman Comer. I would like to see if the Ranking Member 
would yield the question with respect to gun violence. What 
good does it do to pass more gun laws when white privileged 
children of high-ranking elected officials can simply get their 
gun violations waived and others have to serve prison time? I 
mean, I do not think it is equal justice here with respect to 
the gun laws that are on the books. I think we need to focus on 
the gun laws that are on the books first before we look at 
other gun laws.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, Hunter Biden is being prosecuted for his 
gun offenses, and I am all for that. Are you opposed to him 
being prosecuted?
    Chairman Comer. Hunter Biden is not going to pay any price 
for his violation of the gun laws, which you all have written. 
But yet, you go to the prison system in Kentucky and it is full 
of people who have been imprisoned for violation of gun laws, 
for possession of illegal drugs, and I do not think that that 
is fair. That is why there are certain conservatives, like me, 
that were open to the criminal justice reform because we 
believe that it has been racial in nature when you look at the 
prison system in America, and the number of people who have 
been incarcerated that are minorities for simple things like 
possession of illegal drugs and possession of illegal firearm, 
but then you see the President's son get by without anything. 
And I am not even going to get into the tax evasion and the 
being an unregistered foreign agent, and the list goes on and 
on, money laundering, racketeering.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, would you join me in supporting 
decriminalization of marijuana then?
    Chairman Comer. I have always been that way.
    Mr. Raskin. Nationwide because that is something we could 
do.
    Chairman Comer. I have been that way forever.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, let us work on that. That is something 
concrete and bipartisan we could do that will end a war on many 
communities in America, and I think we could get the support 
for that certainly in my side of the aisle. I hope we could get 
it on your side, and I would pledge to work with you on that. 
But I think that we need much more aggressive enforcement of 
the gun laws we have got. I am glad that Hunter Biden was 
indicted for his gun offenses. And then some people think there 
should be no gun laws at all, and I take it you are agreeing 
with me that there should be gun laws in order to put the----
    Chairman Comer. But you all wrote the gun laws, but then--
--
    Mr. Raskin. Well, no. Actually, the NRA----
    Chairman Comer. [continuing] People like Hunter Biden do 
not have to pay the price but minorities do. I just wonder if 
Hunter Biden's last name were not Biden and if he were a 
Caucasian, where he would be right now with just that gun law, 
just the gun law.
    Mr. Raskin. Let me just say one thing about the gun law. 
The National Rifle Association used to be in favor of 
commonsense gun safety laws until it was turned into a 
political instrument to try to divide and polarize America. And 
it has succeeded, unfortunately, in doing so but 90 percent of 
American people think that we should close all of these 
loopholes and that everybody who purchases a gun should have a 
background check. I hope you would agree with me on that.
    Chairman Comer. I believe that you all are being very 
hypocritical on the gun laws that are already on the books. And 
the topic of this debate was whether or not illegals should 
vote in elections, and that is something that our side of the 
aisle is firm in being against. And quite frankly, a pretty 
good percentage of your side of the aisle will vote for this 
bill on the Floor as well.
    Mr. Raskin. And then there is a strong argument that people 
who are here on an undocumented basis should not be able to 
purchase guns and should not be able to vote.
    Chairman Comer. We believe that people who are here 
illegally should not be here, period.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. And we should stop them from purchasing 
arms, right?
    Chairman Comer. We believe in securing the border, but 
anyway, I am going to get back to the topic. I think the 
gentleman's time has expired. Any other Members wish to speak? 
Ms. Norton, did you finish? Are you good?
    Ms. Norton. I am fine, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Good deal.
    Mr. Casar. I just had one last question, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Casar. I think your time has expired, 
but I will grant you----
    Mr. Casar. My time for the whole hearing expired. Got it. 
Thank you for granting it. You were correcting Mr. Garcia that 
we have not spent 25 percent of our full Committee hearings on 
D.C., but you said you were correcting that, but is it the case 
that it is a different number? Is it 25 percent, or is a 
different percentage of our full Committee hearings have been 
dedicated to D.C.?
    Chairman Comer. And I just have to say since you keep 
bringing up the D.C., but we invited the D.C. Mayor to come 
here. We were not critical. We were looking for opportunities 
to work together, and I think that there are opportunities 
where we can work together. I think we were very cordial to the 
D.C. Mayor, and that has always been a practice of this 
Committee to have the D.C. Mayor come and be treated with 
cabinet secretary status.
    Mr. Casar. No, I thought it was a good hearing. You had 
mentioned you were correcting Mr. Garcia about the percentage 
of hearings of this full body that have been dedicated to D.C. 
I have not kept track. He said it was 25 percent of our full 
Committee hearings. Has it been 25 percent of our full 
Committee hearings are dedicated to D.C.?
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Member wish to be heard?
    Mr. Casar. So, I suppose that number is correct then.
    Chairman Comer. Did you yield back?
    Mr. Casar. I yield back to the Ranking Member----
    Chairman Comer. OK. All right. Good deal. The question is 
now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on it.
    Chairman Comer. OK. You mean on the next one? We got one 
that was on the amendment. We will do the full bill then. OK. 
All right.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 192, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair--a recorded vote was requested 
by Ms. Norton. So, as previously announced, further proceedings 
on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 3358, Mission Not 
Emissions Act.
    The Clerk will please report to bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 3358, Mission Not Emissions, a bill to 
prohibit any requirement for recipients of Federal contracts to 
disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial 
risk, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 3358, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    I support H.R. 3358, the Mission Not Emissions Act. Since 
assuming office after campaigning to be the unity president, 
President Biden has launched a slew of whole-of-government 
efforts to impose a radical progressive vision upon America. 
Nowhere has this been more the case than in President Biden's 
crusade to impose a progressive climate agenda on our entire 
economy. And one of the worst features of President's climate 
campaign is the President's attempt to impose burdensome new 
requirements on the entire Federal contracting community, 
including critical defense contracting.
    On May 20, 2021, in service to the progressive's climate 
ideology, President Biden signed Executive Order 14030 on 
climate-related financial risk. Among other things, this 
executive order directed the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Council to consider an amendment to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation framework that imposes requirements to disclose and 
minimize Federal contractor greenhouse gas emissions. On 
November 14, 2022, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule that, 
if finalized, would mandate Federal contractors make extensive 
disclosures of greenhouse gas emissions related to the business 
operations.
    The rule requires that contractors submit new emissions 
reduction targets to a progressive nongovernmental 
organization, the Science Based Targets Initiative, for 
validation and subsequent compliance monitoring. This is a 
matter for alarm. Science Based Targets Initiative is an 
international third-party organization with unclear funding 
sources and a clear bias against the fossil fuel industry. The 
proposed rule's outsourcing of emissions target setting and 
compliance monitoring to this NGO raises great concerns that 
Federal contracting, including critical defense contracting, 
will become subject to the whims of radical NGO funded by 
foreign actors.
    Commenters on the proposed rule have raised clear warnings 
that if the rule is implemented without change, it may become 
impossible for fossil fuel contractors to deliver mission-
critical fuels to our armed forces and the Federal vehicle 
fleet. Put simply, the proposed rule places radical 
environmental activist goals over U.S. national security 
interests. It should be stopped, and this bill, the Mission Not 
Emissions Act, will stop it.
    The bill prohibits any requirement that recipients of 
Federal contracts disclose greenhouse gas emissions and 
climate-related financial risk as described in the proposed 
rulemaking or any substantially similar future rule. It 
similarly prohibits any requirement that recipients of Federal 
contracts provide any greenhouse gas inventory or any other 
report of greenhouse gas emissions to the Federal Government. 
Finally, the bill prohibits requirements that recipients of 
Federal contracts develop greenhouse gas emissions reduction 
targets and submit them for validation to any non-governmental 
organization. As the title of the bill puts it, this bill puts 
the mission, not emissions, first.
    I thank Budget Committee Chairman, Jodey Arrington, for 
introducing this unfortunately necessary bill, and I urge my 
colleagues' full support. I now recognize the Ranking Member 
for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do not know what 
progressive climate ideology is, but I do know that the 
scientific consensus is 99 percent or a 100 percent that the 
Earth has warmed considerably over the last 100 years and that 
there are man-made industrial causes behind the radical climate 
change that the whole Earth is experiencing. Look, the Federal 
Government has got to be an instrument for the common good of 
all of the people. And today, the week after the Earth suffered 
its 3 hottest days in at least 125,000 years, the common good 
requires us to confront the reality of this climate emergency 
and to intensify our actions to address it.
    I strongly oppose H.R. 3358 because it does the exact 
opposite of what we need. It attempts to keep emissions and 
other critical public data about climate secret, as if the best 
response to the out-of-control forest fires in California, or 
crippling heat waves through the South and Texas, or the 
unbreathable air we suffered in the Midwest and the mid-
Atlantic from Canada, or the brutal floods experienced over the 
weekend in Vermont and upstate New York, is just to sweep 
climate change under the rug and describe the opinion of 
science and the common sense of the people as radical 
environmentalist ideology. That is just a deranged way to go.
    June and July's scorching temperatures devastated states 
across America. In Texas, the power grid again teetered on the 
brink of catastrophic failure that appears to have been staved 
off, so far, thanks only to renewable wind and solar energy. 
Oil and gas companies released hundreds of tons of toxic 
climate warming carcinogenic gas into the air to avoid 
explosions as the heat caused the gas to expand inside the 
pipeline systems. And on a single day in June--June 20th, to be 
exact--at least 350 residents of Texas wound up in emergency 
departments due to heat illnesses, and hundreds of people have 
died in Europe from the heat waves there.
    Eugene Gates, a postal worker in Congresswoman Crockett's 
district in Texas, lost his life to the heat. And we wrote you 
a letter about this, Mr. Chairman. June and July's devastating 
heatwaves swept across the country alongside the toxic smoke 
from Canada's record-breaking wildfires. Climate change is 
increasing the intensity of wildfires so rapidly that 
researchers are grappling with cost estimates, but some recent 
estimates put the cost of adverse health effects in Ontario 
alone at $1.28 billion for just 5 days in early June. If you 
extrapolate that estimate for all of Canada and the United 
States and across the full timeframe of that smoke disaster, 
which blanketed these areas, it makes the full toll of this one 
climate crisis incident beyond staggering: hundreds of billions 
of dollars or even over a trillion dollars from one episode.
    Now, my GOP colleagues have observed these disasters, 
runaway floods, runaway wildfires, storms of unprecedented 
severity, dangerous air quality, deadly heat, and they have 
decided the best way to deal with it all, the best way to 
address the climate crisis is by using the magical thinking of 
a 2-year-old and pretending that it does not exist. H.R. 3358, 
the so-called Mission Not Emissions Act, would prohibit anyone 
from requiring a Federal contractor to disclose greenhouse gas 
emissions and climate-related financial risks, or to provide a 
greenhouse gas inventory or any other report on greenhouse gas 
emissions, or to develop and validate emission reduction 
targets.
    The Federal Government is the world's single largest 
purchaser of goods and services, and the American people depend 
on it in Congress to ensure that the more than $650 billion 
spent annually on Federal contracts is done in the most 
effective and productive way. And if one of the critical 
contractors in our supply chain is vulnerable to climate risk 
that could shut down its operations at any time, we need to 
know that. Not knowing it poses a grave threat to the missions 
of each Agency of the Federal Government and the American 
people that we serve. Public disclosure is essential to 
reducing risk and fully understanding the scope of the threats 
we face. We cannot afford to not know.
    James Madison said that those who mean to be their own 
Governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge 
gives. And why would we pass a law that specifically suppresses 
the knowledge that we need in order to address the climate 
emergency that is bearing down on us? So, I strongly oppose 
this bill and I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back to you.
    Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record the following document: a letter to this Committee in 
support of the Mission Not Emissions Act from the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 3358, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion--Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Request a recorded vote.
    A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, 
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 890, Guidance Out 
of Darkness Act.
    The Clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 890, Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act, a 
bill to increase access to Agency guidance documents.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 890, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    I am pleased to call up for consideration today my bill, 
H.R. 890, the Guidance out of Darkness Act, or the GOOD Act. 
Regulatory guidance includes Agency statements that while not 
intended to have the force and effect of law, establish Agency 
policies on statutory, regulatory, or technical issues. Because 
it communicates how an Agency will administer the law and its 
programs, regulatory guidance has a significant effect on the 
public and the behavior of regulated entities. Regulated 
entities and the public should be able to know what an Agency 
has said in Agency guidance about the laws and programs that 
affect them. And here is the problem: agency guidance documents 
are not easy to find. The problem is so bad that Agency 
guidance documents are known as ``regulatory dark matter.''
    Prior to the Trump Administration, guidance documents were 
not consistently posted on Agency websites. This inconsistency 
burdened regulated entities, and small businesses who often 
lack the resources to hire compliance experts are especially 
negatively impacted. For a brief time, the Trump Administration 
brought needed sunshine to this situation. Following the GOOD 
Act's passage by the House during the 115th Congress, President 
Trump voluntarily adopted the bill's reforms through an October 
2019 executive order after the Senate failed to act.
    Under the executive order, guidance was required to become 
fully transparent online. Across the government, each Agency 
was directed to make available on its website a single 
searchable index data base with links to all guidance documents 
in effect. As a result, and for the first time, members of the 
public could easily find whatever Agency guidance they needed 
online and in a central location. However, the Biden 
Administration rescinded Executive Order 13891. Ever since, 
agencies have been pulling down their guidance web pages and 
guidance has once again fallen into the darkness, increasing 
the potential for Agency abuse.
    It is time the GOOD Act becomes law and agencies are 
required to publish their regulatory guidance in a single, 
easily accessible location. This will restore agency guidance 
document transparency. The American public deserves nothing 
less from their government. I urge my colleagues to support 
this simple and necessary bill. I now recognize the Ranking 
Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that eloquent 
statement on behalf of the bill. I support H.R. 890. I 
appreciate the changes you have made to it since the Committee 
last took it up. The bill would require agencies to publish 
guidance documents on a dedicated website, and for the Director 
of OMB to designate a single website where all guidance could 
be found. In many cases, these documents are already public 
information, and making them more accessible and more 
centralized in a public way is a good and transparent idea. So, 
I thank you for that.
    I am still moved by your statement that we could perhaps 
work together on reforming marijuana policy in the country. Mr. 
Chairman, I have got a bill that I want to show to you right 
away, which would keep our people--Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents--safe from being denied security clearances 
because they admit to having used marijuana even lawfully under 
a medical marijuana program or in a state which permits it to 
be used, and this is a serious problem for my constituents. I 
imagine it is a serious problem for your constituents, too.
    But I have gotten bunches of letters from people who have 
made it all the way through the Federal Government hiring 
process and then get cutoff at the end when they tell the truth 
that they have used marijuana for a medical condition or they 
have used it in some other way. So, I would love to show that 
to you, and I would love to invite your participation in that 
with me. I have got a copy of it for you, and I yield back to 
you. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Comer. I thank the Ranking Member. I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record the following documents: a 
letter to this Committee in support of the GOOD Act from the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute; a letter to this Committee in 
support of the GOOD Act from the National Taxpayers Union; a 
letter to this Committee in support of the GOOD Act from the 
National Federation of Independent Business.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 890, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Burlison.
    Mr. Burlison. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested and 
ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the 
question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 4435, the 
Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act or USA Act.
    The Clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4435, a bill to establish a budgetary level 
reduction schedule, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 4435, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as an 
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for 
statement on the bill and the amendment. congressional 
Republicans are committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are 
spent wisely on Federal Government programs. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government spent $510 
billion on programs with expired operations in Fiscal Year 
2023. About half of these programs expired more than a decade 
ago. This is unacceptable. Congress needs to pay closer 
attention to the many Federal programs left on autopilot. These 
programs are operating without diligent congressional oversight 
and timely legislative authorizations to keep these programs 
relevant to the challenges of today.
    The Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act, or USA Act, 
addresses this problem by requiring Congress to review 
unauthorized programs on a recurring basis. It also creates a 
clear process for terminating programs that are no longer 
needed or which do not have the legislative support within 
Congress for their reauthorization. The bill would implement a 
gradual reduction in the overall appropriated funding levels 
over a 3-year period for the total amount of unauthorized 
programs. This gives Congress time to consider each program and 
pass necessary reauthorization legislation. It is not too much 
to ask that Congress provide the appropriate level of scrutiny 
over the Federal programs it has established and find the time 
every 3 years to ensure that Federal funds are being used 
responsibly and effectively. The timeframe under the USA Act 
forces that to happen. This bill will increase government 
efficiency, improve the effectiveness of Federal Agency 
programs and missions, and help reduce government spending.
    I want to thank my House colleague, Energy and Commerce 
Committee Chairwoman, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for working with 
me on this important legislation. I call upon my colleagues to 
support this necessary legislation. I now recognize the Ranking 
Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You know, 
the Constitution has an appropriations clause, Article I, 
Section 9, Clause 7, but it does not have an authorization 
clause. In other words, Congress must appropriate money for it 
to be spent, but it does not have to authorize money to be 
spent. It can just appropriate it. The distinction between 
authorization and appropriation is a parliamentary expedient 
which Congress has used in order to clarify and elucidate the 
process.
    The H.R. 4435, the Unauthorized Spending Accountability 
Act, should perhaps be renamed the ``Dysfunction Proliferation 
Act,'' because it would mire congressional proceedings down in 
a new and overwhelmingly untenable workload and threaten 
important Federal programs. It would ultimately terminate all 
discretionary Federal programs without permanent authorizations 
that are not expressly reauthorized by Congress at least every 
3 years, a radical departure from current congressional 
practice and one that has no basis in the Constitution. 
Congress routinely appropriates funding for important programs 
and activities whose authorizations have lapsed, including an 
estimated $510 billion in 2023. This bill would wreak havoc on 
important government programs and services that our 
constituents rely on every single day, programs like hospital 
care and medical services for veterans, Section 8 housing 
assistance, Pell Grants for America's college students, and 
essential Head Start programs for children.
    The GAO's definitive guide on the Principles of 
Appropriations Law states that the very existence of a statute 
that requires funding in order to perform substantive functions 
``is itself sufficient legal authorization for the necessary 
appropriations.'' In other words, whether or not a Federal 
program's authorization is expired is of virtually no 
consequence to Federal agencies, the rule of law, the courts, 
or our constituents who depend on them. This GOP bill benefits 
absolutely no one but extremist mega lawmakers who want to 
defund programs and entire agencies and offices that they just 
do not like.
    According to the CBO, in Fiscal Year 2023, Congress saw fit 
to appropriate funding toward 428 expired authorizations 
associated with extensively deliberated and well-supported 
public laws, including the Veterans Health Care Eligibility 
Reform Act, the 21st Century Cures Act, the Violence Against 
Women Act, and many more. An additional 355 authorizations 
expire this year. If this bill were to become law, Mr. Comer's 
fellow committee chairs would need to immediately set aside 
their agendas for the rest of the term to deal with the self-
inflicted catastrophe of these reauthorization needs, which 
would consume up vast amounts of time and resources and likely 
still fail given the dysfunctional nature of the House 
Republican caucus, which we have seen on display recently.
    If my colleagues are sincere in their interest to address 
some of the incoherence of the authorization and appropriations 
practices in Congress, I would embrace a serious analysis and 
transparent process to examine viable alternatives. This should 
include the solicitation of views from Democratic and 
Republican committee leadership, a consideration of 
recommendations arising from rigorous academic studies of 
Congress, and technical assistance from both Federal Agencies 
and community groups to understand the full implications of 
proposed changes. Such scrutiny would clearly show that this 
Dysfunction Expansion Act is a thinly veiled attempt just to 
kneecap vital Federal programs, taking Congress's internal 
problems, and then making them all of the problems of America.
    I urge my colleagues to do the obvious thing and join me in 
opposing this ill-conceived legislation that will defund 
veterans' healthcare, housing assistance, programs helping 
college students afford their tuition, and programs that 
support early education for infants and children across the 
country. If we want to do this, let us do it seriously with 
some hearings. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record the following documents: a letter to this Committee in 
support of the USA from the National Taxpayer Union.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
    Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk now, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the amendment?
    The Clerk. Amendment Number 1 to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 4435, offered by Mr. Raskin of 
Maryland.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The Ranking 
Member is recognized for 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. My amendment 
prohibits budgetary reductions in program terminations that 
would otherwise be required by the bill unless they have been 
determined to have no adverse effect on the entities or 
populations they are designed to serve. It also changes the 
terms used throughout the bill from ``unauthorized programs,'' 
which misleadingly suggests that the programs were never 
authorized or are operating without legal authority in some 
way, to instead refer to ``legally authorized programs.'' This 
aligns with the determination made by the Government 
Accountability Office, as I mentioned previously in my 
statement.
    I have here a list of the 428 programs or activities the 
CBO has identified as having been funded in 2023, even though 
they are associated with expired authorizations for 
appropriation. They include the Agricultural Improvement Act, 
the Agricultural Credit Act, the National Defense Authorization 
Act, the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act, Every 
Student Succeeds Act, Improving Head Start for School Readiness 
Act, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Workforce 
Innovation Opportunity Act, Every Student Succeeds Act, Higher 
Education Opportunity Act. That is just the first page on what 
looks to be about 28 or 30 pages of programs. More than half of 
these authorizations expired more than 10 years ago, 
demonstrating that both Republican and Democratic majorities 
understand the value and importance of the current practice we 
have in place, which, again, is perfectly consistent with the 
Constitution.
    To provide just a few more examples of what would be 
threatened if this bill were to become law without my 
amendment, the authorization for veterans' medical care 
appropriations. Over 9 million veterans are currently enrolled 
in the VA healthcare program. Do we really just want to 
essentially cut the lifeline for 9 million veterans because 
there has not been an authorization when Congress is voting 
constitutionally to appropriate money for that exact purpose, 
which had been authorized before?
    The authorization for the National Institute for Health 
expired in 2020. This is a matter of some moment in my district 
because I represent the NIH and a lot of people who work there. 
Life without the NIH would mean severely reduced hope for 
better treatments and cures for devastating diseases, like 
cystic fibrosis, and multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's 
disease, and lung disease, and colon cancer, heart disease, 
ALS, substance use disorders, stroke, and Parkinson's. Do we 
really just want to terminate all of that? The authorization 
for the Child Care and Development Block Grant expired 3 years 
ago. As of Fiscal Year 2020, the program served almost 1.5 
million children and their families in the country. Head Start 
expired in 2012. That provides 1 million children in need with 
early education and support services.
    So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, I think everybody should 
agree, belongs in this bill. If we really think that we need 
the shock to the system administered by this bill, all right, 
you guys go ahead and vote for it. But please do not send all 
of these dependent populations on particular programs, from 
veterans to children to NIH patients, often to the wilderness 
on their own. And I move the amendment, and I yield back to 
you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize 
myself for 5 minutes. I unfortunately must oppose this 
amendment because it undermines the purpose of the bill. This 
legislation is intended to force Congress to give the 
appropriate oversight and legislative attention to individual 
agencies and programs within their appropriate authorizing 
committee.
    I agree with the Ranking Member on one point: we should 
indeed determine the impact of programs on affected 
populations. That is the entire point of the authorization 
process. The USA Act will force long-overdue deliberations to 
take place. We should not let ourselves off the hook by 
granting exemptions to various programs. Additionally, I am not 
sure who would be conducting the valuation of impacted 
population under this amendment, the agencies themselves? I 
think I know what agencies are likely to say about how 
impactful all their programs are. Authorizations and 
determinations of a program's impact on impacted populations 
requires Congress. The USA Act does not impact an individual 
program for the first few years. This is by design to give the 
appropriate legislative authorization committees time to do 
their oversight and authorization work. For these reasons, I 
oppose Ranking Member Raskin's amendment.
    Do any other Members wish to speak on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment 
offered by Mr. Raskin.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
also.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Will the Clerk please report?
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, could we have a recorded vote on 
the amendment?
    Chairman Comer. Yes. That is what I was thinking. The 
question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
So, a recorded vote has been requested. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    OK. The Clerk will report the Garcia amendment.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Amendment 
Number----
    Chairman Comer. Wait, wait, wait. The Clerk needs to report 
it first.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 4435, offered by Mr. Garcia of California.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman 
is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the 
Committee. I just want to be also clear. The act that is being 
discussed is really nothing more than a scheme to cripple 
Congress and to give right-wing extremists more and more 
opportunities to sabotage our government and eliminate, 
essentially, programs that help people. So, eliminating 
agencies and programs which are funded each year through 
Congress, even though committees have not consistently 
reauthorized them, sounds like a good idea, I know, to some, 
until you realize it is really just a tool to cripple agencies 
and programs that House Republicans might deem unworthy. So, 
this is despite Americans' overwhelming support for these 
programs.
    Now, let us actually consider if this bill, the so-called 
USA Act, were into effect today. The bill would cut 10 percent 
of funding for the National Institutes of Health, essentially 
destroying our public health research and leaving us wide open 
to the threat of future pandemics, then another 15 percent cut 
the next year and another 15 percent cut the year after that, 
so essentially eliminating the National Institutes of Health in 
our government. It would slash, to be clear, veterans' medical 
care. It would slash, and defund, and gut NASA, and in 3 years, 
it would end all funding for Section 8 housing and throw 
families out onto the street when we have a homelessness crisis 
happening across the country and in many of our states.
    It would also slash programs that fight lead poisoning, 
asthma, or epilepsy in children, and it essentially would 
defund and end the FBI as we know it. And now I know that many 
of my colleagues in this Committee would probably welcome that 
in their blind defense of indebted criminal, Donald Trump, and 
certainly, there have been Members of this Committee that have 
actually called to actually defund the FBI and law enforcement, 
but we know that the American people overwhelmingly recognize 
that this is a ridiculous proposal. Now, the party that claims 
to support law enforcement would also eventually abolish the 
U.S. Marshals Service with this act, and also important 
programs for Federal, and local, and state law enforcement 
officers that are critical would all be damaged because of 
these cuts that would happen year after year after year.
    I want to remind my friends in the Majority on this 
Committee that they actually control the agenda, and if they 
would like to write authorizations for these programs, they 
should go right ahead and do those. But we know that House 
Republicans will not do any of the work of actually governing 
the country, but they are really here to cripple our 
government. And that is why I am offering this amendment, which 
is to save some of the most critical programs, which are funded 
at over $10 billion a year, and each of which would face 
massive cuts under this extreme proposal.
    So, let us be clear. If you vote against this amendment and 
for this bill, you are voting to cut veterans' healthcare, 
slash the National Institutes of Health, throw families out of 
housing through Section 8, gut NASA, and defund the FBI. So, 
please support my amendment and vote no on the underlying bill. 
I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I oppose this 
amendment because it undermines the purpose of the bill. This 
legislation is intended to force Congress to give the 
appropriate oversight and legislative attention to every Agency 
and program within their appropriate authorizing committee. The 
USA Act will force long-overdue deliberations to take place. 
This amendment would exempt programs under $10 billion in 
funding from the requirements of the Act. That would exempt the 
majority of Federal programs and make the bill moot. Congress 
should be conducting regular oversight of all programs at all 
funding levels to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are 
spent responsibly. This is by design to give the appropriate 
legislative authorization committees time to do their oversight 
and authorization work. For these reasons, I oppose the Garcia 
amendment.
    Does any other Member wish to be heard?
    Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair, can I also have a recorded vote, 
please?
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mr. Garcia. Well, actually, Mr. Raskin, I will yield my 
time.
    Chairman Comer. All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of 
Mr. Garcia's amendment, and I thank him for his care in 
developing it. You know, I guess what troubles me about the 
whole exercise is that there is a kind of devil-may-care 
cavalierness about the whole thing, as if the sponsors know it 
is not really going to happen so they can just make a statement 
with the bill. If there is a serious problem with us voting for 
appropriations for programs where the underlying authorization 
has lapsed, then we should have hearings about that, and we 
should analyze how to move forward in a serious and 
constructive way.
    But I do not think anybody believes that this is productive 
unless the idea really is to throw veterans off of their 
healthcare and to end our funding for Head Start and so on 
because, as we said before, we know that there will be enough 
opposition within the GOP Majority caucus that there will not 
be the ability to actually get those programs authorized, 
especially with such a tiny, slender margin, and such tumult 
and turbulence within the GOP caucus right now, and the 
dependence on the votes of Members like George Santos. So, I 
would much prefer if we would spend our time actually examining 
the problem rather than going through the motions of this 
pretend legislation.
    But in any event, if we are going to move forward with this 
rather hollow exercise, we certainly need to adopt Mr. Garcia's 
amendment because if we do not, we could end up doing some 
serious damage. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to speak on the 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
amendment offered by Mr. Garcia.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Recorded vote please, if I could request that? 
Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. As 
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will 
be postponed.
    Do any other Members wish to be recognized for the purpose 
of offering an amendment? Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Yes, Mr. Chairman. May I proceed?
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the Crockett 
amendment?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 4435, as offered by Ms. Crockett of Texas.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman 
is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask consent to 
offer an amendment to Bill H.R. 4435, the Unauthorized Spending 
Accountability Act. Under this bill, there will be a 
reoccurring 3-year budgetary level reduction cycle with respect 
to any unauthorized program beginning in Fiscal Year 2024, 
consistent with the requirements of this act. My amendment 
would exempt the administration and operation of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, from this bill.
    As we all know, FEMA's primary mission is to help those 
within the country before, during, and after disasters. 
Disasters can come in many forms. FEMA responds to all declared 
domestic disasters and emergencies, whether natural or manmade, 
whether it is responding to a severe storm, like those in 
Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma or Texas, wildfires, or severe 
flooding, or even horrific events like those from 911.
    FEMA has never faltered from assisting those who have 
experienced horrific events that have altered the lives and 
livelihoods of U.S. citizens. However, with extreme weather 
events happening, like hurricanes and tornadoes, becoming more 
and more prevalent, I have grave concerns of the impact of this 
bill on FEMA's ability to help our constituents. FEMA has 
assisted in shelter, food, clothing, health, and housing during 
moments when our constituents are facing some of the most 
challenging that they have ever faced in their lives. For 
example, over the last year, FEMA has spent more than $9 
billion in assisting our constituents impacted by Hurricane 
Ian, but FEMA relief also is being provided across the country 
to areas hit by wildfires, floods, mudslides, and more.
    As one of my colleagues recently stated, emergency 
management cannot be politicized and should always be 
prioritized. Accordingly, while I believe all of us want a 
government that is fiscally responsible, I believe we also want 
a government that is accountable and reliable to its people in 
times of disaster and tragedy. That is why I believe this 
amendment is vital and should be adopted.
    And let me just add to this. When we start talking about 
FEMA and the work that FEMA does, FEMA does not just do work in 
red states, blue states, or help out just independents. FEMA 
helps everyone out, and we recently here in D.C. were actually 
under air quality warning simply because of the wildfires that 
were spreading from Canada. So, we know that these events are 
occurring, and so the last thing that I like to do is pretend 
that any of us have a magic globe that will allow us to tell us 
how many disasters are coming and how much money is going to be 
necessary to adequately take care of our shared constituencies.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?
    Ms. Crockett. Absolutely.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Crockett, thank you for your leadership in 
bringing forward this amendment. As you were talking, it made 
me wonder why the Majority, since it is in the Majority, if 
they care about the authorization of FEMA or any other Agency, 
why do not they just move to authorize it and put that on the 
agenda rather than moving to de-fund all of these agencies 
unless they are authorized. In other words, why do not they 
take the positive step of moving forward to authorize? And I 
wonder if you have any insight into that.
    Ms. Crockett. I actually do not. I have no insight as to 
why we would not move to authorize agencies such as this one 
considering the important work that is done. I come technically 
from a red state, but let me tell you that we have had historic 
flooding down in Houston that so many people still have not 
recovered from. We have had historic flooding in Dallas as 
well, and not to mention, as someone who also serves on the Ag 
Committee, just listening to my farmers, and them talking about 
the historic droughts and the burning that is happening as well 
as the flooding. This is affecting their livelihoods, and so 
their shared stories of what is happening in Texas, especially 
for our farmers, is happening throughout the entire country, in 
rural America.
    So, this is really important, no matter, really, what state 
you come from, that we do not strap them down because the one 
thing that we do know is that there is an emergency coming. The 
one thing that we do not know is how much it is going to cost 
us.
    Chairman Comer. Does the gentlelady yield back?
    Ms. Crockett. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. This amendment, 
unfortunately, goes directly against the problem the USA Act is 
trying to solve. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or 
FEMA, is a primary agency designed by Congress to ensure safety 
and readiness should disaster strike our great country. I hope 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that 
FEMA's programs, which aim to provide a safety net in the case 
of emergencies, are important enough for Congress to examine on 
a regular basis. Are we the authorization committee with 
relevant expertise of FEMA? No. So, I would defer to my 
colleagues, Chairman Mark Green, and Ranking Member Bennie 
Thompson, and their Members, as to the legal authority and 
authorized appropriations FEMA needs to deliver on its mission.
    But I do know this. The Homeland Security Committee should 
be conducting regular oversight of FEMA and not letting this 
critical executive branch agency run on autopilot. Because of 
this, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Crockett amendment, 
and I yield back.
    Do any other Members wish to be recognized?
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of 
this amendment, and I thank Ms. Crockett for laying out in 
important detail and with a lot of evidence why it is so 
important. FEMA is our emergency management and emergency 
response Agency, and it is charged with responding to 
unforeseen emergencies. That is, therefore, in and of itself 
very difficult to identify and predict. And if we are going to 
reduce the amount of money available to FEMA simply because 
they cannot designate or specifically authorize their money, we 
are undermining the purpose of FEMA and the essential work that 
it does.
    And I think Ms. Crockett's point that this is not a red 
state or blue state issue is very well taken. This is an 
American issue. And I would note that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle can rail against government spending, 
can oppose government spending, but when there is an emergency 
in their district, they are the first to reach out to FEMA and 
the Federal Government for assistance. And so, the fact that 
that this bill would potentially and almost automatically limit 
FEMA's resources undermines the important work it does and will 
have a detrimental effect to Americans all around the country, 
and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to speak on the 
Crockett amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
Crockett amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
    And Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested and 
ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the 
question will be postponed.
    All right. Do any other Members wish to be recognized for 
the purpose of offering an amendment?
    Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the Raskin 
Number 2 amendment?
    The Clerk. Raskin Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4435, as offered by Mr. 
Raskin of Maryland.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The Ranking 
Member is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. My 
amendment would exempt programs and associated budgetary levels 
that pertain to the defense of Ukraine against the imperialist 
invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin and the Russian military. 
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is a war that has divided the 
world as the autocratic, authoritarian, dictatorial nations of 
the world have supported Russia's bloody, imperialist, 
atrocity-fueled invasion of Ukraine. The free and democratic 
nations of the world have rallied to the side of Ukraine, which 
is defending its sovereignty in a just war of self-defense 
against Putin's forces.
    So, this is about wartime, and we would not want anything 
in this legislation, which obviously I have already expressed 
my misgivings over, but we would not want anything to endanger 
our support for the people of Ukraine and the forces in Ukraine 
that are resisting this autocratic aggression against the 
people they are, and in defense of their own sovereignty, and 
in defense of their democracy.
    We know that Putin decided to go to war precisely because 
it was such a threat to his form of autocratic and kleptocratic 
rule to have an example of a free democratic society that is 
based on the values of pluralism and tolerance and the 
education and the nurturance of all the people of the society. 
That was just too much of a threat to him. So, America has been 
a critical and indispensable ally, as it always has been in 
struggles for democracy and human rights against authoritarian 
and totalitarian aggression. And I do not know if this was an 
oversight on the part of the drafters, but certainly, we would 
not want anything in this legislation to endanger American 
support for the ongoing struggle of the Ukrainian people to 
defend their country.
    So with that, I urge approval of this amendment on a 
unanimous and bipartisan basis to demonstrate continuing 
congressional support for the people of Ukraine. I know that 
there are a handful of Members who have expressed support for 
Vladimir Putin and are questioning support for Ukraine. I know 
that there are people who have been attacking President 
Zelensky, but I do not know that any of them are on this 
Committee. They are certainly not in the room right now, and I 
hope that all of us could agree to adopt this amendment 
together. And I yield back to you.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself now for 5 minutes. 
Again, I must, unfortunately, oppose this amendment for the 
same reason I opposed the Ranking Member's first amendment. It 
would undermine the purpose of the bill, which is intended to 
force Congress to do oversight of the programs it creates and 
funds and reauthorize them regularly. If there is any place the 
Congress should be conducting regular oversight within the 
appropriation authorization committees, it is with the 
financial assistance the American taxpayer is providing for the 
Ukrainian conflict. Times of international conflict should 
require more, not less, congressional oversight.
    Second, today, the House is considering the Annual Defense 
Authorization Act, one of the few authorization bills Congress 
considers every year. The invasion of Ukraine prompted an 
urgent response and significant financial investment to the 
part of our Defense Department. But this was never intended to 
turn into a blank check on spending and put spending on 
autopilot. The House Foreign Affairs Committee as well as the 
Armed Services Committee should carefully weigh the future of 
unauthorized programs and do a full assessment of our 
priorities from year to year as circumstances change. While the 
U.S. continues to prioritize foreign assistance to our allies, 
we cannot use this as an excuse for runaway spending without 
sufficient analysis or oversight. For these reasons, I oppose 
the Raskin's Number 2 amendment.
    Do any other Members wish to be recognized?
    Mr. Goldman. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I do not 
understand how this is an oversight issue. This is an automatic 
reduction by 10 percent of any program that has been authorized 
and then that authorization expires, so at some point, it was 
authorized. And you rail and my colleagues on the other side 
frequently rail against wanton and excessive spending, but what 
this bill is targeting is the Administration, the executive 
branch, actually being quite judicious in its spending because 
if there remains money from previously authorized programs, 
then that necessarily means that the executive branch has not 
been wantonly spending. And so, the notion that you oppose this 
amendment simply because it provides an exemption from this 
bill makes no sense. It especially makes no sense when we 
cannot foresee what exactly will happen in the brutal attack, 
violating all sorts of international law, by the dictatorial 
regime under Vladimir Putin against a democracy next door to 
it.
    And Mr. Raskin made a comment that this is about 
international warfare. That is true, but it is also 
fundamentally about democracy. And for this Committee and this 
body to try to limit the ability of the Department of Defense 
or other executive branch agencies to defend democracy around 
the country, which, I might add, has a very significant impact 
on our own national security, notwithstanding many comments 
from colleagues on the other side, you are handcuffing our 
ability to support Ukraine against a brutal, dangerous, 
unwarranted, unprovoked, and wholly improper attack by a 
dictatorial regime.
    And so, the Republicans can couch objection to this 
amendment in a vague concern that it is contrary to the purpose 
of the bill, which does not really explain why a bill cannot 
have an amendment, and because of your designation or your 
determination that it can be dealt with in the NDAA, but we are 
dealing with it right now in this bill in addition to the NDAA. 
And I think it is shameful that the Republicans on the other 
side of the aisle are effectively taking the side of Vladimir 
Putin against the democracy in Ukraine by refusing to exempt 
any funding to support Ukraine, our democratic ally in its 
fight for its own freedom, its own democracy, against 
authoritarianism, which is a fight that the United States must 
never ever cease to participate in. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. All I will respond by saying that just 
because the Republicans do not want to provide a blank check to 
Ukraine does not mean that Republicans support Vladimir Putin. 
Does any other Member----
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Comer. You time has expired. No. Your time has 
expired. Any other Member who wishes to add to that?
    Mr. Goldman. So, you can respond, but I cannot respond to 
you?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
    Mr. Lynch. I would like to yield time to my colleague.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. We are not talking about 
a blank check. We are talking about money that has already been 
authorized for this purpose but has not been used by the 
expiration of that authorization. So, it is not an open 
checkbook to Ukraine or any other authorized program. There is 
a specific amount that was authorized, that was not used by the 
time of that expiration of authorization, and what you are 
saying here is false. It is not a blank check. It is a check 
that has already been authorized by Congress that the 
Administration has the discretion to use as it sees fit. And 
so, I wholly object to the characterization that it is a blank 
check to Ukraine. It is not. And I yield back to Mr. Lynch. 
Thank you for yielding.
    Mr. Lynch. I am reclaiming my time, and I yield additional 
time to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. And I want to thank the very distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts. But just a quick postscript to 
what our colleague from New York just pointed out. It is not 
just that the money has already been authorized or the program 
has been authorized. It is that the money has been 
appropriated. We are talking about money that has already been 
voted on in a bicameral fashion presented to the President 
under the Constitution and that has gone out the door. But the 
claim here is that if the underlying authorization had 
technically expired, even though the expenditure of the money 
was appropriated and voted on in proper constitutional fashion, 
that should be revoked, that that should not be possible.
    And that is obviously an attempt to throw a monkey wrench 
into the way that Congress has acted for decades under both 
Republicans and Democrats controlling the gavel. And to me, it 
smacks of this continuing effort that began with Steve Bannon 
to, you know, demolish what he called the administrative state, 
or the Deep State, or, essentially, democracy, and that is 
really what is at stake here, both in America and in Ukraine 
because democracy needs to have procedures and rules and 
traditions for operation. And they want to take a wrecking ball 
to all of them so that the government shuts down the way that 
the Republican caucus itself seems to be in a completely 
dysfunctional in broken-down mode. I do not want the government 
United States to operate with the extremism, fanaticism, and 
dysfunctionality that we have seen on display within the GOP 
caucus, and that is precisely what this bill would accomplish 
at this point.
    So, we are talking about the defense of democracy here as 
well as the allies of the United States. In Ukraine, we do not 
want to endanger our ability to support the people of Ukraine 
with appropriations that have already been made by Congress to 
support that just war of self-defense against Putin's invasion. 
President Biden has said numerous times that the autocrats of 
the world have told him, like President Xi, that they do not 
think democracy can work in this century. It is subject to too 
much division and polarization. It is subject to too much 
extremism and fanaticism. You need tough guy dictatorship to 
make it work, and there are those who want to fulfill the 
predictions of the autocrats and see democracy break down, and 
we cannot allow that to happen.
    If we think there is a real problem with the way the 
interaction between authorizations and appropriations works in 
Congress, let us have some hearings. Let us analyze it. There 
are people who study these things. Let us not just, you know, 
come down on the whole thing with a sledgehammer. Let us 
analyze it and let us proceed in a thoughtful and deliberate 
way. But in the meantime, let us not endanger our support for 
people who are fighting for their democratic sovereignty 
against an autocrat's invasion. And I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts yielding. I would be very curious to know what 
his thoughts are on this, too.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Look, 
I have had a fair opportunity on many times, many occasions, to 
travel to Ukraine, and I honestly feel that our funding, as it 
stands, to that sovereign nation is highly consistent with the 
ideals of our own democracy here at home. And I fully support 
every last dollar that we have committed to the Ukrainian 
people to maintain their freedom and their democracy, and there 
is nothing better that we could be doing than fighting the 
gangsterism that is going on in Eastern Europe right now. So 
with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Foxx.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comment is going to 
be very, very brief. I have heard my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, and I am not getting involved in the 
discussion about Ukraine, but I am very frustrated when I hear 
Members of Congress talk about a democracy. We live in a 
republic, and I think it is really important that we remember 
that we live in a republic, the fact that we are here as 
representatives of the people we represent. And when we pledge 
allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the republic 
for which the flag stands. So, we do not live in a democracy. 
We live in a republic, and I think it is important that that be 
pointed out occasionally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Foxx. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. Down here. So, is it your belief that the 
United States is not a democracy?
    Ms. Foxx. I just call your attention to the fact that we 
pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it 
stands.
    Mr. Goldman. But you just said that we are a republic, not 
a democracy. So, do you believe----
    Ms. Foxx. I said, we are a republic. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to speak?
    Mr. Frost. I do.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you. I yield my time to the Ranking 
Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Frost. I appreciate the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas. I just wanted to weigh in 
on the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina's last 
remark because it seems as if when we talk about the defense of 
democracy around the world or the defense of democratic 
institutions in America, we now often hear this refrain ``we 
are not a democracy, we are a republic,'' and of course, in the 
strict sense, that is true. A republic of course, is just a 
representative democracy. It is where the people elect their 
own representatives because we do not have a Capitol Building 
that will hold 400 million. The country does not operate like a 
New England town hall meeting, but rather, we elect 
representatives under Article I of the Constitution to the 
House and also to the U.S. Senate. In that sense, that is true. 
We are a republic, but we are a democratic republic.
    And although we began as a slave republic of white male 
property owners over the age of 21, in fact, we have evolved to 
become a far more democratic republic with the addition of the 
Fifteenth Amendment, which banned race discrimination in voting 
after the Civil War; the Seventeenth Amendment, which gave us 
direct election of U.S. Senators instead of state legislatures 
doing it in 1913; the Nineteenth Amendment which gave women the 
right to vote and to run for office, which women did not have 
before. The Twenty-Third Amendment gave our friends in D.C. the 
right to participate in Presidential elections. The Twenty-
Fourth Amendment banned poll taxes. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment 
lowered the voting age to 18.
    So, the whole trajectory of American constitutional 
development has been toward making the republic a more 
democratic republican and more perfect union. And we have stood 
up for democracy and human rights all over the world, fellow 
democratic republics. And again, not New England town hall 
meetings although, you know, some of those things exist in 
certain parts of America at the local level, but governance by 
the people, what the great founder of your party, Abraham 
Lincoln described in his visionary terms as, government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people. Like that is been 
the tantalizing dream of America. So, the idea that we would 
somehow set a republic at odds with a democracy makes no sense. 
We have struggled to become an ever more democratic republic, 
and when we say we are a republic, that does not mean we do not 
recognize the civil rights and civil liberties of the people.
    Now, in Eastern Europe, as Mr. Lynch was saying, there is a 
kind of authoritarian gangsterism at large. And a lot of it 
revolves around Hungary, where they are in the process of 
building something they call illiberal democracy, which means 
democracy mob rule without rights, without liberties for the 
people, an attack on minorities, whether it is religious 
minorities, or racial minorities, or LGBTQ minorities, or 
whatever. But it is time for us to bring back together the idea 
of popular democracy with Republican institutions because when 
we elect people, we send them to go and to fight for a more 
perfect union for everybody.
    So, I appreciate the gentlelady's points that we have 
republican institutions. And I appreciate Mr. Goldman's point 
that we are very much a political democracy striving to become 
ever better and for a more perfect union, which is built into 
our mission statement, the preamble of the Constitution. And I 
thank you for yielding, and I would welcome your thoughts to on 
this, Mr. Frost, since I know you have been so involved in 
trying to deepen the meaning of democracy in America.
    Mr. Frost. No. Thank you so much, Mr. Ranking Member, and I 
agree with everything that was just said. I think it is 
important that we continue to fight for democratic values 
around the entire world, especially here at home. There are 
folks within this Committee, I would argue, and within this 
chamber in the House of Representatives that it seems to me 
like they are fighting against democracy here at home, when we 
talk about our voting systems, when we talk about the ability 
for people be able to cast their ballot, similar conversation 
we were just having around local laws here in D.C. So, to say 
that being a republican is at odds with being a democracy is 
just not true. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Any other Members seek 
recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
amendment--I do not remember who offered the amendment. Raskin 
Number 2.
    All those in favor of the Raskin Number 2 amendment, say 
aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. Could we have recorded vote, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. A 
recorded vote will be ordered. As previously announced, further 
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Does any other Member seek recognition for the purpose of 
offering an amendment? Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Comer. Would the Clerk please report?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 4435, as offered by Mr. Lynch of 
Massachusetts.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. I will reserve a point of order. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes to 
explain his amendment.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of what 
I know is our shared commitment to ensure that Americans' 
veterans receive healthcare services that are reflective of 
their service to our Nation. This amendment would exempt 
veterans' medical care from the drastic cuts in Federal funding 
and program termination that would be required under the so-
called, Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act.
    Under the guise of fiscal responsibility, the underlying 
legislation targets Federal programs that have continued to 
receive annual Federal funding from Congress, but whose 
statutory authorization has technically expired. The bill 
specifies that programs and activities listed by the 
Congressional Budget Office in its annual report on expired 
authorizations are deemed ``Unauthorized programs'' and 
therefore, eligible for extreme budget cuts and even 
termination, absent congressional action.
    To the great detriment of America's estimated 18 million 
veterans and particularly the more than 9 million veterans 
currently enrolled in the VA Health Care System, this misguided 
legislation places the quality and continuation of veteran's 
healthcare at risk. Considering that the Congressional Budget 
Office recently cited the Veterans Health Care Eligibility 
Reform Act of 1996, as a public law whose statutory 
authorization has expired, Veteran's Health Care falls squarely 
within the scope of the bill and as stated goal of budgetary 
reduction.
    As underscored by the nonpartisan congressional Research 
Service, the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 
1996 is the enabling statute for the vast network of veterans 
healthcare and medical service programs, from those providing 
treatment from post-traumatic stress, mental health conditions, 
substance abuse, to those specializing in prosthetic services, 
care for the homeless veterans, women's healthcare, and disease 
prevention.
    Over the last 2 years, Congress has appropriated more than 
$220 billion toward these programs and services precisely 
because they remain a critical lifeline for veterans with 
service related disabilities and other health challenges. In my 
home state of Massachusetts, I have worked closely with the 
Home Base program, a nonprofit organization founded by 
Massachusetts General Hospital and the Boston Red Sox, that 
operates in close cooperation with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and Department of Defense to provide world class 
clinical care, not only to veterans, but we take warfighters 
right from the battlefield when necessary for rehabilitation 
within that facility.
    I am quite sure that the dedicated administrators and 
healthcare professionals at home base would attest to the 
severe challenges that drastic funding cuts that the VA would 
impose on their fundamental mission to treat veterans with 
post-traumatic stress, depression, and brain injury, and other 
invisible wounds of war.
    In further support of my amendment, to exempt veterans' 
medical care from the Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act, 
I would note that the bill requires a program to receive 
express and regular reauthorizations from Congress in order to 
avoid funding reductions and termination. While I firmly 
believe that Members of this Committee are united in our 
respect and support for American veterans, that is beyond 
doubt, we need only look at the recent debt ceiling crisis to 
demonstrate that funding for veterans' medical care should not 
be susceptible to political brinksmanship and the constant 
threat of disruption.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize 
myself for 5 minutes. Again, I must unfortunately oppose this 
amendment for the same reason I opposed previous amendments. It 
would undermine the purpose of the bill, which is intended to 
force Congress to conduct oversight of the programs it creates 
and funds and reauthorize them regularly. If there is any place 
that Congress should be conducting regular oversight, it is on 
programs addressing our veterans medical care. A full 
assessment of those priorities and the effectiveness of these 
programs should be conducted from year to year.
    While I understand this amendment is trying to safeguard 
veterans' medical care, I believe this amendment may actually 
harm the very people it is trying to help. Our veterans put 
their lives on the line in service to our great Nation, 
providing the American people safety and security. Congress has 
a duty to ensure our veterans are taken care of and their 
wellbeing is secure.
    So, I would defer to my colleagues, Chairman Mike Bost and 
Ranking Member Mark Takano and their Members, as to the legal 
authority and authorized appropriations that the Veterans 
Affairs Department needs to deliver on its mission. The House 
Veterans Affairs Committee should carefully weigh the future of 
the Veterans Affairs Department, Veterans Health 
Administration, and any related authorized programs. For these 
reasons, I respectfully oppose the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Mr. Lynch.
    Does any Member seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
amendment offered by Mr. Lynch.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I like to request a roll call.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. A 
recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further 
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Seeing that there are no further amendments on the bill, we 
will now take up for consideration, H.R. 3230, Unfunded 
Mandates Accountability and Transparency. The Clerk will please 
report to bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 3230, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and 
Transparency Bill, to amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 to provide for regulatory impact analysis for certain 
rules and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please 
report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 3230, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    I support H.R. 3230, the Unfunded Mandates Accountability 
and Transparency Act. First introduced several congresses ago 
and still very much needed. This bill strengthens the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. UMRA formed part of the original 
contract with America. It attempted to bring the flood of 
unfunded mandates issued to states, localities, and tribal 
governments by the Federal bureaucracy under control. It was 
later amended to help stem the flow of unreasonably costly 
mandates imposed upon the private sector. But unfortunately, 
Federal Regulatory Agencies have typically treated this 
compliance as a box checking exercise and not a true constraint 
on their activities.
    Thus, the flood of unfunded mandates has continued. This 
has been particularly true under the Biden Administration. Just 
last month, this Committee received testimony that costs 
imposed by the new Biden Administration regulations in 2021 and 
2022 equal $10,000 per household. And it gets worse. Witnesses 
before this Committee estimated that if President Biden gets a 
full two terms in office, which is doubtful, the ultimate 
burden imposed by his Administration regulations could approach 
a mind boggling $60,000 per household. That is nearly the 
annual U.S. median household income. Thankfully, there are 
solutions.
    One of the most important is to enact the Unfunded Mandates 
Accountability and Transparency Act. This bill strengthens UMRA 
in numerous ways. The bill will help bring down the cost of 
unfunded mandates imposed by regulation upon states, 
localities, tribal governments, and the private sector. It 
increases earlier stakeholder engagement on rules that may 
impose costly mandates, better positioning stakeholders to help 
agencies identify ways to achieve goals at lower costs. It 
extends UMRA to independent agencies. It requires agencies to 
prepare Regulatory Impact Analysis, including analysis of cost 
benefits, alternative disproportionate impacts, and effects on 
jobs.
    For major rules that mandate economic impacts of $100 
million or more, present major increases in costs for prices, 
or had significant adverse effects on competition employment or 
markets, it requires agencies to publish additional assessments 
in the Federal register and receive public comment in response 
to notices of proposed rulemaking. And it requires final Agency 
regulatory impact analyses to accompany notices on final 
rulemaking.
    These and other provisions in the bill ensure agencies will 
better analyze the potential costs of newly proposed mandates. 
H.R. 3230 ensures agencies will collect better information and 
inform the public about those costs and alternative ways to 
achieve Agency goals. Therefore, agencies will have stronger 
incentives to bring the cost of unfunded mandates down. And I 
thank Dr. Foxx for her unwavering efforts over several 
Congresses to enact this bill into law.
    I urge my colleagues to support this critical bipartisan 
reform bill, and I now recognize the Ranking Member for his 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the 
legislation. As we discussed at length in our June hearing on 
regulations, most Americans support government regulation 
across a whole range of industries because they enable us to 
feel confident that the food we eat and the water we drink and 
the air we breathe will be safe for human consumption. That is 
why we have regulations. Regulations help curb the worst abuses 
of the alcohol and tobacco industries. The few meager 
regulations we have over firearms, including the Brady 
background check, have saved lots of lives although, we need to 
be going a lot further there. But I think Americans understand 
that regulations are an essential component of the American 
Governmental system and indeed governance, democratic 
governance all over the world. Regulations translate the 
legislative purposes and enactments of government into actual 
rules for the road and deliver concrete benefits to all of our 
people.
    The H.R. 3230, as far as I can understand it, and I must 
confess, I had a very difficult time understanding what this 
will do. And maybe somebody could explain it in more detail. 
But as far as I get it, 3230 will make an already complex 
regulatory process even more complicated and burdensome, and 
give the most powerful private actors and corporations even 
more power over the regulatory process.
    In contrast, in April, President Biden issued an executive 
order to modernize the regulatory process, strengthening 
democracy by advancing the values of transparency, inclusivity, 
and effectiveness of regulations. So, the Biden's regulatory 
modernization plans, which I understand, promote both 
efficiency and fairness. Well-funded and well-connected 
corporations should no longer have outsized influence over the 
Federal rulemaking process simply because they have got the 
time and the resources and then layers to bombard Federal 
officials with their points of view in their meeting requests.
    The Biden changes require Federal officials to proactively 
seek out the voices of those people who otherwise would be 
under-represented in even if still critically affected by the 
rulemaking process, including people living in rural areas, 
people in minority groups and people with disabilities. This 
bill would undermine that effort by only allowing the 
consideration of alternatives to implementing regulations that 
take into account only the strict financial costs and benefits 
within the scope of the statutory provision that authorize the 
rulemaking procedure.
    This is not the best way to increase public participation 
or welcome public views, or to reduce opaqueness in the 
regulatory process. It is a thinly veiled effort to expand the 
power of private actors over the regulatory process and to 
hamstring Federal Agencies. This is part of the assault on the 
ability of Federal Agencies to implement congressional will and 
to impose more red tape on them. The aim of this effort is to 
elevate the interests of private concerns over Agency expertise 
in service of the public good.
    The bill will be the first amendment to the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act in almost 20 years. The changes are 
sweeping, and the Committee at the very least must examine them 
more thoroughly so we even understand what we are voting on. I 
have read it several times and could not really make heads or 
tails of it. But at the very least, we should first have a 
hearing on legislation and its far-reaching consequences, so at 
least the Members of the Committee can explain what is in 
there. Regulations are a tool in our democracy that necessarily 
will serve the public good. Despite claims to the contrary, 
this bill will hinder, not improve, the regulatory process. We 
want to make sure that the rules and regulations that are 
coming out of the regulatory process really serve the public 
interest and not the interests of private actors.
    For that reason, I oppose this legislation. And I thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Dr. Foxx for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I 
begin, let me ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
the following documents: a letter to this Committee in support 
of the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act 
from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a letter to the 
Committee in support of the Unfunded Mandates Accountability 
and Transparency Act from the National Taxpayers Union.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this bill 
in almost the same forum has passed the House three or four 
times already sometimes as a standalone, sometimes with other 
pieces of legislation designed to improve our regulatory 
process. The cost of existing Federal regulations are 
staggering and estimated to exceed $2 trillion. This figure 
does not even account for the Biden Administration's new 
regulatory burdens, which this Committee recently learned add 
up to over $10,000 per household. I believe you mentioned that, 
Mr. Chairman.
    We need to stop adding to the regulatory burden that 
threatens to choke off innovation and economic growth in this 
country. That is why I introduced H.R. 3230, The Unfunded 
Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act or UMATA. This 
bill will strengthen Congress' ability to stop Federal 
regulators from loading up the private sector, the state, and 
local governments with costly new unfunded mandates. UMATA 
requires Federal Agencies to consider, accurately, the cost of 
their regulations, consult the stakeholders, publish their 
assessments, and ensure that any new regulations produce the 
most benefits for the least cost.
    It also closes key loopholes in the 1995 Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act or UMRA. This is a bipartisan bill that will prevent 
the Federal Government from crushing Americans under an ever-
growing mountain of costly regulations and unfunded mandates. I 
want to point out, again, that these unfunded mandates and 
regulations come not from the Congress, those of us elected to 
serve the people, but from unelected bureaucrats who write 
regulations based on legislation.
    So, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to speak on the 
amendment or on the bill?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now in favorably reporting H.R. 3230, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the 
bill----
    Ms. Foxx. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Dr. Foxx.
    Ms. Foxx. I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested and 
ordered. 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. The 
Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come back to 
order. A quorum is present.
    The Committee will now resume consideration of H.R. 4435, 
the Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by 
Ranking Member Raskin from Maryland. This will be the Raskin 
Number 1.
    Will the Clerk please call the roll?
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes yes.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Turner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Turner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Ms. Greene recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene is not previously recorded.
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. How is Krishnamoorthi recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi is not recorded.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. Armstrong recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong is not recorded.
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. If not, the Clerk will----
    Mr. Raskin. I believe Ms. Lee--how is Ms. Lee recorded?
    Ms. Lee. I voted.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. I think she voted.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee is recorded as voting aye.
    Mr. Raskin. Great. OK. Thanks.
    Chairman Comer. No other person seeks recognition. Will the 
Clerk please report the total?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the nays are 21. The 
ayes are 13.
    Chairman Comer. The amendment fails. The question is now on 
the amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute 
offered by Mr. Garcia.
    The Clerk will please report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Has any Member not yet recorded their vote?
    Mr. Khanna. How am I recorded?
    Chairman Comer. Who is that?
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Khanna.
    Chairman Comer. Oh. Has Mr. Khanna been recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna is not recorded.
    Mr. Khanna. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. And, Mr. Casar, did you vote?
    Mr. Casar. No. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. I think that is everything. Would the Clerk 
please record the vote?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The 
ayes are 16.
    Chairman Comer. The Garcia amendment fails.
    The question is now on the Crockett amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, offered by Ms. Crockett.
    The Clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Has any Member not yet been recorded on the 
Crockett amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The 
ayes are 18.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Crockett 
amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is now on the Raskin Number 2, amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Has anyone yet to be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally? Has Mr. 
LaTurner been recorded?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner is not recorded. Mr. LaTurner votes 
no.
    Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The ayes are 
17.
    Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the Raskin Number 2 
amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment 
to the amendment in the nature of substitute, offered by Mr. 
Lynch.
    The Clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Has anyone not been recorded on the Lynch 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The 
ayes are 19.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Lynch amendment 
is not agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 4435.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 4435 is agreed 
to.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4435, as 
amended.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner? Sorry. Excuse me.
    Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No. Aye. Sorry.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes nay.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes nay.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes nay.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes nay.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes nay.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes nay.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Has Ms. Bush been recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush has not been recorded.
    Ms. Bush. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Did anyone else fail to be recorded yet?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The 
nays are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably, as reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 1209, as 
amended.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes yes.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes nay.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes nay.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes nay.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes nay.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Biggs recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs is not recorded.
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. Turner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner is not yet recorded.
    Mr. Turner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Moskowitz recorded? Has he been 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz is not recorded.
    Mr. Moskowitz. No, please.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes nay.
    Chairman Comer. Anyone else fail to vote yet?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 22. The 
nays are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 192.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes nay.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Has any Member failed to vote on this bill 
yet?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Edwards recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards is not yet recorded.
    Mr. Edwards. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the tally? How 
about Mr. Langworthy? Has he been recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy is not recorded.
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Voices. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Did you vote yes? No? OK.
    Mr. Langworthy. Oh. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes yes.
    Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The nays are 
19.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 3230.
    The Clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Has Mr. LaTurner been recorded?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner was not previously recorded. Mr. 
LaTurner votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. Any other Members wish to be 
recorded? Mr. Moskowitz?
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz was not previously recorded.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The 
nays are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 3358.
    The Clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes nay.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, may I----
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Stansbury.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. May I ask how I am recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury is not yet recorded.
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to vote----
    Chairman Comer. Oh, I thought--yes, please.
    Ms. Stansbury. OK. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Member wish to vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report to tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 22. The 
nays are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 890.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. Would the Clerk please report the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 41. The 
nays are zero.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4502.
    The Clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes yes.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote yes, and is Mr. LaTurner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner is not recorded.
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 40. The 
nays are zero.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question now is on favorably reporting H.R. 4503.
    The Clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes yes.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Has Mr. Timmons been recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons has not been recorded.
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report to tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 39. The 
nays are 2.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1695.
    The Clerk will now call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 39. The 
nays are zero.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The last item. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the 
following postal-naming bills which were distributed in advance 
on this markup: House Resolutions 292, 996, 1060, 1098, 1687, 
2379, 2754, 3728, and 3944.
    Without objection, the bills are considered read.
    Before we consider today's package of bipartisan postal 
naming bills, I want to thank the Ranking Member for agreeing 
to make some small, but important changes to the Committee's 
procedures for considering postal-naming bills prior to 
advancing them to the consideration of the full house.
    I respect the fact that the entire state delegation must 
come together in support of a postal-naming measure prior to 
the Oversight Committee's consideration of a bill. I also 
respect the expressed wishes of my colleagues to ensure that 
the honor of naming Federal property is reserved for honorees 
who are U.S. citizens or risked their lives in service to our 
great Nation. I hope these small modifications will make it 
easier for the Committee and the entire House to consider 
postal-naming bills that honor local public servants and heroes 
of our great Nation.
    If any Member would like to speak on any of the measures, 
they may do so now. Yes?
    Mr. Gomez. Mr. Chairman, can I address the new rule, 
regarding the new rules, regarding the citizenship requirement?
    Chairman Comer. I am sorry. I did not hear. Could you 
repeat that?
    Mr. Gomez. May I address----
    Chairman Comer. Yes, yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Gomez. Mr. Chairman, I think that, first, so I have a 
situation in my district, which I explained to you.
    Chairman Comer. Right.
    Mr. Gomez. I reintroduced a bill to name a post office in 
my district where one had closed, and it was named after Dosan 
Ahn Chang Ho, who was a Korean American, first came to this 
country a long time ago. He died in 1938. He could never become 
a citizen because there was the Chinese Exclusion Act that 
prohibited him, because of his Chinese citizenship, from 
becoming a citizen. This is a bill that is bipartisan. I was 
the first one to introduce a post-office-naming bill in this 
Congress. Actually, all Republicans and Democrats in California 
co-sponsored it, and we were the first one to submit it in the 
entire 118th Congress, so it was before this acknowledgement.
    So, I want full due consideration of this bill under the 
old rules because I do not agree with the rules as they stand. 
And this was Republicans and Democrats in California, the 
largest delegation, so it is not an easy feat to get everybody 
to sign on to a bill. So with that, I will ask for due 
consideration that the bill move forward.
    Chairman Comer. And I will give you my commitment, like I 
said yesterday, to work with you on that. I respect the fact 
that the whole California delegation, in a bipartisan way, 
signed on to that. If you are good with this, we will work and 
you and I will go meet with leadership and see what we can come 
to terms with on this. Is that good enough?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes. It is just a very unique situation.
    Chairman Comer. I understand, and the fact that the entire 
California delegation signed on to it, I think that is a great 
selling point there. It is with me, and I pledge to work with 
you on that.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Hearing no more discussion, I request 
unanimous consent for these bills' immediate consideration en 
bloc.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The en bloc 
measures are agreed to and shall be reported favorably to the 
House.
    Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, I ask that Committee 
Members have the right to file with the Clerk of the Committee 
supplemental additional Minority and dissenting views.
    Without objection.
    Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary 
technical and conforming changes to the bills ordered reported 
today, subject to the approval of the Minority.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    If there is no further business before the Committee, 
without objection the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you, 
everyone, for being here.
    [Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]