Markup on FEHB Pharmacists, D.C. Tax, IG Oversight, Comment Integrity and Others

Committee Rule five B and House Rule eleven, Clause two. The chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote or the yays and nays are ordered. The committee will continue to use the electronic system for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills before the committee. Of course, should any technical issues arise which I do not anticipate, we will immediately transition to traditional roll call votes. Any procedural or motion related votes during today's mark-up will be dispensed with by a traditional roll call vote. The first order of business is ratifying the new subcommittee roster. The clerks have distributed the roster electronically. I ask you now as consent that the committee approve the appointments and assignments as shown on the roster. Without objection, the subcommittee I would like to welcome Representative Christian Minifee from Texas to the committee. We'll

It's not here yet.

welcome him when he gets here later.

Here.

Uh, we're glad to have him on the committee. I now yield well,

Go with it.

okay, all right. We'll we'll take care of that later. Our first item for consideration is H R sixty-six ten, the pharmacist fight back. Uh, the clerk will please designate the bill.

H R six six one zero, the pharmacists fight back in federal employee health benefit plans act. A bill to amend chapter eighty nine of title five, United States code, to limit the cost of pharmacy benefit managers with respect to federal employee health benefit plans and for other purposes.

Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk please designate the amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R six six one zero, as offered by Mister Comer of Kentucky.

Without objection, amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment now recognize myself for five minutes for statement on the bill and the amendment rarely a day goes by that I don't hear from Kentuckians concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs over the last several years I've worked closely with Kentucky pharmacists to learn more about the pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs that are lurking behind the keeping patients from assessing the most effective medications for them. I'm pleased that today we have an opportunity to address an issue that is so important to so many Americans. I'm thankful to have led this bill with my Democrat colleague, Representative Austin Koss from Massachusetts. H R sixty-six ten, the Pharmacists Fight Back Act, will make much needed meaningful changes to the pharmacy benefit market serving federal employees. For too long, federal employees and taxpayer-funded federal agencies have been held captive by a health care system manipulated at every turn by three large PBMs and their affiliate companies Originally designed to facilitate negotiations to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for patients consolidation has left us with three pharmacy benefit managers controlling over eighty percent of the private market. Dominant PBMs utilize their market leverage and control over drug prices, rebates, pharmacy reimbursements, insurers, and pharmacy networks for their own financial gain. Meanwhile, Americans are forced to pay higher prices for drugs. By skimming discounts meant for local pharmacies, certain PBM practices actually drive up prices for patients. Some B some PBMs have been found civilly liable for these practices and the harmful impacts on Americans who need whose need of access to affordable prescription drugs Earlier this year, the Office of Personnel Management's Office of Inspector General found that CareMark alone had overcharged the federal employee health benefits program insurance carrier more than six hundred and fifteen million dollars. The Inspector General highlighted how CareMark used its complexity and size to hoard discounts credits and financial benefits it was receiving rather than pass those savings along to patients or the federal government like their The oversight committee is moving the Pharmacists Fight Back Act to rein in PBMs and curb abusive practices. The bill restricts massive price mark-ups and increases transparency in pharmacy reimbursement. Some may argue that this legislation will increase premiums. However, we have real-world evidence out of West Virginia's Insurance Commissioner's Office which demonstrate that the policies in this bill actually reduce premiums. Similarly, in Georgia, the Georgia State Auditor and Director of the Office of Planning and Budget projects millions each year in savings from these policies. The bill also prevents a PBM from steering beneficiaries towards pharmacies owned by the PBM so that a consumer can go to the pharmacy of their choice. And the bill enforces these ground rules through non-compliance penalties. This bill is a good start, but we have a lot more work to do to make sure that specialty drugs and oncology drugs are reimbursed appropriately. We must also guarantee that long-term care pharmacies and other specialty pharmacies are paid not only for the medications they dispense, but also for other core clinical and specialized services, as is currently recognized in OPM guidance. While this bill may not address every single possible cause of high health care costs, it represents a giant step in the right direction. This bill is supported by over sixty state and national pharmacy groups, including the Kentucky Independent Pharmacists Alliance, Kentucky Pharmacists Association, the American Pharmacy Cooperative, Community Oncology Alliance, and Transparency Rising. This bill is is part of a result of our ongoing investigation in this committee of the PBMs and three full committee hearings we've had discussing the the problem. with pharmacy benefit managers and how they actually lead to higher prescription draw drug costs for most Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and I now yield to the ranking member.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I also support uh this bill and I think it's clear that the American people are facing an affordability crisis and the price of nearly everything has gone up, groceries, gas, housing, health care, and families are definitely struggling to make ends meet. It's important for Congress to continue to address the cost of health care by addressing every part of the health care system. Now, pharmacy benefit managers, of course, are companies that manage drug benefits on behalf of health insurance companies and federal health care programs. And also recently under the Biden administration, the FTC also cracked down on some of PBM's activities. The FTC had found that they artificially raised drug prices in some cases. I want to thank uh Congressman Jake Auchincloss also for his incredible work. I know how important this bill is to him and uh how important

Gentlemen, yields back, uh, before I recognize anyone who wants to speak on the bill, I should ask consent to enter the following into the record. A letter from the Kentucky Independent Pharmacists Alliance in support of the bill, a letter from the Senior Care um a letter from more than sixty state and national pharmacy groups in support of the bill a letter from the community oncology alliance in support of the bill a letter from the transparency rising a letter from the national association for federal employees and retirees in support of the bill a letter from the american pharmacists association in support of the bill and a letter from the national taxpayers union in support of the bill without objection so ordered Anyone seek recognition on the bill? Mister Burleson.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I appreciate you holding this mark up today. I agree with you, I think, ninety-nine percent of the time. Um And, um

This isn't starting off good.

And, um, you and I are very good k- good friends. Um, I respectfully disagree on this topic, um, fr- from my personal experience and background. Um, look, the high cost are a serious issue that uh that we're facing in America, and it deserves our attention. However, um, this, I disagree with this approach. We all want to lower prescription drug prices, but the policy matters. This bill requires pharmacies to be reimbursed at the national average drug acquisition cost, plus the lesser of four percent or fifty dollars, along with state Medicaid dispensing fees. These are added costs for or insurance companies which are passed to the customer that would normally provide savings to our constituents. Similar rate setting legislation proposed in Louisiana under H P five twenty nine in April of twenty twenty three was projected to increase costs by thirty seven million dollars in just the very first year. Additionally, the bill requires point of sale application of manufacturer rebates so that patient cost sharing is based on the net cost of the drug and it requires full pass through of rebates to carriers. The legislation also prohibits PBMs from directing patients to specific pharmacies. In in essence, I mean, I my my comparison here would be it'd be like requiring someone who has a Costco membership to be allowed to go to to Sam's Club. Um, this w- will just essentially drive up costs. Regarding stakeholders in the FEHP program, many of the voiced have voiced including government employee health association and the male handlers benefit plan. These groups understand because they see the the the purchasing side of this decision, and that it will cause their their plans to go up. They have specific concerns that it would interfere with the mail-order pharmacy option. That currently help improve medication adherence and control costs. I said this last year, PBMs use their economies of scale to drive down costs in the same way that Walmart uses its economy of scale to drive down costs, who we all know does a great job of selling things in bulk. PBM's paid based on their p- paid based on performance, and you don't have to pick them. If they are doing their job and and being effective, then they'll get the business. If not, then the then the bri the the purchaser, the in- the the employer will go somewhere else. At the end of the day, I want people in I had the exact same opinion that you have if you support this bill. I used to believe this. I used to see them as a boogeyman. Eh, because I didn't understand the intricacies and the complexities of how it all worked. I thought that they were the part they were part of the problem. But after serving specifically on the board of Missouri Consolidated Insurance, where I was tasked with the responsibility of purchasing the insurance and deciding whether we get a PBM, um or which company we're gonna use and does and having seeing first hand that you have direct control over the mechanisms and how exactly your your pharmacy benefit manager is managing you as the employer and and the and the decisions that you wanna wanna make it completely changed my attitude um and so respectfully i will be voting against this bill and i with that i yield back

so he yields back

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a July twenty first, twenty twenty six uh letter from uh NARF, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

Without objection, so ordered.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I I'm gonna be supporting the bill today because

Consent to enter the following into the record, a study from West Virginia's insurance commissioner which shows how similar policies actually reduce premiums rather than increase them. Testimony from the West Virginia Commissioner that similar pass through and NADAC policies reduce costs rather than increase them. A study from the American Pharmacy Cooperative which showed the positive impacts of these uh policy changes we'll have on the federal employee's health benefits plan. An examination by the Georgia State Auditor and Director of the Office of Planning and Budget showing now uh similar policies would save Georgia taxpayer uh millions each year. And lastly, a report from the cabinet, Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Without objection, so ordered. Any other members think? Mister Palmer.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I agree with you ninety-eight percent of the time. In this case, I agree with you a hundred percent.

All right.

Um, this has been a problem for years. Um Uh, prior to the serving cars, I I r- as you know, I ran a think tank. And um, I was meeting with folks who who were trying to explain to me how uh the PBMs were Uh, their profits are tied to the list price of the drug, which incentivizes drug makers to um set a high price because it gives them prefer preferential treatment. Uh, they know that the PBMs uh will prefer a higher priced drug over a lower priced drug, which does nothing to benefit the consumer. It's not just prescription drugs, it's also prescription ICONs. And talking with uh uh doctors in that field, uh they're often locked into labs that might not be providing the best work, because that's how their their plan works. They're t- uh locked into that. So I think what we're trying to do here is something that is is long overdue. It's uh like I said it's it's uh been a problem for years. Talking with independent pharmacies, uh they struggle in dealing with this. And I think it's high time

Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Uh, yes sir. Mister Lynch from Massachusetts.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, I I I wanna express my strong support for this for this bill. Um, so I've been on this committee awhile. We actually did a uh a deep dive on PBMs a number of years ago. Um, we were helped in enormously by a group called Change to Win, which was a group of labor unions that felt that PBMs were jacking up the price of, of their uh, of, of their, the cost to their members. Um, and so they did a deep dive as well, a study. Um, I'll give you one example of, of uh, of what we found, this committee, when we looked at PBMs. So, uh, we oversee, our committee oversees the federal employee's health benefit. uh, plan, FEHPP. And, uh, we found that because of the PBMs that were that were, uh, regulating the prices of - of the, uh, and - and this is a cost to the taxpayer, right? This is a cost of government, uh, what we're talking about health care for federal employees. We found that the PBMs, uh, put us in a situation where, and we - this was one of the stark examples, um, CVS had a had a uh uh a coupon program where you could walk into a drug store, a CVS drug store, and they had a formulary, and you could get those drugs at their their pr- their special price. You didn't have to have insurance. You could walk in right off the street, and here were the prices that did you have to pay for certain certain drugs. We found that it was better, because of the PBMs jacking up the price, it was better for a union member, a union a a federal employee on FEHPP, whether they were unionized or not unionized, it was it was cheaper for them to just put their insurance card that they had paid for. Now we have eighteen million uh uh federal employees and retirees that they qualified for a FEHPP. The collective bargaining power of those eighteen employees and their contributions meant nothing. It was cheaper for them to put their federal insurance card in their pocket because the PBMs, the prices were higher for people with insurance than it was just walking in off the street. And that, and we found that that was because of the PBM. So we took them to court. And what we wanted to know, what the federal government wanted to know was what are, what are you doing with And how is that affecting the the cost to the consumer, in this case the federal employees? We took them to court. And we lost because they fought us, they did not wanna provide transparency on how the PBMs were working, how they operated. They said that that was a proprietary uh secret. And so the PBMs fought Fought the federal government, fought the federal employees, fought the public from knowing how they were operating. PBMs are jacking up the price of drugs in this country. Plain and simple. It's another layer of cost. Buying drugs shouldn't be that complicated, right? You've got insurance, you got there's an insurance company already in You go in to your drug store, hopefully a local drug store, although those are disappearing as well, and all my local pharmacies are opposed to these PBMs and are supporting this bill. That should tell you something, that all these local, go to your local druggist, if you still have one. Go to your local drug store, if you still have one. Ask them about PBMs. They're ripping people off. They're squeezing They're they're monopolizing that that whole sector. They're eliminating these small drug stores. I probably had five of them in my little neighborhood at one point. Now I got one. I got a CVS. Sometimes it swaps into a Walgreens, but that's basically it. So, so this is really, really important. We're at a critical point here. We can do the American people a big, big, big favor. Get rid of these PBMs. Get rid of them. There's another, that's another person taking

Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Mr. Perry.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Not too often I find myself in solidarity with Mr. Lynch.

I was thinking the same thing.

Uh, uh, I do find some distress in the fact that I'm not in solidarity with my friend, Mister Burleson. And for my part, I want to be clear, uh, I'm not really interested in the federal government getting involved in private contractual agreements between private entities. However, in this case, a private entity involved with the government. So the government's a party to it, and I think the government, as the representative The people should have the information. My concern among other things is it's hard for all of us up here to figure out who's hiding the ball. Seems like, and I'm not here to pick on anybody, I don't know, seems like the PBMs make money, the far- the - the uh, Big Pharma makes money, but your local consumer, the average citizen can't afford it, and your local pharmacies, especially Independence, are being driven out of business. Now the money's going somewhere. Somebody's making a lot of money. But we can't find out who it is because we can't get the information on private contractual agreements. And where they're between private businesses and private entities, that's between them. But when it involves the federal government as the representatives of the federal government and of the people that pay the taxes and pay for these things, we have not only the right to know, we have the obligation to know. what the information is. And so it is my hope that with this at a minimum, we will have the information so we can figure out who's hiding the ball and make sure that the consumer is being represented, represented and that there will be a broader um that we will f- we will figure out eventually exactly where the money's And this is on one occasion. This is just one account. This is just one instance. But I think this will inform us of the greater landscape, the greater battlefield of this, so that we can make appropriate decisions. The problem in in my mind has been nobody wants to say anybody's a bad actor here. Nobody wants to accuse anybody, cuz we don't know. And the point is, was we need to know. And once we do know, then we can take appropriate action. And I think

Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed.

Mr. Chairman. Mr. I'd like to ask for a recorded vote. I'd like to ask for 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 ninety seven twenty, the DC Taxing Authority Review Act. The Mr. Comer of Kentucky.

H R nine seven two zero, the DC Taxing Authority Review Act, a bill to require a resolution of approval by Congress on acts of the District of Columbia with respect to title forty-seven of the District of Columbia Code, or which impose or increase a tax or fee, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk please designate the amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine seven two zero is offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.

Without objection, is considered as read and the substitute would be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. I support HR ninety seven twenty, the DC Taxing Authority Review Act, which requires congressional approval of any act, the District of Columbia, that imposes or increases a tax or fee. Radical DC Democrats want to solve their spending problem by reaching deeper into taxpayers' pockets and driving further on the path to The DC Council recently supported a feasibility study for the implementation of a new business activity tax. This would add to the already high tax burden that businesses in the district already face. Additionally, the Council proposed a new tax on DC residents who are already one of the highest tax populations in the country. The DC Council is also planning on imposing new fees on deliveries of everyday groceries and essentials. Actions like these only serve to hurt small businesses and the vulnerable residents. These are just more examples of bad policy that disincentivize investment, drive residents out, and undermine the economic competitiveness of the city. Rather than cutting spending, the ultra-progressive and socialist Democrat candidate for mayor and the DC council want to tax DC business and residents into oblivion to fund their unmaintainable extension of public programs. This comes as DC's chief financial has identified a one point one billion dollar budget hole. Choosing to reject necessary spending reforms and instead increasing taxes penalizes residents and burdens businesses, further weakening the district's lagging economy. To improve the economic competitiveness of the district, I'm working with Treasury Secretary Bessette Bessette to find ways to make DC more attractive to businesses. The DC Council cannot tax the way out of financial devastation. that their policies have created. It's our congressional duty to act when the radical DC council's reckless fiscal policies jeopardize DC's future. The bill, this bill enhances Congress's constitutional oversight authority over DC to restrain irresponsible policies pursued by future socialist and ultra-progressive DC Democrat. This bill is supported by the AMAC action, Independent Women's Voice, National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and DoorDash. I urge my colleagues

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose uh this bill, which is another direct attack on the seven hundred thousand residents of the district and on democratic principles. Now this Congress and this committee has passed more bills on local DC matters than on any other matter in front of this committee. In fact, this is the twentieth bill we're considering that would interfere with local DC residents and their governance. Now, D. C.'s locally elected officials are accountable to D. C. residents and local leaders should be empowered to address local matters without congressional interference. And I know I've said this many times, but if Donald Trump or congressional Republicans want to run D. C., they should run for mayor and city council. But the bill in front of us, which takes away D. C.'s authority to impose or increase a tax or revenue, unless Congress approves, is a direct attack attack on the residents that elect officials to make these decisions. Currently, a law enacted by DC takes effect after a congressional review period, unless a disapproval resolution is enacted into law during that period. Now, this bill flips that process completely. Under this bill, a law enacted by DC that imposes or increases a tax or fee could not take effect unless an approval resolution is enacted into law during the congressional review period. Now, DC has more

Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition?

Mister Jarman.

Mister, mister, Mister Higgins.

Thank you, Mister. I just wanted to thank uh you and the oversight staff for responding over the course of several days, allowing us to to correct some of the what we believe was was um unintended consequences in a granular detail of this bill. We studied it very carefully and accommodations were allowed um intended to to facilitate the the administrative of operation of the city of DC at the municipal level uh without without um uncalled for interference by Congress and the executive branch, while at the same time fully supporting the overall measure of uh conducting our our constitutional responsibility as it relates to our nation's capital and the operation thereof. So, so we did make those adjustments and I thank the Chairman and the committee staff for um, for accommodating those, those conversations and arriving at a final product that I'm a- able to fully support and endorse. I yield.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Miss Norton from Washington DC.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. i strongly oppose this radical undemocratic paternalistic and unworkable bill this bill would be the biggest reduction in the district of columbia's authority to govern itself since congress passed the d. c. home rule act in nineteen seventy three this bill takes away d. c.'s authority over its tax code turning the d. c. council into advisory body for taxation, DC could not impose or increase or cut or eliminate a tax without congressional approval. I will repeat that for my Republican colleagues, DC could not cut or eliminate a tax without congressional approval. In fact, the scope of this bill is much broader than republicans have claimed. This bill applies only to taxation onl- only to taxation, but to all of title forty-seven of the DC code. That title has more than fifty chapters and encompasses not only taxation but also licensing, permits, assessments, and fees, among other things. This bill flips the current congressional review process for DC law on its head. Currently, a DC uh law takes effect after a review period unless this approval resolution is enacted into law during that period. This bill prohibits a DC law that imposes or increases a tax or fee or amends title forty seven of the DC code from taking effect after sixty day period uh unless a approval resolution is enacted into law during the period. The only exception is that this bill does not apply to a d c law that imposes or increases a fee if that fee is less than a five hundred dollars and the law does not impose or increase any other tax or fee this congress republicans have introduced more than one hundred thirty bills amendments and riders that interfere in local d. c. matters including a bill to repeal the home rule act the the seven hundred thousand d. c. residents the majority who are black and brown are capable and worthy of governing themselves if d. c. residents do not like how members uh of the d. c. council vote residents can vote them out of office that is democracy if D C residents do not like how members of Congress vote on local D C matters. Uh, residents cannot vote them out of office. That is an an antithesis of democracy. D C residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying all federal taxes, serving on juries and registering with selected service. Yet Congress denies them full local government and voting representation in Congress. The only solution to this undemocratic treat treatment is to grant DC DC statehood. Congress has the authority to admit DC is a state. The DC statehood bill will reduce the size of the federal district from sixty eight square miles to two s consisting of the white house the capital the supreme court and the national mall the residential and commercial areas of d. c. would be a new state i urge members to vote no on d. c. uh uh chairman's bill free d. c. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter of the d. c. chairman opposing this bill i also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the index of title forty seven of the DC code so that the commit committee is on notice that this bill applies to much more than DC law uh that imposes or increases a tax or fee and I yield back

Without objection to order uh generally yields back. Before I recognize Mister Perry I ask you now for his consent to enter into the record a statement from the AMAC action

Thank you, Mister Chairman, just remind everybody that DC is not only home to the great residents of Washington DC, it's the nation's

Mm. Mm.

and people from across the country come here cuz they have to, they have to do business with the federal government. They don't have any option to vote for or vote against the people on the DC council that affect their lives and their business when they when they come here. Now, I'm an original cosponsor of the bill, and so I support it. After watching the district subject its residents and visitors to years, years' worth of petty fines, predatory fees and tax sites, it's become necessary for Congress to reluctantly intervene. Let's be clear in recognizing the district has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. They got a lot of money. Since two thousand and fifteen, the DC government has increased its revenue by sixty-two percent. But somehow the DC council has also managed to maintain a one point mill- one billion dollar hole in its annual budget. We have watched the council withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars from its reserves, but it has still attempts to collect millions in of additional fines and dollars with suspiciously sensitive automatic traffic cameras and other making money making schemes without residents' approval. Residents of the District of Columbia already have one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, but somehow the response to that is to implement a future traffic congestion congestion toll on hardworking residents, commuters and visitors visitors from across the nation who are already plagued with excess expenses. Throughout the hundred and nineteen Congress, this committee has managed to pass two of the bills I've offered with bipartisan support that stop DC's predatory money-making schemes. The bill that, one of the bills I offered, fifty-five, twenty-five, the stop DC cameras act would ban the city's use of these highly unpopular unpopular automated traffic cameras. Another bill, eighty-eight O one, the DC roads act would preemptively prevent the district from implementing a D. C., by the way, has one of the worst traffic problems in the country and that the fact that they don't allow a right turn on red or fine you for that. I I don't know what world D. C.'s like. Are they living in the dark ages? I mean, if they want traffic to get better, let people use their discretion and be responsible for themselves. With D. C., Mayor-elect Junice Lewis George already discussing plans for a new congestion toll, Upon taking office, the timeline is the time to act is is more critical than ever on the DC Roads Act. Fortunately, the five hundred dollar aggregate threshold in Chairman Comer's bill would successfully prohibit the city from ever implementing this burdensome idea without Congress's approval. In tandem, all three pieces of legislation will help restore the district's fiscal sanity and prevent a new wave of unprecedented taxes and fees. that we can expect to see in twenty twenty seven. It is clear that the intent of Congress here is to stop the district from preying upon its residents, nationwide visitors and daily commuters alike. I urge adoption, final passage, and I yield the balance.

Gentleman yields back. Chair Ragnarok, sh- for us.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am in deep, deep opposition to this ill-conceived and foolish bill. Um, Listen, this was said already, this is the worst attack on home rule since the bill was passed in nineteen seventy-three. This bill will take control of DC's taxes, fees, budget. And so people know how this works. Currently when DC City Council passes a local tax or budget law, it will take effect unless Congress steps in to stop it. This bill completely changes that. It would make it so that way these bills don't take effect unless Congress votes to approve them within sixty days. Seriously. We, we can't even pass our own bills. Now you wanna add to that and, and pass the bills of DC? You wanna run the DC budget? Why don't we run our own budget instead of letting the president have the power of the purse and decide what happens in this country? This is one of the most unproductive congresses we've had in the history of this country. And I believe it Of course, I'm against trampling on DC home rule and local rule, fully against that. But it's also just foolish to add to our plate when we can't even get our mass b- must-pass legislation across the finish line. It is foolish to add this. This bill would block changes that residents and businesses in DC need. Imagine that DC uh, DC's budget makes changes to DC's rules around building permits. Congress would have to review and agree on those changes Federal actions that are just continuing to squeeze DC's budget, cuts to health and food assistance, have increased costs for residents. Last year due to Doge, which doesn't exist now, thousands of DC workers lost their federal jobs and thousands more lost their private sector jobs due to the ripple effect. And last spring, let's not forget that Congress forced DC to reduce its spending by more than one billion dollars through changes through the CR. And, And many Republicans even came up, and Republican leadership even came out and said that was a mistake. This is the problem. And so I am, I'm fully opposed to this legislation and I would encourage my colleagues to maybe focus in on the things your own constituents want you to focus on. Because I promise you this bill isn't the top first second third fourth fifth not the top ten, top twenty, top thirty priorities that our own constituents want us to focus on. Let DC be DC. Let them elect their leaders and let their leaders do what they wanna do. And if you have a problem with it, if you have a problem with the turning on red or whatever was said, pick up a clipboard, move to DC, and run for the city council. And if you win, you can make a change there. I encourage all my colleagues to oppose this legislation, um, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, I ask you now as consent to enter into the record an annual economic assessment from the Tax Foundation, entitled Twenty twenty-six, State Tax Competitors.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Financial devastation, that's the phrase you use to describe DC's budget. That is an apt phrase to describe what this Republican majority has done to the federal budget. We're

Mm.

we're considering this week reconciliation bill number three. Let's go through them. Number one, blew a four point seven trillion dollar hole in the federal budget. The deficit skyrocketed. The trillion dollar cut to health care. Reconciliation bill number two. Maybe you all don't think this is a lot of money. Seventy-two billion dollars. Deficit spending. This week we're looking at reconciliation bill number three. To fund a failed war in Iran, ninety-five billion dollars. And we're hearing that there will be a reconciliation bill number four, and finally then the Republicans will get around to reducing the deficit. Now if you believe that, maybe Mr. Perry and I would agree on this, if you believe the speaker when he says, " Finally, with number four, or we'll get around to reducing the deficit, I got a bridge over the Potomac I'll sell you. Because it ain't gonna happen. In addition to devastating the finances of our nation, you're devastating the finances of the American people. Gas prices skyrocketing, groceries skyrocketing, tariffs costing families money, the war raging as we speak. And you wanna talk about DC. The District of Columbia is legally required. to balance his budget. And it will this year as it has every year for decades. Mister Frost said it well, if you don't like DC's budget, its policies, its tax policies, you can run for mayor, or city council, or A and C commissioner. And some of my Republican colleagues have been here in Washington long enough, you're probably eligible. Okay, okay. all right here. Until then,

Okay.

Maybe we should focus on getting our own financial

Yeah. I didn't know what you

house in order. So, Mister Chairman, I'm I'm opposed to this bill, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Will the gentlemen yield for a question, Mister Walkinsher? Before you yield back? Sure. We we look forward to your support, I can presume, for a balanced budget amendment. When we bring that to the floor, good.

I'm I'm looking forward to reconciliation number four where you all promise you're finally gonna get around to reducing the deficit.

Good, so we support reconciliation number four.

I'm I'm looking forward, I look forward to reviewing it.

Y- are you are you on the record? Do you support a balanced budget?

Look forward to it. I look forward to reconciliation number four,

Do you for the federal government? I'm asking you right now to back up your words.

where you finally get around to reducing the deficit.

Do you support a balanced budget amendment for the United States of America?

You have blown a five trillion dollar hole

Because we're gonna find out.

in the debt and deficit.

We're bringing that bill to the floor and we see how you vote.

Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, Mister Chairman.

Gonna give you an opportunity to back that up, sir.

Reclaiming my time, Mister Chairman.

I yield back.

Yielded my time.

Actually, everybody's time's expired.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

We're taking that support a balanced budget amendment. I'll vote for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so shall I.

Uh, before I recognize Mr. Lynch, I ask you to ask consent to enter into the record an article from the DC line entitled " The DC Council's Election Year Budget Panders and Jeopardizes". Without objection, so ordered, chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.

Uh, thank you, I I wanna first of all associate myself with the remarks of uh, Mr. Frost and uh, Mr. Walkinshaw. Uh, I think they've addressed the the major issues. I I do wanna point out First of all, uh, you know, I am totally opposed to this this bill. It uh takes the the right of the the people of the District of Columbia to actually govern themselves. Uh, and I and I think they are entitled to that, especially, you know, I've been here long enough where uh, you know, we were we had deep concerns about the way uh the government in DC uh managed its affairs. But I have to say that in the past twenty years, um, they have been uh aggressive in terms of getting their house in order and and uh balancing their budget and that was not always the case. So I I think uh uh recent administrations uh of DC deserve some credit for that. And also I I think the residents demanded it. I think uh you know in terms of educating their children and and and and and managing the the the affairs of the district, they've done an excellent job. This bill, if you look at it closely, it it requires that when the city council passes a an ordinance or or uh passes a licensing agreement or a permit, makes an assessment, uh in dealing with the the regular operations of the District of Columbia, they now m- they must after they pass it they must sit and wait for sixty days uh to determine whether or not Congress have the time or the interest to actually approve that resolution. So uh it's unworkable in what they're doing. You think about, think about DC, we all spend at least four or five days a week here. These people like their protests. Uh you know, uh you know, there's not a day that goes by that uh and I only live, you know, several blocks from here, but uh when you think about this government and and and uh this this city is where Uh, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of events in this city every single year that require permitting, that require fees to be collected, uh, and because there are costs to this city because it is the the center of our federal government, and people from all over the country come here, and and in a very real way, the people of DC have to pick up the tab for that uh with their police and and and first responders and their city council has to review these and and the city government itself has to review these permits and licensing requests and assessments and fees for the daily operation of this city and uh if they have to wait have to wait sixty days after every single request for a permit or a fee or a petition to actually hold a protest here or or some other in order that American citizens can exercise their right to petition their government, this is not helpful. This is not helpful. So, uh, and and I again, I I I do go back to Mister Frost's comments about is Congress really doing such a great job with our own responsibilities that we face every single day, that have a federal impact, that we can we can now jettison those or put those off to the side while we manage the parades and protests and licensing requests and permits and fees uh that that should be handled by by the government of the District of Columbia. So uh this this is wacky, this this whole idea that that that Congress is now gonna become, you know, the de facto uh Washington DC City Council. That's what that's what this proposal's here. Uh we aren't doing such.

G- gentlemen yields back. I send out this consent to enter into the record the following article from the Washington Post entitled "DC's Economy Shrank by Eight Point Three Percent in the Fourth Quarter."

Mm.

Without objection, it's ordered. The Washington Post. Um. Yes, ma'am.

All right. Well, good morning, everyone. I'm actually quite sad that, uh, Mister Perry has stepped out of the room because the exact quote that he said was, s- "DC has a spending problem", which I do find quite preposterous the day that we are actually going to vote on a budget resolution to blow another ninety five billion dollar hole through the federal deficit. So I did want to ask Mister Perry about that and how he plans to vote, but unfortunately he stepped out of the room. But I do think this is a good time to maybe pull back the curtain a little bit, Mister Chairman, and I would love to have a little colloquia or a debate with you just to understand where this bill came from, because what I find peculiar, I'm always interested as a former staffer, uh when you see

Well, this is consistent with what we've tried to do successfully. Well, this is consistent with what we've tried to do successfully. Uh, the last time we had a budget review bill was to, uh, undo the DC excessive criminal justice legislation that the DC council passed. Uh, Mr. Raskin raised teetotal heck. Most of the Democrats on the committee, I think all the Democrats on the committee voted against it.

Uh, can I

It passed the floor, it passed the Senate, and Joe Biden signed it into law.

But but my question for you

So, but but you, what what am I thinking?

No, no, hold on just a second.

I, no, no.

Let me ask you the real question. I I really wanna know. Did this spring from your mind? Like, so just let me ask, the bill basically says that any DC law that creates a new tax or fee, like any law that DC passes, could not take effect until Congress votes on it. Was that your idea?

Uh, we all have brainstormed our job.

No, your idea. Mister Comer, j- from Kentucky.

Yeah. Whose whos idea do you think it would be?

I don't, I don't know.

I mean, we, we said we don't, we don't live here.

That's why I'm asking you.

We spend half our ha- at least half our time here. This is We need to this is where we work.

Oh, but I'm asking you.

This is where we, I've spent three

But so, OK, uh, you were in local law enforcement, right, before you came here?

I'm with what?

Weren't you in local law enforcement before you came to serve in Congress?

No, no. That would be Mr. Higgins.

Oh, I thought you were No, oh, OK. What did, but you did something in local government before you came here.

I was a state representative and commissioner of agriculture in

OK, so you, you worked in state government. Can you imagine

I'm a farmer. That's if you ask me, what do I do?

OK, OK.

I'm a farmer.

OK, even better.

There you go.

Um OK, so as a former

There's a real concern with the DC council and the socialism

No, I'm just asking you a nice question.

and the a cry from the people of Washington DC that

Would you support that for the state of Kentucky?

pay taxes and and create jobs.

Should Kentucky run to Congress to get their state budget approved?

The State of Kentucky and and a federal delegation need to have communication so we can work together.

Can you imagine having to go through Congress to get your tax and revenue for the State of Kentucky approved?

Well, there's things that we have to work with on a daily basis. I mean, you act like there's no communica- I don't know the if the New Mexico people don't communicate with you but we communicate with the Kentucky people.

I would never ask the State of New Mexico to have to go through Washington, DC to get their budget approved because we have sovereignty.

Well, I No. You don't communicate back and forth with New Mexico on state and federal issues at all?

I We don't ask them to have their state budget approved by Washington DC and Congress.

Well, uh, you know,

D- is that what you're I know you're gonna run for governor soon.

I would I would assume I would assume a big percentage of

Is that what you would advocate for, Kentucky?

the New Mexico budget involves Medi- Medicare, Medicaid. I mean, that that's a big

We do not

whether you like it or not, a big part of the New Mexico state budget comes from the federal government.

Okay, but that is not Do you believe in states' rights?

I do believe in states' rights.

Well, then why do you not support this?

It it's not a state. And it's it's r- we have legislative jurisdiction over Washington, D. C. We don't wanna see m- more economic decline in this city as a result of a socialist takeover of this city with more taxes.

Okay, well, uh, let me ask you one last time. Would you like to tell the good people of Washington, D. C., where this bill came from?

We have filed this.

Did you write it? Did you personally write it?

And you can vote against it, like you you voted against it?

Did you write it?

Did I the bill we have we have bill drafters that write the bill.

Did you write the bill? But where did the bill come from and why is all of the leadership

We ca- what what do you think it came, what's your theory, what's your conspiracy theory? I'm

I don't have a con- I just wanna know.

Well, I've answered the question three times.

The people are here for, to hear, this is a public hearing, so we want to know where the bill came from.

Where where do you think it came, I I I have no idea what you're digging for.

I have no idea, this is why I'm asking you.

I I w- I'm curious, I mean

Can you just answer the question?

It's like a question. from a third grader did you write the bill

yeah i'm sorry sir you're not recognized

lord it's a robert de beller you know it

ok well uh

that was actually his stage very

let let me just say this i think it's obvious this bill was not written by the people of d.

hey you this is your your time

his stage very your time your time that's right

c. and i think it's obvious

right

that you're trying to make this happen without their consent

right

chair recognizes anybody seek recognition mr. Palmer

i will be happy to answer the question article one section eight clause seventeen gives Congress absolute authority over the District of Columbia. It was set up that way. Uh, James Madison wrote in Federalist forty-three, the federal government must have absolute authority over its own seat of government to ensure its security and operational integrity. That's the issue. The operational integrity of the District of Columbia. You do not have states' rights. It was never intended for, uh, District of Columbia to have states' rights. Um, so, in terms of of Congress, uh, Congress uh has absolute authority in all cases whatsoever. I would also uh add that the Communist wing of of the Democratic Party that is threatening to take over the Democratic Party wants to eliminate the Senate, they want to eliminate the presidency, and they really want to eliminate the constitution. To raise a question about whether or not we have authority here, Mister Chairman, the house is not uh the committee is not in order.

Please.

You will refrain Uh, I like to uh start the clock again, sir.

Yes, sir.

We have the responsibility. The question was raised uh or the point was made to Mister Perry that he should run for the DC City Council. That would be a r- reduction in authority. Congress has ultimate authority over the District of of Columbia. In terms of uh the the whole issue of of spending, uh I I just wanna uh they they raised the issue about Doge and what we're trying to do. to make the federal government more effective, more efficient, and less expensive. During the Clinton administration, it had the national partnership for reinventing government. I don't know how many of you people in here realize this. There are a few members of of the Democratic Party that are still in office that were in office then. But there were four hundred and twenty-six thousand federal jobs eliminated by the Clinton administration. Uh, thirteen of fourteen federal uh departments were impacted. They saved w- a hundred and thirty-six billion dollars. They closed two thousand, over two thousand field offices and and eliminated two hundred fifty programs. I thought that was a great start. Uh, full disclosure, when I ran a think tank, I was invited uh by uh the Clinton administration to come up to make recommendations. In terms of deficit spending, the Biden administration set a record, eight point four trillion dollars. So, when you talk about authority, it rests in the Constitution. Every member of Congress took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. All of it, not part of it, not the parts that you like. Not the you can't disregard the parts you don't like. So what we're trying to do is make Washington DC a successful city. It's not a successful city. I mean, I remember uh uh Marion Barry, the former mayor, saying if it weren't for the murders, Washington's crime rate wouldn't be so bad. That's an embarrassment. So what we're trying to do is make this a livable city, a place where families can prosper, where businesses can prosper, where people can walk the streets in safety. We're trying to down right-size the federal government. That effort's not over by a long shot. So my Democratic colleagues can say whatever they want to. Uh, they're scared to death about the Communist wing of the party that might take their seat as some of them have already lost their seats. I'm afraid of that too. I do not. want to see us lose our constitution. I don't want to see anyone lose their constitutional rights. I don't want a government so stinking big that it can tell you what you can have and what you can't have. That's what this is about. You have full authority, Mister Chairman, to have the bill written. We uh every member of Congress uses legislative reference to write bills. We don't sit down and write the bills ourselves, because most of us uh uh particularly someone like me, I don't have a law degree, I worked in engineering.

Please, we'll have order.

Mm.

If anyone uh continues unnecessary outbursts, we're gonna ask you to leave. Proceed with them.

You might not like what I've just laid out, but it is the Constitution. You can read it for yourself. I'm tempted to ask that the Constitution be entered into the record but I know most of the people on the other side of the aisle won't read it. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Uh,

Is there any more?

ch- chair recogni- any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the uh question is now on the amendment, the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. And the opinion shared with the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting HR ninety seven twenty as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair of the I chair recognized Mr. Higgins.

Miss German asks for 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 ninety seven twenty five, the restoring integrity and efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act of twenty twenty five the clerk please designate the bill.

H R nine seven two five, the restoring integrity and efficiency to Inspector General Oversight

Without objection.

A bill to amend

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Title five, United States Code to Abolish the Counsel of the Inspector is General on Integrity and Efficiency and Further Purposes.

Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so I ordered the chair recognize himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute, clea- the clerk will please designate the amendment.

An amendment in nature of a substitute to H R nine seven two five, as offered by Mister Comer of Kentucky.

Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. Uh, now recognize the sponsor from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, been working on this bill for a long time because CIGI has been a a serious problem, a focus of concern. Let me set the stage for this for the American people, and then during the course of debate I'm happy to answer all questions. The Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency to as CIGIE, CIGIE, as an independent entity within the executive branch. CIGIE's membership consists of more or less seventy-five inspectors general, some of whom are appointed by the president with senate confirmation, uh but the majority of CIGIE's members are appointed by heads of executive branch agencies, the heads of entities in the legislative branch or they, in some case, as a private citizens appointed by the leaders of government charted corporations. The members of CIGI elect one member to serve as chairperson. So CIGI as a whole maybe was born of s- of good intentions, but it has operated and come to be recognized clearly as a rogue government, politicized and all too frequently government entity. Now within CIGI exists what's called an integrity committee. The integrity committee consists of four inspectors generals chosen by the chairperson of CIGI, a designate from the FBI, and a designate from the Office of Government Ethics. The members of the integrity committee elect one member to serve as chairperson. So you have CIGI as an overall entity. And then within CIGI, you had this star chamber of the integrity committee. The CIGITI CIGI and the integrity committee have operated in in manners contrary to the Constitution for a long time. The integrity committee's investigations into inspector generals or employee of inspector generals her personal capacity quote unquote is inconsistent with long established legal principles. The integrity committee's improperly shifts the burden of proof to the respondent, which is essentially the opposite of our long-standing criminal justice procedures. The integrity committee's access rule regarding evidence and review of data is invalid. Seegee and the Integrity Committee have historically been biased actors with a partisan alignment. The Integrity Committee has acted against the legal interest of the United States, even interfering with litigation before an adjudicator with exclusive jurisdiction. The Integrity Committee has abused its authority by obtaining privileged information, listen to this, by compulsion and then disclosing that information outside the executive branch, without consent or court allowance. The integrity committee has unlawfully expanded its jurisdiction by examining an inspector general's actions as a private citizen far outside its original parameters. For the past five years, Mr. Chairman, the House Oversight Committee has raised bipartisan concerns regarding the failures of the integrity committee to effectively manage misconduct allegations in a transparent manner with Congress and recent findings of the Government Accountability Office documented significant failures in how CIGI's IC reviews and investigates complaints against IG's interstate which calls into question Siggy's ability to effectively conduct investigations into misconduct and wrongdoing. Continued failures and abuses by Siggy and the integrity committee, the star chamber within Siggy, have shown the inspectors general cannot be trusted to investigate wrongdoing within their own ranks. And therefore it's necessary to end Siggy and the integrity

Thank you, gentlemen. Chair, recognize the ranking member, Thank you. Mister Garcia, for his statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and of course with uh with respect to Mister Higgins who I know has been working on this issue I just wanna note that we strongly oppose uh this effort uh the restoring integrity and efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act we believe is an effort to weaken non-partisan Inspector General's and make it easier for the Trump Administration's corruption to spread across government. Now the Council of Inspectors of General Integrity and Efficiency is an independent oversight body created by Congress in two thousand eight with strong bipartisan support. We by both Republicans and Democrats, which performs important functions for the oversight community. The responsibility is to conduct oversight work, promote accountability within the Inspector General community and develop training and quality standards. CIGI provides critical background support for twenty-eight offices of Inspector Generals across the federal government. It helps all of these IG offices and different agencies find and fight waste, fraud and abuse. Now eliminating CIGI we don't believe actually helps the public. It enables more corruption.

Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition on the bill? Mister Waukechow.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following letters in opposition to H R ninety seven twenty five, which would abolish CIGI. First, a letter from fifteen former inspectors general. second a letter from former inspector general of the department of homeland security john roth third a letter from project on gov- government oversight and fourth a letter from citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington or crewe the government accountability project or gap project on government oversight pogo protect democracy public citizen and public employees for environmental responsibility

without objection to order

uh thank you mr. chairman and i think the ranking member did a good job of outlining concerns that i share I will just share one paragraph from Mr. Roth's letter that my Republican colleagues might be interested in. He writes, " For example, in twenty fifteen during the Obama administration," That's my word, Obama administration. "The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion that cut back on the authority of IGs to get information from their agencies to conduct audits. SIGGY discussed the situation and its impact on oversight. Ultimately, SIGGY sponsored a letter signed by more than forty-five inspectors General that notified this committee and other congressional committees of the issue. This ultimately respo- resulted in this committee's sponsoring and Congress passing the IG Empowerment Act of twenty sixteen to clarify and reinstate the authority of IGs to receive information. The chair and ranking member of this committee stated, " We're pleased to see this bill become a reality. This bipartisan legislation will help Inspectors General root out waste, fraud and abuse, and it will pave the way toward greater openness and transparency in government." So during the Obama Siggy identified that the Obama Department of Justice was restricting the ability of IGs to get information and conduct their audits to root out waste, fraud, and abuse because they have a degree of independence. They were able to alert this committee, Democrats and Republicans, and this committee in a bipartisan way was able to address it. If this legislation passes, abolishing Siggy, Something like that will never happen, whether it's in this Trump administration or a future Democratic administration. And that is the strength of SIGGY. And I think it's important to point out that as we have had in this committee, hearing after hearing, from my Republican colleagues claiming that combating fraud is their top priority, they turn a blind eye to Donald Trump trading selling access to insider information, accepting lavish gifts, ripping off his supporters with digital schemes, sending taxpayer dollars to fund his son's tungsten mine in Kazakhstan, contracting fraud at DHS, waste, fraud and abuse, in agency after agency. And as that is occurring, we have this bill to eliminate an entity that across multiple administrations, Democrats and Republicans, has worked effectively to help Inspectors General root out waste, fraud, and abuse. I think the American people should ask why, why this effort to kneecap the people whose job it is to drain the swamp. Cuz the swamp is getting deeper and deeper and smellier and smellier. And this Congress doesn't want to look at it. And that's what this bill's about. I yield back.

Chair, we're going to have a few sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I I do appreciate the gentleman for his thoughtfulness about aiming his comments at President Trump, but this committee dealt with President Biden and his son, cocaine, trips, all sorts of things, and that administration did everything that they could do to hide the truth, including the laptop and a lot of other things, and this committee invested a lot of time and effort. I welcome the gentleman to go after all that that he wants. But simply to sit here and try and show that this is something that we should be doing as opposed to the trillions of dollars that got away from the taxpayer during present Biden's four years is what we are on and what we will stay after. The gentleman knows that he's been involved in my hearings. He knows that that is of far more importance to this committee and to me. And so I think that what we're trying to do here is keep the issue directly ahead of us. I don't have to agree with the gentleman, Mr. Higgins, but I do work with him. I don't have to agree. with you, but I do work with you. And I just want you to know two trillion dollars is what this effort is about from the s- s- the committee and at least my subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the remaining time to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.

The tickets?

I thank my friend for yielding. I I would presume the because it's my nature, I would presume goodness from both sides of the aisle here. excellence of intent. The the foundational methodology of SIGGY shifts the burden of proof d- in an investigation to the accused. This is the opposite, my fellow Americans, from the long-standing uniqueness of the American criminal justice system, which states that the accused need not prove his or her innocence. The accusor, whether it's a criminal, civil, or civil service proceeding, it's, it's the burden of proof lies in the prosecution. our innocence in America. Prosecutors have to prove our guilt. That's what makes our system so unique in the history of mankind. A criminal justice system, as I've just described, has not existed. But Siggy reverses that. We have, we b- we - we built this government entity, again, in deference to my colleagues prior, Congresses established SIGGY perhaps with the best of intentions, but we have empowered them to create themselves into a monster. And this is what they have become. When the burden of proof requires a respondent in an inquiry to produce an explanation and evidence within twenty days that no reasonable person could find that the respondent committed the misconduct that has been alleged. This is a, the complete reversal of our long-standing criminal justice procedures. Now the, the integrity committee shifting that burden is reflective of the way it operates. CIGI conducts itself in a biased, targeted, weaponized manner. This is what we have, we have a duty to oppose. We have long identified it. We have, we've had dozens and dozens of official interactions, hearings, uh, investigative endeavors through this committee, through various offices of members that serve upon this investigative committee, the oversight committee of Congress. We've long established that CIGI is rogue, it's biased, it's making its own rules, it's operated as a weaponized government entity against both parties, it should be abolished. That's what this bill does. And I thank the gentleman for yielding his time. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back.

Is that my time?

Chair Gadsby, Stansberry.

All right, well, as for usual, I have no idea what my colleagues across the aisle are talking about, because let's talk about Inspector Generals actually are, but I just wanna state affirmatively that it is very clear that this administration and unfortunately their allies in Congress have a real problem with corruption and accountability. Because the entities, the non-partisan entities that are the watchdogs for the American taxpayers are the Inspectors General. And if you recall, Last year in January, the President of the United States fired seventeen inspectors general on one day. Now what is an inspector general? An inspector general sits at an agency and their job is to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. Their job is to audit the books of agencies and make sure that they're not wasting taxpayer dollars and engaging in fraudulent behavior. They review and investigate unethical behavior, and then they publish all of that publicly. Now there is a council that sets standards, which is what is trying to be gutted today, to make sure that it remains nonpartisan, to make sure that the inspector generals have general guidelines on how to operate, and that maintains the ethical oversight of the inspectors general. So, I just wanna, you know, the American people are smart. The American people get when nefarious things are going on. Since last year, this administration has now removed twenty-one inspector generals. Now, they wanna make you think that they created Doge and that they're investigating waste, fraud and abuse, but all of that is a front. Because Doge. Elon Musk and the president admitted it didn't accomplish its goals. The president himself asked if it was a bunch of bull, I won't say the word, but he said it. And they fired all of the officials who actually investigate waste, fraud and abuse. And this bill is to gut the counsel that sets the n- nonpartisan guidelines and ethical procedures for how that is done. Now let me ask the American people. Does that seem sketchy as hell to all of you? Cuz it sure seems sketchy as hell to me. And that is why myself and the Democrats on this committee oppose this bill, oppose the firing of the Inspector Generals, support the nonpartisan federal officials who actually do this work day in and day out inside our federal agencies even as they have been under attack by this administration And I just want to say the hip- hip- hypocrisy. If you are so concerned about waste, fraud and abuse, there is a vote today on the floor for a reconciliation bill that the president has asked the Republicans to pass. They would give a ninety-five billion dollar blank check to the White House to continue to fund an illegal war in the Middle East. If you are so concerned about waste, fraud and abuse, why are you not investigating why the President is repeatedly coming to Congress and asking for blank checks for the military, blank checks to terrorize our communities, blank checks to take away fundamental protections for food, for housing. If you really cared about waste, fraud and abuse, why are you not investigating the waste fraud and abuser in chief sitting in the White House, who literally filed a financial disclosure just a couple of weeks ago, saying that he made two billion dollars off of the presidency while tearing apart our country and taking basically bribes through money laundering schemes, tearing apart our federal government?

I think he's would like to speak. Okay.

What is this actually about? Why would you dismantle handle the oversight bodies that look into waste, fraud and abuse, maintain ethical standards, and audit federal behavior. The American people are smart. I think they can see what's going on. I yield back.

Uh, gentlelady yields back. When I became chairman of the oversight committee, I was really excited about the opportunity to work with Inspector General. I I believe in the concept. But the biggest disappointment over the last four years have been the IGs and their lack of investigative curiosity, their lack of production. I mean, they're they're IGs that we haven't even heard from the entire four years I've been here. And I think the IGs have gotten a little bit like the PBMs. They were created with good intentions, but they fall fallen victim to just m- bureaucratic mediocrity. And one of the most baffling federal entities has been the Council of Inspector General on Integrity and Efficiency, or SIGI, SIGI. SIGI was created to coordinate cross-agency investigations, provide support for IGs and share best practices to help IG offices root out wage fraud and abuse. We all supported the concept. But SIGI has ballooned into a bureaucratic mess that seeks to expand its power rather than do the job it was created to do. Some IGs have shared frustrations with being unable to get the assistance they need to investigate waste in their agencies. I know that was the case with several IGs we've had in front of this committee, while others have shared that CIGI has tried to get overly involved in their investigations. CIGI by statute has also been tasked with overseeing the integrity committee, the committee that reviews wrongdoing by inspectors general and their senior staff. Rather than ensuring the IG community is above or approach the integrity committee has conducted politicized investigation and refused to be transparent with Congress. I see Ms. Stansbury left. Further, the IC has consistently blown past the deadlines for conducting investigations required by law in some cases by as much as four years. This is simply unacceptable and sadly evidence of the larger problems within CIGI. CIGI has lost Congress and the public's trust. That's why I support this bill, because I believe it's time to end the integrity committee and transferring CIGI's core functions is a good start to restoring trust. in the IG community. Well, I've been explaining the problems with the with the IGs and the lack of trust in CIGI. This has become a bureaucratic mess. I compare it to the PBMs. I want strong IGs, but we've got IGs that just aren't doing a good job. And it's p- it's very frustrating. It's been a big disappointment. And I appreciate the sponsor of the bill. Mr. Higgins has been a champion of this for several years. And, uh, you know, I hope that we can get some, create a situation where we have independent IGs that actually do something, that don't work from home and and take years and years and years to get something done. I mean, we've got all the, I I use the post office as example. We all, and everyone in here agrees the post office is is a disaster, been a disaster for several years. And the IG, the postal IG was in the office and their their all the things that I would think we would agree the IG should look at, they're studying, I think it was Austria, how Austria operates their postal service, I mean give me a break. We we've got to have some uh some reform within this and I think that this is just the CIGI's created a bureaucracy

Mister Chairman,

Uh.

do you want to yield and discuss, since you named me?

No, no. You you you you've gotten your time, man.

Okay, alright. Well, I came back so we can debate. No, no, but you you you noted that I wasn't here, so I came back,

Oh, thank you.

so that we could have a good conversation.

I appreciate it. Alright. Glad.

Uh, would you like to yield?

I hope you learned something. Mm-hmm. So

You all don't wanna support accountability in the government?

Uh, no, not real.

And that's

I I I think I'll I do like I I'll I'll appreciate you, Mr. Stansbury, and I think you're a good member.

Thank you.

Um, but the solution to every problem seems like from many on your side is create another bureaucracy, hire some more people. Get, you know, uh, increase the the the bureaucracy and it may sound good, it's just not working. It's just not working.

No, I'm I'm anti-firing the cops who actually invest

I would I would argue that uh there's not a lot of fraud being investigated and it hasn't been for several years.

There hasn't been under the Republican majority,

But you're right, this government is rid for fraud and I don't

that's right.

agree I don't disagree with a lot of of what you're saying. I just think we've gotta beef up the IG operations. It's got bureaucratic and Siggy's part of the problem. So uh my time's expired. Any other members seek recognition?

This is Jerry, my office. I actually just got a draft with uh

I'll yield.

Well, it's not.

I've got, since I've got forty five seconds, I'll yield back to you then.

Well, it's it's insufficient, but let me say It's it's not enough time, but let me say that I've never mentioned waste, fraud, abuse and theft in this in this debate today. I'm talking about fundamentally biased criminal justice procedure and weaponized prosecution, coming out of Siggy and the

Gentlemen, yields back any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. Question is now on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair,

No.

the ayes.

Nope. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

Uh, a recorded vote is uh ordered, as previously announced further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is H R ninety six forty three, the Community Integrity and Management Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.

H R nine six four three, the Common Integrity and Management Act, a bill to and then section two zero six of the e-government act of two thousand and two to improve the integrity and management of mass comments and computer generated comments in the regulatory review process and for other purposes.

Without objection the bill should be considered read and opened for amendment at any point. Without objection to order the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute and the clerk please act the amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr nine six four three is offered by mister comor of kentucky.

Without objection the amendment is considered read and the substitute will be considered for original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, mister Higgins from Louisiana for an

Thank you, Mister Chairman. This this bill amends section two zero six of the E government act of two thousand and two to improve the management of electronic comments, submitted during agency rule making. This is this is crucial, we came to recognize this, ladies and gentlemen and Americans watching, a few years ago, and this was before AI. AI is a is a more phenomena, but a few years ago we d- we started noting that during the con- the public comment time frame of government projects, where it's - it's our responsibility to - to listen to legitimate comment from we the people and - and the - the impacted citizenry or that ha- citizenry that have an opinion on a government project. have every right to - to l- register their comment and their opinion on that project. And there's a period of time that those comments are to be collected. So we started noting a few years ago that there'd seem to be repetitive comments that were identical. And this was in the height of the -

Right.

of the digital age and the social media uh growth. And we found that commanded his comments were from, were coming from false profiles. It was like one guy creating m- many emails and sending the same comments. What this does, it compromises the integrity of the comment collection that should truly be considered based upon its actual, um, its actual numbers and intent. So, bottom line without getting into the the complex details of this bill. One two three four six seven eight. It requires some modicum of verification that a comment is coming from an actual human being. And the and whereby the evaluation of those comments will more truly reflect the will of we the people. That's the bill in a nutshell, Mister Mister Chair. Uh, we've been working on it for a long time. We have made, we have made amendments to the language in this Congress to address concerns of the minority, which I appreciated that feedback and corroboration. We have included, uh, considerations for AI, for instance, if, if, if an American or a citizen or a human being, an actual human being, posted a comment uses AI to help draft their comment, and yet the comment is actually born of - of an - an existing citizen or human being, then - then that should be allowed. So we've - we've made - we've made adjustments to this bill in the effort to, uh - to pursue the true intention of the bill, which is to restore full integrity and accuracy to to comments during the comment window for a government project so that so that we can effectively evaluate the will of we the people. So we we have done our best to accommodate the concerns of the minority. I appreciate their input. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill. I appreciate the chairman for bringing this bill to mark-up, and I yield.

Gentlemen, uh, you'll Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh appreciate the gentleman's work on this. As as he noted, technology has made it easier for the public to comment on proposed agency rules, and that increased public participation is a good thing, it's a great thing. Uh, but there have been in recent high profile rule makings agencies receiving a very very very high number of repeat comments, which obviously creates uh uh challenges for agencies to get an accurate view of the public's perspective on a rule. And this bill is designed to help agencies manage mass comments and computer-generated comments submitted in response to proposed rules and appreciate the gentleman working with a minority. Unfortunately, we still have some concerns that we hope can could be addressed. The bill fails to differentiate fully between spam comments and comments developed by a human being with the assistance of an AI tool and look, people in businesses all over the country have already adopted AI to make their lives and their work more efficient and effective, and the public shouldn't be penalized for using these support functions. And we continue to have concerns as well about how the Trump administration would implement this particular piece of legislation, given some actions they've taken to limit public comments. And while we'd be open to supporting the bill, uh, the concerns, these concerns need to be addressed and we welcome the opportunity to continue

Chairman yields back. I recognize myself for five minutes and I yield my time to Mister Higgins.

I thank the Chairman and I appreciate the ranking members' um consideration of the bill and his kind words regarding working with me. I will just clarify for the record that the concerns of the manure were presented to me prior to this mark-up within a given time um for us to to consider the concerns of the minority. And I communicated clearly that I would support an amendment. I thought it was it it it seemed to me was a a thoughtful a thoughtful suggestion from the minority regarding the allowance of AI as an assist mechanism for any citizen making their own individual comment on a government project. I communicated to the minority officially and clearly that I felt that that was a thoughtful suggestion, and if they would present that uh that amendment, I would thank them for that amendment, I would support that amendment, and ultimately that amendment would be included in this bill. However, just the way this town works, America, they pulled the amendment because they want to oppose my bill. They want to oppose a Republican's bill that restores integrity and and truthful count to the comments of a government project. Who would oppose that? So they had a concern, they voiced it, they communicated it properly and professionally. My staff delivered it to me, I considered it. I said, " You know what? That's a, that's a thoughtful suggestion." "Have them draft an amendment reflective of this concern. I will support that amendment and mark up. It will pass and it will be included in the legislation." And I've been advised since last night and today that they've made a d- a d- a decision, a minority.

The gentleman yield.

I yield.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Higgins, and, you know, it sounds like

It's actually not my time. I yield back to the chairman.

Yeah, I'd ju- I yield back to him.

And he'll yield to me.

Yeah. I'm I'm I'm happy to yield for a question to the gentleman

All right.

of the time that's been yielded to me by the chairman.

It's it's Higgins' time.

Yeah, it sounds like in conversation with staff from both sides, there still needs to be a little bit of work in in dialogue.

That, good sir,

On a meeting of the lives.

is a reasonable suggestion, and I accept it.

All right. Thank you, sir.

See, we get along great in this committee, despite what they put on TikTok and everything else. So, very good. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment and the next.

It's unanimous consent request.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I recognize you.

Unanimous consent to enter into the record a re- a letter from the Administrative Conference of the United States on its recommendations that align with my bill H R nine six four three.

Without objection, so ordered. The question is now on the amendment and the nature of its substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Mm-hmm.

All those opposed say no. In the opinion you shared the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favor of reporting H R ninety s Six forty-three is amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, Aye. the ayes have it, the bill is ordered. Mister Chairman. Mister Higgins. Mister Chairman.

A recorded vote, sir.

Uh, mister Higgins uh, recorded vote is ordered by Mister Higgins. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We will plan to reconvene at one fifteen sharp. The committee stands Recess. You you're ready to go, Jenner, Dave, so you're ready.

Okay. So we're gonna start with the

Okay. The committee will come back to order. If we could please have order in here. Uh, before we begin the the mark the actual mark-up, I'd like to welcome our newest member to the oversight committee, Representative Christian Menefee from Texas. Uh, we're glad to have him on the committee. And I'm gonna yield to Ranking Member Garcia to wel- to welcome Representative Menefee.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to also just welcome our newest member to the committee, uh, Representative Christian Menefee. I, uh, I'm new to the committee, uh, but has already been in Congress and doing the work, and has already been working, uh, extremely extremely hard on issues that relate to oversight um and for his district. Now of course uh we know that he is incredible in his experience and brings with enormous knowledge as an attorney, he's a fighter, he's been a local government leader, and of course he'll be a great champion on oversight. We're fortunate to have Christian, I think we've all gotten to know him in this Congress so far, and we wanna welcome him to the committee but also to oversight Democrats.

Beautiful.

And so congratulations uh Christian and welcome to oversight.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

S- yeah, Mr. Birch- Chairman Birch-

Why don't we why don't why don't we yield about eight or nine seconds to him to tell let him tell us his life story? All right, you aren't recognized yet. Hang on. The chairman's gonna do that.

Yeah, hey, uh, we'll we'll give him ten seconds. How about that?

Happy to take, You're the gator. uh, a member of Congress two hours to give my life story. Um, Congressman Christian Menefee, that's morning, February second, excited to be on the committee. Thank you all very much.

Here we go.

Welcome, all right, he's a keeper.

Yeah. Yeah.

He, hell. You you may have just become our favorite member on the other side. Stay away from Walkin' Shaw. And Jamie Raskin. All right. We'll g- we'll go The the question, we're gonna go ahead and vote. We'll leave this first one open a little longer to make sure everybody's here but the question is on favorably reporting hr sixty six ten members will record their votes using the electronic voting system the clerk will now open the vote on favorably r- reporting hr sixty six ten the pharmacist fight back act for spreading In route. And I've seen him work out. I've seen him work out. Uh I've seen he he can sprint.

Oh, okay.

She may have been sprinting too, but it wasn't to remember I was thinking of, but we were holding it open for you, Miss Randall. Here's another member running it, come here, we're waiting for you. I know, anyway. I don't think it's gonna be that easy. I think it's gonna be a lot of fun, it's not a bad game, I think people might get a little tired, or maybe a little bit. Hmm. Another sprinter.

Yeah, yeah, I just heard. Well, if you have like a computer, like a computer,

Uh, this is a bipartisan delay here.

or if it's not the part you're writing right now, then you can go into the document and look at the details. All the other like, you can't actually look at the details. But it's like, so you have these, or you can also use the document, You would be listening to the family matter.

yeah

oh i'm gonna wait

oh still still waiting

one more minute

there's a lot of them

you all had two dragon we've only had one we got one more to do yeah yeah we're gonna miss them

you're so good

Texting. What? Yeah, I think it's gonna take about a second or so, but I'm not sure. I like that.

Yeah, I had a question about the, uh, we had to do a few meetings, but we had to do a couple of them.

Still not the one we're waiting on.

I mean, we had to do a couple of meetings, but we had to do a couple of meetings, Oh, thank you. but we had to do a couple of meetings. So, I mean, we had to do a couple of meetings, but we had to do a couple of meetings, so, and, you know, we were just, you know, just, yeah, it was pretty long.

See I waited for you, Miss Tansbury. You would have waited for me, right?

Thank you.

It absolutely.

This is the sprinter we were waiting on. The guy works out he's a beast. The president always references his win-loss record in division one wrestling.

No one else?

All right, have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the ayes are forty, the nays are two.

The ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorable. Twenty. Bless you. Bless you. Hey you.

Hey you.

Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?

One second, sorry. Mister Langworthy.

Mister Langworthy. Got it? Have all members been recorded? Any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote, reports a vote total.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the ayes are twenty-three, the nays are eighteen.

The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably, reported. Without objection, the vote sheree consider is laid on the table. Next up, the questions on favorably reporting H R ninety seven twenty five.

Are you ready?

Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H R ninety seven twenty five, restoring integrity and efficiency to our Inspector General Oversight Act of twenty twenty five. Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded?

One real? One moment.

OK.

Mister Brown. One one moment, sir.

Does any member wish to change her vote?

Thank you.

Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the ayes are twenty three, the nays are twenty.

The ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table.

Thank you.

Next up. The question is on favorably reporting H R ninety six forty three. Members will record their vote choosing electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H R ninety six forty three comment integrity and management act.

These are so hot.

Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?

Four point six.

Does any member wish to change their vote?

Oh, What? One moment, sir. Do you want me to record that? We're good.

The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are twenty-four, the nays are nineteen.

The ayes have it, the bill is ordered favorably reported, without objection the vote should be considered as laid on the table. Next up. Pursuant to notice, I now call up call up the following on-block postal naming bills which were distributed in advance on this mark-up. H R's. Eighty nine, ninety nine, ninety, twenty six.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year my colleague, Thank you. Shamari Figures, and I from Alabama celebrated the life of Lieutenant Colonel George Hardy. The last surviving combat pilot of the Tuskegee Airmen. He passed away at the age of one hundred. In his lifetime, he alone served in three wars and became the youngest Tuskegee Airmen fighter pilot to fly his first solo combat mission over Europe at the age of nineteen. The contributions he and his fellow Tuskegee Airmen made to our country as the first African-American military aviators changed the course of World War Two in our nation's history. Tuskegee Airmen flew over fifteen thousand earning over a hundred and fifty distinguished flying crosses. Their service contributed to the Allied victory and paved the way for the desegregation of the military. That's why I'm honored today to pay tribute to the service of the Tuskegee Airmen by speaking in support of HR six six zero zero six, which was sponsored by my colleague, uh, Representative Figures. The bill would rename the North Elm Street Post Office in Tuskegee Alabama as the Tuskegee Airmen Memorial Post Office. At the Tuskegee Army Airfield, the program trained nearly a thousand African-American pilots, mechanics and other servicemen who were all s- who were known as the Red Tails. It's only fitting that we honor their lega- legacy in the very city of Tuskegee, Alabama, to pay tribute to their extraordinary contributions to this country. Their recognition ensures that their sacrifice, bravery and historic contributions to our nation will never be forgotten. I thank my colleague, uh, Representative Figures, for his

Gentleman yields back. Any other membership recognition? Miss Norton.

Uh. I commend repre- representative figures for introducing this bill. Congress and the executive branch must continue to find ways to honor the Tuskegee Airmen. I strongly urge my colleagues to support

Thank you. The lady yields back. Any other members seek recognition? I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from Congresswoman Jean Kiggins Jen Kiggins of Virginia the sponsor of HR seventy-three sixty-five, without objection so ordered. Any other members seek recognition? The question is now on favorably reporting the en bloc package. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

In the opinion of the chair of the eyes, have it the en bloc package is favorably reported. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Pursuant to House Rule eleven, clause two, I ask that committee members have the right to file with the clerk of the committee, supplemental additional minority and descending views without objection. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the committee print, subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there is no further business before the committee without objection the committee stands adjourned thank you all