the full Committee to consider the following: 1) H.R. 6916, Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act of 2025; 2) H.R. 428, Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act of 2025; 3) H.R. 1722, Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025; 4) H.R. 4642, Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act; 5) H.R. 2069, Stop Secret Spending Act of 2025; 6) H.R. 7934, Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2026; 7) H.R. 2766, Special District Fairness and Accessibility Act; 8) H.R. 5525, Stop DC Capital Authoritarian Motorvehicle Enforcement and Restoration of Autonomy (CAMERA) Act; 9) H.R. 6399, To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique ZIP Code for Highland City, Utah; 10) Several postal naming measures.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
The ranking member yields back. We're gonna pause for a moment. Representative Fallon is en route. They said he's running. And for those of you that don't know, Pat Fallon played football for Lou Holtz at Notre Dame.
So I assume he's in excellent physical condition still. So we're gonna yield now once he catches his breath to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Texas.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, thank you. And as a point of personal privilege, we buried coach Holtz Monday, and we don't wanna take just ten seconds to share it with everyone. We wanna talk about somebody that loved this country, loved this republic, born in humble beginnings. Taught all 1,500 of his players what love is. And love is doing your best and uplifting everyone around you, because there's a distinct difference between being ambitious and striving for excellence.
When you strive for excellence, you bring everybody up. And he did that, and you could see it in how many players were at the funeral yesterday. Hundreds of us. And even due to all the weather and flight cancellations and go-arounds, it was a beautiful thing and a tribute to coach Holston. He's a dynamic force that will be sincerely missed.
And I know for a fact I wouldn't be here representing nearly 800,000 Americans had I not crossed this path. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I'd like to enter two documents into the record. First, a letter of support for the National Special Districts Association.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And second is a letter of support from the North Texas Municipal Water District. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Special districts are a unit of local government that deliver specialized services to a specific community.
There are many in the state of Texas, and really all over the country. For example, a special district in Texas, for instance, includes water control and improvement districts, hospital districts, crime control and prevention districts, and sports and community venue districts. There are 35,000 of these nationwide, including, as I mentioned, 3,300 in the state of Texas. California has approximately 3,000. Colorado, about 3,200.
Illinois, about the same at 3,200. Every state in our union has special districts and numerous communities that greatly rely on them. They're beneficial to all Americans. In particularly rural parts of the country, special purpose districts can provide emergency response and utility services. In urban areas, special districts can provide vital infrastructure or educational services.
These districts are giving significant powers, including the power to acquire, purchase, sell, lease real or personal property, sue and be sued, impose and collect taxes, issue bonds, borrow money, and contract with other entities. However, they struggle to access federal funding, and this bill changes that. HR 2766 would establish the first ever formal federally recognized definition for special districts. Additionally, it directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to federal agencies requiring special districts to be recognized as local governments, which they are, and which would clarify how special districts are eligible to receive federal assistance. This doesn't guarantee they're going to get it.
It puts them on equal footing, as a county, a school district, the city, etc. And to be clear, this bill doesn't increase government spending, nor does it create additional federal funding programs. It simply allows these vital types of local governments to have a chance to receive funding with already-existing federal programs. It merely lets them compete for them, that other local governments have access to, and it gives them the proverbial seat at the table. I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense bipartisan legislation that benefits special districts and, by extension, all Americans.
And I think, mister chairman, if we pass this, you will all feel better about yourselves. Thank you very much, and I yield.
Speaker 5
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. What many of our neighbors already know is that a lot of the government services that we rely on every day are provided by what are known as special districts. As my colleagues have mentioned, they provide water and broadband, Internet, fire and EMS services, electricity, libraries, hospitals, conservation programs like rain barrels and rain garden planning to conserve water, and countless other services, and are especially important in rural communities like the one I represent. For example, I represent six public utility districts, all of whom are very eager to see this policy pass. Our PUDs make sure families and businesses can literally keep the lights on.
They make sure rural areas of the Olympic Peninsula have reliable broadband access so that folks can attend telehealth appointments and start their businesses. And they're taking steps to harden the infrastructure and make it more resilient in the face of worsening storms, flooding, wildfires, atmospheric rivers like the one my district is experiencing as we speak. But while they tirelessly carry out this integral work, they're ineligible to apply for many federal programs because of the lack of a definition for special districts and federal law. And by providing this definition, we can help these critical government programs operate. We can ensure that folks have access to, you know, library resources like the bookmobiles in rural communities, that folks can have access to broadband that, you know, has the service that they rely on.
They can make sure that folks are able to have electricity that is reliable as well and that our firefighters are able to respond to house fires and so much more. So I'm a proud sponsor of the special district's grant accessibility act, and we'll be happily voting for this bill in committee and on the house floor. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields back. Any further request to speak? Seeing none, the question is now in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say no. And the opinion chair of the ayes having the amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favor of reporting H.R. 2766 as amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say no. The opinion chair of the ayes having Chairman. What? Mr. Biggs.
Speaker 1
A recorded vote is ordered, as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is HR 6916, the Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act of 2025. The clerk, please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
HR 6916, the federal program integrity and fraud prevention act of 2025. A bill to amend title 41 United States code to identify individuals who commit certain federal felonies, implicating federal programs as an excluded source on the system for award management exclusions list, and for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment. Any point without objection to order, the chair regales himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6916 is offered by Mister Comerford.
Speaker 1
That objection. The amendment is considered red. The substitute will be considered as original text for purposes of further amendment and now recognize himself for five minutes. I support the Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act of 2025. The federal government pays a significant amount to contractors for services needed to help agencies fulfill their missions.
Receiving a contract, grant, loan, or other form of federal assistance is a privilege. However, there are individuals who use it as an opportunity to defraud the government. This bill closes a glaring loophole by prohibiting individuals convicted of certain felonies in connection with an agency contract, grant, loan, or other financial assistance from receiving federal awards. Under HR 6916, fraudsters will no longer be allowed to get rich from taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. This bill also promotes transparency by requiring these individuals to be listed on the system for awards management exclusion list, thus ensuring that federal agencies know these individuals are before awarding a contract or grant.
This committee has investigated fraud extensively, and we have seen that as long as fraudsters are successful in obtaining contracts and federal financial assistance, they will continue to do so. We need more proactive tools to prevent these individuals from taking advantage of these loopholes that allow them to continue to get rich on the taxpayer's dime. I applaud the efforts of Representative Keith Self and Emily Randall for leading this bill in the House and bringing it before this committee. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan, common-sense bill, and I now recognize the ranking member for his statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I also wanna thank the authors of the bill. Particularly want to thank, of course, representative Randall for her work on this legislation. Another real common sense piece of legislation. I wanna support this bill.
One of our most important responsibilities, of course, on this committee is ensuring that the taxes paid by hardworking Americans are spent wisely by their government. This bill would protect American tax dollars from being misused by bad actors by preventing individuals and companies convicted of certain crimes, including fraud related to federal funds, theft of government funds, or bribery tied to federal funds from receiving federal contracts and grants. If you break the law as it relates to fraud and abuse of the government, you shouldn't benefit from federal contracts. It's as simple as that, and I want to urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
Speaker 1
Recognize member yields back. Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs. Are you seeking recognition? No?
Speaker 5
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you for scheduling this bill for a markup. I'm really glad to see my legislation with Representative Self on the list of bills that oversight is considering today. We've sat through many hearings in this committee where my colleagues on the other side have pointed fingers at democratically led cities and states, while ignoring what's happening in their own backyards and failing to come to the table with real solutions. And instead of political theater, our constituents, our neighbors, deserve us to be spending time discussing and enacting proven, vetted solutions to the actual instances of fraud where there are well-documented patterns of behavior. We shouldn't be giving people committing fraud more government contracts.
The Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act is that common-sense legislation to disrupt and end patterns of fraud and prevent misuse of taxpayer dollars. This bill was developed in conjunction with the inspectors general who do the important work of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government every day. The IGs come across hundreds of instances where individuals were convicted of fraud related to federal government programs and were still eligible to apply for and receive federal contracts. It's frankly irresponsible and negligent for individuals convicted of fraud to be able to receive taxpayer funds, and possibly misuse them again. While under current law agencies can debar specific individuals from being eligible, this can be a long, tedious, and bureaucratic process to navigate, especially if we're talking about the need to do this for hundreds of individuals perpetrating fraud.
Anecdotally, I've been told it can take upwards of 20 hours to prepare a suspension debarment package. It's the technical term for someone who has been convicted of fraud. The inspectors general carry out the investigation and do referrals to agency suspension and debarment officials who then determine whether they take action to prevent a given individual from being eligible to apply for federal funds. Many of these officials have small staffs, smaller over the last year, making it easy for a backlog to develop. A study by inspectors general showed that 500 of 550 felony fraud convictions involving pandemic federal program funds over a three-year period, more than ninety-five percent of those convicted were not suspended or debarred from doing business with the government.
So if we're doing the math, that's over 10,000 hours of work that we will save our inspectors general through this bipartisan bill to automatically deem individuals convicted of fraud ineligible for government contracts for a minimum of three years. Each hour we give back to the IGs is more time they can spend addressing other instances and allegations of fraud. And I'm grateful for the leadership of the inspectors general who raised the prevalence of this issue, who told us about the problems that they're facing, and who helped us develop this bill so that actually solves the fraud problems that they are facing and isn't just another example of political theater. Thank you, Representative Self, for your partnership on this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Any further debate on the bill? Seeing none, the questions are on the amendment, the nature of a substitute. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. The opinion chair of the ayes has it.
The amendment is Greek chairman. The what we got? The Oh, yes. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 69 16 as amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, say no. What for what purposes?
The gentleman from Arizona seeks recognition.
Speaker 1
Recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is H.R. 428, the Bonuses for Cost Cutters Act of 2025. The clerk, please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
HR 428, the Bonuses for Cost Cutters Act of 2025, a bill to amend title five United States Code to enhance the authority under which federal agencies may pay cash awards to employees for making cost-saving disclosures and for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment to any point. Without objection to order, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk please exonerate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 428 is offered by Mister Comer of Kentucky.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered read. The substitute will be considered as regional text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. I support the Bonuses for Cost Cutters and Fraud Preventers Act, which expands incentives for federal employees to identify and disclose waste and abuse before American taxpayer dollars are spent. Federal employees are the best positioned to catch wasteful spending, but without incentives to disclose such spending, they may not speak up.
That's why Congress created cash awards in 1981 to encourage employees to take action. This program was so successful that it was made permanent just over a decade later. The use of these authorities has resulted in creative ideas coming from agency employees themselves, saving millions of taxpayer dollars over the years. Such cost-saving ideas have included allowing veterans to use otherwise safe discarded medicine, eliminating wasteful printing of the Federal Register, and much more. And now Congress can do more to expand the cost-saving potential of these authorities.
HR 428 is amended to increase its incentives for federal employees by allowing cash awards for reporting wasteful spending and improper payments before funds go out the door. As we have heard over and over again, the best way to recover misspent taxpayer dollars is not to misspend them in the first place. I support this initiative, which preserves congress' constitutional role in the appropriations process and helps reduce wasteful spending. I thank Representative Fleischman from Tennessee for bringing these reforms to our committee and for working with us to further improve the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I'm now recognized as ranking member.
Speaker 3
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I also support this legislation. The bill would save American taxpayers money by encouraging public servants to identify cost savings in federal programs, and would increase an existing award program cap of 10,000 up to 20,000. Employees who eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse would qualify for cash awards for their efforts. Again, this is a good piece of legislation, and it's a thoughtful way of putting the American people first as it relates to spending our tax dollars.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Rankie Bieber yields back. I'd like to ask UNS consent to enter into the record a letter of support dated March 18 from the National Taxpayers Union endorsing HR 428. Bonuses for cost cutters act of a, HR 1722, the billion dollar boondoggle act, HR 2069, the stop secret spending act, HR 4642, the fiscal contingency preparedness act, and HR 7934, the settlement agreement information data bags act. Without objections ordered, do any members seek recognition on HR 428? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying, aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion, share the ayes have it. The amendments agreed to.
The question is now favorably reporting HR 428 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. For what purposes, mister Bigg, do you seek recognition?
Speaker 1
A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is HR 1722, the billion dollar boondoggle act of 2025. The clerk will please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
HR 1722, the billion dollar boondoggle act of 2025. A bill to require an annual report of taxpayer-funded projects that are over budget and behind schedule.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection to order, the chair recognizes himself to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1722 is offered by Mister Comer, Kentucky.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read, the substitute will be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. I recognize myself for the purpose of, for five minutes, making a statement on the bill. Congress must ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent efficiently. Each year, the Government Accountability Office reports government projects that are above cost projection or behind schedule. Such projects include federal information technology programs and National Nuclear Security Administration projects.
However, there are likely additional government boondoggles flying under the radar, following years behind in schedule, running billions of dollars over budget. The billion dollar boondoggle act will keep policymakers and the public better informed about government-funded projects that are significantly behind schedule or over budget. We cannot fix what we do not know is broken. The bill directs agencies to report on projects that are more than 5 years behind schedule or have expenditures that are at least $1,000,000,000 more than the original cost estimate. Agencies must also provide an explanation for the delay in the project's completion or an increase in its cost.
The Office of Management and Budget is then required under the bill to submit an annual report to Congress summarizing these troubled federal projects. Congress has a duty to oversee the federal government inefficiency and waste. This bill informs policymakers and allows Congress to address failing government projects before further taxpayer dollars are misused. A similar bill passed the House in the 118th Congress, and the identical Senate bill sponsored by Senator Ernst from Iowa just recently passed the Senate this past December. I wanna thank representatives Miller Meeks and Ansari for their work on the house companion bill.
It's time to get this bill sent to the president's desk. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I now recognize the ranking member.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this legislation, which is also co-led by representative Ansari. Now Congress has a duty to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently, transparently, and with real accountability for results. We know this bill would require that Congress be notified of any project that is more than 5 years behind schedule or a billion dollars over budget. It will help Congress perform critical oversight roles on behalf of the American public.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Any membership recognition, chairman, I ask Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Speaker 6
Mister chairman, I support this bill. Right now, taxpayers are on the hook for more than $163,000,000,000 worth of cost overruns, and this will be a great attack on that. And, I mean, there's some specific ones. We think of the California high speed rail line that has jumped in costs, an additional project in Boston that went from $400,000,000 to $1,400,000,000. And so, mister chairman, I support this and ask that you allow into the record that a peer piece called taxpayers on the hook for a $163,000,000,000 worth of project overruns, including controversial Fed renovations.
Speaker 1
Without objection to the order. Thank you. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, questions now. In the amendment, the nature of the substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. The opinion chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favor of reporting HR 1722 as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Speaker 1
A recorded vote is ordered by Mister Biggs from Arizona, previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is HR 46 42, the fiscal contingency preparedness act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
HR 4642, the Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to examine the ability of the federal government to respond to potential fiscal shocks, and for other
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objections to order, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk please hesitate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in the nature of substitute to HR 4642 is offered by Mister Comerford.
Speaker 1
No objection. The amendment is considered as read, the substitute would be considered as the result text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. HR 46 42 is a sound common sense bill that will increase transparency and help Congress and the executive branch be better prepared for future national emergencies. As we all know, the United States is $38,000,000,000,000 in debt, and that debt is growing.
Much of America's debt stems from Congress and the executive's responses to the country's last two major crises, the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to each emergency, federal spending drastically increased, and that spending massively increased our national debt. For all we know, another major crisis is around the corner, and we cannot afford to respond with the same lack of fiscal responsibility. Harder choices than ever may have to be made. This bill will help us be better prepared.
For the first time, it will require that the Department of the Treasury in its annual fiscal report to Congress examine and inform Congress of the fiscal risk and impacts of a federal response to a wide range of potential national and international crises. Armed with that knowledge, Congress and the executive branch will be better positioned to know ahead of time how much fiscal flexibility they will have to respond to such a crisis if and when it comes. As a result, they'll be better able to take prudent measures in advance to help make more fiscal space available to address the crisis. As chairman of this committee, I hope that includes eliminating every last bit of waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal spending so taxpayer resources are preserved to respond to taxpayers' genuine needs. Importantly, Treasury must examine and report on these issues in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.
And as an additional safeguard to assure accuracy, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to review Treasury's methodology and report its findings to the House and Senate budget committees. I wanna thank Representative Ben Klein from Virginia and Representative Gerry Golden for their leadership on this issue and bringing this bill to consideration. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I recognize a ranking member for his statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this legislation as well. Well, when I was mayor and the COVID-19 pandemic hit, along with the horrific shock to the country, the pandemic slowed our economy, hit our city's budget, and our ability to deliver critical services. Now we learned lessons, and among them is that we must always be prepared. Disasters happen.
They're gonna continue to happen, whether it's economic depressions, a crisis around energy, a pandemic, or a natural disaster. Now this would help ensure that we are prepared to respond to economic recessions, pandemics, cyberattacks, and more. We must be ready for anything. As this bill moves to the floor, I wanna be clear that as we've learned from the pandemic and other disasters, responding to these incidents means making sure that we have strong programs in place to protect the American people and to provide help when we need it. We should not be using fiscal disaster readiness as an excuse to push through cuts, which leave us more vulnerable.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill in front of us, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. I ask you to ask consent to enter into the record statements of support from the committee for a responsible federal budget, Americans for Prosperity, National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Tax Foundation, Millennial Debt Foundation, Economic Policy Innovation Center, Cato Institute, Concord Action, R Street Institute, Peterson Solutions Fund, Bipartisan Policy Action Center, Progressive Policy Institute, and the Problem Solvers Caucus endorsing HR 4642, the fiscal contingency preparedness act. Without objections, so ordered. Any member seek recognition on the bill? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment, the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. And the opinion chair of the ayes having the amendments agreed to. Question is now favorably reporting HR 46 42 as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Speaker 1
A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs. His previously announced other proceedings, the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is HR 2069. The STOP Secret Spending Act of 2025. The clerk will please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
HR 2069, the STOP Secret Spending Act of 2025, a bill to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to ensure that other transaction agreements are reported to usaspending.gov for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection to awarded, charitizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk, please designate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2069 is offered by Mister Cummins.
Speaker 1
Objection. The amendment is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. I support the Stop Spending Act of 2025, which requires federal agencies to report complete and accurate information to usaspending.gov on how they spend congressionally appropriated funds. Since 2006, agencies have been required to be more transparent with how they are spending taxpayer dollars.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, later amended by the Data Act of 2014, established USAspending.gov, a public database of all government spending. Transparency in government spending is critical because it assures the American people that agencies are using their hard-earned money appropriately. In short, transparency helps build trust in the government. Unfortunately, over the years, we found that there are gaps in what gets reported to usaspending.gov. Increasingly, federal agencies have used spending authorities known as other transaction agreements, or OTAs.
OTAs are not subject to certain federal acquisition laws and requirements, most importantly, are not required to be reported to usaspending.gov under current law. The GAO has found that agencies use different methods to report billions of dollars in spending related to OTAs. However, this reporting has been inconsistent, and it's unknown if this information is even complete. That means we do not have full transparency over how billions of dollars are spent by the federal agencies. The Stop Secret Spending Act corrects this issue by requiring OTA spending to be reported to usaspending.gov.
The bill also requires agencies to report annually on types of funding that previously were unreported for a variety of exemptions. Agencies will need to report the amounts and the reasons why these appropriated dollars were not spent. This provides more transparency to the public, and allows all of us to hold agencies accountable. Lastly, this bill restores the requirement for agency inspectors general to review the entirety of data submitted to usaspending.gov to ensure that it is complete and accurate. Transparency does not mean anything if the spending information that gets reported is not complete or accurate.
I thank representatives Barry Moore from Alabama, Jimmy Panetta for leading this bill in the house of representatives. I urge all my colleagues to support this common sense bipartisan bill that yields to the ranking member.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also support this bill. The American people work hard to make ends meet, particularly with sky costs skyrocketing and failed policies both at home and abroad. The American people deserve to know how the federal government is spending their money. This bill would increase transparency on how taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring agencies to report each year on federal spending that is not currently disclosed on USAspending.gov.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Speaker 1
Yield back. Gentlemen, yields back. IACM's consent to enter to the record a letter from the center for procurement advocacy dated 03/16/2026, endorsing HR 2069, the stop secret spending act. Without objection, so ordered. Any member seek recognition on the bill?
To speak on the bill? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment and the nature of the substitute. All those in favor signify by saying, I. I. All those opposed, say no.
And the opinion chair of the ayes have it. Question is now in favor. We'll be reporting HR 2069 as amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Mister chairman.
What purposes does the gentleman from Arizona seek recognition?
Speaker 1
A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7934, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2026. The clerk will please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
H.R. 7934, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act, a bill to amend chapter three of title five United States Code to require the publication of settlement agreements and for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objections to order, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk, please designate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in nature of a substitute to HR 7934 is offered, Mister Comer of Kentucky.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I'm gonna yield to the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Palmer. But before I do, Gary, when Pat Fallon came in, I announced to the world that he played college football at Notre Dame for the famous coach, Lou Holtz. And I feel like I need to recognize and announce to the world if they didn't already know. You played college football in Alabama for the another famous coach, Bear Bryant.
If I played college football, I would say that in every opening statement about myself, but I did. So.
Speaker 7
Before Lou Holtz went to Notre Dame, he was the head coach at Arkansas, and we played him for the national championship. Yeah. And beat him. And Lou Holtz told me this himself. He said, when coach Bryant walked across the field at the end of the game, he said, Lou, that's the best game we played all year. And coach Holt said, well, I'm just glad I was there to see it.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The federal government's duty to serve the public interest relies on transparency and accountability to all its citizens. Due to poor record keeping, Howard, it is impossible for Congress and the public to determine the comprehensive impact of federal settlement agreements and consent decrees. States, municipalities, industry stakeholders, and taxpayers are often directly affected by the terms of these agreements, but are prevented from accessing the details of these settlements and decrees. I personally encountered this problem as far back as 2008, when I worked at a think tank.
Federal courts, agencies, and state and local municipalities were unable to identify the number of consent decrees Alabama was legally bound to enforce. We were told the cases were only filed by case name or number, and accordingly, it would be impossible to retrieve Alabama-specific cases. Currently, most of the public's access to federal settlement information is based on individual agency discretion, and information use usually is issued in the form of a press release. Worse yet, there are no uniform standards for internal or public record-keeping across federal agencies. In some cases, heads of agencies will also declare a settlement to be confidential and seal the contents without providing any explanation.
It's therefore impossible for the public to determine the comprehensive cost and outcomes of federal settlement agreements. The Bipartisan Settlement Agreement Information Database Act, or SED Act, will address this problem. The bill establishes a centralized electronic database of settlement agreements entered into by federal agencies. Basic information about settlement agreements already collected by federal agencies, such as payments and dates, will be searchable for the public online through this database. This will include agreements that impose payment obligations of 10,000,000 or more to a settling party entered into after January 1, 2015.
In circumstances where the terms of an agreement or decree are deemed confidential, the bill requires agency heads to issue a written public statement justifying the non-disclosure. HR 7934 provides long overdue transparency and accountability standards to federal settlement agreements and consent decrees. I thank my friend and colleague, mister Mufume, for his leadership and joining me as co-lead for this bipartisan SED Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also support this bill. This bill, as we know, would create a database of settlement agreements entered into by federal agencies with the victims of violations of federal civil or criminal law. Heads of agencies would be required to submit details about the types of settlement agreements they have entered into, the parties who are involved, and specific violations in any amounts paid. This is good for the transparency and accessibility of the public.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. HR 7934, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act, is a common sense measure that increases transparency and enhances public participation in government policy making. Transparency and public participation are vital to ensure the public's continued trust in our government. But for years, they have been undermined by federal agencies that have entered into legally binding settlement agreements, consent decrees, and litigation over government action.
These agreements and decrees typically result from secret negotiations with activist plaintiffs that diminish transparency, and essentially prevent the public from participating in important policy decisions. It's currently impossible for congress and the public to determine the comprehensive impact of these settlement agreements and consent decrees on state and local governments and private sector entities that must follow mandates the settlements and decrees require. The burdens imposed can be difficult to see and understand, but state and local governments, industry stakeholders, and taxpayers can be directly affected for years by these settlements and decrees, even though they were unable to provide input. This legislation seeks to correct that problem. The bill requires federal agencies to publish information regarding settlement agreements and consent decrees on a publicly available electronic database.
Under the bill's requirements, these agency databases will include dates, payments, attorney fee awards, and a list of state and local governments identified by the agreements and decrees. Currently, agencies typically release such information at their discretion, and often publicize only facts that reflect favorably upon the agency. Furthermore, the terms to which agencies agree are often deemed confidential. This bill requires an agency head to submit annual reports to Congress and make publicly available information stating the basis for maintaining confidentiality, allowing for additional scrutiny. This will increase the transparency of the federal government and shine a much-needed light on settlement agreements and consent decrees into which government agencies enter.
I again wanna thank the sponsor of the bill, Representative Palmer, for his longstanding leadership on this issue, and Representative Mfume for helping push these reforms in this committee. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Do any other members seek recognition? Miss Sintzari.
Speaker 8
Mister chairman, if I may, I will discuss HR 1722, the billion dollar boondoggle act of 2025. It's one of the previous bills.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see this bill that I'm coleading with Congresswoman Miller Meeks being considered in this markup. H R 17 22. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act is a sensible bipartisan measure to do what Doge and Elon Musk were unable to do, hold the federal government accountable for projects that are way behind schedule and over budget. Specifically, our bill would require the public disclosure of every taxpayer-funded project that is $1,000,000,000 or more over budget or five years or more behind schedule.
Under this administration, we have children and families having their Medicaid, SNAP, and other essential programs ripped away. We all deserve to know what the federal government is spending funds on, instead, and if those dollars are going to good use. And it's not just this administration. For years, both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the federal government for wasting taxpayer dollars on costly and delayed projects that have to go through mountains of red tape to get approved. Although the corruption throughout the federal government right now is stunning and unprecedented, this is truly a long-lasting issue that we need to deal with.
That's why this bill previously passed out of this committee, and I hope it will pass again. I support HR 1722 because it would immediately inform the public about the scale, scope, and extent of loaded projects in the federal government and expose corruption within the Trump administration. I want to again thank my co-lead, Congresswoman Miller Meeks, for her work on this bill, and I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Any further members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of the substitute. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no, and the opinion share that is having the amendment is agreed to.
Questions now on favor of reporting HR 79 34 as admitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, say no. For what purposes, Mister Biggs, seek recognition?
Speaker 1
Recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is HR 5525, the Stop DC Capitol Authoritarian Motor Vehicle Enforcement and Restoration of Autonomy or Camera Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
HR 5525, the Stop DC Camera Act, a bill to repeal the authority of the District of Columbia to use automated traffic enforcement systems and to erect signage prohibiting right turns at red traffic signals.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment to any point. Without objection to order, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk please enunciates the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 5525 is offered by Mister Comer of Kentucky.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Substitute will be considered as the original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 9
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill simply repeals local DC laws relating to automated traffic enforcement, as well as the DC mayor's authorization to use traffic enforcement systems and issue fines with these cameras. In turn, the bill prohibits Washington DC from operating its traffic enforcement camera program and two repeals DC law currently prohibiting drivers from making right turns on red. Be clear, while DC's I said, operating, they're actually not really operating. These are two companies that they've contracted with.
One, Vera Mobility out of Mesa, Arizona, and the other, Hayden AI Technologies out of San Francisco, California. So the city's fleecing its residents and everybody that visits DC, and folks in Arizona and San Francisco are making a boatload of money on it. The residents and commuters of Washington are both sick and tired of being fleeced for hundreds of dollars of petty automated traffic fines, all in the name of alleged safety. With thousands of drivers commuting across the district daily, it is no wonder that the city relies on 536 and counting total traffic enforcement cameras across five and a half square miles, which generate millions of dollars of revenues from the people that can likely least afford it. According to public traffic data, DC traffic fatalities for 2023 were 52, and 2024 were 52.
We're the highest they've been since 2007, which was 54. So it's not, yeah, it's not getting safer out there, folks. Despite a drop in traffic fatalities for 2025 and the DC mayor's fabricated Vision Zero camera pan plan to increase pedestrian safety, anyone with common sense can see there is zero correlation between these fatality figures and the hundreds of cameras installed in the district over more than 25 years. A study by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration found that only 0.2 percent of all nationwide road fatalities from 1982 to 1992 occurred in an intersection permitting a right turn on red. In 2020, insurance provider, triple a deemed the city's enforcement of moving violations and parking tickets as predatory.
And to this day, city data showing how these cameras have made drivers safer is quite frankly nonexistent. They don't provide any data. Meanwhile, a 2025 consumer affairs ranked plate ranking placed Washington DC in first place for the worst traffic in the United States, with DC having the longest average commute time in the country, 33 and a half minutes, and the second longest average commute time in the country, six hours and 35 minutes behind Los Angeles. Ladies and gentlemen, five and a half miles of Washington, DC. To put that in perspective, a typical DC commuter spends 72 hours a year of their lives lost in traffic in DC.
According to the DC chief financial officer, the city generated 139,500,000.0 from automated track enforcement in FY 2023, 213,000,000 in FY '24, and February in '25. As is, these suspiciously sensitive, seldom recalibrated cameras issue speeding tickets for $100 to $500 depending on speed over the limit and road type. Additionally, the district's red light camera program finds drivers a $150 for a signal pass, a 100 for no right on red, and a 100 for failing to stop before a right on a red even if there's no sign. No signage, but you still get fined, and nobody is there. In 2025 alone, the city issued 3,160,690 total tickets with its total issued fines coming in at $366,300,000.
More than $100,000,000 of these fines were issued in just six months of the year, with more than 80% of the tickets being issued to out-of-state drivers. How convenient. It's called taxation without representation, folks. As is, these automated cameras are expected to yield over 1,000,000,000 between '24 and '28, with revenue declining over time as people find out where they are. Additionally, as of May 24, drivers owed nearly 1,300,000,000 in fines and penalties to the district.
In September, this committee successfully passed two amendments with bipartisan support, striking all DC code language, permitting the city to install the use of traffic cameras, and instituting a right turn on red ban that began in '25 in January. I express my support of the chairman's ANS to the bill, and my goal is to bring driving autonomy back to the district, not only for the people that live there, but for people that visit. These cameras are shameless money grabs that can continuously deter tourists, aggravate commuters, and attack and defraud local residents with hundreds of dollars in fines. I urge support of the passage of the bill, and I yield the balance, mister chairman. Gentleman yields back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I just wanna, again, I think something that's really important, and we continue to bring this up in this committee, is that the district have the ability to govern themselves. I oppose this bill, which, again, is another attack on the 700,000 DC residents and on democratic principles. Now I personally have strong opinions as a former mayor on these types of cameras, and I think they can be debated, I think, in a way that is reasonable and responsible in different cities and in different communities. I will agree that they can also be misused in many cases, and I've seen that happen in cities and communities.
At the same time, I believe that the decisions for the district should be left to the district and the community. DC's locally elected officials are accountable to DC residents, and local leaders should be empowered to address local matters without Congress continuously interfering. We should honestly be focused on ways that we can ensure the support that they need, that the district needs. That should be our focus, not continuously repealing bills as it relates to DC traffic laws, criminal justice laws, and other laws continue to be in front of us today. Again, I'll say it.
If we should be considering anything, it should be statehood for the district at this moment. I urge my colleagues to oppose HR 5525.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, you'll be back before I recognize Mister Higgins, Mister Perry, do you have a yeah.
Speaker 9
Just wanna enter into the record if I could, please, mister chairman. This article from the DC Policy Center entitled "Predominantly Black Neighborhoods in DC Bear the Brunt of Automated Traffic Enforcement." Without objection, so ordered.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I appreciate my colleague Representative Perry for introducing this bill. Mister chairman, I oppose all camera based traffic code enforcement. So wherever I have the opportunity to vote against it, I will. To oppose it, I will. There's a huge difference, mister chairman, between traffic camera surveillance of intersections, which are incredibly valuable for investigating vehicle crashes and solving crimes, identifying vehicles involved in high speed pursuits or in criminal behavior, identifying vehicles fleeing from criminal scenes.
There are many circumstances where the technologies of cameras, mounted throughout a municipality or a jurisdictional authority, can be very helpful. So that's a huge difference from traffic code enforcement. That's essentially remote enforcement of alleged traffic violations and issuance of fines. That's wrong. We should oppose it across the board.
It doesn't reflect even the basic standards of law enforcement professionalism. Whatever side of the aisle you're on, you would seek a responsible and accountable interaction between a professional certified law enforcement officer and a citizen, in this case, a vehicle operator, was alleged to have committed some violation. So a traffic enforcement camera removes observation. There's no initial observation by a post-certified police officer. There's no personal interaction between the observing police officer and the vehicle operator.
There's remote enforcement, and the recipient of that fine really has no option other than to just pay the fine. They say that you have an option, but you really don't because it's an incredible intrusion upon your life to have to go show up at a court if you're actually working, young man. It's an incredible intrusion on your life to actually show up in court at some city that you visited and you received an automated traffic ticket from. How would my fellow citizens feel if a police officer pulls you over? He turns on his lights, you pull over.
And instead of walking to your passenger window and knocking on the window and you put the window down a little bit these days, that's what's cool. And you say, good afternoon, sir or ma'am. I'm Captain Clay Higgins, Saint Andrew Parish Sheriff's Office. The reason I stopped you is because you weave two times over into the other lane. I wanna make sure you're okay, you're okay to drive.
But instead of an interaction that might start off like that, you have no interaction. Police officer pulls you over, and you sit there. And he just walks up to your car and, like, sticks a citation to your windshield, and leaves. How would you feel about that? Because that's what's happening with these traffic cameras.
So it's impossible to support the long held principles that we pursue regarding professional and community interactions between law enforcement and the citizens that we intend to serve. It's impossible to support those principles and support automated traffic camera enforcement and fining of the citizenry. So I appreciate the bill being brought. I like the chance to vote against this stuff. Aïeul.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield back. Chair recognizes Miss Norton from Washington, DC.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill, which would repeal two traffic laws enacted by the District of Columbia. Today's markup is the third markup, this congress, of a bill that would interfere with these two laws. Last year, this committee passed a bill that would, among other things, repeal these two laws. And the House Committee on Appropriations passed a bill that would prohibit DC from using local funds to carry out these two laws.
Over the past five years, the sponsor of this bill has tried repeatedly to repeal or block these two laws, as well as another DC traffic law. But he is not the first Republican to try to repeal DC's automatic traffic enforcement law. Republicans have been trying to repeal that law since 2014. The 07/2030 700,000 district residents, a majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. If residents do not like how the members of the DC council vote, residents can vote them out of office.
That is democracy. If DC residents do not like how members of Congress vote on local DC matters, residents cannot vote them out of office. That is the antithesis of democracy. I ask you now to consent to enter into the record statements opposing this bill from DC mayor and 12 members of the DC council. Without objections, ordered.
The substance of this bill should be irrelevant, since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local matters, but I will discuss it. DC is not unique in either using automated traffic enforcement or prohibiting turning right on red light. For example, automatic traffic enforcement is used by hundreds of jurisdictions in about half the states, both red and blue, including in the home states of both the chairman and sponsors of this bill. According to an automated enforcement program, a checklist issued by the Governor's Highway Safety Association advocates for highway and automobile traffic safety. Triple A and the National Safety Automatic Enforcement is an effective tool to make roads safer.
DC residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with the Selective Service. Yet Congress denies them full local self-government and voting representation in Congress. The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant DC statehood. Congress has the authority to admit D.C. as a state. DC statehood bill, HR 51, would reduce the size of the Federal District from 68 square miles to 2 square miles consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the National Mall.
This residential and commercial area of DC would be a new state. I urge members to vote no on HR 55, 25, free DC. I yield back.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself with the statements of Mister Higgins and Mister Perry. And, while I don't dispute that there are many times that traffic, that you can have a speed trap with police officers just like you can have one with cameras, to raise revenue as opposed to necessarily making sure that traffic moves freely and safely. That that's not what this is about, though. I mean, this is about 547 automated traffic cameras that bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
And as one report has noted, that generates more money than alcohol, cigarette, motor vehicle, fuel, and estate taxes, and all revenue from licenses and permits, and personal property taxes combined. That's why they do this. It isn't for safety, and it's a problem. And, I it's one of the reasons that in my home state, I've opposed every use and actually sponsored and was able to get laws taking down.
Speaker 6
Enforcement. So I couldn't get it done completely, but we got it significantly done on any state highway in Arizona. Mister chairman, I urge people to vote yes on this, and I would submit for the record a couple of articles. One called just one Washington DC camera alone pulled in nearly $10,000,000 last year. And another one, DC issues record $1,000,000,000 in traffic and parking tickets.
AAA calls it predatory.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna start by saying that I strongly support DC's statehood and have consistently opposed any bills infringing on DC's home rule, and I will continue to do so. That being said, I also want to be clear that I have serious reservations about how traffic cameras across the country are being operated. In Washington state, my home state, there have been reports that ICE and Border Patrol are accessing Flock Safety camera data without authorization and without local agencies' awareness. I don't think we've seen any sort of public accounting from Flock on how and why that data was shared, or from ICE and Border Patrol on why they accessed that data and what they used it for.
The law that would be repealed by this bill authorizes automatic traffic enforcement for moving infractions such as running red lights, speeding, and running stop signs. And it's my understanding that those cameras are not operated by Flock. I plan to vote against this DC stop camera act because I support DC home rule, and because I believe that Congress should take a systematic nationwide approach to how we address this issue and not dictate special rules for one city that no other city is subject to. But I would like to see this committee have a serious conversation about the weaponization of traffic camera data, and investigate the misuse of this data. It seems like I have colleagues across the desk who also have a concern with traffic camera data more broadly, and may I have a meaningful discussion?
We need to put serious data privacy and civil rights restrictions in place to prevent future abuses. But I will be voting no on this bill. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I just wanna you know, I obviously, I made my comments. I just was compelled to just add to Representative Randall. I just wanted, for the record, also just note that I share the same concerns, and so I strongly support DC give having their ability to rule themselves and to pass laws that benefit their residents, and I will continue to be consistent on that. But I just want to uplift some of the comments from my colleagues, on the in the majority, that I also share deep concerns about camera technology, the way it's used.
Having served as mayor and worked with our own police department, I think we had challenges with these types of cameras. We actually removed them in our city. When I was mayor, we began a process of removing these cameras from the community because of the concerns, and we worked with law enforcement in that process. I'm proud of that. And so if there are additional conversations that can happen in this committee as it relates to some standards, as it relates to this type of data sharing, I would welcome that as well.
Speaker 1
Yield back. I recognize myself. I support the Perry bill, and I'll be happy to yield any additional time to Mister Perry this part of the bill if he wants it.
Speaker 9
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna reiterate that 80% of the fines go to people from out of town, out of state if you wanna call it that, even though DC is not a state. Where do the people that come across the con from across the country to their nation's capital, where do they get a vote, on the DC council, on DC leadership, and on the cameras? As my colleague Mister Higgins, a respected law enforcement officer, opined, once you leave town, you're not gonna fly back. You're not gonna drive back to pay a 100-dollar fine.
You're just gonna pay it, which is why this is done. This is done to raise revenue. It has nothing to do with safety. As I said before, there are two companies on the West Coast essentially that are running this operation for Washington DC, and everybody's making money except the people that are being fleeced whether they live in town or out of town. You know, we certainly support DC's ability to govern itself.
But, unfortunately, in this case, what they're doing is fleecing everybody that comes to Washington, DC, and we don't support that. We also don't support the fleecing of their residents for which they don't wanna raise taxes for the programs which they want to impose. And that's their business, I suppose. But let's just open this up and make it very clear to everybody that you're being charged a tax one way or the other to pay for these programs. And, of course, you're not voting for that tax.
They don't wanna put a tax increase on, you know, they don't wanna have to vote for that because voters won't like that. They just collect the tax, you know, unfairly and unequally through, like, no right turn on red. There's not even a sign there. Like, people come from, you know, other states. If there's a sign there, I'm sure they would be happy to comply.
But you don't know that you're not allowed to turn right on red, and, of course, there's no safety infraction there in most of the intersection. So, look, if DC can govern itself appropriately, the federal government by constitution will butt out. But as you all know, especially residents from DC, the Constitution is very clear about who's supposed to be governing DC. And so this is absolutely appropriate and in accordance with the law. You might not like that law.
You might not like the Constitution of the United States. We have a process for changing it. And I would encourage those who don't like those things to go ahead and engage in the process. But until then, we're gonna make sure that we're looking out for the citizens of The United States of America and the citizens of DC, whether the DC government wants to do that or not. And I'll yield the balance back.
Speaker 1
The chairman. And, conclude any further members seeking further debate? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say no. And the opinion chair of the ayes have it, minutes agreed. Questions now favorably reporting HR 55 25 as amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Speaker 1
Although a recorded vote has been ordered by ranking member Garcia's previously announced further proceedings, the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is HR 6399 to direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single unique ZIP code for Highland City, Utah. The clerk will please designate the bill.
Speaker 2
HR 6399, a bill to direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single unique ZIP code for Highland City, Utah.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment. Point. Without objection to order, the chairman acts himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Clerk, please exonerate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in nature for substitute to HR 6399 is offered by Mister Comer of Kentucky.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered read. The substitute will be considered the original text for the purpose of further amendment. I recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill. HR 6399 designates a single unique ZIP code for Highland City, Utah. HR 6399 will designate a ZIP code for the city and is the product of Representative Kennedy's advocacy.
I asked you now consent to enter to the record a letter of support from the mayor and city council of Highland City requesting the unique ZIP code designation established by this bill. I now recognize ranking member if he does not seek recognition. Any member seeks recognition. I also wanna enter into the record or ask United States to enter into the record a letter from Utah County Commission in support of HR 6399 without objection. So ordered.
Seeing no further request to speak, the question is now the amendment, the nature of a substitute. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, say no. The opinion chair of the ayes has it. The amendment's agreed to.
Question is now in favor of reporting HR 6399 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Speaker 1
Recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Pursuant to the previous order, the committee stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. We oh, but before we stand in recess, the chair recognize mister Palmer.
Speaker 7
Mister chairman, I request to enter a document into the record, a list of current agency settlement databases.
Speaker 1
Without objection to the order. Again, pursuant to the previous order, the committee stands in recess to the subject of the call of the chair. We plan to reconvene to vote on all these bills at 2:30 sharp. Okay. Committee is in recess.
Hey, Dan. There you go. Ready? Got it. You ready?
The committee will reconvene. Committee will come back to order. If I could have everybody's attention. The question is on favorably reporting HR 2766. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 2766. 27 66. Because we have a list. We're gonna keep the first vote open a minute. I know we got Mr. Palmer walking in.
Hopefully, after this first one, we'll rock and roll. We got Mr. Jack walking in. This is on, 2766.
Speaker 1
know. I know. Have all members voted? Who wishes does any member wish to change their vote? I'm gonna close.
Okay. The clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsiders the late on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 6916. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 6916. Have all members who wish to be recorded been recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 428. Members will record their vote by choosing the electronic system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 428.
Have all members been recorded and wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 1722. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 1722.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsiders light on the table. The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 46 42. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 46-42.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? One moment, okay. We're waiting on. We're good now. Oh, we're good now. Any member wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report the vote total. Mister.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 2069. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 2069.
Have all members who wish to be recorded been recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsiders the late on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 79 34. Members will record their votes using an electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 7934. Have all members been recorded? We have one moment. Does any member wish to change their vote? One moment, sir.
The member has been recorded. Any member wishes to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. The bill's ordered favorably reported without objection. The motion reconsiders late on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 55 25. Members will record their vote by choosing the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 55 25. This is Perry. Whoops. Have all members who wish to be recorded been recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 6399. Members will record their votes using an electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 6399.
Have all members been recorded or do they wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
Speaker 1
Ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsiders the late on the table. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the following postal naming bill, H.R. 6247, which was distributed in advance on this markup. Without objection, the bill is considered read.
If any member would like to speak on the measure, they may do so now.
Speaker 6
Mr Biggs. Thank you, mister chairman. Today, we honor a man who is an integral part of Arizona public service for almost four decades. Mayor Ed Honey was a bedrock of the Morana community and helped shape how it thrives today. Ed was first elected mayor of Morana in 1995 and again in 2005, but his service to Arizona and his country began long before that.
During the Vietnam War, Ed answered the call to serve his country by being a proud member of the United States Navy Seabees. After the war, he remained a lifelong member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 5990. When he returned to civilian life, Ed continued his service in other ways. In fact, Ed was so eager to help his community, he took on multiple roles at once. At the same time that Ed was mayor, he was working as a contractor for the United States Postal Service in Marana.
He worked there for 29 years before retiring in 2007. While Ed is known as a giant in Marana, his public service actually extended throughout Southern Arizona. He was the 2014 chair of the Pima Association of Government, a chairman of the Regional Transportation Authority, and held various leadership positions with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns. His leadership helped bring together and improve the communities throughout the whole state. Even in death, Ed is still bringing a positive impact on the community he so valiantly served.
A year after his death, the Marana Aquatic and Recreation Center opened. This project was championed by Ed during his tenure as mayor. Additionally, Ed was a driving force in the Marana Food Bank and Community Resource Center that will continue to serve Marana families for years to come. And in everything Ed did, he always kept his deep faith in his family as his guiding light. Given the everlasting impact Ed has had on Marana, and particularly his years of service in the post office, it is more than fitting that we named this location after men who dedicated their life to helping others and improving life for Arizonans.
He was not just successful. He was significant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield back. Any other members wish to speak on the bill? The question is now on favorably reporting HR 62 47. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say no. On the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the bill is favorably reported. The motion reconsiders late on the table. Pursuant to house rule 11, clause two, I ask that committee members have the right to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental additional minority and dissenting views without objection. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the committee print subject to the approval of the minority without objection to order.
If there's no further business before this committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thanks. Thanks, Ethan. There you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.