the Full Committee to consider the following: 1) H.R. 6610, Pharmacists Fight Back [in Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans Act]; 2) H.R. 9720, D.C. Taxing Authority Review Act; 3) H.R. 9725, Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act of 2025; 4) H.R. 9643, Comment Integrity and Management Act; 5) H.R. 9741, To name the DC Tuition Assistance Grant program the “Eleanor Holmes Norton District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program”; 6) Several postal naming measures.
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 sittingsJames Comer
The Oversight Committee is moving the Pharmacists Fight Back Act to rein in PBMs and curb abusive practices. The bill restricts massive price markups 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 project 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 healthcare costs, it represents a giant step in the right direction. This bill is supported by over 60 state and national pharmacy groups including the Kentucky Independent Pharmacist Alliance, Kentucky Pharmacists Association, the American Pharmacy Cooperative, Community Oncology Alliance, and Transparency Rising. This bill 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 problems with pharmacy benefit managers and how they actually lead to higher prescription drug costs for most Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and I now yield to the ranking member.
Robert Garcia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also support this bill and I think it's clear that the American people are facing an affordability crisis and the price of nearly everything has gone up: groceries, gas, housing, healthcare, and families are definitely struggling to make ends meet. It's important for Congress to continue to address the cost of healthcare by addressing every part of the healthcare system and now pharmacy benefit managers, of course, are companies that manage drug benefits on behalf of health insurance companies and federal healthcare programs. And also recently under the Biden administration, the FTC also cracked down on some of PBMs' activities. The FTC had found that they artificially raised drug prices in some cases.
I want to thank Congressman Jake Auchincloss also for his incredible work. I know how important this bill is to him and how important this bill is to Chairman Comer as well. It is a bipartisan bill and certainly this bill will ensure that discounts on prescription drugs go to patients and that's what's most important. So we support this bill and this bill gets us one step closer to meeting the goals of healthcare. Thanks again and I yield back.
James Comer
Gentleman yields back. Before I recognize anyone who wants to speak on the bill, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following into the record: a letter from the Kentucky Independent Pharmacist Alliance in support of the bill, a letter from the Senior Care Pharmacy Coalition, a letter from more than 60 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. Does anyone seek recognition on the bill? Mr. Burlison.
Eric Burlison
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you holding this markup today. I agree with you 99% of the time.
Eric Burlison
And you and I are very good good friends. I respectfully disagree on this topic from my personal experience and background. Look, the high costs of prescription drugs are a serious issue that we're facing in America and it deserves our attention. However, this I disagree with this approach. We all want to lower prescription drug prices, but the policy matters.
This bill requires pharmacies to be reimbursed at the national average drug acquisition cost plus the lesser of 4% or $50 along with state Medicaid dispensing fees. These are added costs for PBMs or insurance companies which are passed to the customer that would normally provide savings to our constituents. Similar rate-setting legislation proposed in Louisiana under HB 529 in April of 2023 was projected to increase costs by $37 million in just the very first year.
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 essence, I mean, my comparison here would be it'd be like requiring someone who has a Costco membership to be allowed to go to Sam's Club. This will just essentially drive up costs. Regarding stakeholders in the FEHB program, many have voiced opposition to the bill, including Government Employee Health Association and the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan.
These groups understand because they see the purchasing side of this decision and that it will cause 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. PBMs are paid based on performance and you don't have to pick them. If they are doing their job and being effective, then they'll get the business, if not, then the purchaser, the employer will go somewhere else.
At the end of the day, I want people to know on this committee, I had the exact same opinion that you have if you support this bill. I used to believe this. I used to see them as a boogeyman because I didn't understand the intricacies and the complexities of how it all worked. I thought that 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 or not, or which company we're going to use, and having seen firsthand that you have direct control over the mechanisms and how exactly your pharmacy benefit manager is managing you as the employer and the decisions that you want to make, it completely changed my attitude.
And so respectfully, I will be voting against this bill and with that I yield back.
Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes Mr. Walberg.
Tim Walberg
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a July 21st, 2026 letter from NARFE, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.
Without objection, so ordered.
James Comer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to 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 Insurance Commission that similar pass through and NADAC policies reduce costs rather than increase them, a study from the American Pharmacy Cooperative which show the positive impacts of these policy changes will have on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, an examination by the Georgia State Auditor and Director of the Office of Planning and Budget showing how similar policies would save Georgia taxpayer millions each year, and lastly a report from the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
Without objection, so ordered. Any other member seek, Mr. Palmer.
Gary Palmer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you 98% of the time. In this case, I agree with you 100%.
Gary Palmer
This has been a problem for years. Prior to serving in Congress, as you know, I ran a think tank. And I was meeting with folks who were trying to explain to me how the PBMs work and why this runs up price. Their profits are tied to the list price of the drug, which incentivizes drug makers to set a high price because it gives them preferential treatment. They know that the PBMs will prefer a higher-priced drug over a lower-priced drug, which does nothing to benefit the consumer.
It's not just prescription drugs. It's also prescription eyeglasses. And talking with doctors in that field, they're often locked into labs that might not be providing the best work because that's how their plan works. They're locked into that. So I think what we're trying to do here is something that is long overdue.
Like I said, it's been a problem for years. Talking with independent pharmacies, they struggle dealing with this. And I think it's high time that we do something that puts the patient first instead of the corporate profits. I yield back.
James Comer
Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Yes, sir. Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts.
Stephen Lynch
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my strong support for this bill. So I've been on this committee a while. We actually did a deep dive on PBMs a number of years ago. We were helped enormously by a group called Change to Win, which was a group of labor unions that felt that PBMs were jacking up the price of their, of the cost to their members.
And so they did a deep dive as well, a study. I'll give you one example of what we found, this committee, when we looked at PBMs. So we oversee, our committee oversees the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP. And we found that because of the PBMs that were regulating the prices of the, and this is a cost to the taxpayer, right? This is a cost of government, what we're talking about, healthcare for federal employees.
We found that the PBMs put us in a situation where, and this is one of the stark examples, CVS had a coupon program where you could walk into a drugstore, a CVS drugstore, and they had a formulary, and you could get those drugs at their special price. You didn't have to have insurance. You could walk in right off the street. And here were the prices that you'd have to pay for certain drugs. We found that it was better, because of the PBMs jacking up the price, it was better for a union member, a federal employee on FEHBP, whether they were unionized or not unionized, it was cheaper for them to just put their insurance card that they had paid for.
Now we have 18 million federal employees and retirees that qualify for FEHBP. The collective bargaining power of those 18 employees and their contributions to their insurance 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 we found that that was because of the PBMs.
So we took them to court. And what we wanted to know, what the federal government wanted to know was, what are you doing with these rebates and how is that affecting the cost to the consumer, in this case the federal employees? We took them to court. And we lost because they fought us, they did not want to provide transparency on how the PBMs were working, how they operated. They said that that was a proprietary 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, there's an insurance company already involved.
You go into your drugstore, hopefully a local drugstore, although those are disappearing as well, and all my local pharmacies are opposed to these PBMs and are supporting this bill. That should tell you something, that all these local, go to your local druggist, if you still have one. Go to your local drugstore, if you still have one. Ask them about PBMs. They're ripping people off, they're squeezing, they're monopolizing that whole sector.
They're eliminating these small drugstores. I probably had five of them in my little neighborhood at one point. Now I got one. I got a CVS. Sometimes it swaps into a Walgreens, but that's basically it.
So, so this is really, really important. We're at a critical point here. We can do the American people a big, big, big favor. Get rid of these PBMs. Get rid of them.
There's another, that's another person taking, taking a profit in the chain of providing drugs to the American public. Get rid of these PBMs. That's what this bill does and I'm 100% for it and I ask my colleagues to vote supportively as well. Thank you, I yield back.
Scott Perry
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It's not too often I find myself in solidarity with Mr. Lynch.
I was thinking the same thing.
Scott Perry
But on this occasion, I do find some distress in the fact that I'm not in solidarity with my friend Mr. Burlison. And for my part, I want to be clear, I'm not really interested in the federal government getting involved in private contractual agreements between private entities. However, in this case, a private entity involved with the government. So the government's a party to it and I think the government, as the representative of the people, should have the information. My concern among other things is it's hard for all of us up here to figure out who's hiding the ball.
Seems like, and I'm not here to pick on anybody, I don't know, seems like the PBMs make money, the big pharma makes money, but your local consumer, the average citizen, can't afford it and your local pharmacies, especially independents, are being driven out of business. Now the money's going somewhere. Somebody's making a lot of money, but we can't find out who it is because we can't get the information on private contractual agreements. And where they're between private businesses and private entities, that's between them.
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 and that there will be a broader, that we will figure out eventually exactly where the money's going. 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 my mind has been nobody wants to say anybody's a bad actor here, nobody wants to accuse anybody because we don't know.
And the point is is we need to know. And once we do know, then we can take appropriate action. And I think this is a step in the right direction. I'm glad that this is a bipartisan effort. I support the chairman and I support the bill.
With that, I yield back.
James Comer
Gentleman yields back. Any other member seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 6610 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed signify by saying no. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask for a recorded vote.
James Comer
A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9720, the D.C. Taxing Authority Review Act. The clerk please designate the bill.
Speaker 14
H.R. 9720, the D.C. 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 47 of the District of Columbia Code or which impose or increase a tax or fee and for other purposes. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9720 is offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
James Comer
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. I support H.R. 9720, the D.C. Taxing Authority Review Act, which requires congressional approval of any act of the District of Columbia that imposes or increases a tax or fee. Radical D.C. Democrats want to solve their spending problem by reaching deeper into taxpayers' pockets and driving further on the path to socialism. The D.C. Council recently supported a feasibility study for the implementation of a new business activity tax.
This would add to the already high tax burden that businesses in the district already face. Additionally, the council proposed a new tax on D.C. residents who are already one of the highest taxed populations in the country. The D.C. 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 district's already vulnerable residents. These are just more examples of bad policy that deincentivize investment, drive residents out, and undermine the economic competitiveness of the city.
Rather than cutting spending, the ultra-progressive and socialist Democrat candidate for mayor and the D.C. Council want to tax D.C. business and residents into oblivion to fund their unmaintainable extension of public programs. This comes as D.C.'s Chief Financial Officer has identified a 1.1 billion 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 Bessent 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 Democrats.
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 to support this bill and recognize the ranking member for his statement.
Robert Garcia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose this bill, which is another direct attack on the 700,000 residents of the district and on democratic principles. 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 20th bill we're considering that would interfere with local DC residents and their governance. Now, DC's locally elected officials are accountable to DC 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 DC, they should run for mayor and city council. But the bill in front of us, which takes away DC's authority to impose or increase a tax or revenue unless Congress approves, is a direct attack on the residents that elect officials to make these decisions. Currently, a law enacted by 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 residents than two states, pays more federal taxes than 26 states, and more per capita than any state. Instead of acting as a super city council, the Congress should be considering DC statehood today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 18
Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Higgins.
Clay Higgins
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to thank you and the oversight staff for responding over the course of several days, allowing us to correct some of what we believe was unintended consequences in the granular detail of this bill. We studied it very carefully and accommodations were allowed, intending to facilitate the administrative operation of the city of DC at the municipal level without uncalled-for interference by Congress and the executive branch, while at the same time fully supporting the overall measure of conducting 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 for accommodating those those conversations and arriving at a final product that I'm able to fully support and endorse. I yield.
Eleanor Norton
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 1973. This bill takes away D.C.'s authority over its tax code turning the D.C. Council into an advisory body for taxation. D.C. could not impose or increase or cut or eliminate a tax without congressional approval.
I will repeat that for my Republican colleagues D.C. could not cut or eliminate a tax without congressional approval. In fact the scope of this bill is much broader than Republicans have claimed. This bill applies only to taxation only to taxation but to all of Title 47 of the D.C. Code. That title has more than 50 chapters and encompasses not only taxation but also licensing permits assessments and fees among other things. This bill flips the current congressional review process for D.C. law on its head.
Currently a D.C. law takes effect after a review period unless disapproval resolution is enacted into law during that period. This bill prohibits a D.C. law that imposes or increases a tax or fee or amends Title 47 of the D.C. Code from taking effect after 60 day period unless approval resolution is enacted into law during the period. The only exception is that this bill does not apply to a D.C. law that imposes or increases a fee if that fee is less than $500 and the law does not impose or increase any other tax or fee. This Congress Republicans have introduced more than 130 bills amendments and riders that interfere in local D.C. matters including a bill to repeal the Home Rule Act. The 700,000 D.C. residents the majority of whom are black and brown are capable and worthy of governing themselves.
If D.C. residents do not like how members of the D.C. 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 an antithesis of democracy. DC residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying all federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with Selective Service. Yet Congress denies them full local government and voting representation in Congress.
The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant DC statehood. Congress has the authority to admit DC as a state. The DC statehood bill would reduce the size of the federal district from 68 square miles to two square miles, consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the National Mall. The residential and commercial areas of DC would be a new state. I urge members to vote no on DC Chairman's bill, Free DC.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter of the DC Chairman opposing this bill. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the index of Title 47 of the DC Code so that the committee is on notice that this bill applies to much more than DC law that imposes or increases a tax or fee. And I yield back.
James Comer
Without objection, so ordered. Gentlelady yields back. Before I recognize Mr. Perry, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the AMAC Action in support of this bill, statements from the Taxpayers Protection Alliance supporting the bill, letter from the National Taxpayers Union supporting the bill, letter from the Independent Women's Voice supporting this bill, and a letter from DoorDash supporting this bill. I gotta like DoorDash. Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
Scott Perry
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just remind everybody that DC is not only home to the great residents of Washington, DC, it's the nation's capital and people from across the country come here because they have to. They have to do business with the federal government and 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 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 hikes, it's become necessary for Congress to reluctantly intervene.
Let's be clear and recognize that the district has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. They got a lot of money. Since 2015, the DC government has increased its revenue by 62 percent, but somehow the DC Council has also managed to maintain a $1.1 billion hole in its annual budget. We have watched the Council withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars from its reserves, but it still attempts to collect millions in additional fines and dollars with suspiciously sensitive automatic traffic cameras and other 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 toll on hardworking residents, commuters, and visitors from across the nation who are already plagued with excess expenses.
Throughout the 119th Congress, this committee has managed to pass two of the bills I've offered with bipartisan support that stop DC's predatory money-making schemes. The bill that one of the bills I offered, 5525, the Stop DC Cameras Act, would ban the city's use of these highly unpopular automated traffic cameras. Another bill, 8801, the DC Roads Act, would preemptively prevent the District from implementing a traffic congestion toll in the future. DC, by the way, has one of the worst traffic problems in the country, and the fact that they don't allow a right turn on red or fine you for that, I don't know what world DC'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 DC Mayor-elect Janice Lewis George already discussing plans for a new congestion toll upon taking office, the timeline is the time to act is is more critical than ever on the DC Roads Act. Fortunately, the $500 aggregate threshold in Chairman Comer's bill would successfully prohibit the city from ever implementing this burdensome idea without Congress's approval. 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 2027. It is clear that the intent of Congress here is to stop the District from praying upon its residents, nationwide visitors, and daily commuters alike. I urge adoption, final passage, and I yield the balance.
Maxwell Frost
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am in deep, deep opposition to this ill-conceived and foolish bill. Listen, this was said already, this is the worst attack on home rule since the bill was passed in 1973. This bill would take control of 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 60 days. Seriously. We we can't even pass our own bills. Now you want to add to that and and pass the bills of DC?
You want to 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, 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 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 DC's budget makes changes to DC's rules around building permits. Congress would have to review and agree on those changes and move them forward. Federal actions that are just continuing to squeeze DC's budget, cuts to health and food assistance have increased costs for residents.
Speaker 27
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 up and said that was a mistake. This is the problem. And so I am 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 of 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 want to 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, and I yield back.
James Comer
Gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an annual economic assessment from the Tax Foundation entitled 2026 State Tax Competitive Index. In this assessment, ranks Washington DC's tax code 48th least competitive compared to the 50 US states. Without objection, so ordered. Chair recognizes Mr. Walkinshaw.
Walkinshaw
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Financial devastation, that's the phrase you used to describe DC's budget. That is an apt phrase to describe what this Republican majority has done to the federal budget. We're considering this week reconciliation bill number three. Let's go through them.
Number one, blew a 4.7 trillion dollar hole in the federal budget. The deficit skyrocketed with a trillion dollar cut to healthcare. Reconciliation bill number two, maybe y'all don't think this is a lot of money, 72 billion dollars, deficit spending. This week we're looking at reconciliation bill number three to fund the failed war in Iran, 95 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 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 want to talk about DC. The District of Columbia is legally required to balance its budget and it will this year as it has every year for decades.
Mr. Frost said it well, if you don't like DC's budget, its policies, its tax policies, you can run for mayor or city council or ANC commissioner. And some of my Republican colleagues have been here in Washington long enough, you're probably eligible. Until then, maybe we should focus on getting our own financial house in order. So Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to this bill, I urge my colleagues to oppose.
Speaker 25
Would the gentleman yield for a question, Mr. Walkinshaw, before you yield back?
Sure.
Clay Higgins
Sure, we'd look forward to your support, I can presume, for a balanced budget amendment when we bring that to the floor, could we?
Walkinshaw
I'm looking forward to reconciliation number four where you all promised you're finally going to get around to reducing the deficit.
So you support reconciliation number four?
I'm looking forward, I look forward to reviewing it.
Speaker 20
I look forward to reconciliation number four where you finally get around to reducing the deficit.
Speaker 24
I'm asking you right now about your word. Do you support a balanced budget amendment for the United States?
You have blown a five trillion dollar hole in the debt and deficit.
Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 31
We're going to see how you vote. Going to give you an opportunity to back that up, sir.
James Comer
Mr. Higgins, I support a balanced budget amendment. I'll vote for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so shall I.
James Comer
Before I recognize Mr. Lynch, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from the DC Line entitled "The DC Council's Election Year Budget Panders and Jeopardizes." Without objection, so ordered. Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
Stephen Lynch
I thank you. I want to first of all associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Frost and Mr. Walkenshaw. I think they've addressed the major issues. I do want to point out here, first of all, you know, I am totally opposed to this bill. It takes the right of the people of the District of Columbia to actually govern themselves.
And I think they are entitled to that, especially, you know, I've been here long enough where we were, we had deep concerns about the way the government in DC managed its affairs. But I have to say that in the past 20 years, they have been aggressive in terms of getting their house in order and balancing their budget, and that was not always the case. So I think recent administrations of DC deserve some credit for that, and also I think the residents demand it. I think, you know, in terms of educating their children and managing the affairs of the district, they've done an excellent job. This bill, if you look at it closely, it requires that when the City Council passes an ordinance or passes a licensing agreement or a permit, makes an assessment in dealing with the regular operations of the District of Columbia, they must, after they've passed it, they must sit and wait for 60 days to determine whether or not Congress will have the time or the interest to actually approve that resolution.
So it's unworkable in what they're doing. You think about, think about DC, and we all spend at least four or five days a week here. These people like their protests. You know, there's not a day that goes by, and I only live several blocks from here, but when you think about this government and this city is where people come to petition their federal government. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of events in this city every single year that require permitting, that require fees to be collected, because there are costs to this city because it is the center of our federal government.
And people from all over the country come here, and in a very real way, the people of DC have to pick up the tab for that with their police and first responders. And their City Council has to review these, 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 if they have to wait, have to wait 60 days after every single request for a permit or a fee or a petition to actually hold a protest here or or some other activity in order that American citizens can exercise their right to petition their government, this is not helpful. This is not helpful. So, and I again, I do go back to Mr. Frost's comments about is Congress really doing such a great job with our own responsibilities that we face every single day that have a federal impact that we can we can now jettison those or put those off to the side while we manage the parades and protests and licensing requests and permits and fees that that should be handled by by the government of the District of Columbia. So, this this is wacky, this this whole idea that that Congress is now going to become, you know, the de facto Washington D.C. City Council. That's what that's what this proposes here.
And we aren't doing such a great job at our own our own jobs, the ones that we ran for, never mind taking on the responsibilities that should rightly lie with the Washington D.C. City Council and its own government. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
James Comer
Gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following article from the Washington Post entitled "D.C.'s economy shrank by 8.3% in the fourth quarter." Without objection, so ordered. The Washington Post. Yes, ma'am.
Melanie Stansbury
All right. Well, good morning, everyone. I'm actually quite sad that Mr. Perry has stepped out of the room because the exact quote that he said was "D.C. has a spending problem," which I do find quite preposterous the day that we are actually going to vote on a budget resolution to blow another 95 billion dollar hole through the federal deficit. So, I did want to ask Mr. Perry about that and how he plans to vote, but unfortunately he's stepped out of the room. But I do think this is a good time to maybe pull back the curtain a little bit, Mr. Chairman, and I would love to have a little colloquy or debate with you just to understand where this bill came from.
Because what I find peculiar, I'm always interested as a former staffer, when you see bills like this that are sponsored by somebody who's not from the area that they represent, and the leadership of the committee are the co-sponsors of it, and there's 21 co-sponsors from this committee, the vast majority of which are from across the country. That usually indicates that these bills are are being asked to be carried by the leadership by somebody else. So, Mr. Comer, where'd this bill come from?
James Comer
Well, this is consistent with what we've tried to do successfully the last time we had a budget review bill was to undo the D.C. excessive criminal justice legislation that the D.C. Council passed. Mr. Raskin raised tea total heck, most of the Democrats on the committee, I think all the Democrats on the committee voted against it. It passed the floor, it passed the Senate, and Joe Biden signed it into law.
Melanie Stansbury
But my question for you, no, no, hold on just a second, let me ask you the real question. I really want to know, did this spring from your mind like I really, like so just let me ask. The bill basically says that any D.C. law that creates a new tax or fee, like any law that D.C. passes, could not take effect until Congress votes on it. Was that your idea?
We all have brainstorming.
Speaker 35
Whose whose idea do you think it would be? I mean, we we don't live here, we spend half our at least half our time here. This is where we work, this is where we've I've spent three nights in a row.
Melanie Stansbury
But so, okay, you were in local law enforcement, right, before you came here?
I'm with what?
Melanie Stansbury
Weren't you in local law enforcement before you came to serve in Congress?
Speaker 32
No, oh, okay, but you did something in local government before you came here.
Okay, so you worked in state government.
Speaker 45
I'm a farmer, that's if you ask me what do I do, I'm a farmer, all right.
Melanie Stansbury
Okay, even better. Okay, so as a former state official, just think about this from the business perspective and the way this bill is drafted. If you had to have every single decision that you made about bringing in revenue and spending go through Washington, DC, would you approve that?
James Comer
There's a real concern with the DC Council and the socialism and the outcry from the people of Washington, DC.
Melanie Stansbury
Would you support that for the state of Kentucky? Should Kentucky have to come to Congress to get their state budget approved?
James Comer
I think the state of Kentucky and federal delegation need to have communication so we can work together.
Melanie Stansbury
Can you imagine having to go through Congress to get your tax and revenue for the state of Kentucky approved?
James Comer
Well, there's things that we have to work with on a daily basis. I mean, you act like there's no communication. I don't know if the New Mexico people don't communicate with you, but we communicate with the Kentucky people.
Melanie Stansbury
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.
Speaker 49
You don't communicate back and forth with New Mexico on state and federal issues at all?
Melanie Stansbury
We don't ask them to have their state budget approved by Washington, DC and Congress. Is that what you're... I know you're going to run for governor soon, is that what you would advocate for Kentucky?
Speaker 50
Well, I would assume that the New Mexico budget involves Medicare, Medicaid. I mean, that's a big, whether you like it or not, a big part of the New Mexico state budget comes from the federal government.
I do believe in states' rights.
Melanie Stansbury
Well, then why do you not support the sovereignty and independence of DC to make its own budgetary decisions?
James Comer
It's not a state. We have legislative jurisdiction over Washington, DC. We don't want to see more economic decline in this city as a result of a socialist takeover of this city with more taxes.
Melanie Stansbury
Okay, well, let me ask you one last time, would you like to tell the good people of Washington, DC where this bill came from? Did you write it?
Speaker 37
We have filed this bill today and you can vote against it like you vote against...
Speaker 46
Where do you think it came from? What's your theory, what's your conspiracy theory?
Speaker 51
I don't have a conspiracy theory, I just want to know. The people are here for to hear, this is a public hearing, so we want to know where the bill came from.
Speaker 41
Can you just answer the question? It's like a question from a third grader, did you write the bill?
Melanie Stansbury
I'm sorry, sir, you're not recognized. Okay, well, let me just say this, I think it's obvious this bill was not written by the people of DC and I think it's obvious that you're trying to make this happen without their consent.
Gary Palmer
I will be happy to answer the question. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 gives Congress absolute authority over the District of Columbia. It was set up that way.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 43, 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 District of Columbia to have states' rights.
So in terms of Congress, the Congress has absolute authority in all cases whatsoever. I'd also add that the communist wing of the Democratic Party that is threatening to take over the Democratic Party wants to eliminate the Senate, they want to eliminate the presidency, and they really want to eliminate the Constitution. To raise a question about whether or not we have authority here... Mr. Chairman, the House is not, the committee's not in order.
Please. You will refrain. I'd like to start the clock again, sir.
Yes, sir. We have the responsibility. The question was raised, or the point was made to Mr. Perry that he should run for the DC City Council. That would be a reduction in authority. Congress has ultimate authority over the District of Columbia.
In terms of the whole issue of spending, I just want to, they raised the issue about DOGE and what we're trying to do to make the federal government more effective, more efficient, and less expensive. During the Clinton administration, they 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 the Democratic Party that are still in office that were in office then, but there were 426,000 federal jobs eliminated by the Clinton administration. 13 of 14 federal departments were impacted. They saved $136 billion.
They closed 2,000, over 2,000 field offices and eliminated 250 programs. I thought that was a great start. Full disclosure, when I ran a think tank, I was invited by the Clinton administration to come up to make recommendations. In terms of deficit spending, the Biden administration set a record, $8.4 trillion. So when you talk about authority, it rests in the Constitution.
Every member of Congress took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, all of it, not part of it, not the parts that you like, not the parts, 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 Marion Barry, the former mayor, said if it weren't for the murders, Washington's crime rate wouldn't be so bad. That's an embarrassment.
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. 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 seat.
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, Mr. Chairman, to have the bill written. Every member of Congress uses legislative reference to write bills. We don't sit down and write the bills ourselves because most of us, particularly someone like me, I don't have a law degree, I worked in engineering, I'm more about solving a problem. We have people who have expertise in that to write bills. So it's an absurd argument to make.
But I want to reiterate, sir... Please. We'll have order.
James Comer
If anyone continues unnecessary outbursts, we're going to ask you to leave. Proceed.
Gary Palmer
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.
James Comer
All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes... chair recognizes Mr. Higgins.
James Comer
A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9725, the Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act of 2025. The clerk please designate the bill.
H.R. 9725, the Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act of 2025.
Speaker 58
Title 5, United States Code, to abolish the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency and for other purposes. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9725 is offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
James Comer
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Clay Higgins
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've been working on this bill for a long time because CIGIE has been a serious problem and 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, referred to as CIGIE, C-I-G-I-E, is an independent entity within the executive branch. CIGIE's membership consists of more or less 75 inspectors general, some of whom are appointed by the president with Senate confirmation, but the majority of CIGIE's members are appointed by heads of executive branch agencies, the heads of entities in the legislative branch, or in some cases, private citizens appointed by the leaders of government-chartered corporations.
The members of CIGIE elect one member to serve as chairperson. So CIGIE as a whole maybe was born of good intentions, but it has operated and come to be recognized clearly as a rogue government, politicized, and all too frequently weaponized government entity. Now, within CIGIE exists what's called an Integrity Committee. The Integrity Committee consists of four inspectors general chosen by the chairperson of CIGIE, a designee from the FBI, and a designee from the Office of Government Ethics. The members of the Integrity Committee elect one member to serve as chairperson.
So you have CIGIE as an overall entity, and then within CIGIE, you have this star chamber of the Integrity Committee.
The CIGIE 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 in his or 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. CIGIE 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 America, by compulsion and then disclosing that information outside the executive branch without consent or court allowance. The Integrity Committee has unlawfully expanded its jurisdiction by examining an Inspector General's actions as a private citizen, far outside its original parameters. For the past five years, Mr. Chairman, the House Oversight Committee has addressed 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 CIGIE's IC reviews and investigates complaints against IGs and their staff, which calls into question CIGIE's ability to effectively conduct investigations into misconduct and wrongdoing.
Continued failures and abuses by CIGIE and the Integrity Committee, the star chamber within CIGIE, have shown the Inspectors General cannot be trusted to investigate wrongdoing within their own ranks, and therefore it's necessary to end CIGIE and the Integrity Committee, transferring CIGIE's core functions to the appropriate authorities within the federal government that conduct criminal investigations in a fair and unbiased manner. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to what will no doubt be a vigorous debate of this bill. I urge its support from both sides and I yield.
Speaker 15
Thank you, gentleman. Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Garcia, for his statement.
Robert Garcia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And of course, with with respect to Mr. Higgins, who I know has been working on this issue, I just want to note that we strongly oppose this effort. The Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act, we believe, is an effort to weaken nonpartisan Inspectors General and make it easier for the Trump administration's corruption to spread across government. Now, the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency is an independent oversight body created by Congress in 2008 with strong bipartisan support, supported by both Republicans and Democrats, which performs important functions for the oversight community.
Responsibility is to conduct oversight work, promote accountability within the Inspector General community, and develop training and quality standards. CIGIE provides critical background support for 28 offices of Inspector Generals across the federal government. It helps all of these IG offices in different agencies find and fight waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, eliminating CIGIE, we don't believe actually helps the public. It enables more corruption throughout every agency at a time, of course, where corruption in government is at an all-time high.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 55
Gentleman yields back. Any other member seek recognition on the bill? Mr. Wal-Cho.
Tim Walberg
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following letters in opposition to H.R. 9725, which would abolish CIGIE. First, a letter from 15 former Inspectors General. Second, a letter from former Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, John Roth. Third, a letter from Project on Government Oversight.
And fourth, a letter from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, the Government Accountability Project, or GAP, Project on Government Oversight, POGO, Protect Democracy, Public Citizen, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Tim Walberg
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 2015, during the Obama administration—that's my word, Obama administration—the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion that cut back on the authority of IGs to get information from their agencies to conduct audits. CIGIE discussed the situation and its impact on oversight.
Ultimately, CIGIE sponsored a letter signed by more than 45 Inspectors General that notified this committee and other congressional committees of the issue. This ultimately resulted in this committee sponsoring and Congress passing the IG Empowerment Act of 2016 to clarify and reinstate the authority of IGs to receive information. The chair and ranking member of this committee stated, 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 administration, CIGIE 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 CIGIE, something like that will never happen, whether it's in this Trump administration or a future Democratic administration. And that is the strength of CIGIE. 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 stocks, selling access to insider information, accepting lavish gifts, ripping off his supporters with digital schemes, sending taxpayer dollars to fund his son's tungsten mine in 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.
Walkinshaw
I think the American people should ask why, why this effort to kneecap the people whose job it is to drain the swamp. Because the swamp is getting deeper and deeper and smellier and smellier. And this Congress doesn't want to look at it. And that's what this bill is about. I yield back.
Pete 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 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 President 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, the committee and at least my subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the remaining time to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins.
Clay Higgins
I thank my friend for yielding. And I would presume, because it's my nature, I would presume goodness from both sides of the aisle here, excellence of intent. The, the foundational methodology of CIGIE shifts the burden of proof 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 accuser, whether it's a criminal, civil, or civil service proceeding, it's, the burden of proof lies in the prosecution.
We don't have to prove our innocence in America. Prosecutors have to prove our guilt. That's what makes our system so unique. In the history of mankind, a criminal justice system as I've just described has not existed. But CIGIE reverses that.
We have, we, we built this government entity, again, in deference to my colleagues prior, from prior Congresses, established CIGIE, 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 20 days that no reasonable person could find that the respondent committed the misconduct that has been alleged. This is the complete reversal of our long-standing criminal justice procedures. Now, the Integrity Committee shifting that burden is reflective of the way it operates. CIGIE conducts itself in a biased, targeted, weaponized manner.
This is what we have a duty to oppose. We've long identified it. We've had dozens and dozens of official interactions, hearings, 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 CIGIE 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.
Melanie Stansbury
Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury.
Alright, well, as per usual, I have no idea what my colleagues across the aisle are talking about because let's talk about what Inspectors General actually are. But I just want to state affirmatively that it is very clear that this administration and, unfortunately, their allies in Congress have a real problem with corruption and accountability because the entities, the nonpartisan entities that are the watchdogs for the American taxpayers are the Inspectors General. And if you recall, last year in January, the President of the United States fired 17 Inspectors General on one day. Now, what is an Inspector General? An Inspector General sits at an agency and their job is to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse.
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 Inspectors General have general guidelines on how to operate, and that maintains the ethical oversight of the Inspectors General. So, I just want to, you know, the American people are smart. The American people get when nefarious things are going on.
Since last year, this administration has now removed 21 Inspectors General. Now, they want to make you think that they created DOGE and that they're investigating waste, fraud, and abuse, but all of that is a front because DOGE is dead. 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 council that sets the 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? Because it sure seems sketchy as hell to me. And that is why myself and the Democrats on this committee oppose this bill, oppose the firing of the Inspectors General, support the nonpartisan federal officials who actually do this work day in and day out inside our federal agencies, even as they have been under attack by this administration every day.
And I just want to say: the hypocrisy. If you are so concerned about waste, fraud, and abuse, there is a vote today on the floor for a reconciliation bill that the President has asked the Republicans to pass that 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? What is this actually about?
Why would you dismantle the oversight bodies that look into waste, fraud, and abuse, maintain ethical standards, and audit federal behavior? The American people are smart. I think they can see what's going on. I yield back.
James Comer
The gentlelady yields back. When I became chairman of the Oversight Committee, I was really excited about the opportunity to work with the Inspectors General. 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, there are 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've fallen victim to just bureaucratic mediocrity. And one of the most baffling federal entities has been the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, or CIGIE. CIGIE was created to coordinate cross-agency investigations, provide support for IGs, and share best practices to help IG offices root out waste, fraud, and abuse. We all supported the concept. But CIGIE 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 CIGIE has tried to get overly involved in their investigations. CIGIE by statute has also been tasked with overseeing the Integrity Committee, the committee that reviews wrongdoing by Inspectors General and their senior staff. Rather than ensuring the IG community is above reproach, the Integrity Committee has conducted politicized investigations 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 CIGIE. CIGIE 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 CIGIE's core functions is a good start to restoring trust in the IG community. I've been explaining the problems with the IGs and the lack of trust in CIGIE.
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 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, 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 take years and years and years to get something done. I mean, we've got all the I'll use the post office as an example. Everyone in here agrees the post office is a disaster.
It's been a disaster for several years. And the IG, the postal IG was in the office and they're 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've got to have some reform within this.
And I think that this is just the CIGIE's created a bureaucracy that's just in the way, kind of like the PBMs do with the pharmaceutical drugs now. So I strongly encourage everyone to support this bill and I appreciate the sponsor, Mr. Higgins.
No. No. You've got your time in.
Melanie Stansbury
No, no, but you noted that I wasn't here. So I came back so that we could have a good conversation.
Thank you. I appreciate it. All right. I hope you learned something.
Speaker 60
I learned that you all don't want to support accountability in the government.
James Comer
I think I do like I appreciate you, Ms. Stansbury, and I think you're a good member. No, not really. But the solution to every problem seems like from many on your side is create another bureaucracy, hire some more people, get, you know, increase the bureaucracy. And it may sound good, it's just not working. It's just not working.
Melanie Stansbury
No, I'm anti-firing the cops who actually investigate fraud and crime.
James Comer
I would argue that there's not a lot of fraud being investigated and there hasn't been for several years.
James Comer
This government is rife for fraud and I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think we've got to beef up the IG operations. It's got bureaucratic and CIGIE's part of the problem. So my time's expired. Any other member seek recognition?
Speaker 61
Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask you to yield time, but I'll yield back to you then.
Clay Higgins
I'll yield. It says I've got 45 seconds. I'll yield back to you.
That's insufficient, but let me say that I've never mentioned waste, fraud, abuse, and theft in this debate today.
I'm talking about fundamentally biased criminal justice procedure and weaponized prosecution coming out of SIGI and the Integrity Committee, the Star Chamber within SIGI. It's politicized, it's weaponized, it's it's behavior, rogue behavior is long-standing and proven, and it must be abolished. I yield.
James Comer
Aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favor of reporting HR 9725 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed say no. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is HR 9643, the Community Integrity and Management Act.
The clerk will please designate the bill.
Speaker 14
HR 9643, the Comment Integrity and Management Act, a bill to amend section 206 of the E-Government Act of 2002 to improve the integrity and management of mass comments and computer-generated comments in the regulatory review process and for other purposes. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9643 is offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
James Comer
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Higgins from Louisiana, for an opening statement.
Clay Higgins
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill amends section 206 of the E-Government Act of 2002 to improve the management of electronic comments submitted during agency rulemaking. 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 a more recent phenomena. But a few years ago, we we started noting that during the the public comment timeframe of government projects, where it's it's our responsibility to to listen to legitimate comment from we the people and and the impacted citizenry or that citizenry that have an opinion on a government project have every right to to 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 seemed to be repetitive comments that were identical. And this was in the height of the of the digital age and the social media growth.
And we found that many of these comments were from were coming from false profiles. It was like one guy creating many emails and sending the same comments. What this does, it compromises the integrity of the comment collection that should truly be considered based upon its actual its actual numbers and intent. So, bottom line, without getting into the the complex details of this bill, it requires some modicum of verification that a comment is coming from an actual human being and and whereby the evaluation of those comments will more truly reflect the will of we the people.
That's the bill in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. We've been working on it for a long time. 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 considerations for AI, for instance, if an American or a citizen or a human being, an actual human being, posts a comment, uses AI to help draft their comment and yet the comment is actually born of an existing citizen or human being, then that should be allowed. So we've made adjustments to this bill in the effort to pursue the true intention of the bill, which is to restore full integrity and accuracy to comments during the comment window for government projects so that we can effectively evaluate the will of we the people.
So we've done our best to accommodate the concerns of the minority. I appreciate their input. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill. I appreciate the Chairman for bringing this bill to markup and I yield.
Tim Walberg
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the gentleman's work on this. As he noted, technology has made it easier for the public to comment on proposed agency rules and that increased public participation is a good thing. It's a great thing. But there have been in recent high-profile rulemakings agencies receiving a very, very, very high number of repeat comments, which obviously creates challenges for agencies to get an accurate view of the public's perspective on a rule. 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 the minority.
Unfortunately, we still have some concerns that we hope could be addressed. The bill fails to differentiate fully between spam comments and comments developed by a human being with the assistance of an AI tool. And look, people and businesses all over the country have already adopted AI to make their lives and their work more efficient and effective and the public shouldn't be penalized for using these support functions. And we continue to have concerns as well about how the Trump administration would implement this particular piece of legislation given some actions they've taken to limit public comments. And while we'd be open to supporting the bill, these concerns need to be addressed and would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Mr. Higgins and the other side to make improvements to the bill.
So at this point, I have to urge my colleagues to vote no and I yield back.
James Comer
Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for five minutes and I yield my time to Mr. Higgins.
Clay Higgins
I thank the Chairman and I appreciate the ranking member's consideration of the bill and his kind words regarding working with me. I would just clarify for the record that the concerns of the minority were presented to me prior to this markup with enough given time for us 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 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 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 in markup it will pass and it will be included in legislation. And I've been advised since last night and today that they've made a a decision the minority nah we're pulling that amendment we're just going to oppose the bill.
I yield.
It's actually not my time. I yield back to the chairman.
Yeah I yield back to
And he'll yield to me.
Clay Higgins
All right. I'm I'm happy to yield for a question to the gentleman of the time that's been yielded to me by the chairman.
It's Higgins' time.
Tim Walberg
Yes it sounds like in conversation with staff from both sides there still needs to be a little bit of work and dialogue on that and certainly would be very happy to work with you before this bill gets to the rules committee or the floor to to try to make sure we can
All right. Thank you sir.
James Comer
See we get along great in this committee despite what they put on TikTok and everything else so very good. Any other member seek recognition? Seeing none the question is now on the amendment in the nature
Mr. Chairman.
Unanimous consent.
Clay Higgins
Yes sir. Yes sir. I recognize you. Unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the Administrative Conference of the United States on its recommendations that align with my bill HR 9643.
James Comer
Without objection so ordered. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the bill was reported.
James Comer
A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Higgins. As previously announced further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Pursuant to the previous order the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We will plan to reconvene at 1:15 sharp. The committee stands in recess.
The committee will come back to order. If we could please have order in here. Before we begin the actual markup, I'd like to welcome our newest member to the Oversight Committee, Representative Christian Menefee from Texas. We're glad to have him on the committee, and I'm going to yield to Ranking Member Garcia to welcome Representative Menefee.
Robert Garcia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to also just welcome our newest member to the committee, Representative Christian Menefee. New to the committee, but has already been in Congress and doing the work, and has already been working extremely hard on issues that relate to oversight and for his district. And of course, we know that he is incredible in his experience and brings with enormous knowledge as an attorney. He's a fighter.
He's 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 want to welcome him to the committee, but also to Oversight Democrats. And so, congratulations, Christian, and welcome to Oversight.
Speaker 69
Chairman, why don't we yield about eight or nine seconds to him to let him tell us his life story?
Speaker 68
Wait, you weren't recognized yet. Hang on. The chair will... We'll give him ten seconds. How about that?
Christian Menefee
Happy to take a member of Congress two hours to give my life story. Congressman Christian Menefee, got sworn in February 2nd, excited to be on the committee. Thank y'all very much.
James Comer
Welcome. All right. He's a keeper. He'll... You may have just become our favorite member on the other side.
Stay away from Walberg and Jamie Raskin. All right. We'll go ahead. The question... We're going to go ahead and vote, and we'll leave this first one open a little longer to make sure everybody's here, but the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6610.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 6610, the Pharmacists Fight Back Act.
Speaker 70
We're sprinting in route. And I've seen him work out. I've seen him work out.
Speaker 74
He can sprint. She may have been sprinting too, but it wasn't the member I was thinking of. But we were holding it open for you, Ms. Randall.
You would have waited for me, right? 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 I wrestling. All right.
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.
James Comer
The ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Next up, the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 9720. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 9720, the D.C. Taxing Authority Review Act.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? Have all members been recorded? Any member wish to change a vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.
James Comer
The ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Next up, the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 9725. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 9725, Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to our Inspector General Oversight Act of 2025.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23, the nays are 20.
James Comer
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Next up, the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 9643. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 9643, Comment Integrity and Management Act.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote, report the vote total.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 24, the nays are 19.
The ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. H.R.s 8999, 9026, 7365, 8359, 8945, 6006, 4283, 8419, 9570, and 8326. Without objection, the en bloc package is considered read. Next up, pursuant to notice, I now call up the following en bloc postal naming bills, which were distributed in advance of this markup.
If any member would like to speak on any of these measures, they may do so now. Mr. Palmer from Alabama.
Gary Palmer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year, my colleagues Shomari Figures and I from Alabama celebrated the life of Lieutenant Colonel George Hardy, the last surviving combat pilot of the Tuskegee Airmen. He passed away at the age of 100. In his lifetime, he alone served in three wars and became the youngest Tuskegee Airman fighter pilot to fly his first solo combat mission over Europe at the age of 19. The contributions he and his fellow Tuskegee Airmen made to our country as the first African American military aviators changed the course of World War II and our nation's history.
Tuskegee Airmen flew over 15,000 missions, earning over 150 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 H.R. 6006, which was sponsored by my colleague, Representative Figures. The bill would rename the North Elm Street Post Office in Tuskegee, Alabama, as the Tuskegee Airmen Memorial Post Office. At the Tuskegee Army Airfield, the program trained nearly a thousand African American pilots, mechanics, and other servicemen who were all who were known as the Red Tails.
It's only fitting that we honor their legacy in the very city of Tuskegee, Alabama, to pay tribute to their extraordinary contributions to this country. The recognition ensures that their sacrifice, bravery, and historic contributions to our nation will never be forgotten. I thank my colleague Representative Figures for his leadership on this bill, and I yield back.
Eleanor Norton
I commend Representative Figures for introducing this bill. Congress and the executive branch must continue to find ways to honor the Tuskegee Airmen. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you.
James Comer
Gentlelady yields back. Any other member seek recognition? I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from Congresswoman Jen Kiggans of Virginia, the sponsor of H.R. 7365. Without objection, so ordered. Any other member seek recognition?
The question is now on favorably reporting the en bloc package. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the en bloc package is favorably reported. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
Pursuant to House Rule 11, Clause 2, I ask that committee members have the right to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental, additional, minority, and dissenting views. Without objection. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the 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.