James Comer

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, every time Chairman Schiff rises to speak on a bill about intelligence and security and holding the President accountable, I get excited, hoping that we are going to hear about that evidence of collusion and all the other investigations that were conducted in this House over the past year.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I must say that the GAO plays an important role in the legislative branch, but with matters of national security, we must ensure protocols are followed to prevent unauthorized disclosures of national security information. With this amendment, it is unclear whether those protocols are being met, creating a potential national security risk. Further, the House Intelligence Committee already has the authority to task GAO, when necessary and appropriate, to conduct reviews of the intelligence community and to ensure GAO receives appropriate information from the intelligence community. The House Intelligence Committee has done this several times in the past, making this amendment moot. Again, this is why we needed to go through regular order on the various bills stitched together in the underlying bill. The committees need to have an opportunity to vet bills, including amendments such as these, before they come to the floor of the House. That is how we ensure good bills are passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, again, they say it is not about Donald Trump, but every speaker on that side of the aisle spent a significant percentage of their time talking about Donald Trump. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the bill the majority has titled the Protecting Our Democracy Act does nothing to protect anything but the swamp. Right now, the American people are trying to prepare for the holidays with the highest inflation rate in 30 years. They are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, put food on the table, and heat their homes. They are worried about rising crime in their communities. They are concerned their children have suffered while their classrooms were closed but the borders are wide open to illegal immigrants and deadly drugs. Democrats are ignoring these real issues facing Americans today. Instead, Democrats want to talk about former President Trump, even though a Democrat has occupied the White House for nearly a year. This is not what the American people want for Christmas. The Democrats' playbook is about as predictable as a Hallmark Christmas special. We have all seen this movie. The bill before us today is based on political fiction, and it is the latest attempt to resurrect Democrats' sham investigations of the past. This bill unconstitutionally disrupts the separation of powers among the branches of government by diminishing the executive branch and ignoring the judicial branch. For example, the legislation interferes with the President's pardon power, a power completely vested with the President. But this bill gives Congress access to sensitive White House deliberations and communications about pardons. What legislative purpose does that serve? Congress has no authority to evaluate the President's pardon power. This bill also overrides the judicial branch by attaching partisan definitions to constitutional language that the Supreme Court has already spoken to. It would change the definition of an emolument to fit failed Democrat legal theories and indulge certain Members' false conspiracy theories--Members like, I don't know, Madam Speaker, Adam Schiff. Rewriting this technical constitutional term would keep any businessperson who has conducted business outside the U.S. from running for President. That would mean no Hunter Biden at the top of the ticket in 2024. Democrats appear to think the skill set for running a business would not be helpful to the Federal Government. Maybe that is why Democrats' only solution to any problem is to throw American taxpayer dollars at it and not to engage in serious government reform efforts. Democrats only want career politicians--or even better, career bureaucrats--to be able to serve as elected officials. Similarly, Democrats are determined to make the Federal Government run as inefficiently as possible by allowing incompetent or dishonest Federal employees to keep their jobs. The so-called whistleblower protections in the bill are so expansive that if a Federal employee, even a bad or ineffective one, claims they are a whistleblower, they are almost immune from scrutiny. The Committee on Oversight and Reform has great respect for whistleblowers. We need them to conduct true oversight. They serve an essential role in evaluating waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. But sometimes Federal employees attempt to claim they are whistleblowers to shield themselves from scrutiny for poor performance. We should not make it impossible to vet whistleblowers' claims and their work. Further, the policy in the Democrats' bill to entrench inspectors general is another policy that reduces the efficiency of the Federal Government and another example of the legislative branch intruding on the operations of the executive branch. Madam Speaker, it is Christmastime. Instead of fixing the many problems created by President Biden, like the supply chain, energy, border, and economic crises, Democrats have decided to take up a sham bill and deliver a lump of coal to the American people. Instead of spending time on Democrats' favorite obsession, President Trump, we should instead take on the issues facing Americans today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendments en bloc. In this package is my amendment, the IG Stability Act, which clearly shows where we should be able to come together and pass bipartisan inspector general reforms. Inspectors general play a critical role in rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Government. They help Congress, and especially the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in conducting oversight of executive branch offices and Federal agencies. Yet, just like in every profession, occasionally there have been either poor performers or those who have acted outside their mandates. With respect to poor performers, we had, in my opinion, a very poor performing Election Assistance Commission IG, and she resigned after we started calling for her to do her job. In those situations, the President should have the flexibility to remove an inspector general. The Democrats' proposal would dramatically limit the President's authority to remove an inspector general for dereliction of duty or undermining the policies of a duly elected President. My amendment mirrors bipartisan language in the Senate which requires a detailed rationale to be provided to Congress prior to the removal of an IG. This ensures Congress has adequate oversight of the removal of an IG without preventing a President from removing an IG who is undermining them. Further, my amendment would help remedy the ongoing concern about IG vacancies, which has been a recurring problem in Republican and Democrat administrations. My amendment requires the President to notify Congress if they fail to fill a vacancy and provide a written explanation with a target date for nomination. This amendment ensures that the IG community is adequately staffed to conduct nonpartisan oversight over Federal agencies. This provision has already passed the House this year as part of the bipartisan Inspector General Protection Act, H.R. 23. Yet, the Democrats are now putting this commonsense, bipartisan amendment in an en bloc designed to fail. Why? They are not interested in real reform; they are just interested in messaging, messaging campaigns for the 2022 midterm elections, which by all accounts aren't looking very bright for my friends across the aisle. This amendment and Mr. Burgess' amendment should be accepted, not shoved aside. I encourage support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I was hoping the chairman of the Intelligence Committee was going to present the evidence of Russian collusion during his time, but apparently not. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the ranking member of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is disappointing that my friend from Virginia would spew disinformation about what States are doing. Every State is making it easier to vote but harder to cheat, and he knows that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.