James Comer

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. House of Representatives should focus on helping the American people survive economic turmoil and defending our borders and national security. I urge House Democrats to get back to what the American people elected us to do: Conduct oversight over the Federal Government and the Biden administration, which is on a path to destroy America. We need to hold hearings, conduct oversight, and pass legislation addressing the crises affecting America today. That is our constitutional responsibility. But instead, we are spending valuable resources and time on divisive political messaging bills. I am just amazed that the Democrats advocate for legislation on the House floor pertaining to the Census, which would ask a question about your sexual preference, but they want to pass legislation to oppose asking the question whether you are a legal citizen or not. That is just another example of tone-deaf leadership. That is not what the American people want. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 8326, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the Government Operations Subcommittee ranking member, my colleague, Jody Hice. I support this sensible amendment, which will preserve vital accountability mechanisms for the Director of the Census Bureau. The bill attempts to insulate the Census Bureau Director and empower an unaccountable career Deputy Director. We should not be tying the hands of a future President to properly exercise executive oversight over the management of the Census Bureau. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the commonsense Hice amendment.

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

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, whistleblowers in the Federal Government are covered by some of the most comprehensive protections for employees in the country. Whistleblowers serve a valuable role in our government, especially in an administration like the Biden administration, which is subject to almost no oversight by Congress. But giving this bill a great title, Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act, does not and should not provide cover for the actual requirements and consequences of this bill. Bill titles don't govern our government, but the substance within them does. The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act is a step too far and would help further entrench Federal Government employees in their jobs. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 2988, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Let me conclude by saying this: We have countless rules on the books pertaining to whistleblower protection. We have good whistleblower rules. I can assure my friends on the other side of the aisle, we have plenty of whistleblowers coming forward now with issues, and they are going to be protected. The rules on the books will protect those whistleblowers. What my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to do, I fear, is create a situation where any poor-performing employee who is receiving poor reviews from their agency can claim to be a whistleblower, and therefore, they will be on the Federal payroll for the rest of their career. Then they can retire and draw a pension for the rest of their life. This is unacceptable in the private sector. We care about whistleblowers. We welcome whistleblowers to come to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to speak to the Republican minority members. They are and they will be protected because we have good whistleblower laws on the books. These proposed amendments make our good whistleblower laws worse, and we need to oppose them. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I will admit the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act has a great name because Congress cares about protecting whistleblowers. As the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, I appreciate and value whistleblowers' service and sacrifice to make government better. In fact, ensuring whistleblowers have protections against abuse or retaliation is a bipartisan issue here in Congress. That probably explains why there are already so many protections that whistleblowers have access to in statutes, regulations, executive orders, and agency policies. There is the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, the very catchy Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act. Congress has consistently sought to protect people working in the Federal Government who report waste, fraud, and abuse--and for good reason. Whistleblowers are often the only means of knowing what is happening in an agency, and that is especially important under the Biden administration when the Democrats in Congress have refused to conduct any meaningful or serious oversight. But how many more whistleblower laws do we need with so many already on the books? Further, Republicans oppose this bill because it is a step too far. A simple version of this bill would have just applied the existing whistleblower protections to the few corners of the Federal Government that aren't already covered by the law. However, H.R. 2988 goes much further by making it nearly impossible--and only after a long, expensive process--to address performance or employment issues in anyone claiming to be a whistleblower, even if the person is not really a whistleblower but just bad at his or her job. In the real world, if you are undermining your boss, participating in misconduct, or just lazy, your employer has options to hold you accountable. In the Federal Government, if you claim you are a whistleblower, you can be as terrible as you want and almost any attempt to remove you from your station is characterized as retaliation. There is a difference between retaliation and plain repercussions, but this bill would make them the same. It would prohibit opening an investigation into someone who claims to be a whistleblower, even if there is good reason to investigate the employee's conduct. Under this bill, it would be nearly impossible to reveal the identity of a whistleblower in order to evaluate the validity of his or her claims. In large part, this bill is just an excuse to further idolize the people who pushed the sham impeachment against former President Trump. The actions of President Trump were, of course, vindicated by the Senate. Entrenching Federal Government employees by enacting laws like H.R. 2988 is, in large part, why President Trump got elected in the first place: to drain the swamp. Democrats may be wise to remember this concern of the American people and stop working to further entrench the executive branch bureaucracy. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendments en bloc. I rise in opposition to the en bloc package of amendments offered by Chairwoman Maloney. This package contains an amendment offered by Representative Auchincloss, which would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of whistleblower complaints ruled on by the Merit Systems Protection Board and make recommendations about the whistleblower review process. The problem with this amendment is that the MSPB's Office of General Counsel already performs the oversight functions for the MSPB under the Inspector General Act of 1978. This office is capable of doing the work the amendment would task to the GAO. Reviewing the MSPB determinations and monitoring the Federal courts is not a smart use of the GAO's limited resources. The GAO needs to remain focused on pending statutorily mandated work. I also oppose the amendment offered by Representative Jackson Lee, which is trying to help inspectors general offices receive anonymous whistleblower information, but it actually makes it far more difficult. This amendment won't allow IG offices to use any telephone or computer systems to receive the anonymous whistleblower information. Instead, they will have to rely on receiving such sensitive information by mail, which is obviously problematic, including complicating an IG's ability to evaluate the validity and authenticity of these tips and complaints. I also oppose the amendment offered by Representative Porter, which attempts to create another unnecessary reporting requirement for the inspectors general to report to Congress on the timeliness of resolving whistleblower retaliation complaints. The problem is that IG offices are already required to include this information in their semiannual report to Congress, provided every 6 months. This includes information on what, if any, consequences have been imposed to hold the official who engaged in retaliation accountable. This amendment's duplicative reporting requirement only wastes more time that an IG should be spending on investigating waste, fraud, and abuse. Finally, I oppose the amendment offered by Representative Spanberger, which would prohibit the suspension, revocation, denial, or other determination relating to a security clearance of a whistleblower. This complete prohibition could put national security at risk. For example, an employee working to undermine a national security policy or program could claim that he or she is a whistleblower and continue to have access to sensitive information, even while the agency evaluated the merits of the whistleblower's accusation. There are approved procedures for whistleblowing in the intelligence community, but this amendment would prohibit revoking a security clearance, even if the so-called whistleblower ignores those procedures. This is an unacceptable risk to our Nation. Those holding security clearances have assumed a special level of public trust, and with that comes special expectations. Mr. Chair, I oppose these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the Carrico family of Fancy Farm, Kentucky, who recently received the Angels in Adoption Award from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. Each year, CCAI selects individuals across the Nation who have demonstrated a commitment to improving the lives of children in need of loving homes. I want to congratulate Janet, Ellen, Peyton, and the entire Carrico family on their well-deserved recognition. They opened their hearts and house by fostering over 10 children and adopting 6 into their family. Their devotion to helping children extends to the Fancy Farm community, as well. They can often be seen directing and volunteering for various youth-centered programs within the St. Jerome Parish of Fancy Farm, Kentucky. Fancy Farm and the entire First Congressional District of Kentucky should be proud of the Carrico family. This beautiful Kentucky family has shown what love can really do.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to discuss yet another disastrous economic record for the Biden administration: Inflation has hit 9.1 percent. Grocery costs are up. Gas prices are up. Nearly every essential item for living is up. The Biden administration's failed economic policies and congressional Democrats' unchecked spending has put our economy on the verge of recession. In Kentucky, citizens are paying twice as much at the gas pump as they did last year. In fact, Kentuckians have seen a 50 percent increase in gas pries since last year and a diesel increase of 84 percent, which is detrimental to the farming industry. Farmers are at their breaking point. The USDA recently reported that farm expenses are expected to rise by over $20 billion next year alone. I am hearing from constituents in Kentucky's First District who are deeply concerned and rightfully so. Farmers are saying it is costing thousands of dollars more per day to keep their farm equipment operational due to the skyrocketing price of diesel. This is unsustainable. On top of inflation, it is clear that President Biden has made diminishing American energy production a top priority. Madam Speaker, Americans are in trouble. No matter how hard Democrats try, Congress cannot spend their way out of this problem.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of George Robert Wilson. George was born in Indianapolis, Indiana and spent a remarkable 46 years as an employee of Fruit of the Loom in Campbellsville. As a Taylor County resident, he also joined the local Fire Department in 1967 and became Chief in 1970. He held this position for an astonishing 50 years until retiring in 2021. Over that time, George spearheaded a huge project for the County. He helped build the downtown firehouse by raising funds and organizing volunteers to build the structure. His dedication to the community was unparalleled. In 2017, a new facility was built on Greensburg Road in honor of Mr. Wilson. In his free time, George was a passionate fan of University of Kentucky basketball and enjoyed hunting and fishing. On behalf of the First Congressional District of Kentucky, I want to send my condolences to George's family and friends. Taylor County was so fortunate to have an individual so dedicated to the community.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment which ironically highlights the underlying bill's serious intrusion into Americans' privacy. When the government collects very personal and sensitive information, as H.R. 4176 seeks to recklessly expand, Americans' data regrettably becomes the target of malicious actors. Too often, we see this story play out in our government, the over- collection of Americans' private information being hacked or improperly disclosed. From the leaking of Americans' tax records to the breach of Federal employees' entire background investigation files, the Federal government does not have a very good track record of securing private data. Yet, this amendment allows government agencies to place Americans' most private data at risk for up to 3 entire years. Republicans will not stand for subjecting Americans' most private information to cyber hackers and other wrongdoers, information that should not even be collected in the first place. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this amendment stoops to the lowest level possible--in fact, 6 feet under. It is bad enough that under H.R. 4176, House Democrats seek to subject living people, including children, to intrusive and inappropriate questions related to their private sexual orientation and gender identity. It is especially troublesome that House Democrats would allow proxies to answer such sensitive questions on behalf of others, as this bill allows. But shockingly, this amendment expands that authority to allow proxies to answer survey or Census questions about sexual orientation and gender identity on behalf of dead Americans. If someone claims to be a ``knowledgeable proxy,'' this amendment permits that individual to answer a Federal survey on behalf of a deceased person who can no longer answer for himself or herself. With this amendment, someone who has guarded their personal privacy their entire life will have to worry that sensitive aspects of their personal life will be shared with the Federal Government after they die or worry that it could even be made up. How is collecting this information even useful at all? It is hard to imagine making the underlying bill much worse, but this amendment succeeds with flying colors. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote to protect Americans' ability to simply rest in peace. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. COMER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives should focus on helping the American people survive economic turmoil and defending our borders and national security. I urge House Democrats to get back to what the American people elected us to do: conduct oversight over the Federal Government and the Biden administration, which is on a path to destroy America. We need to hold hearings, conduct oversight, and pass legislation addressing the crises affecting Americans today. That is our constitutional responsibility. That is the responsibility of the House Oversight Committee. Instead, we are spending valuable resources and time on divisive political messaging bills, and that is what this is. I oppose H.R. 4176, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act requires Federal agencies to collect highly sensitive information from the American people. With Americans facing record inflation, record gas prices, supply chain shortages, and skyrocketing drug overdoses, it is unbelievable that this is a priority for the House Democrats. Mortgage rates are at their highest levels since 2008. Inflation rates are at their highest levels in 40 years. Nationally, gas prices are averaging over $5 per gallon. There is a severe shortage of baby formula across our country. It has been a free-for-all at the southern border since President Biden took office both for illegal immigrants and deadly drugs. The House majority is ignoring these issues. They have also ignored the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the origins of the COVID pandemic, and the impact of shutdowns and school closures on American children. Instead, today we are considering a divisive bill, a bill that does nothing to address Americans' problems. H.R. 4176 requires Federal agencies to include questions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity on their surveys. There are over 130 such surveys across the Federal agencies. This also includes the Census. My colleagues across the aisle oppose asking whether someone is an American citizen on the Census because they say it could deter participation, but they want to ask about sexual orientation and gender identity. This is information many Americans would not want to share with the Federal Government. This could certainly reduce response rates to the Census and a host of statistical surveys our government relies on to inform important policy decisions. I would remind my House colleagues that asking these questions during a job interview is illegal. In fact, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against employment discrimination on the basis of sex. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Yet, House Democrats want the Federal Government to ask Americans about this most private of information. My Democrat colleagues claim this bill will expand funding and services for those who identify as LGBTQI+, but they haven't specified funding and for what services. We also don't know how agencies will actually use this information, and we don't know how bad actors would exploit this information. Federal agencies are constantly the targets of cyberattacks and subject to leaks. A Chinese attack on the Office of Personnel Management exposed the data of millions of Americans. The Internal Revenue Service has leaked tax information on high-profile Americans to the press. This information could be used for harmful purposes, so Americans may be reluctant to risk answering a survey entirely. House Democrats say that these intrusive questions will remain optional under the bill, but we all know the pressure respondents will feel to answer a Federal agency survey. In fact, the bill has been amended by the rule to strike the exemption from penalty provision which protected survey respondents from fine or other penalty if they refused to answer a question. Why did this language need to be removed if the questions are optional? Are they planning to penalize respondents for not answering questions about their sexuality and gender? We do not know why, and that is because this bill hasn't gone through any due diligence. Another troubling part of the bill is how it allows observers or proxies to fill out these surveys on behalf of others. Should we really have other people asking highly personal questions about somebody else on a Federal agency survey? Republicans don't think so. A proxy could make a guess, or a person would have to tell this proxy their sexual orientation or gender identity--something they may not want to discuss. When the House Oversight and Reform Committee considered the bill last week, committee Republicans supported an amendment offered by Representative Michael Cloud to strike this provision, but committee Democrats rejected it. House Republicans also have concerns about presenting children with questions about sexual orientation or gender identity. Why should a minor be confronted by such topics? For instance, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife- Associated Recreation includes respondents as young as 6 years old. Federal surveys are no place to confront the American people or their children with intrusive questions and concerns about sexual orientation or gender identity, especially when parents are worried about this agenda with an ever-evolving list of identities. It is hard to keep up. Many parents have grave concerns that advocates of this agenda are seeking to indoctrinate their children and drive a wedge within their families, and this bill confirms some of these concerns by allowing these questions to be directed to children. Democrats have not addressed or even acknowledged these concerns. In the committee markup of H.R. 4176, my colleague, Glenn Grothman, offered an amendment to prohibit the collection of this information from minors, but committee Democrats voted this sensible amendment down unanimously. What is more telling is House Democrat leadership have refused to make either Representative Grothman's or Representative Cloud's amendments in order today. I wonder why the House majority refuses to consider an amendment aimed at protecting children. These amendments address important issues. The American people's Representatives should be able to vote on them before sending this troubling bill to the Senate. The American people deserve better from this legislative body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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