Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1518 and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1518, providing for consideration of four measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of S. 3905 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and a motion to commit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of S. 4003 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a motion to commit.

Fourth, the rule provides for consideration of a Senate amendment to H.R. 1437. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment with a House amendment and provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule also deems passage of a motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2617 with a House amendment.

The rule further deems passage of H. Con. Res. 124 and H. Res. 1516.

Lastly, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered from December 12 to December 15. The rule also provides roll call votes on suspension bills considered on December 12 may be postponed through December 15.

Mr. Speaker, as we come to the end of the 117th Congress, we are working this week to pass legislation that deserves to make it across the finish line before the end of the year.

First, the VA Employee Fairness Act. The healthcare workers at VA medical centers are exceptional at what they do serving our veterans. Many of them are veterans themselves. They deserve the same rights as their counterparts outside of the VA system to collectively bargain.

In today's world, the balance of power is disproportionately skewed towards employers over employees.

As a former union member and a small business owner myself, and as the current chair of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions subcommittee, I can think of no better way to honor these workers and the people they serve, who we all respect and honor, than to provide them the tools to empower them to have a voice in this important American workplace.

From our national security to the regulation of prescription drugs, the Federal Government relies on services of contractors and consultants to provide for the American people. It is critical that we know that these contractors are working in the best interest of the American people.

Unfortunately, the current Federal acquisition process allows bad actors to slip through the cracks without disclosing their potential conflicts of interest.

As a member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I am proud of

the work that the committee has done to investigate McKinsey & Company for this very reason. This contractor--one of the oldest and most prestigious consulting firms in the world--was advising the FDA on the safety and efficacy of prescription pain medications at the same time the very same consultants were also advising Purdue Pharma on how to ``turbocharge'' sales of OxyContin, a major driver of the opioid epidemic.

While the McKinsey scandal shined a light on organizational conflicts of interest, the issue itself is not new. The Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act would require Federal contractors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before they are awarded a Federal contract to ensure they are effectively serving the taxpayers. In the Senate it was bipartisan, and it should pass without objection and without delay.

Also included in today's rule is the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act, which would direct the Department of Justice to develop trainings on alternatives to the use of force and safely to respond to an individual experiencing a mental health, behavioral health, or suicidal crisis. We shouldn't even have to be including this bill in the rule, but unfortunately, partisan politics caused it to need to be reconsidered this week.

On this topic, I am proud that the district I represent is leading the way with an initiative we call A3, anyone, anywhere, anytime. This program connects people in need of mental health support that is outside the police system to help respond to the emergency while simultaneously allowing the police to focus on more appropriate police matters.

This was a long, developed partnership between our behavioral health departments and our local law enforcement, which support it very strongly, and is working to protect the public.

Finally, the rule includes a 1-week continuing resolution. Appropriators are hard at work to come to a year-long agreement over spending, and they need an extra week to finalize it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful opportunity this week to make transformative changes with these bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an ABC news piece titled: ``Lawmakers aim to strengthen transparency in the lucrative--and murky--Federal contracting process.''

[From ABC News]

Lawmakers Aim To Strengthen Transparency in the Lucrative--and Murky--

Federal, Contracting Process

(By Soo Rin Kim)

A bipartisan coalition of senators introduced legislation

on Monday meant to improve transparency in the highly

competitive and notoriously murky federal contracting

process, taking aim at companies that accept lucrative work

from government agencies without having to disclose potential

conflicts of interest

The bill, called the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of

Interest in Federal Acquisition Act would seek to mitigate

conflict-of-interest concerns by forcing contractors to

``disclose other parts of their business that conflict with

the work they are bidding to perform for the government,''

according to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., chairman of the

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

``If we don't know whether [federal contractors] are

serving other, potentially conflicting interest, we can't be

confident that Americans are getting exactly what they pay

for,'' said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a cosponsor of the

bill.

For many American companies, federal contracts represent a

crucial source of revenue, as well as visibility and

credibility. Firms from every major business sector compete

for this work, and winners often execute their end of the

agreement while pursuing outside business opportunities--

which sometime overlap with their frederal contracts.

While existing rules stipulate that government agencies

assess potential conflicts of interest before determining

contract winners, watchdogs say the process remains opaque.

``Based on current federal contract regulations, agencies

cannot always discern whether government contractors have

business relationships with foreign governments and private

entities that could create a conflict of interest,'' said

Noah Bookbinder, president of the nonprofit government

watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in

Washington.

Scott Amey, general counsel for the government ethics

watchdog Project on Government Oversight, warned that

``without more guidance, organizational conflicts of interest

can result in unfair competitive advantages and biased

contract awards--both of which compromise the impartiality of

the federal government and the integrity of the contracting

process.''

In a press release announcing the new legislation,

lawmakers cited reporting in ProPublica that raised conflict-

of-interest questions about consulting giant McKinsey &

Company's recent work for the Food and Drug Administration.

ProPublica reported that in at least one FDA contract,

McKinsey

allegedly failed to disclose its conflicts of interest with

corporate pharmaceutical clients despite its contract with

the agency obligating the firm to do so.

According to documents obtained by ProPublica, McKinsey

allegedly advised the FDA's drug-regulation division for more

than a decade while simultaneously accepting work from major

pharmaceutical companies. In some cases, according to

ProPublica, McKinsey helped those clients navigate FDA

regulations while advising the FDA on how to strengthen

regulations for the pharmaceutical industry.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., said McKinsey's handling of its

work with the FDA demonstrates ``the danger that conflicts of

interest can pose in government contracting.''

``Our bipartisan bill would help ensure that companies that

enter into a contract with the government are acting in the

best interest of the American people,'' Hassan said.

McKinsey spokesperson Neil Grace told ABC News that

McKinsey's consulting work with pharmaceutical companies

``did not create a conflict of interest'' for the firm's work

with the FDA because it ``has not advised the FDA on

regulatory policy or on specific pharmaceutical products.''

Instead, said Grace, McKinsey's work for the agency ``focused

on administrative and operational topics, including

improvements to organizational structures, business processes

and technology.''

``Given the absence of a conflict of interest, there was no

requirement for any McKinsey disclosure,'' Grace said. ``That

said, McKinsey's proposals to the FDA frequently mentioned

the company's and personnel's experience with the

pharmaceutical industry, making the FDA aware of this aspect

of McKinsey's work in the field.''

Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa joined Peters,

Grassley, and Hassan in sponsoring the federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, conflicts of interest are not a new issue, but it is clear that more needs to be done by this Congress. The American people ought to have faith that their tax dollars are being spent wisely on contractors who are working in their best interest. This bill will increase impartiality and integrity within the Federal consultant and contractor system.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my good friend from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Texas--you know, I am always open to working on these sometimes difficult rules that we have in our Congress. I respect the opinion, but I have a different perspective. What we are doing today is keeping the lights on.

With all due respect, the last time the Republicans were in charge of the Congress the lights went off. That is

not good for anyone. It is not good for the American people, and it is not good for the world economy.

What we are trying to do here in the House is make it a little bit easier for the arcane rules that, I think, most of us would agree to in the Senate to make it easier for the bill to come back over and, hopefully, have an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, on longer spending in an omnibus.

With all due respect, we have something that we have here in these Chambers: a disagreement. The tone, I think you can tell, of my voice is very different. But I do think the things that both gentlemen have brought up are real issues.

Immigration is a real issue. We have tried, many of us, to come up with something that is bipartisan that leads to solutions to a difficult situation that multiple administrations and Congresses have struggled for; that has a long history in this country when it comes to immigration, the benefit and the challenges around that; and being able to make sure that the beneficiaries of immigration are consistent with treaties that we have signed around the world, and principles, but also to American citizens.

On the other issues, those are all real issues. What we have here in front of us today in these resolutions are laws that will actually help the American people, too, and, lastly, will continue to keep the lights on by funding government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are not talking about the Federal budget in its entirety today. That will continue to be negotiated and debated, and there will be a vote on it.

What we are talking about are specific resolutions that the Committee on Rules has passed down here to this body to talk about protecting workers who protect veterans. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about improving healthcare for America's veterans that we all say we respect, admire, and honor.

We know that when people are able to organize in the workplace, or at least to present the opportunity, they are safer. Research shows that hospitals that have had the ability for workers and nurses to organize and have a fair say in how they treat their patients, that mortality rates improve, that people are served better. That is what we are talking about today.

We are talking about giving police departments the resources they need in the world today so that behavioral health people can do their job, so that police officers can do their job and not respond to almost one in four calls in the United States that involve mental health, where the police officers are asked to do something that they shouldn't be asked to do.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, I have spent 30 years involved in my own district--from a mayor of a city of 130,000 people, to the legislature, to this body--developing programs with the police department in behavioral health, which started with a conversation with a beat patrolman and a mental health clinician. All it is about is improving the safety of Americans. That is what we are talking about here.

We are talking about helping with the opioid crisis. I haven't heard anything from the gentleman about the things that are actually in this rule.

Do we want to help people with the high mortality and suicide crisis in opioids that we know now, from the hearings that we have had, that the chair and I have asked for in the Committee on Oversight?

We brought the CEOs of the largest corporation, Johnson & Johnson, to testify in front of Congress about what they did at what used to be a great American pharmaceutical company that once had one of the most admired CEOs in the world and now has somebody who has lied on his college resume twice and has helped to kill Americans by deliberately turbocharging the sale of opioids to Americans.

That is what we are talking about in this rule, holding people accountable.

McKinsey & Company, a company that was based in San Francisco for years--I have known people who lived in my district and worked there. It once was a shining light of American innovation and management. Now, it has fallen to this epitome of greed and hypocrisy. That is what we are talking about, stopping that kind of behavior, in this rule.

We are talking about keeping the lights on in the United States Congress, and the Federal Government, for 1 week so that we can have an omnibus, and then we can debate those other things.

Do I agree that the process is not perfect? I agree. Do I agree we could do better? I agree, and I am open to those things. But let's focus on what is in this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I always enjoy being on the floor and debating my friend from Pennsylvania. I will miss this if I am not afforded the opportunity to do it again.

Mr. Speaker, again, focusing on the rule here. First in this rule, we are helping veterans. We are helping the people who serve veterans to be able to organize.

One of my favorite quotes on the ability of workers to have a voice is from Dwight David Eisenhower, who said, Only a fool would try to stop an American man or woman in the workplace from organizing.

So that is the first point, helping people to have a voice in the VA to serve our veterans better.

The second point is on holding McKinsey & Company, a very large corporation, American company, accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic.

Third in the rule is helping our investment in public safety, a bipartisan effort that came out of the Senate, to help provide them to de-escalate when they are in a difficult situation.

Lastly, we are here to keep the lights on.

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the debate and the passion, we do have work to do today, and I would request and ask Democrats and Republicans to vote ``yes'' on this rule.

This rule is an important step in passing these bills that will make a difference in the lives of the Americans that we represent and help restore faith in this institution and the government.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1518

Strike sections 8 and 9.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania, I appreciate the Speaker, and the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania and I share a love of outlaw country music, whether it is Texas-based--my preference--or generally. There is a famous picture of Johnny Cash standing up giving his middle finger, and it is on the cover of an album. If all 435 of us stood on the steps of the Capitol with our middle finger to the American people, it would be a more honest action than what we are engaging in here on the floor of the people's House right now.

Let me tell you what is happening right now. In true swamp fashion, what we are about to do is deem as passed a House bill on Federal agency reporting goals with a House amendment to a previously passed Senate amendment to enable us to have a revenue measure--to enable us to give the Senate a revenue measure to satisfy the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House. The House amendment to a Senate amendment fast-tracks the omnibus by allowing the Senate to bypass a motion to proceed vote.

Now, that is a bunch of complicated, parliamentary procedure gobbledygook for the American people, but what it is is a fraud. It is a fraud.

It is actually trying to end-run the rules in order to jam through what? A massive $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill without any actual debate. That is what is happening right now on the floor of the House of Representatives, nothing else.

In that $1.7 trillion bill--and pause for a second--what are we actually packaging here? A week-long continuing resolution to keep the government open through this weekend into next week so negotiations can continue to wrap up this $1.7 trillion monstrosity.

So the vote today is a vote to perpetuate and extend funding for a week to allow a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill in a lameduck Congress. That has not been done, by the way, in the last 70 years when we have had a flip of the House, a flip in majority control of the House. We have not done that over the last 70 years. In the five times there has been a flip, we do not pass big spending bills in a lameduck Congress, which is what this is. My Democratic colleagues know it; my Democratic colleagues in the Senate know it; and the Senate Republicans who seem to be trying to grease the skids of this, they know it, as well. Here we sit.

So to the American people, you need to understand what the people's House is doing to you today--standing on the steps of the Capitol sticking their middle finger up at you would be more honest because this is defense spending, $858 billion, a 10 percent increase.

We can debate the need for a defense spending increase. Many of us probably would agree we need to have more defense spending, but we also need to fix the Department of Defense. We need to stop having it turn into a woke agency that is essentially social engineering wrapped in a uniform. Let's fix the Department of Defense. No, we are not debating that. We are just going to give another blank check of 10 percent additional spending.

But it is worse than that. We are now going to have nondefense spending reports--we haven't seen the text because, oh, no, the little people here in the House can't see the text before we actually vote on this crap. No, no, no, they are going to jam it through without seeing the text. Nondefense spending--reports indicate somewhere between an 8 to 11 percent increase.

Now, to put that in context, we are talking about something in the order of $50 to $60 billion. Here is the thing, we just spent something like $2 trillion in nondefense discretionary plus-up during COVID, and we are now going to jump into this, and we are going to say, oh, yeah, I have got a good idea. Let's jump up nondefense discretionary spending. That is all of the alphabet soup of all of the agencies that are attacking the American people every single day, empowering the FBI to designate parents as domestic terrorists, empowering the DHS to not actually secure the homeland while Americans are dying from fentanyl poisoning and immigrants are burning up 53 of them in a tractor trailer in San Antonio.

That is what we are dealing with. This CR is the gateway drug to an omnibus spending bill next week. That is why we should oppose it. We should oppose the CR, we should oppose this rule, and we should oppose the omnibus.

The American people deserve a House of Representatives that is actually doing the work of appropriating rather than jamming through an omnibus bill right before Christmas in a lameduck session after the American people spoke and sent a new majority to the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the collegiality of the body and wanting to engage. I am happy to engage. We just never get a chance to engage.

We are down here, basically, in a fake debate. That is what we all know. I mean, the truth is it is not like we have a body, a Chamber filled here with human beings debating this $1.7 trillion while we are $32 trillion in debt. I would be happy to.

Why don't we actually roll up our sleeves around these tables and do the work? But we don't do that.

We are literally down here, and we are going to do--what?--30 minutes a side, if we even do that, and then we are going to vote. We are going to vote on a rule that packages together, as I said, deeming as passed a House bill on Federal agency reporting goals with a House amendment to a previously passed Senate amendment to pass a $1.7 trillion omnibus, combined with a CR for an extension for a week, in a lame-duck Congress. That is the truth.

The American people pull their hair out. They go, gosh, what on Earth is happening in Washington?

Well, I will tell them what is happening in Washington. This, this is what is happening in Washington.

We know what this is about. This is jamming through a bill at the eleventh hour to get the political priorities of the current Democratic majority, and a handful of Senate Republicans are happy to do it so they can get pork.

The House and the Senate have requested a total of $16 billion for 7,500 earmarks. The top requester: Senator Richard Shelby, ranking member of Senate Appropriations, with $656 million. This is a nice little send-off for the appropriators in the Senate.

But the fact of the matter is the American people are the ones who get screwed in this deal. They are the ones who end up losing their country with $32 trillion in debt.

There is no justification for ramping up spending an additional 10 percent for nondefense discretionary after all the money that has been spent under COVID and using the Defense Department as the backs upon which you are going to place the debt of our children and grandchildren and say that, ``Oh, yes, we are doing this for defense.'' That is just wrong.

At what point are we actually going to do the work of the American people in the people's House? At what point are we going to actually debate? At what point are we actually going to amend? At what point are we actually going to live within our means and stop writing checks we can't cash?

The American people are staring at us. They throw their hands up in the air and wonder what has become of the country that their brothers and sisters and dads and moms and daughters and sons have fought for.

Why do we stand in front of that flag? Why do we open in prayer? Why do we say the Pledge of Allegiance if we are going to rip apart the flag right here in this body, in this Chamber? Because that is what we are doing, using backroom deals, dropping these bills on the floor, and not allowing us to actually engage in debate over these important matters.

The American people are tired of spending money we don't have, and they are tired of open borders. They are tired of empowering bureaucrats like the FBI. They are tired of forced vaccine mandates at the Department of Defense. They are tired of an IRS harassing the American people, allegedly, for more revenue. They are tired of an NIH and a CDC making it up as they go along and shutting down economies and jamming it down the throats of the American people. They are tired of an EPA and a Department of the Interior restricting Americans' ability to have reliable energy. The American people are tired of it.

I hope help is on the way. I am glad the Republicans seem united against this in the House, and I am looking at Mitch McConnell when I say this: Do your job, Leader McConnell. Do your job, and follow the wishes of the American people, who gave a majority to Republicans in the House of Representatives. Let's stop this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California talked about the extent to which the process is bad and that we can do better. Well, I am glad that he agrees with that.

The question is, well, let's agree right now to amend the CR to March. Why don't we do that? Why don't we agree right now to amend the continuing resolution until March?

Well, we know why my Democratic colleagues don't want to do that, right? They don't want to have a full-throated debate on this. They don't want to have an actual discussion.

Why don't we have an open process? Why don't we actually have amendments here on the floor of the House? We haven't been able to offer an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives since May 2016.

But the gentleman from California knows this. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. This isn't about actually saying let's have a process that works. It is the opposite. It is using Christmas and the end of the year to jam this through, not to buy time with a 1-week CR so we can negotiate.

Who is negotiating? Three people in a room? We are not. We are not debating this on the floor. We are not going to do it in the light of day. No. What is going to happen is one big bill will be dropped on the floor after this rule is jammed through, on the 23rd of December, 2 days before Christmas, intentionally, right before Christmas, in order to force everybody to come in, with no amendments, to vote up or down on $1.7 trillion.

How on Earth did we end up $32 trillion in debt? That is how, and there is no actual resolve to do anything about that.

Again, control of the House of Representatives has shifted from one party to the other five times since 1954. In none of those years have we had the outgoing Congress pass a comprehensive spending bill in the lame duck that is after the election. We shouldn't do it now. We shouldn't do it in the future.

One last point: If there is a debate in the Senate right now and some of our Senate colleagues decide to object to the continuing resolution, which I would support, which would then call into question the funding on Saturday, when we wake up, let's be very clear that it is Democrats who would be risking shutting down the government because they are so married to funding the alphabet soup of the bureaucracy throughout this town that is strangling the American people, strangling prosperity, spending money we don't have, refusing to secure the border, empowering FBI agents to go after the American people. Those are the priorities of my Democratic colleagues.

If there is any debate on Saturday as to whether the lights are going to be turned on in the government, it is on the hands of Democrats married to a bureaucracy rather than standing up in defense of the American people who send us here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides for consideration of four pieces of legislation that are, once again, nothing but missed opportunities to address the multiple crises facing our country under the Biden Presidency.

Rather than working with Republicans to actually address the unmitigated crisis at our southern border, to address the cold war we have with China, the proxy war we have with Russia, or the historic levels of inflation, Democrats are rushing to the floor these half- baked legislative items that will create more problems than they aim to solve.

Look no further than S. 3905, the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act. Instead of making meaningful reforms to Federal acquisition policy, this legislation is duplicative, and it is contradictory to existing policies. It also tells the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to do something that it is already required to do.

Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948, the VA Employee Fairness Act. This legislation would put veteran patients at risk by shifting questions of professional conduct to collective bargaining.

The Secretary of the VA has been and should continue to be directly accountable for the quality of care provided to our veterans at the VA.

While we are focusing on these unnecessary bills, China has recently signed a $50 billion trade deal with our ally Saudi Arabia; Putin, once again, threatened to launch a nuclear war on the West; and the wealth of the average American has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.

The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol reported that over the weekend there were over 16,000 migrant encounters at the border--and wait for it--that was in a 48-hour period, 16,000 in less than 2 days, but President Biden hasn't stepped foot on the southern border since he took office.

Last week, when he was not visiting the border while in Arizona, President Joe Biden was asked about that, and his response was ``There are more important things going on.''

Yet, during the administration there have been nearly 5 million illegal immigrant crossings at our southern border, and that includes 1 million got-aways. These are individuals that we have no record of that we just know escaped into the interior of the country.

Yet, Biden has failed at protecting our southern border just as he failed in America's prisoner swap with President Putin. The administration effectively surrendered to Putin by swapping a woke celebrity basketball player for the ``Merchant of Death,'' an international arms smuggler with the blood of Americans on his hands.

This disastrous negotiation is just another failed foreign policy decision that was based on Russia's terms, not ours. This rash decision left two other Americans detained in Russia: Pittsburgh history teacher Marc Fogel, and U.S. Marine Paul Whelan. They have no clear chance of returning home now. We have lost all leverage unless--I am going to be surprised to discover that--we have two ``merchants of death'' in a Federal prison in the U.S. Something tells me that is not the case.

What we should be doing is we should be immediately acting to protect our national security. We should be ensuring the safe return of all Americans that are wrongfully detained abroad. We should be working to secure the southern border. We should not be passing ill-conceived and unnecessary legislation. To be frank, our time is too precious, and our challenges are too great.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, instead of addressing any of the crises that are actually facing this Nation, House Democrats are allowing the Senate to ram through a huge omnibus spending bill that was written without the input of House Republicans and was written behind closed doors.

In September, House Republicans were very clear in opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame- duck session. Once again, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of funding the government despite spending most of the year passing trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has fueled inflation and driven up our debt.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately strike sections 8 and 9 from the rule, which would strike the omnibus vehicle from this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), to explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I really can't stand the cliche that history repeats itself, but that is true. To prove that, let me just read some excerpts from a Joe Biden speech from 2006. Joe Biden said: ``The world is going to Hades in a handbasket. We are desperately concerned about the circumstance relating to the avian flu. We do not have enough vaccines. We do not have enough police officers. And we are going to debate, the next 3 weeks, I am told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else. I can't believe the American people can't see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We all voted.''

That was Joe Biden in 2006. It sounds awfully familiar to what my colleagues across the aisle are doing now with these fluff bills, bills that are already on the books and nothing but a distraction from the real crises that are facing this Nation.

To talk more about that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, this rule provides for four pieces of legislation that, once again, are just missed opportunities to actually address the problems we are facing.

Let's talk about one of the biggest problems, and that is the southern border. To contextualize this, let me give you some stats. This year, 98 suspected terrorists have been apprehended attempting to cross the southern border. Think about that.

It took 19 hijackers on 9/11 to pull off the largest terrorist attack in this country. In this year alone, we have let 98 suspected terrorists walk across the southern border.

In October, there were over 230,000 illegal immigrant encounters at the southern border. That is just in October. To put that into context, that is a 334 percent increase from the average number of October encounters under President Trump.

In November, there were more than 70,000 known got-aways at the southern border. That is a historic record.

What is really worse is the fentanyl crisis, the fentanyl that is coming across the southern border. There were more than 14,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl seized in fiscal year 2022. That is a record.

As a reminder, a lethal dose of fentanyl is only 2 milligrams. Fentanyl was responsible for two-thirds of all drug overdoses last year.

There has been a 94 percent increase in fentanyl deaths since 2019. To put that into more context, that is one fentanyl overdose every 7 minutes in the United States.

Just 5 to 10 percent of the drugs coming across the southern border are seized by our Border Patrol agents.

What does the administration say on this? It is classic gaslighting. I will quote Joe Biden once again. He said, ``There are more important things going on.'' Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, said the border is secure. DHS Secretary Mayorkas said, look, the border is secure.

They are either gaslighting, or they have no connection and no grounding in reality.

As far as the omnibus, let's just go back to September. In September, House Democrats were clear in their opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame-duck session. We didn't want it then; we don't want it now.

Unfortunately, on September 30, a continuing resolution was passed funding the government through December 16. So, here we are today.

This 1-week continuing resolution is an attempt to buy additional time for a massive lame-duck spending bill in which House Republicans had no seat at the negotiating table.

We will soon be in the majority. Republicans will soon be in the majority. We will be in the driver's seat to fight for our priorities. That is why every Republican should be a ``no'' on the Democrats' lame- duck omnibus spending bill.

To talk more about the omnibus, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Lives are being lost while President Biden and Congressional Democrats continue to ignore the crisis at our southern border. Tragically, just last week, on December 7, United States Border Patrol Agent Raul Humberto Gonzalez, Jr., was killed while chasing a group of migrants across the border.

To go back to that quote from President Biden about the southern border and about why he hasn't visited, despite the fact that he was just in Arizona, ``There are more important things going on.'' That is what President Biden has to say; stinging words

given the deaths and casualties that we are seeing at the southern border and the fentanyl deaths and overdoses in the interior of this country.

It is absolutely maddening to see such a flagrant disregard not only for our hardworking Border Patrol agents but our Nation's immigration system as a whole. For that reason, we must bring the border crisis to an end.

But President Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats have manufactured this historic crisis on our southern border by halting the construction of the border wall, ending Trump's remain in Mexico policy, and refusing to visit the border.

U.S. Border Patrol facilities are becoming overrun with thousands of illegal immigrants in custody. This crisis is only getting worse. On December 21, title 42 ends, a powerful tool that allowed border officials to expel more than 2 million migrants during the pandemic. There now have been 20 straight months of over 150,000 illegal border crossings.

Yet, with today's rule, House Democrats continue to ignore this historic disaster at our border. This crisis could not be more devastating to the sovereignty and the security of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1518, I call up the bill (S. 3905) to prevent organizational conflicts of interest in Federal acquisition, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3905, the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act, which was introduced by Senator Gary Peters, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has strong bipartisan support and passed the Senate this summer with unanimous consent.

In April, we introduced a companion bill, H.R. 7602, following one of the Oversight Committee's investigations, which highlighted the need to strengthen government contracting laws on conflicts of interest.

The committee's investigation found that a consulting contractor advised the Food and Drug Administration at the same time they were advising private-sector clients that were regulated by the FDA. Many times, it was the exact same consultants advising the FDA and private- sector clients on the same issue.

In this case, the consultant failed to follow the rules on disclosing these amazing conflicts, collecting millions of dollars from both the regulator and the private-sector client.

Although this is one extreme example, other organizational conflicts of interest, large and small, occur across government. The Government Accountability Office regularly fields bid protests involving organizational conflicts of interest.

In 2014, a major defense contractor paid a settlement for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts while advising the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Organizational conflicts of interest can occur when a contractor's competing interests raise questions about their ability to provide impartial advice to the government. It is crucial that government contractors are providing impartial advice, particularly when the government is paying for their expertise and objectivity on sensitive matters.

The rules on organizational conflicts of interest have not changed significantly since the 1990s. This bill would make long-overdue revisions to strengthen these rules.

The current rules set basic standards to prevent organizational conflicts of interest but leave the details up to individual agencies. The current patchwork system creates the risk of egregious breaches of the public trust.

In 2009, Congress asked for the organizational conflict of interest rules to be reassessed. Draft rules were issued, but the reform effort was eventually abandoned, and the rules were never finalized.

This bill requires the revisions that were then started to be completed. This bill would also mandate that rules on government contractor conflicts are thoroughly revised and ensure that there is a uniform set of standards.

These reforms will help government contractors as well by ensuring clarity

and consistency across the executive branch. This is especially beneficial to contractors working for multiple agencies.

It is outrageous that a contractor would be allowed to advise government regulators at the same time they are advising the industry that is being regulated.

If we do not take steps to prevent conflicts of interest, and thereby safeguard the integrity of government decisionmaking and operations, then we risk potentially serious breaches in the public trust.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly on the work we have done on oversight on the opioid crisis, in this case specifically on the role that McKinsey & Company played in, unfortunately, the tragedy that has been the opioid epidemic that led us to introducing this bill for greater oversight.

I will start by saying this is something that, for me, Chairwoman Maloney and some of my colleagues on both sides expressed a great deal of passion for.

We had hearings on the opioid epidemic and the role of some of these agencies, including requiring the chairman of Johnson & Johnson to come to testify in front of the committee. The committee spent a good deal of time, and I know that there was concern across the aisle, given the devastation that this epidemic has caused.

This particular initiative is directed at some of the things that were the most egregious part of what happened to the American public who suffered under the abuses of the opioid epidemic.

In this case, McKinsey was a contractor for the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and other people who were making money off of this well-told tragedy of how they were inducing people to be addicted to the drug that was supposed to be relieving their pain.

The contractors play a critical role in supporting the Federal workforce and giving advice to government functions. These are contractors for which this initiative, this bill, would try to make sure the rules were clearer. It would help them, as well.

Taxpayers need to know that work is done ethically and transparently. Unfortunately, loopholes allow contractors, which this initiative, this bill, attempts to close or will close, to advise private-sector clients and the Federal Government at the same time. I think anyone would agree that that is a conflict of interest.

The most notorious example was what I just referred to, this conflict of interest playing out with McKinsey & Company's work on Perdue Pharma's roadmap, in this case, to ``turbocharge'' opioid sales. They were giving them advice on how to turbocharge an addictive drug that was causing devastation across this country.

One of the things that led me into this discussion was, when I was in the legislature in California, two parents separately brought tragic cases of how their kids had lost their lives because of this.

The conflict of interest fueled the opioid crisis that has claimed hundreds of thousands of American lives.

I am grateful and proud of the work that I was able to do with a former chair, Elijah Cummings, who had great passion for this and opening the committee's investigation of Perdue Pharma specifically. I am grateful to current Chair Maloney for continuing this work.

A vote to pass this bipartisan bill today will send it to the President's desk and will bring much-needed transparency to Federal contracting and help to address some of the things that led to the opioid crisis epidemic in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 3905, the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act, for the simple reason that it is unnecessary legislation.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation already contains provisions targeting conflicts of interest. The FAR includes specific examples of what is a conflict of interest. The FAR includes guidance for agencies to add contract clauses addressing conflicts that might arise.

Therefore, it seems we are telling the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council, the body responsible for Federal acquisition policy, to do something it is already doing.

As a result, this legislation will cause the FAR Council to do work it does not need to be doing, but they will surely feel compelled to produce something in the way of new regulations. That means it will become even more difficult for companies to do business with the Federal Government, and it is complicated enough as it is.

There are concerns that companies, especially small businesses, are deciding not to do business with the Federal Government because it is just too complicated.

From a process perspective, Oversight Committee Democrats marked up this bill without any hearings with relevant agency officials to determine if this legislation was truly necessary. My Democrat committee colleagues may point to their report regarding one specific company of concern and argue that was proof enough that we need to legislate in this already crowded space, but a simple case study is not a solid foundation for governmentwide legislation impacting all Federal contractors.

If there are issues with agencies enforcing existing conflicts of interest requirements, then Congress needs to conduct oversight over that Federal Government failure, not rush to pass more duplicative laws. In fact, that would be the responsibility of the Oversight Committee, which I could argue has not been doing proper oversight over the past couple of years.

There may be other anecdotes about conflicts of interest, but let's be clear: No matter what we do, there will always be accusations of conflicts of interest.

Republicans oppose conflicts of interest, but we also support responsible legislating. We also support holding those who are not following the current law or regulation accountable, rather than passing new laws.

With this bill, the most likely outcome is unnecessary work and a more complicated Federal procurement process. It will burden businesses and shrink the pool of eligible contractors, not reduce conflicts of interest.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this unnecessary, duplicative legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, despite addressing a valid concern, this legislation is simply unnecessary. Federal contractors are already supposed to provide impartial and objective assistance to Federal clients.

The risks of conflicts of interest are addressed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. I am confident the American taxpayer and our national interests are already protected in this area of Federal procurement policy.

I know the gentleman mentioned opioids and a drug crisis. That is a concern for all Americans, but so is all the fentanyl that is killing Americans coming across our southern border.

I would hope my colleagues would force the administration to close our southern border and make sure these illegal drugs aren't coming over and killing Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we oppose this bill, which would burden companies, both large and small, that want to do business with the Federal Government, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it should be--and already is--illegal for people who are providing this guidance and service to misrepresent things under the False Claims Act. So it is our understanding that it is already a crime to do that, and they would be held accountable.

I know the gentlewoman said it should be a crime. It already is, and I don't know anywhere in the bill that it adds to that. So it should be a crime. People should not be doing things inappropriately. But as I mentioned, we already have the FAR that takes care of making sure people are doing the right things.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unnecessary bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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