Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, it is apparently Groundhog Day in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Today, just like the last day we debated a bill in the Oversight and Reform Committee's jurisdiction, Americans continue to face sky-high inflation, painfully high gas prices, and supply chain shortages.

Americans continue to face the consequences of a broken border that allow fentanyl shipments to flood in and kill our teens, along with a host of other urgent problems. They continue to look to this Congress for help with these real and pressing crises.

Yet, what are Democrats prioritizing instead of addressing these issues during one of the last legislative weeks of this session? Another bill that insulates Federal bureaucracy from accountability. This time the bill is Representative Connolly's Preventing a Patronage System Act.

This is just another Democrat bill that has nothing to do with the American people's priorities. What is the problem the bill tries to address? The Democrats' bill seeks to prevent future Presidents making Federal employees more accountable to the American people whom they serve.

Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a massive, unelected, unaccountable Federal Government with the power to create policies that impact Americans' everyday lives. But that is currently the state of today's Federal bureaucracy.

President Trump sought to take on this bureaucracy and restore power to the people by draining the swamp. He issued an executive order in October 2020 to help make Federal bureaucrats who have the ability to create and implement policy more accountable for their actions.

We should all be in favor of policies making it easier to remove civil servants who refuse to follow the will of the voters. That is what President Trump's executive order did.

Democrats are beholden to the Federal bureaucracy--a workforce who thinks they know better than the American people. They are wrong. Democrats have made every effort to preserve bureaucrats' ability to thwart the policies of any President who tries to implement policies to reign in the expansive influence of the Federal Government over the daily lives of Americans.

This bill is contrary to the American way of government--of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The bill's sponsors allege it is a bill that prevents a return to the patronage system instituted in the 19th century. That is simply not true. President Trump never attempted to return to a patronage system. Just the opposite.

Instead of instituting a new patronage system, President Trump simply made it easier to discipline or remove civil service officials in our government's policymaking roles.

These influential Federal employees should not be allowed to chronically underperform or actively undermine the work of their politically accountable superiors.

If you support an efficient and effective executive branch that is accountable to the American voters, then you must oppose H.R. 302.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to what my friend, Mr. Connolly, just said. This schedule F has been grossly mischaracterized by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I want to relay a scenario. Let's say, Mr. Speaker, that this year were a Presidential election year. Let's say that gas prices were an issue in the election. One Presidential candidate campaigns on: We are going to lower the price of gasoline at the pump significantly. We are going to lower it to the price it was when President Trump was in office. The other Presidential candidate campaigns, and says: No, we are going to convert everything to electric vehicles, and everything is going to be fine.

I would say in that scenario the candidate who says they are going to lower gas prices is going to win overwhelmingly because this is one of the biggest issues in America right now.

Fast-forward to the administration. The President comes in, and he says: We are going to lower gas prices because we are going to issue more permits and we are going to reduce the barriers and roadblocks that the previous administration put in to block the American energy companies. He orders that. He has got a mandate from the people on that issue.

The bureaucrats then say: No. No. We are not going to issue more permits. No. We are going to make it even harder. You can't frack and you can't drill. I don't care what the American people said at the voting box. I am Mr. Bureaucrat, and no, we are not going to do it.

That is why we need schedule F employees because the unelected bureaucrats are not accountable to the American people. We have got a scenario here in Washington, D.C. where the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats are calling the shots, regardless of the will of the American people. That is why we support President Trump's proposal for the schedule F employees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished majority leader quoting the Constitution's constitutional role of Congress in making policy.

I will remind my friend, the majority leader, that it is Congress' role to appropriate money, not the President. And that is why we should have oversight hearings on the $300 billion student loan bailout proposal that the President unconstitutionally proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

The U.S. House of Representatives needs to concentrate its energy on helping Americans survive economic turmoil and defending our borders and national security.

I once again 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 affecting the crises that every American is facing today. That is our constitutional responsibility. But instead, today, we are once again spending valuable resources and time on divisive political messaging legislation.

I think if any American was watching this committee hearing today, they would share the frustration of those of us on this side of the aisle who are trying to drain the swamp, who are trying to hold unelectable, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats who refuse to do their jobs accountable. That is part of the job of Congress.

This bureaucracy gets bigger every Congress. I have noticed, with the exception of one speaker, all the speakers on the other side of the aisle who spoke in favor of this bill represent the Washington, D.C. Federal bureaucracy workforce.

The majority of Congress, we represent America, and America wants to hold poor-performing government employees, bureaucrats, who are paid with their hard-earned tax dollars, accountable. That is why the Republicans oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment offered by my friend, Representative Hice.

President Trump took needed steps to ensure civil servants serve the American people, not their own interests. One of President Biden's first actions was to undo these needed reforms.

Representative Connolly introduced this bill, even before President Biden was sworn in, to overturn President Trump's action and to prevent any future President from reinstating them.

Obviously, the Biden administration has a radically different view of the Federal workforce than President Trump did, one that House Republicans strongly disagree with.

This amendment would simply ensure that a future President could reinstate a policy similar to schedule F to allow for more accountability within the career civil service. We should not tie the hands of a future duly-elected President to implement the clear mandates of the American people.

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. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, Americans continue to face several crises created by the Biden administration: Sky-high inflation, painfully high gas prices, and supply chain shortages.

President Biden's border crisis is allowing waves of illegal immigrants and fentanyl shipments to flood across our southern border.

Our children are suffering from historic learning losses and a mental health crisis because this administration allowed radical teachers unions to keep schools closed.

Yet what are Democrats prioritizing today instead of these crises impacting Americans' everyday lives? The Democrats' Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act.

This bill has nothing to do with the American people's priorities. In fact, it will do nothing to make the Census more fair and accurate. Instead, it places a great deal of power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and hamstrings future Presidents.

During the prior Census, the President sought to include in the Census a question simply asking respondents whether they were American citizens. The Supreme Court found this was constitutional but that the Census Bureau had gone about it improperly.

This bill would prevent the inclusion of such a question in the future, a question key to upholding the principle of one citizen, one vote.

Now, under the Biden administration, there are questions about whether the Department of Commerce delivered accurate apportionment results derived from the Census. Those results were critical because they determined the apportionment of this body's 435 congressional districts among the several States. We still don't know for sure whether the apportionment results were fair and accurate.

But this bill does nothing to fix that problem or any of the other real problems associated with the 2020 Census. Indeed, it will make it easier for future Census results to drive the apportionment of congressional districts unfairly to favor blue, Democrat-leaning States over red, Republican-leaning States.

Why is that?

Because the bill weakens the accountability of the Census Bureau to the President and the Secretary of Commerce, committing by statute all operational, statistical, and technical decisions about the Census to the Census Bureau's Director.

The bill makes it harder to overrule the Director even when the President, the Secretary, or Congress are concerned, the Director's decisions will yield an unfair or inaccurate Census.

Making matters worse, the bill allows only an unaccountable career employee to serve as acting director when no Senate-confirmed director is in place.

Finally, the bill severely constrains the ability of future Censuses to include important new questions, such as the citizenship question, which a majority of Americans want asked on the Census.

But it is precisely the counting of actual citizens that ensures Census results will produce congressional districts fairly, representing all citizens in Congress.

During the Oversight and Reform Committee's consideration of this bill, Republicans offered amendments that would have cured these problems. These amendments would have made sure Census Bureau officials remained accountable to the voters through the President. They would have made sure a question on citizenship would have been included in future Censuses, guaranteeing a fair basis for the apportionment of congressional districts.

But were Democrats concerned then about ensuring a fair and accurate Census by supporting these amendments? No. Democrats voted them down on a party-line vote.

Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better from this legislative body. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

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. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the en bloc package of amendments offered by Chairwoman Maloney.

Specifically, I am opposed to the amendments offered by Representative Jackson Lee and Representative Case and will address them each.

First, Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment requires the Deputy Director of the Census to appoint a new employee within the Census Bureau whose sole responsibility is to, ``optimize racial and ethnic equity in the decennial Census population.''

The core mission of the Census Bureau, as it already stands, is to conduct an accurate count of all people residing in the United States on Census day when the decennial Census is being conducted.

This is the mission for every employee who works on the Census. This new position is completely unnecessary and redundant of the Census Bureau's preexisting mission to count everyone in the United States regardless of their race or ethnicity.

Because this amendment appears to be an attempt to inject identity politics into the Census Bureau's work, and because it would duplicate efforts already underway at the Census Bureau, I must oppose.

I turn to Representative Case's amendment, which requires the Census Bureau to create and submit yet another report to Congress, but it fails to require the Census Bureau to actually do anything substantive to improve.

The Census Bureau already conducts extensive engagement campaigns with local jurisdictions to ensure an accurate count of all people during the decennial Census. This report would require the Census Bureau to outline additional processes for engaging with local jurisdictions.

The amendment would also require that the Census Bureau report to Congress on progress in implementing open GAO recommendations, but it does not outline any deadlines for implementing those open recommendations.

Finally, the amendment contains an open-ended invitation for the Census Bureau to ask for ``additional resources.'' This is Washington speak to throw even more taxpayer money at the Census Bureau in the near future.

I fear this amendment will merely waste precious Census Bureau time and resources with an additional report with the sole purpose of justifying future taxpayer expenditures.

Therefore, I must oppose both of these amendments.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

Madam Speaker, the amendment admits that the ultimate purpose of this bill is to steer taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to yet another demographic subgroup.

The amendment requires GAO to report on how the bill will impact Federal agency provision of services to individuals--in other words, how Federal

grant programs and financial assistance will be provided based on people's sexual orientation and gender identity.

House Republicans believe that all Americans deserve equal treatment and respect. In fact, that is guaranteed under our Constitution. We oppose the continual dividing of Americans for political purposes. This amendment is pure identity politics and an abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Madam Speaker, I have become increasingly concerned that the consolidation and monopolistic nature of pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs has negatively impacted competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace, leading Americans to spend more on prescription drugs than any

other country. These PBMs not only raise patient costs but are potentially engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

The legislation before us today includes language requiring PBMs to issue reports to employer sponsors of health plans outlining information that they have been unwilling to provide to their customers, including copays applied by insurers to drug manufacturer costs, rebates received from manufacturers, and the PBM's rationale for choosing certain brand name drugs over more affordable biosimilars, generics, or therapeutics for their formularies.

Simply providing this information to the participants in group health plans is expected to save over $2 billion over 10 years. These biannual, employer or sponsor-specific reports will allow participants in group health plans to make informed decisions about the services their PBM is providing and reduce patient costs for prescription drugs.

We cannot have a serious conversation about lowering drug prices in America without examining PBMs' ever-growing influence.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of former State representative Wilson Stone. Wilson was a passionate public servant who spent his career fighting for Kentucky.

Wilson served as State representative of the Kentucky General Assembly for 12 years. During his time, he served as chairman of the State House Agriculture Committee and pursued meaningful improvements to Kentucky's public education system. I had the honor of serving in the State House with Wilson Stone.

Before serving in the State legislature, Wilson was an influential member of the Allen County Board of Education. It is a position he held for a remarkable 24 years.

In the spare time that he did have, Wilson was a farmer. Wilson was a true leader with a sincere drive to improve Kentucky.

On behalf of the First Congressional District, I send my sincerest condolences to Wilson's family, friends, and neighbors. His life touched many, and our Commonwealth is better off because of his service.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Russell County High School baseball team, the Kentucky State High School runners-up. Their head coach, David Rexroat, has led the Lakers baseball team since 2002. He is the all-time winningest baseball coach at Russell County, and he was recently inducted into the Kentucky High School Baseball Coaches Hall of Fame.

Russell County began their journey to the State tournament by winning the 16th District baseball tournament, which includes my home school of Monroe County. They have won the 16th District 9 of the last 10 years. They won the region, the 4th Region in Bowling Green, and went on to Louisville to the State. They made it all the way to the State finals, to the State championship game.

The Russell County Lakers baseball team had nine seniors on that team that had played together most of their lives. They finished the season 31-7, the most wins in Russell County school history.

Madam Speaker, that State championship game was in Louisville, Kentucky, against St. Xavier, which is one of the largest high schools in the State. It is about a 2\1/2\ hour drive from Russell County to Louisville. Ninety-five percent of the crowd was from the small county of Russell County. This community is proud of this baseball team and their great accomplishment. I commend them for a tremendous baseball season.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the mayor of Mayfield, Kathy O'Nan, for all she has done for her community in the wake of last December's tornado damage.

In a nod to her recovery efforts, Mayor O'Nan was recently named Woman of the Year by the Mayfield-Graves County Chamber of Commerce. I can think of no one more deserving of this high honor.

When the storms hit, the mayor led by example in getting her community back on its feet. She was there for her citizens when they needed her the most, and she continues to work tirelessly to bring all parties together to rebuild the proud community of Mayfield.

A role model to many, she has embodied servant leadership during her time in office, a tenure largely defined by persevering through tragedy.

When the eyes of the world were on Mayfield, Kentucky, Mayor O'Nan stepped up to the plate and delivered the leadership and empathy that west Kentucky needed. I am proud to represent her in Congress, and I look forward to working with her as Graves County rebuilds.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6531, directs the Office of Management and Budget to lead a government-wide effort to review the share of Federal funds addressing poverty across agencies. Specifically, OMB must issue guidance to Federal agencies to increase the share of Federal investments targeting to areas of high and persistent poverty.

Additionally, the bill directs the Census Bureau to annually publish a list of all persistent poverty areas. The legislation intends to produce a consistent listing of areas of persistent poverty for agencies to use in determining funding allocations.

The Federal Government currently spends an enormous amount of taxpayer funds on low-income populations. You may ask: Exactly how much taxpayer funds does the Government spend on low-income populations? Well, I can tell you from being a minority member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee that I can't get you that answer because the Democrats on the Oversight and Reform Committee have produced absolutely zero oversight during the entire Biden administration.

Despite the excessive spending on that side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, we have had basically zero oversight of taxpayer funds on the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

That is important that such funding decisions appropriately balance the needs of rural communities across America that have been left behind and are experiencing prolonged struggles with poverty.

Again, I want to remind my friends across the aisle that those of us on this side of the aisle believe that the best way to get out of poverty is to create an environment where people living in poverty have access to good-paying jobs.

But the old model that is the government model that continues to be espoused by my friends on the other side of the aisle is more government programs to help those who currently reside in poverty.

Madam Speaker, that is a summary of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I have pretty much summarized the bill in my opening statement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise with a heavy heart to commemorate the life of the late Jody Cash, a Calloway County Sheriff's deputy and former Kentucky State Police officer who died in the line of duty yesterday.

Mr. Cash was a distinguished law enforcement officer in west Kentucky. His high-level accomplishments and rise through the police ranks were a testament to his tremendous leadership abilities. But even more importantly, he truly cared about everyone.

When the nearby town of Mayfield was hit by a devastating tornado last December, he made daily visits to the scene to help out other first responders with whatever they needed. No job was too big or too small.

That was Jody Cash. Even though it wasn't his patrol area, he wanted to help. He cared about his friends and his neighbors.

On behalf of Kentucky's First Congressional District, my condolences are with Mr. Cash's family, and we mourn the loss of a brave public servant gone far too soon.

Madam Speaker, I stand today to honor and celebrate the 150th anniversary of the small town of Summer Shade, Kentucky in Metcalfe County.

Home to just a few hundred people in the southwestern comer of Metcalfe County, Summer Shade is known for its strong sense of community spirit. Its unique name is thought to be derived from the large trees that once protected the town from nearby wildlife.

With loyal, hard-working locals and a town full of character and tradition, Summer Shade is a prime example of the values that our state and country stand for.

A rural and close-knit community at heart, Summer Shade is marked by its beautiful land and caring citizens.

As this town commemorates 150 years of establishment, I want to thank the citizens of Summer Shade for their patriotism and community pride. I am honored to represent them in Congress, and fight for the values that we hold dear.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my very dear friend, Bill Jones, of Paducah, Kentucky, upon his retirement from U.S. Bank. Over his 37 years with U.S. Bank, Bill took on numerous leadership posts with the company and thrived in each role.

His time in the financial business totaled 45 years and spanned significant changes in industry operations. As a leader, he was frequently forced to adjust to modern trends to ensure customer needs were met. And time and time again he has passed that leadership test with flying colors.

In addition to his work in the banking industry, he has also served his community in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on numerous boards, including Kentucky Educational Television, Mercy Health Hospital, and other commissions geared toward economic development.

As someone who has spent a lot of time in the banking industry myself, I know that the industry is better off thanks to Bill's contributions and leadership.

Bill Jones is a west Kentucky legend. On behalf of all the residents of the First Congressional District of Kentucky, I wish Bill Jones a very happy retirement.