Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I echo the remarks of the chairman of this committee. The American public, I think, would be…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I echo the remarks of the chairman of this committee. The American public, I think, would be pleased and say: Look, this is how it ought to work.
Mr. Womack and I have great respect for one another. We are great friends and have been long before we were chair and ranking member on this subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee. He is a person of great integrity, great insight, and a great work ethic. He is somebody who the House can be proud of. He is somebody whom I hold, as he said of me, as a dear friend.
I also want to echo his comments about the staff. The public doesn't see the staff for the most part as, frankly, they don't see the overwhelming majority of Federal employees who are not known to the general public. There is a tendency to talk about bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is used as a pejorative term and not as a descriptive term, and that is unfortunate because the overwhelming--overwhelming-- majority of Federal employees carry out their duties with great fidelity to their responsibilities and to the American people. So this bill is not the bill that, for the most part, most people focus on.
Nevertheless, it is one of the most important bills that we consider because all 11 other appropriation bills are reliant on the collections made through this bill, and that is why I think it is so critical.
Mr. Chairman, every Member of this House ought to make it their goal to preserve America's fiscal health.
Sharing that common goal, President Biden, Speaker McCarthy and 149 Republicans, and 165 Democrats--314 people, which is 75 percent essentially of this House--agreed on a plan of going forward.
The first thing you do on a plan, Mr. Chair, is to decide how much are we going to spend?
The President had a higher level, and some in this House and the Senate had a lower level. Speaker McCarthy and President Biden came together, and they agreed on a spending level. That is what we call, if we had done it through the regular order, a 302(a) allocation. In other words, it is what we are going to spend on the discretionary side of the ledger, which, by the way, is smaller than the mandatory side.
We did that. We adopted that bill, as I said, with over 300 votes. Unfortunately, a week later that agreement was broken by the Republican side of the aisle in saying: No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to follow that agreement. We are going to fund at a much lesser level.
Now, the problem with that is Republican and Democratic Members of the Senate pursued under that agreement, and so they are literally billions of dollars different than we will be when these 12 bills, assuming we pass these 12 bills, are sent over to the Senate.
There are some in this House who have a theory that, well, that gives us the opportunity to negotiate for more numbers. The problem with negotiating for more numbers is that nobody believes they are real.
That is not true. Some do. Some do. Some few in this body believe this is real and that they are going to somehow leverage these numbers and force the Senate and the President to do what they want them to do. The President of the United States and his administration have issued a veto threat on this bill if it were to be adopted. They are not going to have to exercise that veto because this bill is not going to be adopted.
Nevertheless, I will tell you, Mr. Chair, if Mr. Womack and I were left to our own devices--and he has a different perspective than I do, and that is what makes this body work--then we would come to an agreement that we think would pass the Senate and be signed by the President.
Why?
It is because we would do what in a democracy you have to do, Mr. Chair. We would come together and compromise, realizing full well that we
have a Democratic President, a Democratic-controlled Senate, and a Republican almost majority. It is an absolute majority. I understand that politically. Nonetheless, it is not a majority that can always hold together, and; therefore, it can't always effect the policies that it knows are reasonable and can be adopted.
Now, I said at the beginning that we ought to preserve America's fiscal health, and I believe that sincerely. The deal that we made, 67 percent of House Republicans voted for it. That bill that we have before us does not honor that agreement. As I said, it does not establish a foundation, really, for negotiation. It does nothing to avert the shutdown looming just a few days from today.
Crucially, it will increase the deficit over time, and I will explain why. In fact, this legislation severely undermines the government's ability to lower the deficit and to uphold the law of the land. It defunds crucial agencies that enforce laws, regulations, and rules established to protect the American people, American families, and America's children.
Those cuts include the FTC, the SEC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Election Assistance Commission, and the FCC. This is essentially saying to Americans: You are on your own. We are going to reduce oversight.
This bill defends justice, if you will. It dramatically cuts funding for the Federal public defender program which helps ensure every American can exercise their constitutional right to an attorney.
Other law enforcement agencies face dire cuts under this legislation. Among them, Mr. Chair, is the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. We hear a lot about fentanyl, we hear a lot about money laundering, and we hear a lot about the drug cartels making a lot of money.
Mr. Chair, we created the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, otherwise known as FinCEN, for the specific purpose of following the money. That is how Willie Sutton, obviously, got caught: tax evasion. Follow the money. We have undermined that premise in this bill.
We then decrease the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
Terrorism is one of the great challenges of our time, and what do we do?
We decrease the agencies that are charged with overseeing that, among other agencies.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy, now you would think, Mr. Chair, given the expression that all of us have and concern we have about fentanyl, drug abuse, and drug deaths in this country, that we would beef up that office to make sure that we can, in fact, confront this scourge on our people and our country. No. We cut it.
The emergency planning and security costs in this city, the Capital City, to which millions of our constituents come, are reduced.
In total, this bill cuts $345 million, or 6.2 percent, below the enacted for crucial law enforcement agencies. It provides $1.32 billion, or 20.2 percent, less for law enforcement than what President Biden requested in his Office.
Mr. Chair, in that context, I would ask: Who is defunding the police?
Yet, Republicans have the nerve, frankly--not my chairman--some Republicans have the nerve to accuse Democrats of trying to defund law enforcement.
Paring back enforcement has dire consequences for the deficit, as well, Mr. Chair. This legislation is the latest salvo in some Republicans' long campaign to defund the Internal Revenue Service. The number of annual tax returns, Mr. Chair, increased from 140.1 million in 1979 to 269 million in 2021. That is a 92 percent increase in workload.
So what is our response?
It is over the years to reduce from 85,000 people in 1979 trying to handle this extraordinary workload to in 2021 78,661. This is an 8 percent decrease while a 92 percent workload increase occurred. That means refunds get delayed, returns aren't audited, owed taxes go uncollected, tax cheats and lawbreakers are not held accountable, and our debt grows even bigger.
Mr. Chair, if you are a business trying to get the revenue you are owed, frankly, you don't fire the collection department. If you had bad debts, you would go after them. This bill does just that. It cuts the collection department.
Contrary to Republican claims, this issue isn't about raising taxes on anyone. My friend, the majority leader, opined on this floor that these agents were going to raise people's taxes. Those agents can't raise anybody's taxes. The only people who can raise or lower taxes are the people who sit in this body and across the Hall and the President of the United States. No agent can do that.
All the agents can do is collect what is owed under the laws that we passed. Those agents instead ensure that we each pay the share we legally owe, and they go after the cheats and lawbreakers who don't.
If you are for law and order, that is what you are for. If people cheat, if people break the law, you hold them accountable. If you are going to hold them accountable, you need the personnel to do so because some of them have scads of lawyers and accountants and very complicated returns of thousands of pages.
Too often, those lawbreakers are Americans with a lot of wealth and complex tax files. I am not talking about the overwhelming majority of Americans whose taxes are withheld on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly basis. I am talking about the select few who use passthroughs, shell companies, and offshore accounts to shield their vast wealth from taxation. I don't want them to pay any more than is owed, and I don't have any beef against anybody who is wealthy. What I have beef against is people who cheat and cheat their country.
Harvard and Treasury experts found that there is a 12-to-1 return on investment for IRS enforcement of the top 10 percent of earners. If you spend $1, you get $12 back. That is a pretty good deal, and it makes a real difference.
Years of budget and staffing cuts have limited the IRS' ability to conduct these complex audits because they are extraordinarily time consuming and complex.
Millionaires were 88 percent less likely to face an audit in fiscal year 2022 than they were in fiscal year 2010. That is an almost 100 percent reduction, from essentially $9-plus to $1. The result is a backdoor tax cut, but only for those with the means and guile to exploit accounting tricks to hide profits, income, and, in the end, tax obligation. They have a duty to support their country, the national security, and the healthcare investments we make in Medicare and Social Security.
This bill includes a 22.2 percent cut below the request for IRS enforcement. My chairman will correctly observe that the other items he will point out have been held relatively harmless. It is only the collection department that was cut.
By the way, a recent article from just last month pointed out that the IRS now estimates that there is $688 billion in unpaid taxes. Let's think of what that would do to the deficit over time if you collected the money that was due, not that you are increasing, but that was due. That is a disservice to hardworking Americans who patriotically and conscientiously pay their taxes.
This bill defunds those agencies of government that keep us safe, with a cut below the enacted of $9.6 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which I talked about; $24.2 million for FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; and $9.2 million for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence that confronts terrorism everywhere you find it.
It disrupts the agencies that ensure the products we buy and the markets we invest in aren't overrun with fraud by undermining the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
By cutting the Consumer Products Safety Commission, it makes it very hard for consumers, Mr. Chair, to make the determination of: Is this product safe? Has it been tested? They rely on us to make sure that, yes, it has been tested and that, yes, it is safe so it won't hurt or kill their children.
They are cutting the SEC by $149 million, which disrupts the markets if people don't trust them. You didn't have an overseer in 1920. Now, you have an overseer, and people have much more trust because of that overseer.
It hampers the agencies that make those who try to get one over on the rest of us think twice and that hold these people accountable with a cut of $7 million to the FEC, $53 million to the Federal Trade Commission, and $8 million to the Federal Communications Commission, which, by the way, in part is responsible for making sure we don't get all those junk calls all the time that annoy the living daylights out of all of us.
These are just some of the cuts. If Republicans want to be the party of fiscal responsibility, if they want to be the party of law enforcement, they need to shelve this bill.
They know this legislation will never become law. They have loaded it with partisan poison pills, which I have not spoken of but that I am sure will be spoken of during the course of this, such as undermining a woman's right to choose.
I am sure that everybody saw what happened in Ohio yesterday. Ohio, for the most part, has been a red State, but it overwhelmingly said a woman's right to choose needs to be protected. They believed in that so much that they are going to put it in the Ohio Constitution.
This bill has been loaded with partisan poison pills designed to varnish American history. We don't want to talk about slavery. We don't want to make anybody feel bad about what their country did to people because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. This bill undermines diversity, equity, and inclusion and exacerbates the climate crisis.
Mr. Chair, we will talk about a lot of this bill for the next few hours. I hope it is a few hours, not more than that. I think the chair and I will try to achieve that objective.
We ought to stop this nonsense. We are going to have a lot of amendments to reduce salaries to $1. That is not a serious Congress. It is not a serious Rules Committee to have 55 amendments reducing salaries to $1.
The only ones that have been approved have been approved by a voice vote. Every other one has been defeated, yet we keep dealing with these silly amendments while we undermine America's ability to collect the revenues it needs to protect the American people, play our role throughout the international community, and make America a safer and greater country.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished former chair and current ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me say I am sympathetic to the issue that the appropriations committee needs to conduct oversight, but I will tell everybody in this Chamber and those who are watching, this matter was a subject of very serious debate and resolution, and the resolution was we wanted to keep this agency independent and free of any political pressure.
It was adopted on that basis by the House and the Senate and signed by the President of the United States. It is now the subject of a Supreme Court hearing.
This is authorizing in the extreme an appropriation bill which, but for the waiver that was issued by the Rules Committee, a point of order would be applicable and would not be considered.
I suggest that this is an authorizing matter. It is a matter that the Financial Services Committee needs to be seized of and report the gentleman's legislation out to the floor and that ought to be considered in the regular order.
This is not the regular order for a major authorizing change, which was very controversial at the time it was raised, and it was passed to make sure that consumers are, in fact, protected and insulated from political pressure.
Therefore, at such time, I will support an amendment to take this from the bill.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), my friend.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask the chair if he has any more speakers?
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Number one on this issue--it is pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can decide whether it is constitutional or not. We can't decide whether something is constitutional or not. Ultimately the Supreme Court decides that.
We pass laws, and we certainly hope and expect them to be constitutional. I would, again, reiterate my opposition to the gentleman's amendment on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say this bill underfunds the most important aspect of the Federal Government, and that is collecting the revenues to run it in a balanced way. It undermines that effort. I urge opposition to the bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment, of course, is an add and subtract and will have no fiscal impact, and the policies do bear problems on this side of the aisle as to the implications they may have.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, I recognize my friend and thank him once again for his courtesy on the floor. I reluctantly oppose his amendment.
The United States Postal Service is a service. Every one of us knows that there are some of the facilities that serve rural areas, in particular, that on a cost basis would not be there if it were not a service and we did not deem the rural areas needing service. Therefore, it is across the enterprise itself that we are looking at their finances.
Therefore, to put the United States Post Office to the pretty extensive analytical chore of determining each post office, particularly in rural areas--now, I represent some rural and some suburban, but I think this would be a burden and add paperwork without giving us a result.
When I say not giving us a result, Mr. Chair, let us say that post office A, B, and C were making a profit and D, E, and F, if you look at the unit, that is the single post office, were not making a profit, but nevertheless that neighborhood needs to be served. It is the overall profit or loss of the postal department providing the service to all Americans that I think is the criteria that we ought to be looking at.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, this is a continuation of the majority party's contention that there are these thousands of agents that are going to be at your door armed to the teeth and ready to intimidate you.
That is not true. It is a good political scenario, but it is again the demonizing of people who are trying to catch tax cheats, tax dodgers, criminals, drug dealers, and others; many of whom are very dangerous people and who are very heavily armed themselves.
This is a defund the police argument that the Republicans are making. Why?
Because they want to somehow intimidate.
Frankly, I don't care much about getting this information. I think this information is certainly worthwhile having. It is not worthwhile in terms of its intent to continue ad nauseam and contend something that is not true.
Most of the agents that are going to be hired and have been hired are accountants, tax attorneys, and investigators to go through these voluminous tax returns that are filed by corporations and individuals.
We could have included this in the report language. This is an add-in and then add-out language. It has no fiscal impact. It is unnecessary.
Here we are some 10 days from the close-down of government. We are spending time on a number of these amendments, some of which votes have been asked for, while we twiddle our thumbs until February 17, without having resolved that issue.
I think it is unfortunate that we continue to misrepresent to the American public that we are trying to make sure that people who do not pay their taxes do not put a greater burden on patriotic Americans-- small, medium, and large--who do pay their taxes, and to somehow give this misnomer or mischaracterization or misinformation that somehow, as they have said over and over again, these armed 87,000 agents-- absolutely untrue--are going to be at somebody's door trying to collect their taxes.
We are trying to collect taxes from some pretty bad people. The agents we asked to do that work are doing it for their country and putting themselves in harm's way.
Some assertion that somehow the IRS has become an army of agents showing up at doors with machine guns is absolutely wrong. I hear it all the time.
Apparently, it makes good politics. Apparently, some don't believe that people ought to pay their fair share of taxes, that drug dealers who try to hide their money ought to not have somebody come to their door or come to their place of illegal business and say: You are a lawbreaker. You are a criminal. You owe us and the American people money, legally. You are doing it illegally and avoiding your taxes.
I hope that this aspersion that somehow the IRS has become this armed army that is assaulting the American people is retracted by those who, for political purposes, continue to spew this argument. It is not fair to those people we ask to conduct the law enforcement business of America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I can assure my friend, I understood the proximity of the date being this month on November 17.
Mr. Chair, if I said February, I thank the gentleman for correcting me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I adopt not only his premise that we have language in the bill that was fully debated in committee that will achieve the knowledge that we need.
In addition, I would reiterate, we need to respect law enforcement-- whether it is called IRS agents--because people are breaking the law. For whatever reasons, people who are tax cheats or drug dealers laundering money or some ilk like that, any dangerous group of people, particularly when they have got criminal gains, are not paying any taxes, although, it is clearly owed.
It is unfortunate that we continue to, A, defund those folks and limit them. I think the chairman is absolutely right in his objection to this. It demeans the officers who are risking their lives to do the duty that we have given them and they have a sworn responsibility to do.
If they were called the Rolling Heights Police Department, and you said we are going to cap their weapons and do this, I think people on your side of the aisle, with all due respect, would be standing up and saying they are defunding the Rolling Hills Police Department. Isn't that awful?
Because they are called IRS agents who enforce the law, they confront crimes, that somehow they are lesser law enforcement officers and are at lesser risk, I think that is not the case.
Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, I have a credit card in my pocket. It is a piece of plastic, and I am sure that 150 years ago or 100 years ago somebody said: Well, that plastic is not money.
Nonetheless, very frankly, most of us no longer carry significant sums of money because we use our credit cards.
Now, I am not an expert on this. This is an authorizing issue. The authorizers on the Financial Services Committee and the experts who deal with this should be deciding whether we ought to even look at it, and that is what this amendment would preclude, looking at an option.
Now, I am sure it is much more complicated than my simple analogy of a credit card, but I guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, if people 100 years ago were told that you can spend this plastic, they would have said: Are you crazy?
Now, I don't know whether or not Treasury or the Federal Reserve will see something that makes it more efficient and effective to transfer money from one place to another, which is what we do with a credit card. We transfer from our bank not by going to the bank and doing a withdrawal slip, we do it by giving somebody plastic, and they then put it in the system and the system puts my money from my account into the seller's account.
Now, I don't know that that is so simplistic as to be inaccurate, but I do say, Mr. Chairman, that it is putting your head in the sand in a very technological age in which we live in which things may be made more effective, more accurate, and more user-friendly. I don't know the answer to that.
Nevertheless, I certainly don't believe that we ought to say: Don't look at the options.
So I would oppose this amendment. I am sure it is well-meaning, and I certainly believe the gentleman is concerned about what China does, and I don't know exactly what they do. I heard his brief explanation, but the fact of the matter is looking at an option--and the gentleman is correct, we would have to approve that option. We, the Congress of United States, the Representatives of the American people, and the Senate, would have to approve that option, and we would have authority over that because, as he said, that is what the Constitution says.
Nonetheless, not looking at options I don't think is a good policy for this country, for any business, or for any family. Look at your options.
Mr. Chair, I urge us to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Is the gentleman opposed to the working group that now exists?
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Reclaiming my time. First, the gentleman is an expert and knows much more than I do about this. I take that as a given.
Secondly, he is on the authorizing committee. That committee has full authority to do that. He says it wouldn't be in order. It is not authorizing, but it says none of the funds, which means that whatever is going on can't use any funds to do this.
He says it is about creating and not studying. I hear him, but this is an authorizing issue, and it ought to be in the hands and the consideration of the committee of jurisdiction. Apparently, it hasn't moved, which is why the gentleman is now trying to get it through by a backdoor, in effect, of saying none of the funds can be used for the purposes that are ongoing.
So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The CFPB is vital in safeguarding the interests of American consumers.
You are on your own. That is the ongoing message that Americans hear from our Republican colleagues. You are on your own, and we are not going to protect you.
The CFPB serves as an independent agency dedicated to ensuring that financial products and services are fair, transparent, and free from deceptive practices.
Very frankly, we are dealing with trillion-dollar financial institutions. There is no consumer except the most expert who can, on their own, make sure they are getting a fair shake and who can, on their own, make sure they are not getting rolled and make sure that they are not being ripped off.
That is what this agency is supposed to do.
By holding financial institutions accountable, the CFPB protects consumers from predatory lending, fraud, and other forms of financial exploitation.
That is the little guy. That is the little guy who can't do it for himself or
herself and is counting on us to make sure that what is represented to them is, in fact, fair and not, as I said, ripping them off.
The CFPB promotes fair and transparent financial markets by enforcing regulations and consumer protection laws. This oversight helps maintain the integrity of the financial system, fostering trust and confidence among consumers and businesses alike.
If we don't have it, if we zero fund it, then guess what, Mr. Chairman?
Confidence is going to go away.
Guess what, Mr. Chairman?
Financial institutions--some very small, some medium size, the large, maybe they will get away with it, they will be able to sustain themselves--but the financial system will lack confidence, and we know that confidence is critical to the financial community and our economy operating effectively.
The CFPB conducts investigations, issues fines, and enforces compliance to deter companies from engaging in harmful or fraudulent activities, ultimately reducing the risk of financial crises and market instability.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment.
Very frankly, as I have said in the past, in the twenties, we didn't have these--the 1920s, not the 2020s. In the 1920s we didn't have any of these protection agencies. The reason they were created in the thirties was to try to stabilize the markets. Very frankly, we have had an extraordinary market for the most part.
Now, I have been here when we have had some real downturns, and confidence was lost. Nevertheless, if we eliminate CFPB and other like agencies or, frankly, reduce the resources that some agencies like the SEC have to make sure that our markets are safe, secure, and transparent, then our economy is not going to be the kind of economy, frankly, that we want. Very frankly, our economy is not going to be the kind that we have now in terms of a pretty vital, vibrant market creating some 13 million, 14 million jobs over the last 24 months.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is not about politics. This is about our economy, its stability, and the confidence that people have in it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, we had this discussion a little earlier on Mr. Barr's legislation.
This is before the Supreme Court. You are making a representation that this is unconstitutional. You are going to find out the answer to that probably by early summer of next year. We will be in session. We can respond to that.
This is a matter that ought to be considered out of the Financial Services Committee and reported to the floor, and we ought to consider it.
This was not adopted without thought. You may disagree with the conclusion that was arrived at, but it had a lot of discussion. By the way, for those of you who have not been here a long time, it had a conference. You may not know what a conference is, but what a conference is, is we pass legislation, the Senate passes legislation, and they go meet.
We hardly do that anymore, unfortunately. That is sad, in my view. I have been here for a long time, and conferences are good. That is the way the process ought to work, as opposed to just putting something here and zero funding an agency that was created.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, helping the consumer does not seem to be the objective of the amendments that are made to this bill.
My colleagues have heard numerous statements by Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz and others about how the consumer is confronted with extraordinarily complicated and big agencies, and relying on the fact that what is being sold to them or given to them--sold to them, for the most part--is safe to use.
They don't have labs to analyze whether that is the case. They don't have researchers able to understand that. It is not that they are dumb. Somebody said that I thought that they were rubes. That is baloney. I think they are smart, bright people.
They don't have the capacity to really know what is in that product. They can't analyze it. They don't know what toxins may or may not be in it. That is what this agency is about.
This would reduce the Consumer Product Safety Commission's funding below the fiscal year 2019 levels. Well, that was now 5 years ago. We are doing the fiscal year 2024 budget now. It clearly would harm individual consumers who rely on their work, period. It would harm the Commission's ability to halt dangerous imports from China, investigate deaths associated with consumer products, and research emerging hazards.
This cut of $13 million would bring the CPSC's funding level down from its fiscal year 2023 funding level of $153 million to its fiscal year 2019 level of $127 million, a 20 percent reduction.
Well, consumer, you are on your own. That is what the mantra is: Consumer, you are on your own. I hope that the committee chair would oppose this. As you know, these levels are significantly below the President's budget.
Last year, 32 million people sought medical attention for an injury related to a consumer product. Mr. Chair, 32 million people sought redress for an injury related to consumer products. There were an estimated 57,000 deaths in 2021 related to consumer products.
Under this amendment, imports of consumer goods would be significantly slowed. Companies seeking help with recalls would face significant delays, and CPSC's efforts to address the online sale of dangerous recalled products would be greatly harmed.
Consumer, you are on your own. That is unfortunate because the consumer--our constituents, our fellow Americans--needs to have confidence. They need to have confidence in the banking. They need to have confidence in products that are sold to them, so they have the confidence to buy them, to let their children use them, to have them present in their homes and in their businesses, and, yes, even in their cars.
Mr. Chair, I urge us, as protectors of consumers--not Republicans and Democrats, but as people who want to protect consumers--to reject this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me address the gas stoves. That was a sidebar comment. It wasn't anything about taking gas stoves out of people's homes or out of their yard or anything of that nature. It was a political gem that has been seized on by the majority party to pretend somehow that there was an active effort to take away their Weber from their yard.
It is absolutely untrue. It was a sidebar comment by one commissioner about we need to look at gas stoves. It is like defunding the police or the IRS being an army.
Furthermore, this is not a minor cut. This is a 20 percent cut. Not this amendment, but when you add it to that which was reduced in the bill itself, it is a 20 percent cut in protecting consumers. I think that is a pretty big cut. I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have a pro forma amendment at the desk. I rise as the designee of the ranking member.
Mr. Chair, I think my friend has left the floor. Maybe he hasn't left the floor, but let me read this message. They are going to reject it out of hand because it comes from the CPSC. The message says:
For what it is worth, we never proposed a gas stove ban,
period. Total nonsense. We had one commissioner say something
in an interview, and then the chair shot it down, but there
is no staff working on anything like this, no proposal to do
anything like this. Same as saying that Congress is doing
something because one Member of Congress is introducing the
bill.
Defund the police. An army of thousands from the IRS. They ought to stop scaring the American people and giving them misinformation.
That gas stove story is baloney that the gentleman talked about. But it is a really great political talking point they think because the guy with the Weber stove in their yard is going to think the Feds are out to get my Weber. Baloney. However, it is a good talking point because if someone keeps saying a lie over and over and over again, maybe somebody will believe it.
I try to tell the truth when I am on the floor. The Bible tells me the truth shall set you free. Be honest with America.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Perry
Mr. Chair, You are on your own, consumer. You are on your own, Mom. You are on your own, Dad. That is what they said in the 1920s. I keep repeating it: You are on your own. The markets went wild, and they crashed, and millions and millions and millions of people suffered badly.
This bill already cuts FTC, and this amendment brings salaries and expenses down to its fiscal year 2019 levels, that is to say that it cuts in half the complement of employees at the FTC. That is not a nick. That is a you are on your own.
Boy, the pleaders for doing things that are not legitimate, Mr. Chairman, must be a long line. We don't want to be regulated. Now, I am not calling anybody a rube, but I will tell you, maybe you can.
When I go to the gas station and I put the pump on, and the gas goes in, there is not a single way that I can tell whether that product is what they say it is.
Do you know what I rely on, Mr. Chairman? I rely on--both at the State and Federal level--that somebody is checking on that gas to make sure it is not going to blow up my car. I can't do that. I rely on the government to do it, to make sure that I am safe, to make sure my car is not damaged when I pull that pump and some liquid goes into it.
Why do I presume that? Not because the gasoline company says it is, because the gasoline company may have some incentive to, hey, maybe shortchange a little bit of this and shortchange a little bit of that.
If somebody is checking, that incentive is eliminated. Just like when people are checking on making sure you are paying your taxes or doing the speed limit on the road. They think somebody's checking, so they are more likely to do that. They are more likely to pay their taxes.
To the extent that the other side continues to try to nip away at the protections for the consumers and the investors and the purchasers of food and drugs and other items of consumer products, to the extent that we erode that, we are going to erode this economy, and we are going to diminish the quality of life for people and their security.
This agency was reduced significantly by this committee, and this is not just a nick at it. It is a cut of the muscle and the ability to do the job consumers and constituents, we call them, expect it to do for them, their families, and their children. I oppose this amendment and urge its rejection.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Perry says that. I don't say that.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I am going to dignify that with an extensive response. I think the American public are very bright, but they don't have assets.
You may smell the gasoline. You may be an expert on gasoline. I know what gasoline smells like. I put it in my lawn mower. I put it in my chain saw. I put it in my car. I have no idea beyond the smell what is in there.
That is my point. My point is they expect us to be making sure that when that big gas tanker rolls in that gas station and puts that liquid in there that it is something they can use in their car and it won't hurt their car and it won't hurt them. That is my point.
Don't misrepresent my position as saying Americans are dumb. They are not dumb. They are smart. They are smart enough to know that they need somebody checking up on the quality of that gas before they put it in their car.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, this bill urges every Federal agency to return people to the offices, and then where are you? Well, we don't need the offices now, so we can save money.
You can't have it both ways. If you want people to return, you are going to need office space for them, and you are going to need to maintain it.
By the way, operational costs are going to go up and capital costs are certainly going up when you purchase Federal space. Existing Federal space may not be in the right place, and maybe you need to go rent something, as well.
Here, rental space is already cut by $158 million. It is not a nickel-and-dime there. It is a significant decrease. This amendment brings that total down to fiscal year, as has been said, 2019 levels.
I don't know. I haven't read the amendment, so I don't know whether it keeps rental costs down to 2019 levels or construction costs down to 2019 levels or other expenses attributable to the maintenance and acquisition of property. I think it doesn't and, obviously, constitutionally it couldn't do that.
Reducing the revenues without reducing the costs is going to cause, obviously, a very substantial imbalance in the ability of GSA to operate effectively.
This cut would bring the GSA's rental of space funding level down from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2019 $5.4 billion, a 3 percent reduction. It is six times higher than a 0.5 reduction, but, nevertheless, not insignificant.
GSA plays a critical role, as all of us know, in managing Federal real estate procurement and tech services, by the way, including our own offices.
Reduced funding may lead to delays, inefficiencies, and increased costs in government activities. The chairman is not here, but I know that he believed, because that is what he proposed and that is what was adopted, that the appropriate reduction was $158 million.
Now, in addition to that, of course, we had an agreement at 2023 levels, and 149 Republicans voted for that agreement. I don't know whether the gentleman who offered this amendment, Mr. Chairman, was one of them. It doesn't really matter. A large number of us voted for that--314 Members in total.
Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of the Congress voted for a level of funding, which the Senate is doing because they believe that is the appropriate level.
In light of the fact that it has already been reduced very substantially,
I would strongly oppose this amendment and urge the Congress to reject it and the House to reject it.
Remember, they have office space, and they are worried about their own office space either as rented in the private sector or in public buildings. They pay an offset in the public buildings.
Each Member should think of what has happened to their costs and act accordingly and don't expect others in the Federal Government to do what we are not doing ourselves.
I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and stay with the reduction that has been made which I, frankly, think is excessive myself, but, nevertheless, a very substantial reduction already.
Going to fiscal year 2019 levels was not contemplated by anybody that voted just a short while ago on the agreed funding levels in this bill.
Now, I want to be fair. The agreed funding levels were not by item. It was an overall cap. Contemplating a cut of this nature is going to severely undermine the ability to operate in an efficient, effective way. GSA, I think, does that and needs the resources to do it on behalf of all Americans.
Getting those people back in offices is a good optic, but reducing the ability to maintain those at the same time is not good business.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would make an observation. I understand what the gentleman is saying. The IRS says there are $688 billion. That is not chump change, not behind the sofa cushion, $688 billion. They say that if they have the resources, they can collect a large sum of that, which is really what the gentleman is looking to do in this amendment with this agency.
Mr. Chair, this bill provides for a 23-percent cut in enforcement on moneys that are due and owing under the current law to the Government of the United States. The gentleman and previous speakers have said how concerned they are with the deficit. I would think that--again, I will use the collection department of a corporation as the example--you would want to collect that money.
If the principle that the gentleman espouses is a good one, and I frankly think it is, then we ought to apply that to that $688 billion, which would have a substantial impact on collections.
Let's say we just collected a third of that. That would be more money than all of these cuts combined and perhaps all of these bills. I find it confusing and contradictory that the gentleman would want to collect these debts--of course, the agency says it would cost more to collect than would be collected. That is their position. Whether that is true or not, I am not arguing that, but that is their position, as I understand it.
In the case of the $688 billion, it is, essentially, if you are at the upper end, $1 of expenditure for $12 of revenue. Frankly, at the lower end, it is much less, $1 to maybe $1.67 or $1.87. That is a relatively small return on the investment but a big return on the bigger taxpayers, whether they are corporate or individual.
Mr. Chair, I think the principle the gentleman enunciates is a good one. I hope he would pursue it in talking about the IRS' ability to oversee very complicated and lengthy returns that have resources that are not very transparent and are from sources that aren't withdrawn because that might in fact help us get to where he wants to get in reducing that debt.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, if you want to get tough on Putin, don't elect one of his friends President of the United States.
This legislation that has been offered, as I understand it, wants to see a full sanction and prohibition on dealing with Russian oil. That may be a worthy objective, but I think the way to do it is to do it. We can pass legislation on that.
As I understand it, 8H is one of the principle ways in which we implement sanctions that we urge. To do away with that ability without replacing it--and I may be wrong in what I am saying, so the gentleman can correct me--does not seem to be a worthwhile objective. In other words, if you need more, let's legislate more sanctions. We can do that. Don't take away sanctions that currently exist, even though, as the gentleman hypothesizes, they are not as effective as they ought to be.
I hear what he is saying. I very much want to help Ukraine. I hope your Speaker brings Ukraine to the floor pretty soon. That is really going to help Ukraine. We need to do it sooner rather than later. We have 300 votes on average to help Ukraine on his side and my side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to me that is the way we ought to go about it, rather than trying to do it through what is a relatively clumsy, in one sense, way of accomplishing an objective with which I may agree. I don't know all the ramifications of that, and I don't have the information from Treasury as to what adverse impact they think it will have. It seems to me the way to do it is to do it and do it through the legislative process and have that debate and know the consequences of the action that the gentleman proposes.
For that reason, I am opposing the amendment and urge its rejection.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time.
Let me ask something. As I understand it--again, not having the information that he has available to him--one of the reasons those exemptions are given is because of the fear that there will be a substantial price hike if that oil is not on the market and that price hike will then go to what a lot of his colleagues have been talking about, these awful prices at the pump.
Am I correct?
I yield to the gentleman.
And our consumers.
Mr. Chair, first of all, our economy is doing better than almost any economy in the world. I have had numerous debates, Mr. Chair, or discussions with the majority leader in the last Congress. He kept talking to me about American energy. I kept pointing out to him, almost every time he raised it, we were producing more energy than we had under the previous President, and yet they kept wringing their hands about how we were undermining the energy industry.
Now, at the same time we are not undermining the energy industry, we are also trying to deal with an extraordinary crisis that confronts the global community, and that is climate change. This amendment blocks any whole-of-government strategy led by the White House to build a resilience both at home and abroad against the impacts of climate change.
Nationwide, communities are already facing severe impacts that will continue to intensify. In 2022, there were 18 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that impacted the United States: hurricanes, floods, wildfires, droughts, among other events.
We had a very substantial investment we made in alternative energy. Now, I happen to be a huge supporter of alternative energy, particularly in nuclear. I have been a supporter of nuclear energy for a very long period of time. I have a big nuclear plant in my district. It is an alternative clean energy option. I want to see that further expanded. Right now it is somewhat cost prohibitive in terms of getting loans.
Mr. Chairman, at the time of tremendous need and challenge, this amendment will make us less prepared to prevent and withstand the severe impacts of climate change that our country already faces on a regular basis, as does the world.
Industries have recognized that need and are pursuing that need--not as vigorously as they were perhaps last year or the year before that-- but pursuing it vigorously. I visited a number of the energy companies themselves who were involved in the fossil fuel industry, also looking at alternative energy because they see that as the future.
This amendment undermines both the focus and the process of moving toward that, which the White House is trying to do. Why?
Because they have a responsibility for all Americans. They have a responsibility to look at more than 24-month cycles.
We, in Congress, are sort of hidebound by 24-month cycles. We need to look long term. That is what President Biden is trying to do; look long term and be prepared. Be prepared for a time when we are smothering our little globe and heating it up and melting the ice of the world. We are making agriculture unattainable in certain areas. We are making life difficult in certain areas.
It is necessary that we look long term. It is necessary that we have a longer vision. It is necessary that we have an administration that has the ability and inclination to do just that. That is what they are doing.
I think this amendment certainly speaks to one segment of the energy that we have in this country, and that is fossil fuel. We are going to be using fossil fuel for some years to come, maybe some decades to come. We need to look long term at more efficient and effective energy sources that do not cause a danger to humanity.
Mr. Chair, I urge that we not pursue this, we allow the administration to continue its efforts, and we admit that climate change is a crisis happening now.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this program has been a very successful program. It has been a successful program for the little guy--the small business. The pilot program has proved to be very successful and has been operating over three Presidential administrations.
The program expands access to small business financing for underserved communities, including women, minorities, veterans, and people in low-income areas. Obviously, the lending community believes this is a program that works. The permanent program includes all 112 of the pilot's lenders who wanted to continue SBA lending, along with 31 new mission-driven lenders that were recently approved.
Mr. Chairman, by blocking the SBA from continuing this program, the amendment would deny economic opportunities for communities and small businesses that need them the most.
I have talked about, you are on your own. This is an area where small businesses need help. This is an area where apparently three administrations thought it was working. Now we are extending it. We hear that it is in the Congress' ambit. Of course it is. We could prohibit this, but the administration has made a judgment that it works. The lending community has made a judgment--apparently they are not losing money on it--that it works.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
Mr. Chairman, I understand you say it is irrelevant whether it works or not. On my side I think we probably think it is relevant.
As the gentlewoman from California said, we think it is working. We think it is advantageous for small businesses. We think it is advantageous for minorities. We think it is advantageous for veterans. In that context, we think it is very relevant that it seems to work.
The gentleman who is the chair of the committee didn't say it didn't work, he just said they hadn't come to Congress. Now, if they don't have the authority to do that, then we ought to raise that issue. I am not sure that is the issue you are raising. I think that is the issue you were raising.
The fact of the matter is, fine, then let's have a hearing on it and begin. Let's have the authorizing committee that is responsible for this say this is not working or we think it is working and we ought to continue it. Absent a vote on continuing it, then one could draw the conclusion that Congress withdraws its approval of it.
I think by simply doing this, Members are going to be voting, in effect, blind on a program that we on this side think is working for the people that it needs to help.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my point is we have the right to oversight. The gentleman has the right to call them to come and testify and call others to testify on whether this program works or doesn't. We haven't given up that authority of oversight, as the gentleman refers to. I think we ought to exercise that.
What I don't think we ought to do is eliminate a program that apparently works on behalf of people I think all of us want to help.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in perplexion which I presume is objection.
Mr. Chair, I ask the gentlewoman to yield for a question.
I ask you to yield.
I am asking if you will yield for a question.
What funds in this bill are used for the purposes you are opposed to?
Precautionary for what?
I am asking--
I understand that.
I understand that, but what you have said is that none of the funds in this bill can be spent for that objective.
What funds are in this bill to be spent for that objective?
Reclaiming my time, Ms. Boebert. There are no funds in this bill to do that, so this is just an opportunity for you to stand and perhaps speak about an important subject. I understand that. Nevertheless, there are no funds in this bill to accomplish that objective.
You don't believe the chairman would put funds in to accomplish that objective, do you?
I yield.
Do you understand if we do this amendment, then any subject that anybody has an interest in would be subject to such an amendment?
Now, the Rules Committee has waived points of order contrary to
what they said they wanted done when we were in charge because then they didn't want points of order so they could raise them.
There are no funds in this bill, Mr. Chair, for the objective that the gentlewoman wants to prevent.
I guarantee you Chairman Womack would not have included any funds to protect such activity.
I know him, and I know he feels strongly about this.
This amendment has no place in this bill because there is no money in this bill. You can argue about sanctuary cities, you can argue about the border, and you can do all of that, but this is not the bill to do it on.
This raises, therefore, a suspicion that somehow there is money in this bill that Mr. Womack would have put in or that I would have sanctioned to accomplish that objective.
That is simply not true, Mr. Chairman, and this has no place in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman has said that I have said that there are no funds. There are no funds. Nevertheless, she said that because of this amendment, she is going to handcuff the administration.
You can't handcuff the administration prohibiting funds that don't exist.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, it is so sad to hear on this floor assumptions made that have little or no basis in truth. It is so sad to hear a debate that if you are for or against something that is awful, then you are going to be against giving people who perform their services in extraordinary ways recognition of that as the private sector does all the time.
It is so sad to hear representation that we are eliminating gas stoves that we heard during the course of this debate on this bill, not in this instant debate, because it is totally untrue, and it is defaming.
Now, luckily, for Members of Congress, we are essentially constitutionally protected from defaming people. We can do that in the course of our business on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Nonetheless, it is sad that some of us do it. It is sad that some of us demean people who are performing an outstanding and absolutely essential service for the United States Government, for the people of this country, and to carry out the duties that we give them.
This assertion of this army of 87,000 people, armed guards at everybody's door, has been repeated, I think, probably one million times over the last 2 years or year and a half.
It is not true, and they know it is not true, but they don't care whether it is true. They believe that the constant assertion through social media and other means becomes fact for people who do not know the facts. How sad that we have come to this point.
I say we have come to the point, but we have been at that point for probably a long period of time, where people assert things that are not true but do it over and over again. We had a President of the United States who did that, and because he did assert it, they believed it.
Then along comes their chief of staff, and says: We know it wasn't true, but we kept telling the American people until they believed it. They believed it so much that they perpetrated an insurrection and tried to overthrow the legitimate course and duty of the Congress of the United States.
This amendment ought to be rejected because it is irrational to say that, in our enterprise, if you do outstanding work, do what we ask you to do, and do it effectively, we are not going to recognize the fact that you did outstanding service because you are an IRS agent or an IRS executive.
The IRS is the biggest agency in this Treasury Department and in this bill, and it is the basis of which all other agencies and departments operate because that is where the revenue comes from. The revenue comes from that as
well to pay the debt when we don't have enough dollars to do what we have asked them to do.
I hope that we would not continue to defame and demote--maybe my hope is misplaced--as we reduce Federal employees one after another over and over to $1 in salary because we don't like what they do and don't like the policies they pursue for the administration.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
