Recognizing that it is the duty of the Federal Government to develop and implement a Transgender Bill of Rights to protect and codify the rights of transgender and nonbinary people under the law and ensure their access to medical care, shelter, safety, and economic security.

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.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Womack, chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, not only for his leadership but his rabid support of the Razorbacks. Kentucky and Arkansas have a big rivalry in basketball, but in this case we are on the same page because the chairman has rightly included in this year's FSGG appropriations bill my legislation, H.R. 1382, the Taking Account of Bureaucrats' Spending Act, or the TABS Act, which would separate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the Federal Reserve System, make it an independent agency and subject it, importantly, to the congressional appropriations process.

The TABS Act would remedy the serious constitutional defect in the structure of the CFPB as established by the Dodd-Frank Act under which the CFPB draws its funding uniquely from the Federal Reserve instead of from Congress, like most other executive branch agencies. Specifically, Dodd-Frank delegates to the Director of the CFPB the unilateral power to decide in perpetuity how much money he wants for the agency to carry out its broad and potent regulatory and enforcement powers.

The Director then requests such amount from the Fed, which is itself exempt from the congressional appropriations process, making it double insulated from accountability. The Fed is then required to provide such amount to the Bureau, no questions asked. This is a constitutional aberration, and it is a violation of the separation of powers.

Although the total amount the Director can request is capped in the law, the cap is so high that it effectively grants the CFPB Director unfettered discretion over the Bureau's amount of funding and how it is spent. No other Federal agency in the entire Federal bureaucracy is funded in this manner. Indeed, there is no analogue for the CFPB anywhere in the history of the U.S. executive branch.

Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique. It is a perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure that goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by any other agency, again, in the history of our Republic.

The TABS Act would fix this. It would bring much-needed accountability to the CFPB and uphold the Constitution's separation of powers and the exclusive grants of the appropriations power to Congress.

I want to make a couple of points about the TABS Act. First, the purpose of this bill is not to repeal or undermine consumer protection laws. Rather, the purpose is to address the constitutional defect in the CFPB's funding structure. No one is objecting to the utility of some Federal consumer protections, but we should also agree that the Constitution reserves to Congress the sole authority to set funding limits for the CFPB and other executive branch agencies.

I note that the FY24 FSGG bill would fund the CFPB at near current levels. I also note that H.R. 2798, the CFPB Transparency and Accountability Reform Act, which was marked up out of the Financial Services Committee on April 26, included the TABS Act, and authorized to be appropriated from unobligated amounts contained in the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund $650 million for FY24--again, at levels comparable to what the CFPB received from the Fed this year.

My friends on the other side of the aisle can't make the argument that we are trying to defund the agency, that we are trying to gut consumer protection laws because we are manifestly proving we are not doing that. We are funding the agency the way it should be. This clearly demonstrates that the TABS Act is not about eliminating consumer protections or the CFPB, but it is about upholding the Constitution. It is about defending the Congress, this institution.

If this bill is enacted into law, the Bureau would continue to operate. The only difference would be that the Congress would oversee their spending in the same way it does for all other consumer protection agencies in most of the rest of the Federal Government.

As you know, the Supreme Court recently heard the case of Community Financial Services Association of America v. CFPB in which the agency's funding structure was challenged as violating the Constitution's separation of powers and the appropriations clause, which provides that: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law . . . ''

If the Supreme Court strikes down the CFPB's funding structure, as it should in this case, this bill will ensure that the agency continues to operate.

Following such a decision by the Court, chaos would not ensue, as some have suggested, nor would there be great uncertainty in the marketplace about the status of consumer protection laws and regulations.

On the contrary, this legislation demonstrates that Congress is prepared to assert its appropriations power to stabilize preexisting consumer laws and make sure that the CFPB is funded with better and more meaningful oversight in the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the funding mechanism.

The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the legislative branch--the people's elected Representatives in Congress--make the key decisions about our government, especially how tax dollars are spent.

As Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 58: ``This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.''

This is a sound principle, which in the context of the CFPB or any other executive branch agency, every member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, should defend.

This is not a partisan issue. This is about defending this institution and our power of the purse. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: If Congress passed legislation funding the Department of Defense or the CIA in the same manner as the CFPB is currently funded, would that be acceptable? Would we want those agencies to be completely unaccountable to our oversight?

The appropriations process is the primary means by which Congress, on a bipartisan basis, oversees those agencies, as well as all consumer protection agencies.

Now, some will say that Congress can change the CFPB's funding structure at any time so there is really no problem with the structure. Well, this is ridiculous. This is absurd.

Our Constitution does not permit elected Representatives in Congress to delegate away our authority, which is textually reserved to the Congress, to some other branch of government or an executive branch official. It requires that the key decisions remain in the hands of the elected Representatives of the people.

Congress cannot delegate away its responsibilities without undermining the separation of powers, even if it could pass legislation to retake such responsibilities in the future.

Instead, it is the Supreme Court's duty to strike down laws that violate

the Constitution, even if Congress could remedy those violations. For example, the Supreme Court strikes down laws that violate the First Amendment or the Commerce Clause, even though Congress could remedy those violations. There is no reason why the same should not be true of laws that violate the appropriations clause.

Moreover, in Seila Law, the Court struck down the infringement of the President's removal power over the director of the CFPB. I hope now it protects Congress' power as it did the President's power in Seila Law.

After all, the Supreme Court's role is not just to prevent the erosion of presidential powers but also Congress' power. The reason the CFPB's funding structure is so problematic is that when Congress delegates its core responsibilities away to administrative agencies, the value of each American's vote is diminished.

As Congress has delegated more responsibilities and more authorities to administrative agencies, Americans have come to increasingly believe that their votes do not matter. They see that changes in Congress don't change policies set by agencies.

Lack of congressional control over the CFPB creates the opportunity for special interests to capture the CFPB who run the agency according to their own ideological vision, not according to the will of the American people. Changing the CFPB's funding structure would be an important and commonsense step in restoring faith in our democracy.

It is important to recognize that the structure of the CFPB is an aberration in our government. No other agency is funded by the Federal Reserve at the level set by the director of the other agency.

Now, I know a lot of people have raised concerns that striking down the funding structure of the bureau would open up the question of constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and a few other agencies that are funded through assessments or other funding streams that they incur in their operations.

The funding structure of the CFPB is unique. Unlike other agencies that may be funded by a specific source of funding that they raise in the course of their operations--seigniorage in the case of the Federal Reserve; fees on banks in the case of the Comptroller of the Currency; deposit insurance premiums in the case of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; tariff revenue in the case of the Customs Service--the CFPB is different. There is no analog. It determines its own funding by taking funds from the Federal Reserve. No other agency obtains its funding by taking funds in this way. Further, there is no nexus between its statutory responsibilities, consumer protection, and its funding source, the Federal Reserve.

In conclusion, while there has been much debate about where to draw the constitutional line on how agencies can be funded consistent with the appropriations clause, the funding structure of the CFPB is one we should all agree goes too far.

As with the Supreme Court determination in the Free Enterprise Fund case that double insulation on removal was too far with respect to limits on the presidential removal authority, the same should apply here.

The funding structure of the CFPB goes too far without having to answer or raise questions about other agencies. Granting Federal agencies the authority to derive their funding from the Federal Reserve outside of the appropriations process is a dangerous precedent and is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution's separation of powers.

The Federal Reserve seigniorage for money creation is not a piggy bank. Forcing the Federal Reserve to pay for other government operations risks compromising the Fed's monetary policy independence.

For these reasons, I urge the Supreme Court of the United States to do the right thing: to vindicate the separation of powers and to uphold Congress' appropriations authority over Federal executive branch agencies.

I urge my colleagues to remedy this constitutional defect, pass the Womack appropriations bill, pass the TABS Act, and restore congressional appropriations authority.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in response to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, who makes the arguments that the authors of the Dodd-Frank law made, which was that we designed this to be independent. Well, that is fine. That is what they wanted, but they can't do it unconstitutionally.

As the Fifth Circuit said very, very well, while the defenders of the structure of the agency, of the CFPB, contend that there is no constitutional infirmity because the funding scheme was actually enacted by Congress in the Dodd-Frank law, and, therefore, it is constitutional.

In essence, the bureau contends that because Congress spun the agency's funding mechanism into motion when it passed the act, voila, the appropriations clause is satisfied.

That is not the way the Constitution works, Mr. Chair. This body cannot unconstitutionally delegate away our most fundamental power, which is the power of the purse.

Vote for the Womack appropriations bill. Restore the power of the purse. Defend this institution.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, and I compliment and applaud him for introducing a very legitimate amendment to address the unconstitutional structure of the agency and the fact that they are a rogue agency.

There is no greater critic of the CFPB than me. Ask Mr. Chopra about that. However, I reluctantly rise in opposition, which may surprise my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to the amendment. It is not because the agency doesn't deserve a check the way Mr. Perry wants but because it is important for this institution that we assert, in the long run, the appropriations power of this body. That is why I support the Womack bill, which funds the agency and deprives the Court of the excuse to uphold the agency.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Treasury Department from issuing General License No. 8H, which was issued by the Office of Foreign Asset Control on October 25.

It represents a fundamental policy shift in our approach to Russia and ending its aggression against Ukraine. This amendment is a recognition that the Biden Treasury Department's Russian oil price cap policy has failed. It is not curbing Moscow's war spending because the cap has proven unenforceable, especially outside of the G7.

Russian oil is trading well above the cap, funneling billions of dollars and, in fact, trillions of rubles into Putin's war machine.

It is also a recognition that President Biden and Climate Czar John Kerry's climate agenda and war on American energy has come in direct conflict with our national security and our efforts to counter Russian aggression. Their climate policies have limited the tools available to them and pushed our country into pursuing a woefully ineffective price cap strategy in lieu of closing the huge loophole they created for energy-related transactions in their sanctions on Russian banks.

That is right. For the Americans watching on television who have been given the impression that President Biden is being tough on Moscow, the truth is, they are allowing oil sales to finance the war. That is the Biden policy, to create a huge loophole for energy-related transactions that allows Putin to finance this war.

License number 8H is an extension of authorizations by this administration going back to the very start of the war in Ukraine. It permits U.S. persons to engage in any transaction with sanctioned Russian financial institutions if the transaction involves Russian energy. This is the Biden administration's weak policy toward Russia.

It includes not only Russian energy sales but even production, refinement,

and transport. Despite sanctions, again, on Russia's leading banks, including restrictions on the Central Bank, OFAC licensing has exempted dealings that support the most vital source of export earnings for Moscow.

Why this administration punishes American energy but rewards Putin's energy is beyond comprehension. This is simply perverse. On the one hand, the Biden administration is greenlighting Russia's efforts to earn hard currency for its war machine even as it asks Congress for billions of dollars to defend and reconstruct Ukraine. The left hand destroys while the right hand rebuilds, but somehow the administration is stumped that this war grinds on without end.

Had Biden continued the Trump administration's energy dominance strategy, he would not be as constrained as he is today, and global energy markets would be far less dependent on Russian oil and gas, making a full embargo or sanctions without a general license far less painful for us and our allies.

My amendment says enough is enough. If we really want to help the Ukrainian freedom fighters, we have to end Russia's ability to wage war. That means cutting off every avenue available for it to fund its hostilities.

As The Wall Street Journal reported just this week, Russian tax revenues for oil and gas surpassed $17 billion last month, an increase of 25 percent from the previous year. These revenues are bolstering Moscow's abilities to threaten Ukraine with the government planning to increase military spending by 70 percent next year.

Under my amendment, the United States will not be complicit in these energy sales. It will ensure that sanctioned Russian banks are, in fact, sanctioned. The loopholes that Russia has enjoyed for over a year, thanks to President Biden, will be closed, and we will send a signal to the world that turning a blind eye to Russian exports is over.

At the same time, passage of this amendment must be viewed in the broader context of the administration's multilateral efforts to ensure the continued supply of Russian energy.

Even if we close off the U.S. and its financial system from these transactions, the Treasury Department has convinced our European allies to roll back EU sanctions under a price cap scheme for oil. Treasury's own data has shown that the price cap still allows Russia to earn billions of dollars each month in oil sales. Moreover, with Urals crude prices rising, the World Bank recently concluded that the price cap ``appears increasingly unenforceable.''

The only way to counteract this trend will be to acknowledge once and for all that the war in Ukraine will not end until Russian energy dries up. That means enforcing sanctions, not rolling them back. The first place to start is here at home with OFAC licensing.

My amendment is an important step toward this goal. If you want to get tough on Putin, stop his energy exports.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and bring energy dominance back to the United States.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the sentiment, and I am with Mr. Hoyer on providing support for Ukraine, but the 8H license is actually the loophole. It is the exception to the sanctions.

I give President Biden credit and Secretary Yellen credit and Wally Adeyemo credit for the sanctions on Russian banks and the Central Bank. The problem is the huge loophole they have created with the general license.

What my amendment proposes to do--and I just came from a meeting with Deputy Treasury Secretary Adeyemo, a great patriot--but what we are trying to say is the price cap is not working; close the loophole, sanction Russian energy exports. I offer that as a bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Chair, to answer the question, that is a very good question. That is the key question.

To the administration's credit, they are trying to solve this difficult question: How do we impose sanctions on Russia and Putin without hurting our allies?

And us, because unfortunately our allies are overdependent on Russian sources of energy.

The problem is because of this price cap scheme that they have concocted, Russian oil is trading above the cap, so it is not exactly affecting anything.

The truth is, there are two solutions. Number one is to decrease our and our allies' dependence on Russian gas by increasing our own production. This is where the administration's climate agenda is in conflict with our national security.

Secondly, the general license is the problem. If they repealed the general license and did what Treasury does all the time on sanctions and to help our allies in case-by-case scenarios with a special license--let's say, for Germany in a particular case, okay, that is fine; they retain that authority, Treasury would--but a general license that says Putin can sell all of his energy with no ramifications whatsoever through a general license is not tough on Russia.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds from being used to implement the Biden administration's January 2021 executive order titled ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.''

The Biden administration issued this executive order under the guise of protecting United States' national security and foreign policy, yet Republicans see right through this.

This executive order is yet another example of the Biden administration's effort to circumvent the people's House and advance their radical anti-American energy agenda by depriving the energy industry of the financing it needs from our capital markets.

Perhaps if we want to work in our national security interests, Mr. Chair, we should bring energy independence and dominance back to the United States by promoting, not working to prevent, the financing of the very capital-intensive energy sector.

We should block misguided ESG initiatives where the ultimate goal is to politicize the allocation of capital and steer investments into the Democrats' desired climate transition. To protect national security interests, we should pass H.R. 1 and unleash American energy not just for our economy but for our national security.

Instead, unsurprisingly, the Biden administration releases this executive order that calls for the U.S. to rejoin the Paris Agreement, creates a National Climate Task Force consisting of members from multiple Federal agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Defense, which will result in agencies taking their eye off the ball of real systemic risks in our financial system and global stability to focus on political initiatives and calls for a government-wide approach to the climate crisis.

What might be the most egregious is the executive order's call to tamper with financial flows to align with a pathway toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. The Biden administration is calling for the government to put its thumb on the scale of free-flowing capital, pick winners and losers, and pursue an agenda to starve energy companies of the financing that they need and redirect capital into speculative green energy technologies that, frankly, are unproven and will not actually fix the climate.

This is in direct contradiction with our national security interests, increases our energy dependence on our adversaries, and is once again showing us Democrats are exploiting the most envied capital system in the world to pursue their most radical and detrimental agendas. My amendment will put a stop to this.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, for the interest of our economy but also for the interests of national security, to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4664, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 4664, the fiscal

year 2024 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill.

Before I get into details, I would like to recognize the hard work of Chairwoman Granger on this bill, and the entire appropriations process.

We are one step closer to passing the last remaining few appropriations bills. I also want to thank my good friend, Ranking Member Steny Hoyer, for his input on this bill. We have had many conversations. Steny is a dear friend of mine, somebody that I worked very closely with, not only with this bill, but other matters of importance to our country. I consider him a very, very dear friend, and it is an honor to have him at my side as the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, look at these people right here. This is my team. I know I am a bit prejudiced. Steny would probably say the same thing about his team. These are the best that we have. We have Lauren Flynn and her team and my personal staff. The work they have put into this process is truly remarkable.

I want the American people to know how dedicated these folks are in trying to deal with the challenges that face our country on an everyday basis, in this case, the funding of our government.

I could not do what I do, nor could any Member of this House of Representatives, no Member can do what they do without the dedication of these people. It is not lost on me, and I want to publicly recognize them.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4664 provides $25.279 billion in nondefense discretionary spending across a number of critical agencies. The swath that we cover is incredible.

It also includes $45 million in defense spending. It rejects over $6 billion in discretionary funding increases within the President's budget request.

The bill represents an adequate level of funding, given our fiscal constraints. It is 7 percent below the fiscal year `23 enacted level and 2 percent below the fiscal year `22 enacted level.

The bill provides the resources necessary to combat threats and protect the integrity of our financial and judicial system.

We claw back over $10 billion of unused and unobligated Inflation Reduction Act IRS funding preventing the creation of a super army of IRS agents poised to target individuals and small business owners. This rescission does not touch taxpayer services or the modernization of business systems which means taxpayers will still be able to get the assistance they need to file their taxes, and the IRS can continue to modernize their systems and better protect taxpayer data from cyberattacks.

We also rescind IRA money from the General Services Administration targeted to make Federal buildings greener. Instead of leading by example in the construction of sustainable buildings, GSA should lead by example by bringing their employees back to the office like the private sector.

I am proud this bill requires Federal agencies to return to the office at prepandemic telework levels. We must hold the Federal workforce accountable for the quality of their work and the service they provide to the American people. The administration has been unwilling to make any real progress on this front, and we cannot afford to have vacant Federal buildings in the District and across our country.

The bill demands that agencies concentrate on their core mission. Mr. Chair, let me say that again. It is important that our agencies that we fund stick to their core mission. The pursuit of job-killing, burdensome, and unnecessary regulations only serve to further bloat a Federal bureaucracy that has become, in my strong opinion, too big, too intrusive, and counterintuitive to limited government.

Specifically, we turn off rulemaking in the Securities and Exchange Commission that lack proper cost-benefit analysis and aggregate income analysis. Further, we prohibit agencies like the SEC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from collecting and storing personal data that is unconstitutional and serves no regulatory purpose.

To be clear, the agencies under our jurisdiction perform important functions; however, many have strayed from their purpose, and the results have been a true disservice to the American people. This bill responsibly returns them to their core mission.

Mr. Chair, this bill is a strong bill with funding reductions and policy wins, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, Steny and I are really good friends, and this goes all the way back to when I first got here. He had already been here for a long time. I won't say how much time, but quite a while, so I learn from people like that.

That being said, we have a different view in many cases, sometimes about the role of the government or why we need to fund the government at levels that they would prefer. I am going to pick one issue. There are many we could talk about, but he mentioned fentanyl.

Nobody in this country would argue that we don't have a fentanyl problem. Mr. Chairman, 100,000 people a year are dying as a result of this synthetic, illegal substance that is making its way across our borders.

Mr. Chairman, what this side of the aisle believes is that instead of fighting the issue on the inside of the country--and let me remind you that on the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, we fund HIDTA at a level higher than the President of the United States requested. It is a little bit less than last year but higher than the President's request.

I reject out of hand the notion that we are endangering the lives of Americans because all of a sudden we don't think that fentanyl is a problem. No, we believe fentanyl is a problem, but we believe the problem should be addressed at the border of this country, at our southern border, where a lot of this product is making its way across without any real effort to stop it.

It is making its way into the households of America, from sea to shining sea. Then all of a sudden we get accused of wanting to cut budgets for agencies that target that illegal substance. For some reason, we are the bad guys.

We think that if we had better border security, which is something that both sides of the aisle have argued about for decades, maybe we wouldn't need as much money to fight these problems interior to our country.

I use that as an example, and there are others, but let's just agree on this: With the better part of a $2 trillion deficit this year, we have to address the root cause of what is causing such a difficult spot for this Nation, and that is the fiscal health of the country.

Mr. Chairman, $2 trillion deficits, as far as the eye can see, are not a sustainable outcome. We are over $33 trillion in debt right now, and I guess the debt service of our country--I don't know what the current numbers are, but it is approaching a trillion dollars a year.

We should think for just a moment what we could do if, instead of paying our creditors, we are able to use that trillion dollars for programs that benefit all Americans. That is a subject for a different day.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), my dear friend who is a very valued member of this subcommittee and a bright, shining star in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

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

I thank Mr. Barr for his kind remarks and for his hard work in drafting the TABS Act. We are pleased to include it in this year's Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill.

Let me add that I fully agree with your assessment of the importance of making the CFPB part of the annual appropriations process.

As you noted, most agencies are funded by Congress, including all the traditional consumer protection agencies, as you have articulated.

I also agree with you that the purpose of this legislation is to uphold the Constitution. I mean, that is our oath. That is what we swear to on January 3 every other year. This is a principled action. It is not an effort to kill the CFPB. That is why this bill funds the CFPB at the level it receives now.

We merely want to create an accountable funding structure for the CFPB that is like all other consumer protection agencies. That is why I will not support the amendment to eliminate the funding. That is why this is about constitutional principles, not the CFPB's existence.

Finally, let me say the Appropriations Committee has a critical constitutional responsibility to oversee how the Federal Government spends taxpayer dollars.

The annual process is the mechanism whereby our democracy ensures that the people's priorities are reflected in how taxpayer dollars are allocated and spent. It is my hope the Supreme Court recognizes this fact and strikes down the funding structure of the CFPB.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close.

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

As I stated in my opening, I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and his team over there. They do their work in accordance with what they feel are the emerging issues facing our country. We do the same on our side.

Suffice it to say, though, what we need right now is a bill on this floor that we can use as a basis to go negotiate with our Senate counterparts at the other end of this Capitol and, hopefully, come up with a conference report that we can all live with.

We know that the clock is running. America knows that, on November 17, we are going to have a continuing resolution of some form to be able to continue the work of this appropriations process. A lot of work has gone into it. We can have our differences. Those are well stated, as evidenced by the debate this morning, but we need to finish our work.

We will have a big amendment process going on throughout the day today, tonight, and into tomorrow, but we need right now to finish our work on this bill, get it across the finish line, make it a basis for negotiation in the Senate, get a conference report, and finish at least this portion of the 12-bill appropriations work. That is what we are responsible for doing here today.

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

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 847, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan en bloc amendment that has the endorsement of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Breaking news: This en bloc has proven that Democrats and Republicans can work together and find common solutions--on some things anyway.

The amendments set forth in this en bloc highlight the priorities in the Financial Services and General Government bill that address critical policies to strengthen our economy and bolster our workforce, and I look forward to incorporating these amendments into my bill.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague and good friend Ranking Member Hoyer for his consultation and all Members who have worked with me on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, Community Development Financial Institutions stimulate economic growth and create and sustain employment opportunities in rural and low-income areas, like a lot of America.

The CDFI fund ensures CDFIs are able to provide these underserved communities access to capital by awarding certified CDFIs with tax credits and monetary support.

I am proud that my own State greatly benefits from the CDFI fund and have seen the far-reaching impact it has had on the community. Defunding the program would only serve to harm the most vulnerable communities in America.

So it is under that pretense, Mr. Chairman, that I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, for the reasons stated previously, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let me correct the record on one thing my friend said. He referred to the continuing resolution that expires not February 17, but this month, November 17. I just didn't want him to give the American people the appearance that we had a lot more time because we don't.

Exactly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment.

In full committee we had a robust discussion. I think the information we are working on right now is back in 2018 from the GAO. It is time for the IRS Commissioner to give us this information.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman for the Bedlam battle victory that they had this past week.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned before in the previous debate, we had a robust debate in full committee and adopted an amendment which capped IRS firearms and ammunition levels as of July 13, 2023. I think that is reasonable.

This amendment would remove that cap. I understand that some of my colleagues have concerns about Federal agencies holding vast amounts of firepower. We need to be careful not to deprive our agencies of the ability to purchase firearms to carry out their lawful duties.

Mr. Speaker, it is under that circumstance that I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I would say, notwithstanding the fact that these Federal agencies engage in law enforcement activities, whether it is IRS or FBI, it doesn't make any difference. They are engaged in some very dangerous activities. Notwithstanding the fact that they are engaged in activities, we should all remember that part of their mission is also to train for these dangerous circumstances.

There are training events and weapons qualifications and all kinds of thing that require the expense of ammunition, maybe not for a nefarious target down range, but in order to be able to make them better at their trade should that circumstance present itself.

Mr. Chairman, it is under those conditions that I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my straightforward amendment that prohibits funds within this act from being used in violation of Federal immigration law for sanctuary city policies.

The concept of sanctuary city policies directly violate the rule of law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution gives Congress clear jurisdiction on immigration matters. A nation of laws must enforce established laws and not seek ways to circumvent them. These sanctuary cities are disregarding Federal statutes by harboring thousands of illegal immigrants and providing a safe haven for violent criminals.

My amendment prohibits the use of funds that are appropriated by this act from being used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

This Federal law prohibits sanctuary policies that obstruct law enforcement officials from sharing information regarding a person's immigration status within the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

More than 200 State and municipal jurisdictions across the country have established policies that directly violate the law and shield criminal illegal aliens from enforcement.

There is a complete and total invasion taking place at our southern border due to the Biden administration and the left's radical open border agenda.

Since Biden has taken office, Border Patrol has encountered more than 6.3 million illegal aliens who have illegally entered America, released nearly 2.9 illegal aliens into our communities, and let more than 1.7 million known got-aways evade Border Patrol and enter the country with no record or knowledge of who these people are.

The number of illegal aliens who have entered the interior of the United States under the Biden administration now is greater than the population of at least 22 States, as well as Washington, D.C.

It is not just illegal immigrants coming across the southern border, but enough fentanyl to kill every American 15 times over. This drug, mostly imported from China and continuously smuggled through our southern border, is killing children and destroying families throughout the country.

Equally concerning is that in the last fiscal year alone, the FBI stopped more than 172 illegals on the terrorist watch list. Our porous southern border is literally a major national security risk.

These open borders and sanctuary city policies are destroying America. Cities like Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, and New York have continued to beg the Federal Government for more money to handle the unprecedented influx of illegal aliens rather than changing their illegal alien policies that have exacerbated the problem.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and the committee for their work on this bill. I respectfully ask that my colleagues join me in support of the rule of law by voting in favor of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

It is not my time.

I have reserved. You are free to speak.

Sure. Ask your question.

I am sorry. I couldn't hear the gentleman. I was getting clarification.

This is precautionary.

There are sanctuary city policies that are in place that are allowing the refuge of illegal aliens into these cities, and there is an influx in crime and drugs into these cities.

There is no way for these folks to even report what is taking place because they are protected under this fake policy that has been created that is subduing the actual rule of law that we have in the Constitution of the United States.

That is precautionary.

I have seen this administration use all sorts of funds to protect illegal aliens, and this is precautionary to ensure that it will not be used.

I do not trust this administration with any of the taxpayer funding that they are handling. They are mishandling our taxpayer funds.

If the gentleman says that there are no funds and agrees that this is precautionary, then I would urge that you support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to state one more time that the White House has had a reputation of spending funds to protect illegal aliens who have broken our Nation's laws to illegally enter our country. I want to make very clear in this financial services bill that these funds cannot be allocated in that way.

If we don't put the cuffs on this administration somewhere, they will continue to go rogue and waste the taxpayer dollars that are being brought in by the hardworking Americans to fund these services for illegal aliens and to protect them in these sanctuary cities.

I am putting the handcuffs on the Biden administration with this commonsense amendment. If the gentleman, as I said, agrees that there are no funds, then there should be no problem to say we cannot allocate funds to protect these sanctuary cities and these illegal aliens.

Mr. Chair, I have spoken my piece on this amendment. I am prepared to close, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2024 to prohibit performance awards or bonuses for Senior Executive Service employees at the IRS.

Joe Biden has weaponized the Internal Revenue Service against the American people. He started off with a Big Brother proposal directing the IRS to snoop on the American people's bank accounts to monitor transactions of $600 or more. He then spent $80 billion to build an army of 87,000 armed IRS agents to target middle- and low-income families and small businesses with a flood of audits and draconian enforcement activities.

It is clear the IRS has long lost its touch with its mission, which is to serve taxpayers. American families don't need more audits and red tape. My amendment helps return the IRS to its original mission and ensure hardworking taxpayers receive satisfactory customer service without having to fear a supercharged IRS.

We need to protect the taxpayers, rein in an unaccountable Federal agency, and reverse course from this dangerous path of growing bureaucracy and heavy-handed Federal Government.

I have a message to all of my colleagues here today: If you disapprove of the IRS leaking tax information about the President's political opponents, then support my amendment.

If you disapprove of the IRS targeting conservative groups for their political beliefs, then support my amendment.

If you disapprove of the IRS ignoring congressional subpoenas, then support my amendment.

If you disapprove of this agency stonewalling Congress, destroying evidence, and lying to the American people, then support my amendment.

Finally, if you disapprove of IRS senior executives receiving bonuses for their work, then support my amendment.

Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I have never been more thrilled to be a part of the Republican Party. I would much rather stand with the American people than stand in this Chamber and defend 87,000 armed IRS agents.

I have seen the recruiting requirements that say you must carry a firearm and be prepared to use deadly force. This amendment is straightforward, saying we don't want to give more money to IRS agents. We do not want to give bonuses to IRS agents who target conservative groups, who release tax information about the President's political opponents, or who ignore congressional subpoenas.

We have had IRS whistleblowers before the Oversight Committee who said that they were told that they must protect Joe Biden's son. That is why they became whistleblowers. They said enough is enough. We are here for justice. We want what is fair. We are not supporting a particular party. They saw the rot within the IRS and came forward.

I am proud to stand with the American people and say that we should not issue bonuses to IRS agents.

Taxation is theft, and arming 87,000 IRS agents to go after the hardworking middle class is just flatout armed robbery.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, ever since its ill-advised inception and inclusion in the Dodd-Frank Act, Republicans have been largely unified about many, many issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Its unconstitutional, unaccountable leadership structure has been litigated before the Supreme Court. Its unaccountable funding structure--chiefly, the fact that its funding comes from the Federal Reserve and not the duly elected Members of Congress--will likely be addressed during the Court's October session.

None of us know, nor should we presume to know, what the Court will decide on the latter issue. Nevertheless, as written, the underlying bill addresses concerns with the funding structure by funding the CFPB through the regular appropriations process.

This amendment retains that provision at a level of zero.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me somehow this country made it a couple hundred years without the CFPB, and now we can't wake up in the morning without it.

The CFPB operates off a fundamentally flawed assumption that our fellow Americans, the little guy, is a rube and they lack the agency and the intelligence to choose products and services that fit their needs and, instead, must be infantalized while further empowering a government that does not have their best interests at heart.

Their vilification of mundane services provided by banks and credit unions leaves our constituents with fewer and more expensive options.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. Chair, I remind everybody that the CFPB was an all- Democrat conference. There were no Republicans.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the amount available for salaries and expenses of the Federal Trade Commission to FY19 levels at just over $306 million.

It should come as no surprise that I disagree with the Biden administration's weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission.

Much like other Biden administration approaches to financial services regulation, the FTC policies under Chair Lina Khan threaten to disrupt entire sectors of the American economy by moving away from the consumer welfare standard toward arbitrary metrics that aim to break up companies--or stop them from merging--simply because they are too big.

I mean, we can't even be bothered, as my friend on the other side of the aisle says, with the consumer not having the capacity to determine what is in their best interests, which is affronting enough. I mean, all us dumb rubes out here in America, we don't know what the heck we are going to do without the government to tell us what to do. We can't even do that now. We just have to come up with arbitrary things that we don't like and then weigh in.

The FTC has targeted the following standard businesses and business practices, citing several concerns, including, the charging of advertising and other fees to sellers that sell on Amazon or advertise using online platforms.

Mr. Chairman, when you want to buy something, it is going to cost you something. Somebody has to pay for that. That is how business is done.

Other FTC concerns include the use of noncompete clauses in contracts, and the idea that mergers themselves--rather than downstream effects on consumers--negatively impact consumers.

Unfortunately, this government seems focused on killing successful American business instead of staying out of its way.

Most, if not all, of these practices are agreed upon in contracts between two willing parties. If you don't like what is in the contract provisions, whether it is a noncompete clause or you have to pay for your advertising, there is a simple remedy not involving the government: Just don't sign the contract. It is pretty easy.

In the last couple years, the level of FTC salaries and expenses has increased from just over $300 million to $430 million in FY23. That is $130 million in extra salaries and expenses. I don't need to tell everybody here, I hope, but we are $33.7 trillion in debt--the last time I checked the debt clock, 2 days ago--and there ain't no end in sight.

As my young daughter told me when she looked at the debt clock for the first time, she said, Well, it doesn't stop. Yeah, no kidding. It doesn't stop, because this place just keeps spending like there is no tomorrow. If we keep going, there might not be a tomorrow for this country.

I appreciate that the bill's author wrote it at a lower level than FY24. It shouldn't be too tall a request to lower that number even further to prepandemic levels when, oh, by the way, just a couple years ago, the government was still too big and was spending more money than it took in then, especially given the questionable tactics of this administration's FTC.

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

Mr. Chairman, the good gentleman from the State of Maryland says, well, you are on your own. You are on your own. I don't know.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Well, the gentleman said it over and over again--you are on your own, implying that we are saying you are on your own.

In 2019, we were on our own somehow, I guess, because that is what this goes back to. Somehow, we made it to 2023, by the grace of God, I guess, because the good gentleman also refers to the twenties, so I imagine it is the 1920s.

Well, it is the 2020s, and things have changed a little bit. I know that my good friend from the other side of the aisle and I are a little bit older, but neither of us were around in 1920. Things have changed a little bit.

Now, as a young man, I pumped gas for a living. I do know the difference between gasoline and diesel and kerosene because I have a nose, and I can read.

Sure. Do mistakes happen? Do people put gasoline in diesel and diesel in gasoline? They changed the size of the nozzle, by the way, in case you can't figure that out. If you can read, and most people in America can read, they can figure it out.

The point is, we are not a bunch of rubes, and we don't need the government to figure out all this stuff for us.

We don't need the government wiping our rear end every time we go to the bathroom, but that is what you would have us believe, that that is what we need, that Americans are so dumb, they can't do it without the Federal Government.

Somehow this country survived a couple hundred years, and not only survived, became the greatest country on the planet, and it wasn't because the Federal Government was wiping our rear end the whole way.

I urge adoption, and I yield the balance of my time.