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…
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. Chairman, I yield back 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 thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
To be clear, I have a record throughout this entire appropriations process that will demonstrate that I am not a supporter writ large of the Holman rule. I personally think it has been overused, and the record can reflect that I don't think I am on the record voting for any of the Holman rules to date. I wanted to make that disclosure up front, but that is just a personal opinion. That is what I believe.
The Holman rule is a serious tool in Congress, and I think we have to be careful when we are establishing precedents on the use of it, but I do think there are times when the Holman rule is justified. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Securities and Exchange Commission under Chairman Gary Gensler is an example of a time when I think the Holman rule can be used as a messenger to the SEC Chairman.
The health and vibrancy of our markets and our economy at large can be tested by an aggressive and overzealous rulemaking agenda. Over the last 3 years, that has defined the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Let me be clear: This is not just about how the regulatory process is conducted. The weight of the issues and topics under review by Chairman Gensler must be considered thoughtfully and comprehensively. Unfortunately, they have not been.
Reckless rulemaking requires climate disclosures from not only public companies that the SEC claims but also the private suppliers far downstream from these public companies.
Mr. Chair, in the interest of time, this list goes on and on, to the tune of about 50 proposed and finalized rules by Chairman Gensler, a breakneck speed of rulemaking given that he has been Chairman for 3 years.
To me, it is unacceptable, and we have had that dialogue in hearings. Speed and volume should not be defining characteristics of the rulemaking process.
Mr. Chair, I stand with the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from South Carolina, the authors of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I support the Holman rule in this particular case.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding. With all due respect to my colleague, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This bill funded the Office of the Vice President at a 20 percent cut from last year, so we have taken steps to send that message, that power of the purse message to the Office of the Vice President. This amendment would completely eliminate funding for the salary and expenses of any employee in the office.
Now, I agree that the Biden administration is pursuing an agenda that is in conflict with what I believe, there is no question about that.
However, I think it is wrong for us to take our grievances out by just carte blanche eliminating funding for the Office of the Vice President of the United States. Now, that is just a bridge too far, as far as I am concerned.
We need to have these debates about whether or not border security is correct or, you know, pick from the menu of all of the various things that divide Republicans and Democrats. But to go this far, I would strongly encourage the House of Representatives to take a very sober view of an amendment like this and understand that these kinds of things cut both ways.
I would caution us not to enter into the territory where because of an issue that we might have some disagreement on that we find it within our ability or the course of action to just eliminate the funding for the Office of the Vice President. I strongly oppose this amendment.
Would the gentleman yield?
It may be duplicative, but it is twice as nice, so we will proceed.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I rise in support.
Plainly and simply, environmental policing is not within the SEC's scope. It is just not. I know this process that we have undergone this morning sounds a lot like we are ganging up on Gensler, and maybe we are, and for good reason.
Scope 3 emissions are hard to quantify, requiring the shifting of information needed from outside partnering companies like family farmers. The information that would need to be reported to bigger companies the farmers rely on for business is overly burdensome.
Farmers are American heroes. They don't need any more negative input factors on how they feed, clothe, and fuel this Nation. They already have enough to deal with--high inflation, markets, weather.
Somebody has to stand up for the family farmer, and that is why I am proud to support my colleague from Minnesota's amendment here, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, the farmer needs an advocate, and that is what we are doing.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
I agree that it is our job. The once measured, productive, and independent FTC has, in recent years, certainly under this administration and Chairwoman Khan, turned into an agency that has disposed of tested and proven operations and rulemakings.
Gone are the days of competition based on prices, products, and business innovation. Today, we have an FTC that is guided by political whims and I guess the overall notion that big has to be bad.
As a result, numerous rulemakings have raised serious questions for the American people and American businesses of all sizes, which is especially true for rules developed under the FTC's unfair methods of competition standard, which this amendment prohibits, including the ill-advised noncompete rulemaking.
I stand here today in support of my friend from Wisconsin's amendment in order to rein in the Biden administration's FTC by prohibiting section 5 actions and the suspension of the early termination to premerger notification filings.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chair, my thanks to the minority side for giving me an opportunity to speak. I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Florida's amendment.
We are not always going to hate the FBI. I realize there are people on my side of the aisle that don't like some of the activities of the FBI. I am not going to pick an argument on that.
What I will argue is that it is bad policy for the Congress to be taking steps to deny a Federal agency that is in serious need, in my opinion, of an improvement to their headquarters.
Now, notice I said improvement. I didn't say some massive, big expansion, necessarily. What I do know is that when I toured the FBI headquarters, I saw it in a state of disrepair that is going to need the attention of the owners of that property. That is us. To
deny the FBI the opportunity to be able to explore other alternatives, I think, is a bit shortsighted.
The fact is the building is crumbling, and there is going to be a need to do something. What that something is, I am not an expert on. I think it would be wrong for us to be taking this action today pursuant to this amendment without having at least a hearing and an opportunity for the people responsible for the facilities--FBI, GSA, any other stakeholder--to be able to help us understand what the situation is today and what the needs are of tomorrow. That discussion can take place, should take place, but I think it is a bit shortsighted and premature for us to be taking the action that this amendment would call for here today.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chair, I rise to point out something that is pretty obvious to everybody, and that is that this process that we are going through right now can come across very complicated, but it is a broken budget process system.
What I would like to see happen as we matriculate through the remainder of the Financial Services-General Government bill and as we move toward trying to get something done on Commerce-Justice-Science and Labor-Health and Human Services is that maybe we would have this moment of sobriety as a House and recognize that fixing this broken budget process is going to be essential if this Congress is going to be successful.
We are sitting here today with a clock ticking and the sand is in the hourglass running right through to where on November 17 we could be facing a government shutdown. There have been many opportunities for us to complete our work on appropriations, move bills through the House, get them conferenced with the Senate, and get them signed into law. Of course, we are working against a deadline at the end of this year that will require a 1 percent sequester if we don't get all 12 bills through.
So it is my fervent belief that Congress can fix this issue if Congress will recognize that it has an issue. I think the American people recognize it. We are looking right down the barrel of a government shutdown. If we can't find the resources to prevent a lapse in government funding by next weekend and then even at the end of this year, we are, as I said, facing that 1 percent sequester.
So we have a lot of work to do that is going to require the cooperation of the left and the right to be able to come to terms, fix our broken budget process system, and get this regular order system back and working for the American people.
I was hoping for some buy-in from my friends on the left because they, too, recognize this process, but I guess they look at us and say: You are the governing majority, and it is up to you to make this thing work.
Nevertheless, it has been broken with both sides being in control, so it is essential, I think, that we do that.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mrs. Harshbarger
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Despite what my colleague on the other side says, when I hear regulation, I don't necessarily hear protection. Sometimes I hear just more red tape and more bars to success.
The private fund adviser rulemaking is a perfect example of the aggressive regulatory posture Chairman Gensler has taken that has threatened our markets and financial systems.
Bureaucratic overreach has been a hallmark of this administration's SEC. It is past time, Mr. Chairman, that these rules be stopped.
The sweeping proposal for private fund advisers is a prime instance of the agency's failure to conduct thorough economic analysis, missing the serious potential impact of underserved business and emerging asset managers.
This proposal could create additional hyper-regulatory hurdles for those who have overcome obstacles of their own to break into the market.
Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding.
Look, I am just going to be really brief. What we don't need is a disruption of innovation. That is what we don't need. What we do need in the financial industry are clear rules of the road, not confusing compliance standards within the analytics space.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support the gentleman from South Carolina's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.