democrats picked up the house of delegates. and give me a quick answer? caller: ok. i do not know what was wrong with republican marketing, the marketing about the border, they tell lies about the border. you remember the whole benghazi thing was alive. abortion in ohio, the marketing was not good. but on a national level, their lies are good. the borders and the guy who just called about the u.s. giving money to iran. where does he get these? these are lies and republican voters believe them. host: we will leave it there, the house is coming in and we will take you to gavel-to-gavel coverage and we will be back here tomorrow morning on washington journal. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 8, 2023.

i hereby appoint the honorable brandon williams to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, mike johnson, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. merciful god, look down on us from your holy temple. from your heavenly throne give he'd to our -- heed to our prayers. place on your scales of justice the confusion that is the israeli-palestinian conflict. release the captives from the crosshairs of their enemies. liberate the innocent victims of unspeakable and heinous crimallity. free those though find themselves hostages of hate. expose those whose prejudice fuels their death grip on whole peoples. unearth those who conceal themselves in the shadows. draw them out from their hiding places and hold them hostage to the judgment they deserve for

their cruelty. lord, purge us all from the hate that motivates hostility wherever it is found. save us from the vitriol that poisons even the most noble efforts intended to disarm the violence that pervades our world and threatens our communities. we stand in need of your mercy. and we pray in the sovereignty of your name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house the approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one dish minute speeches on each -- one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. last week i introduced the cybersecurity and skills integration act with congresswoman and co-chair of the career and technical education caucus, suzanne bonamici. in a high-risk, critical infrastructure sectors like telecommunications, agriculture, or health care the workforce with basic cyber skills is essential to our public safety. unfortunately, many skilled workers like any cybersecurity training specific to the systems they work on daily.

our society is increasingly reliant on cyber technologies for our most critical infrastructure. as bad actors increase cyber attacks, we must ensure we are protecting our most sensitive data. this legislation empowers the next generation of learners to have the most sophisticated and comprehensive education to better protect our essential systems and asset for years to come. the bipartisan cybersecurity skills integration act would fund the development of critical infrastructure c.t.e. programs that integrate cybersecurity. this is a bipartisan issue that both the trump and biden administrations have placed increased focus on. the legislation would align c.t.e. programs with industry needs by giving business as seat at the table with post secondary institutions crafting programs that ensure students are learning relevant skills, including cybersecurity conferences, and i urge my colleagues to support t i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from illinois wish to be recognized? >> unanimous consent to dr. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as you know we operate on a september 30 fiscal year, here we are 39 days later an the majority has yet to proposed a way to keep the government opened. mr. casten: the last september, kick the can down the road, kept the government opened for 45 days. in the words of mr. santos, that made you all big mad. you fired your speaker. now you got a new speaker, but a lot of you are still big mad. instead of working we are sitting here this week debating nonsense. lots of companies overseas. outside of the u.s. republican party climate change is real. the u.s. companies have to comply with scientifically informed policy. the biden administration is appropriately trying to help develop u.s. climate committee on rules that are -- climate security rules. the republican responsible to that ask big mad.

today we are voting on a bill that would defund the ability of regulators to develop consistent climate accounting rules instead of doing the work of the people. mr. speaker, science is real. we have real challenges. please stop being big mad. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california -- sorry. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island wish to be recognized? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. without objection, for one minute. mr. magaziner: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the heroic actions of deputy chief mike of the warwick fire department. mike and his wife were enjoying a night out in providence not long ago when they noticed that a fire had broken out at a nearby home. when he saw the smoke coming out of the triple dekker and realized that there were people

trapped inside the building, the off duty, 28-year-old firefighter sprang into action. he ran into the burning building with two providence police officers at his side. covered in no protective gear or equipment. he just knew that there was no time to waste. they headed up two flights of smoke filled stairs where they found a mother with her two children and rushed them to safety. he remained in the building clearing each floor as the fire raged around him. thanks to the quick actions of deputy chief mern ick all eight people in the building with rescued safety. his actions are a reminder that firefighters are heroes in every sense of the word. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california wish to be recognized? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, this week president biden announced more than $16 billion in federal funding for the northeast rail corridor, the busiest in the united states, through the bipartisan infrastructure law. while that is is an admiral and needed effort, i would like to call attention to the second busiest rail corridor which runs right through my district and is the only rail link between san diego and los angeles. mr. levin: the integrity of the corridor is arguably at greater risk than any other corridor in the country. it runs along the pacific ocean and has repeatedly closed due to climate change induced sea level rise, collapsing bluffs and eroding beaches. this has cost our economy hundreds of millions of dollars per year and impacts my constituents' ability to get where they need to. it's also the busiest state supported route for amtrak currently facing 64% funding cuts in the republican's t h.u.d. appropriations bill. this is the wrong approach.

we must invest in amtrak and i'll continue to advocate for the biden administration investing in the corridors that california can get its fair share of resources. i thank my partners in california and especially governor newsom for continuing to fight for this historic investment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas wish to be recognized? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. garcia: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the veterans of our country. there are over 16,000 veterans in my district, 16,000 people who have given their heart and soul to our nation. but for so many that call to serve has affected their health. in my district alone the v.a. has received 1,164 claims under

the pact act as of this october. that was possible because of the incredible work of house democrats to pass this law this last congress. currently many v.a. centers lack the ability to provide for care for gynecological cancers. that leaves female veterans to serve for their own care. that must change. we need to fight for our female veterans. i look forward to reintroducing the veterans cancer care coordinator act this week. this bill would create coordinators to help female veterans to receive the care they need for diagnosis through remission. and build on the successful maternal care program at the v.a. as a nation we must protect our nation's heroes. we must always put veterans above politics. and we must thank them. mr. speaker, to all the veterans, thank you for your service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois wish to be

recognizeed? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a local leader in broadcast news and fellow quad citizen. for more than 40 years, families in our region could count on the friendly demeanor and seasoned professionalism of paula sands on kwqc-tv6 news. mr. sorensen: she boasts an accomplished career taking the helm as the region's youngest woman to host her own tv show at the age of 23. since then and the past three decades she hosted paula sands live, a news show dedicated to current events and local businesses. she's an emmy award winner and has taken a seat in the national academy of television arts and sciences silver circle. all the while paula served her hometown as a trusted voice. i'm honored to enter the contributions of such a

legendary figure into the public record and i'm wishing paula sands my sincerest gratitude and well wishes as she enters retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. womack: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4664, and then i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 847 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4664. the chair appoints the gentleman from new york, mr. williams, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4664 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and rankin --ranking minority membee committee on appropriations or respective designees. the gentleman from arkansas, mrn from maryland, mr. hoyer, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. womack: 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, aid 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 appropriation bills. i also want to thank my good friend and ranking member, steny hoyer, for his input on this bubill and the many conversatios we have had. steny is a dear, dear friend of mine. somebody that i work very closely with not only with this bill but other matters of importance to our country. i consider him a very, very dear friend. it's an honor to have him at my side as the ranking member. i mean that, steny, sincerely. mr. chairman, i want you to look at these people right here. this is my team.

even i know i'm a bit prejudiced. steny would probably say the same thing about his team. these are the best that we have. lauren and her team, my personal staff. the work that they have put in to 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 n 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's not lost on me and i want to publicly recognize them. . h.r. 4664 provides $29.27

billion in nondefense discretionary spending across a number of critical agent sis the spot that we cover is incredible. it also includes $45 million in defense spending. it rejects over $6 tbhl discretionary funding increases within the president's budget request. the bill represents an adequate level of funding given our fiscal constraints. it's 7% below the fiscal 2023 enacted, 2% below the fiscal 2022 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, unobligated inflation reduction act i.r.s. fund, preventing the cree cation of a super army of i.r.s. agents poised to target individuals and small business owners. this rescission does not touch

taxpayerer is voirs the modernization of business system which is means taxpayers will still be able to get the assistance they need to file their taxes and inch r.s. can continue to modernize their systems and better protect taxpayer data from cyber attacks. we also rescind i.r.a. money from the yen services administration targeted to make federal buildings greener. instead of leading by example in the construction of sustainable buildings, g.s.a. 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 pre-pandemic telework levels. we must hold the federal work force 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 the country.

the bill demands that agencies concentrate on their core mission. let me say that again. it's important that our agencies that we fund stick to their core mission. the pursuit of job-kill, burdensome, unnecessary regulations only serves 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 rule makings at the securities and exchange commission that lack proper cost-benefit analysis and aggregate impact analysis. further, we prohibit agent shrieks the s.e.c. 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. chairman this bill is a strong bill with funding retuxes and policy wins. i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. sorry, the yellow light from msmed the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you. first of all, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, let me say that i echo the remarks of the chairman of this committee. the american public i think would be pleased and say looks this how it ought to work. mr. womack and i have great respect for one another. and we are great friends. and have been long before we were chair and ranking member on

this subcommittee of the appropriations committee. he is a person of great integrity. great insight. and great work ethic. he is somebody that i think the house can be proud of. somebody that i hold, as he said of me, 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 majority, the overwhelming majority, of federal employees. who are not known to the yen public. and there's a tendency, i think, to talk about the by ramcy and bureaucracy is used as a pejorative term, not as a descriptive term. and that's 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, which is not the bill that for the most part most people focus on. but it is one of the most important bills that we consider. because all the other bills, all 11 other appropriations bills, are reliant on the collections made through this bill. that's why i think it's so critical. mr. speaker, every member of this houseought to make it their goal to preserve america's fiscal health. sharing that common goal, president biden, speaker mccarthy, and 149 republicans, 165 democrats, 314 people. 75%, essentially, of this house,

agreed on a plan of going forward. and the first thing you do on a plan is decide how much are we going to spend? the president had a higher level. some in this house and the senate had a lower level. and 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 regular order a 302-a allocation. in other words, what we're going to spend on the discretionary side of the ledger which by the way is smaller than the mandatory side. we did that. 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're not going to do that. we're not going to follow that agreement. we're going to fund at a much lesser level they feel problem with that is the senate, republican and democratic, members of the senate, pursued under that agreement. so they are literally billions of dollars different than we will be when these 12 bills, assuming we pass these 12 bills and send them over to the senate. there's 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, nobody believes they're real. well that's not true. some do. some few in this body believe they're real and they're 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're not going to have to exercise that veto because this bill is not going to be adopted. i will tell you, mr. speaker, if mr. womack and i were left to our own devices, and he has a different perspective than i do, and that's what makes this body work we would come to an agreement that we think, i think, would patsz the senate and be signed by the president. why? because we'd do what, in a democracy, you have to do, come together and compromise. realizing full well that we have a democratic president, we have a democratic controlled senate and we have a republican almost majority. it's an absolute majority, i understand that politically. but it is not a majority that can always hold together. and therefore can't always effect 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. i believe that. sincerely. the deal that we made, 67% of house republicans voting for it, that bill that we have before us, does not have that agreement. it does not establish a foundation for negotiation. it does nothing to avert the shutdown looming just a few days from today. and crucially, it will increase the deficit over time. 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 f.t.c. the s.e.c. the consumer financial protection bureau. the consumer product safety commission. the election assistance commission. and the f.c.c. essentially saying to americans, you're on your own. we're 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. speaker the financial crimes enforcement network. we hear a lot about fentanyl. we hear a lot about money laundering. we hear about the drug cartels making a lot of money. well, we created the financial crimes enforcement network, otherwise known as fincen for

the specific purpose of following the money. that's how willie sutton obviously got caught, tax evasion. follow the money. and we've undermined that premise in this bill. we then decreased the office of terrorism and financial intelligence. terrorism. one of the great challenges of our time. and what do we do? we decrease the agencies that charged with overseeing that, among other agencies. the office of national drug control policy. now you'd think, given the expression that all of us have and concern we have about fentanyl and drug abuse and drug deaths in this country, that we'd beef up that office to make sure we can in fact confront this scourgen our people and our

country. the emergency planning and security costs in this city, the capital city, to which millions of our constituents come, reduced. in total this bill cuts $345 million or 6.2%, below the enacted for crucial law enforcement agencies. it provides $1.32 billion, over 20.2% less for law enforcement than what president biden requested in his office. mr. speaker, in that context i would ask, who is defunding the police? and yet republicans have the nerve, frankly, not my chairman, but some republicans have the nerve to accuse democrats of trying to defund law enforcement. pearing back enforcement has -- paring back enforcement has dire

consequences along with the campaign to defund the internal revenue service. the number of annual tax returns, mr. speaker, increased from 140.1 million in 1979 to 269 million in 2021. that's a 92% increase in work load. and so what is our response? over the years to reduce from 85,000 people in 1979, trying to handle this extraordinary workload, to, in 2021, 78,661, an 8% decrease while a 92% workload increase occurred. that means refunds get delayed. returns aren't audited. taxes go uncollected. tax cheats and lawbreakers are not held accountable. and our debt grows even bigger. if you're a business trying to get the revenue you're owed, frankly, you don't fire the collection department.

if you had bad debt you'd go after them. this bill just -- does just that. 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 that 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 owing under the laws that we passed. those agents we each pay the share and legally owe enforce that and they go after the cheats and lawbreakers who don't. if you are for law and order, that's what you are for.

if people cheat, people break the law you hold them accountable. but if you're going to hold them accountable, you need the personnel to do so because some of them have got asked of lawyers and accountants and very complicated returns of thousands of paychecks. too often those lawbreakers are americans with a lot of wealth and complex tax filings. i'm not talking about the overwhelming majority of americans who, by the way, taxes are withheld on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly basis. in talking about the select few who use pass-throughs, shell companies, offshore accounts to shield their vast wealth of taxation. i don't want them to pay any more than is owed. i don't have any brief against anybody -- grief against anybody who is wealthy. what i have agree against is people who cheat and cheat their country. maryland, harvard and treasury experts found that there is 12

to one return for investment of i.r.s. enforcement of the top 10% of earners. 12. spend $1 you get 12 back that's a pretty good deal. a make a real difference. years of budget and staffing cuts have limited the i.r.s. ability to conduct these audits. why? because they are time consuming and complex. millionaires are 88% less likely to face audit in fiscal year 2022 than they were in fiscal year 2010. an am 100% reduction from essentially $9 plus to $1. the results is a backdoor tax cut but only for those with the means to -- and guile to exploit accounting trips to high profits and income and in the end tax obligation. their duty to support their

country, their national security, the health care investments that we make in medicare and social security. this bill includes 22.2% cut below for i.r.s. enforcement. my chairman will correctly observe that the other items he will point out have been held relatively harmless. so it's only the collection department that was cut. and by the way, a recent article just last month pointed out that i.r.s. now assumes an -- estimates there is $688 billion in unpaid taxes. 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 was two that's a disservice to hardworking americans who patriotically and consciously pay their taxes. this bill defunds those agencies of government that keep us safe with a cut behe low the enacted

$6 million, $24.4 million for fincen, the financial crimes enforcement network. follow the money. and $9.2 million to the office of terrorism and financial intelligence. confront terrorism. everywhere you find it. it disrupts the agencies ensure the products we buy and markets we invest in aren't overrun with fraud by undermining the independents of the consumer financial protect bureau. by cutting the consumer product safety commission, very hard for consumers, mr. speaker, to make a determination is this product safe? has it been test? but they rely on us to make sure that yes it's been tested and yes it's safe so it won't hurt or kill my children. and the s.e.c. by $149 million which disrupts the markets if people don't trust them. if you don't have an overseer, you didn't have an oversear in

the 1920's. 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 hold these people accountable with a cut of $7 million to the f.e.c. $53 million to the 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 those junk calls all the time. that annoy the living day lights 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 tonight party of law enforcement, they need to shelf this bill. they know this legislation will never become law. they bloated it with partisan poison pills, which i have not spoken of, but i'm sure will be during the course of this.

to undermine a woman's right to choose. i'm sure that everybody saw what happened in ohio yesterday. now ohio, for the most part, has been a red state. overwhelmingly said a woman's right to choose needs to be protected. we believed in that so much that we are going to put it in our 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 anyone feel badly about what their country did to people because of the color of their skin. or their sexual orientation. undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion. exacerbate the climate crisis. mr. speaker, we'll talk about a lot of this bill for the next

few hours. more than that. i think the chair and i will try to achieve that objective. we ought to stop this nonsense. we don't have a lot of amendments to reduce salaries to $1. that's not a serious congress. it's not a serious rules committee who has amendment -- 55 amendments reducing salaries by $1. to $1. not by. to $1. that we are going to vote on. i don't know how many we'll vote on, but we have done 55 to date. the only one that is have been approved have been approved in a bipartisan -- by 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 safer and a greater country and all it can

be. i yield back. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: thank you. i i yield myself such time as i may consume. as i said earlier, steny and i are really, really good friends. 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. quite a while. so i learned from people like that. we just have a different view in many cases about sometimes the role of the government or why we need to fund the government at levels that they would prefer to have. i'm just going to pick one issue. there are many we could talk about. i want to talk -- he mentioned

fentanyl. nobody in this country would argue that we don't have a fentanyl problem. 100,000 people a year dying as a result of this synthetic illegal substance that's making its way across our borders. what we believe, mr. chairman, what this side of the aisle believes is that instead of fighting the issue on the inside of the country, by the way let me just remind you on the high intensity drug trafficking program we fund hidta at a level higher than the president of the united states requested. it's a little bit less than last year, but higher than the president's request. so 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 effort, really, to stop it. it's making its way into the households of america from sea to shining sea. and then all of a sudden we get accused of wanting to cut budgets for agencies that target that illegal substance that for some reason we are the bad guys. no, we think that if we had better border security, which is something that both sides of the aisle have argued about for decades, that if we had better border security maybe we wouldn't need as much money to fight these problems interior to our country. i use that as an example.

there are others. let's just agree to this. that with a better part of a $2 trillion deficit this year, we have to address the root cause of what's causing such a difficult spot for this nation. that is the fiscal health of the country. $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's approaching $1 trillion a year. think, think for just a moment what we could do if we were -- instead of paying our creditors, we were able to use that $1 trillion for programs that benefit all americans. that's a subject for a different

day. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to my dear, dear friend from the great state of iowa, ashley hinson, who is a very valued member of this subcommittee and a bright shining star in the u.s. house of representatives. i yield her three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from iowa is recognized for three minutes. mrs. hinson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from arkansas for yielding me the time to speak on this very important piece of legislation today. for your leadership on this bill. it is tough to craft a bill that funds the priorities of the american people in a way that is targeted and respects taxpayers. i appreciate the approach that you have had to do that in a very meaningful way. it's why i'm supporting this bill here today. the fiscal year 2024 financial services general government appropriations bill. this bill does deliver on the promises that we have made to the american people. we are reining in out-of-control spending and regulation.

we are restoring accountability for taxpayers. we are deweaponizing the federal government. additionally, as the chairman mentioned, we are prioritizing national security against our foreign adversaries. both in dealing with the border and also dealing with adversaries like china. this bill does promote a federal government that works for the american people. we are ensuring that bureaucrats who have, frankly, been abusing the covid-19 telework policies and still working from home get back to work. get back in the office like america s they need to put in 100% effort for the taxpayers that pay their salary. i'm not sure how many of my colleagues here in the chamber, mr. speaker, are aware of the g.a.o. report that came out over the summer, but it flagged that on average 17 of 24 federal agencies here in washington, d.c., were only using on average about 25% of their office space. taxpayers fund the bill here for these offices at $7 billion a year.

so the lights were on but really no one was home. we need to make sure, again, they are putting 100% effort in for the taxpayers that pay their salary. i'm sure all of our offices are getting the same calls mine are about reduction in government services. we need to make sure they are getting 100%. this bill also restores accountability by reining in rogue overreaching agencies like the consumer financial protection bureau that will now be subject to congressional oversight and answer to the american taxpayer rather than being able to pursue a partisan agenda that hurts our small businesses. this bill also protects american families and small businesses by rescinding funding for president biden's proposals to super charge an army of i.r.s. agents while maintaining those very important taxpayer service operations. we don't want to see, again, like i said reduction in services for our taxpayers. and when they are calling they should not be get ago dial tone. our bill also protects iowa

farmers from onerous regulations like the s.e.c.'s climate disclosure rule and expansive scope 3 emissions disclosure requirement. this would be disastrous for producers not only in my district but around the country. it would bury our hardworking farmers who feed and fuel the world in paperwork and compliance costs. we are also taking steps, strong steps to ensure that we are bolstering national security against threats from our adversaries. like the chinese communist party, i also serve on the select committee on strategic competition with china. i think this is of utmost important h.r. importance, mr. speaker. we need to protect taxpayer resource from supporting the wuhan institute of virology or any other laboratory operated by the c.c.p. finally, this includes my language to require the this incleudz my language to look at chinese surveillance equipment. mr. womack: i yield the

gentlewoman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. hinson: this give mons to monitor the use of chinese surveillance equipment on government property and the ability to remove that property. this addresses the priorities i continue to hear about from my constituents. i thank the chairman for yielding. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. womack: reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield six minutes to the distinction wshed -- distinguished ranking member of the committee, rosa delauro of connecticut. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: thank you chair womack, ranking member hoyer, and committee staff for all that you do. this bill put forth by the majority is unacceptable. the republicans propose cutting critical agencies the american

people depend on for a stable, secure, safe and fair economy by a staggering 58% my colleagues across the aisle often claim to support things like law and order, economic competition, protecting children, yet their actions demonstrated by this bill suggest otherwise. cuts to the fall smiz administration would cut off assistance and resources that help small business start, grow, compete. cuts to the securities and exchange commission would benefit market manipulators and inside traders over families saving for retirement. cuts to the federal trade commission would levy higher prices on americans and make seniors more prone to be victimized by scammers. and cuts to the consumer product safety commission would enable daijts products to hit store shelves and enter our homes, potentially harming our children. and finally, cuts to the internal revenue service would protect cheats over honest, hardworking families. we know an underfunded,

understafd, overwhelmed i.r.s. means the wealthiest billionaires and corporations often avoid paying taxes. not often. they avoid paying taxes. according to secretary yellen, and i quote, in 2019, the top 1% of americans was estimated to owe over one fifth of unpaid taxes, leaving ordinary americans to shoulder the burden, end quote. furthermore, in 2021, the institute on taxation and economic policy found at least 55 of the largest corporations in america in the year they saw over $40 billion in pretax income had paid no federal corporate income taxes. corporations like nike, hewlett-packard and dish network paid zero federal income taxes. treasury recently announced that thanks to the resources provided in the inflation reduction act, the i.r.s. is pursuing back taxes owed from about 1,600

taxpayers with incomes over $1 million. they have so far closed 100 of those cases, collecting $122 million since september. that is not a tax increase. that is collecting revenue legally owed. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle frame the debt as the problem of our investments, our public investments in the american people. we have a revenue problem and they refuse to let the i.r.s. collect legally-owed tacks from their billionaire and corporate friends to address this problem. earlier this year, disadvantaged small businesses, making seniors susceptible to cammers, exposing children to dangerous products. we cannot stand for this. earlier this year i met with the s.b.a. administrator guzman. small business administrator is concerned with how they'll provide the resources america's entrepreneurs rely on to help

their business start and grow if these cuts are encted a. small businesses are an essential part of the american economy and really are the core of financial security to our middle class. they define main street and neighborhoods across america. this bill not only slashes funding for the inch r.s., takes back more than $10 million provided in the inflation reduction act, this is on top of cuts to the i.r.s. that the majority is pursuing as a condition for providing aid to israel. in addition to the $5 billion in cuts to the i.r.s.'s inflation reduction act, funding in the other 11 appropriations bills. these cuts would rob the treasury of $130 billion and hand it directly to billionaires, the biggest corporations, fraudsters and tax cheats. that's not according to me, that's according to the congressional budget office. i've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about wanting to be tough on china and yet this bill includes

no funding for the administration's efforts to restrict outbound investment in countries like china that threaten our national security. the majority is giving a green light to the potential offshoring of critical united states supply chains to foreign adversaries like china and russia. and of course the majority doesn't stop there. dozens of problematic, pointless riders including prohibitions on the s.e.c.'s climate disclosure rule, prohibitions on health care and abortion, micromanaging the district of columbia's traffic laws, at the level that is petty and deserves derision. the financial services and general government bill is central to effectively running the federal government. providing services to the american people. the majority's bill instead focuses on protecting the tax dollars and the priorities of billionaires and big corporations for all these reasons, i cannot support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time.

mr. hoyer: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, member of the appropriations committee, debbie wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for three mines. ms. wasserman schultz spb thank you, mr. speaker. i want to recognize my good friends, chairman womack and ranking member hoyer and i do mean that in the truest sense of the word for their work on this bill which does contain several of my priorities. i do want to respond quickly to the chairman's comments about the border really being the problem with fentanyl coming across into the united states and that it's not necessary to fund the office of drug control. when you focus on safety. making sure that you can keep people safe from harm that they can't avoid on their own. we need layers of protection.

and so it is a fool's errand to cut an office like the office of drug control policy, because we aren't doing enough in your mind to handle drug entry into the country from the border. it's both/and when it comes to safety, not either-or. unfortunately this bill, though it does contain several of my priority, has so many misguided, tongsic, extreme provisions, it will make us all less safe and karines our government toward a shutdown. this is a bill that's rather unsung. i always try to come and talk about this bill. it does have a whole lot of acronym agencies that have for a reach into americans' protection, security, safety and it's so important that we make sure we shine a little bit of a spotlight on it as a result. this bill does prioritize re reducing pool and spa deaths for

programs authorized under my virginia graham pool and spa safety act for which i thank the chair for his help. for children under the age of 5 drowning is a public health threat we must confront. sadly, overall this bill makes all our constituents less safe. it hamstrings consumer watchdogs, leaving families more vulnerable to fraud or dangerous products. it gites the consumer safety commission's already palletry budget. we need to keep famcis safe, not make them nervous to choose products when they walk down the aisles of a store. on top of protecting scammers and cheats this bill hurts public servants and threatens our national security. how does it do that sny same republicans who claim to support our national defense and armed forces would cut the national security council in this bill and the office of terrorism and financial intelligence. the same republicans boast how tough they are on heroin and

fentanyl actually cut the office of national drug control policy in this bill. don't believe republicans who claim to be the party of law and order either. this bill actually underfunds multiple levels of our federal courts and the public defenders. this bill basically waves white collar criminals right on through to do their sketchy business by cutting the s.e.c. and f.t.c. if you want to empower scammers and cheats or get more robocallers bothering you at home by ringing your phone off the hookering vote for this bill. if you want to protect family, vote against it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to recognize the wildcat from kentucky, mr. barr, for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy. mr. barr: i want to thank mr. womack, chairman of the

financial services and general government subcommittee, not only for his leadership but his rabid support of the razorbacks. we have a big rivalry, kentucky and arkansas, in basketball. but in this case we are on the same page, mr. speaker. because the chairman has rightfully included in this year's fsgg appropriations bill, my legislation, h.r. 1382. the taking account of bureaucrats' spending act or tabs act, which would separate the consumer financial protection bureau if the federal reserve system, make it an independent agency, and subject subject it, importantly, to the congressional appropriations process. the tabs act would remedy the serious constitutal defect in the structure of the cfpb under which the cfpb draws its funding uniquely from the federal reserve rather than from congress like most other executive branch agent sis. 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. and then the fed is then required to provide such amount to the agecy 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 law, the cap is so high that it effectively grants the cfpb director unfetter discretion over the agency'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 analog for the cfpb anywhere in the history of the u.s. executive branch.

even among self-funded agency, the bureau is unique. it is a perpetual self-directed double insulated funding structure that goes a significant step further than that enexpwroid any other agency, again, in the history of our republic. the tabs act would fixthis. it would bring much-needed accountable to the cfpb and uphold the constitution's separation of powers and the exclusive grant 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 f.y.2024fsgg bill would fund the cfpb at near-current levels. i would also note that h.r. 2798, the cfpb trandz parentcy and accountability reform act marked up out of the financial services committee on april 26, included this bill, the tabs act, and authorized to be appropriated from unobligated amounts contained in the consumer financial civil penalty fund $650 million for f.y.2024. again at levels comparable to what the cfpb receive fred the fed this year. to my friends on though other side of the aisle you can't make the argument that we're trying to defund the agecy that we're trying to gut consumer protection law, because we're manifestly preuxing we're not doing that. wie funding the agency the way it should be. this clearly demonstrated that the tabs act is not about eliminating consumer prothoarks

cfpb but about upholding the constitution. it's about defending the congress. this institution. if this bill is enacted into law, the agency would continue to operate. the only difference would be that the congress would oversee the agency's 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 versus cpf -- cfpb in which the agent see's structure was changed as violating the accept ration -- separation of powers an appropriations clause which provides that, quote, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but many 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 appropriations power to stabilize pre-existing consumer protection laws and make sure the cfpb is funded with better and more meaningful oversight in the event the supreme court strikes down the funding mechanism. the founding fathers wanted to make sure 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 number 58, the power of the purpose may be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people from obtain ago redress of every grievance and 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 c.i.a. in the same manner as the cfpb is currently funded, would be that be acceptable? would we want those agencies to be unaccountable to our oversight? the appropriations process the primary means by which congress on a bipartisan basis overseas those -- 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. there is no problem with the structure. 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 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 law the court struck down the infringement of the president's removal power over the director of the c.f.p.b. i hope now it protects congresses power as it did the

president's power. supreme court's role is not just prevent the erosion of presidential powers but also congress' powers. the reason the cfpb funding structure is problematic is because when congress delegates its core responsibilities away to administrative agencies, the value of each americans' 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 change -- that changes in congress don't change policies set by agencies. lack of congressional control over the cfpb creates the opportunity for special interest 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's 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. 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. but 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, senior ridge in the case of the federal reserve, fees on banks in the case of the comptroller of the currency, deposit insurance, tariff revenue in the case of the custom 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 separation of powers. the federal reserve senior ridge for money creation not a biggie bank.

forcing the federal reserve to pay for other government operations risk 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, to uphold congress' appropriations authority over federal executive branch agencies. i urge my colleagues to remedy this constitutional deeffect. pass the womack appropriations bill. pass the tabs act. and restore congressional appropriations authority. i yield back. the chair: mr. womack: thank you, mr. barr, and your hard work in drafting the tabs act. we are pleased to include it in this year's financial services 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. that is our oath. that's what we swear to on january 3 every other year. this is a principle action. it is not an effort to kill the cfpb. that's why this bill funds the cfpb at the level it receives now. we nearly -- merely want to create an accountable funding structure for the cfpb that is like all other consumer protection agencies. that's why i will not support the amendment to eliminate the funding. that's why constitutional principles. this is about the constitutional principles not the cfpb's ex 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, the mechanism whereby our democracy ensures that the people's priorities are reflected in how taxpayer

dollars are allocated and spent. it's my hope the supreme court recognizes this fact and strikes down the funding structure of the cfpb. with that, mr. chairman, we reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. chairman. first let me say i'm sympathetic to the issue of the appropriations committee needs to conduct oversight. 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 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 on appropriation bill which, but for the waiver that was issued by the rules

committee, would be a point of order would be applicable and not considered. i suggest that this is an authorizing matter. it is a matter 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. now i yield one minute to my friend from california, mr. levin. mr. levin: i thank the ranking member for yielding. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i rise today to address our country's urgent need for a supreme court code of ethics. over the past year we have seen troubling reports of justices

receiving lavish gifts from political donors with connections to cases before the supreme court and who stand to benefit from rulings. this is unacceptable and unethical and it is undermined public trust in the institution. it's time for the supreme court to adopt and abide by a judicial code of ethics. currently all federal judges must abide by a code of ethics except for supreme court justices. that must change. i introduced an amendment to the financial services and general government appropriations bill that would withhold $10 million in funding from the supreme court until the justices adopt a code of ethics. this amendment which i introduced with congressman hank johnson, would have restored public confidence in this institution t would help to solve one of the many problems our voters sent us to washington, d.c., to fix. the corrupt power of money in politics and judicial system. sadly, republicans on the rules committee would not even consider my amendment in order. we must do better.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield 30 seconds to the -- give a minute to the gentleman from -- i know he can't -- he's from kentucky. he can't say what he needs to say in 30 seconds. i give him a full minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barr: thank you, mr. chairman. i will be brief in response to my friend, the gentleman from maryland, who makes the argument that the authors of the dodd frank law made which was that we designed this to be independent. that's fine. that's 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 there is no constitutional infirmity because the funding stream -- scheme was enacted by congress. in the dodd frank law. therefore it's constitutional. in essence the bureau contends

because congress spun the agency's funding mechanism in the motion when it passed the act, walla, the appropriation clause is satisfied. that's not the way the constitution works, mr. speaker. 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. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. womack: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: may i ask the chair if he has any more speakers? mr. womack: we are prepared to close. mr. hoyer: i'm prepared to close. mr. speaker, number one on this issue it is pending before the supreme court. the supreme court can decide whether it's constitutional or not. we can't decide whether something is constitutional or not. ultimately the supreme court decides that. we pass laws. we certainly hope and expect them to be constitutional.

i would, again, reiterate my opposition to the gentleman's amendment on this bill. mr. speaker, 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. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just say as i started in the opening. great respect for my friend, mr. hoyer, from maryland. 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 we need a bill across 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 we can live with. we know the clock is running. america knows on november 17 we'll have to have a continuing resolution of some form to be able to continue the work of this appropriations process. and 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'll have a big amendment process going on throughout the day today and tonight and into tomorrow, 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's what we are responsible in doing here today. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. .

the chair: all time for debate has expired. the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fife-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. the amendment in part a of house report 118-269 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 118-269, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 847, and pro forma amendments described in section 4 of this resolution. each further amendment printed in part b of the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the propoet

and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of house resolution 847, and shall in the be subject to a demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on appropriations or her designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part b of the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, except as provided by section 4 of house resolution 847 and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments

each at any point for the purpose of debate. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. womack: pursuant to house resolution 847, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc consisting of amendments numbered one, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 34, 36, 66, 67, 71, and 75, printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. womack of arkansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 874, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, and the gentleman from maryland, mr0 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. 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 work force and i look forward to incorporating these amendment into my bill. i want to thank my colleague and good phren, pranking remember -- ranking member hoyer, for his consultation, and all member who was worked with me on this bill. i urge a yes vote on the en bloc amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield two minutes

to mr. moll narro of the great state of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. molinaro: i want to highlight just three amendments within the en bloc, particular i think to communities and districts like mine. first just to highlight, financial literacy is critically important, in particular in rural communities like the one i represent in upstate new york. the best path forward for someone to achieve independence obviously is hard work and good financial decision making. amendment 1 encourages the department of treasury to continue to invest in financial literacy initiatives for students and reach in particular young people in rural communities like those in upstate new york lt. i was shocked, mr. chairman, upon becoming a member of congress that there are constituents within many districts across the country but in particular upstate new york that were not receiving actual mail delivery.

i know this is perhaps not unique to my district. however with thousands of individuals who have moved into upstate new york, catskill community, catskill region community, the post office has yet to act knowledge the very existence, whether it's simply offering them a physical mailing address or delivering their mail, amendment 71 that i submitted would address this glaring oversight and quite frankly incompetence within sullivan county in upstate new york in my district where the united states postal service has completely ignored these constituents, where hundreds of them, thousands of them, not yet able to receive mail. therefore this amendment highlights the need, the american tax pay you are should be entitled to the constitutionally recognized delivery of mail service and then lastly, i have an amendment, number 23, to address for senior citizens spam calls and targeted fraud cases.

the f.t.c. data shows that consumers last an estimated $8.8 billion to scams in 2022. my amendment encourages the f.t.c. to coordinate with other agencies like the d.o.j. and f.t.c. to ensure our data is protected and seniors are not victims. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. beatty. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for up to two minutes. mrs. beatty: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to you, mr. hoyer. i rise in support of the en bloc amendment which highlights the importance of financial crimes enforcement network, fincen, protect our financial system from illicit activities, combat money laundering and promote united states national security. as we speak oligarchs, clep to contracts and other criminals are -- kleptocrats and other

criminals are engaging in money laundering, terrorist finance, tax fraud, corruption, briary and other illicit activity. fincen is working tirelessly to implement the current transparency acts beneficial ownership rule. to increase transparency and yes, to follow the money. to pursue bad actors from russian oligarchs to drug traffickers and more recently, yes, terrorist groups. particularly in the wake of the recent hamas attack, it is evident how vital the bureau's work is to direct and deter financing streams for terrorist groups. so i am asking that we support this amendment. unfortunately, house republican financial services and general government appropriations act cuts fincen's funding by more than 12% and would necessitate significant personnel layoffs.

my colleagues across the aisle claim to prioritize national security while simultaneously undermining the very offices at treasury tasked with safeguarding our financial system. this office is already stretched thin, working hard to fulfill its mandate with the limited resources it has. let's not further hamstring the bureau's national security efforts with a 12% budget cut. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. mr. hoyer: reserve, i support the chairman's en bloc amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: we are prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. hoyer: i support and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: what he said. yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognitions? mr. molinaro: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. molinaro of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 47, the gentleman from new york -- resolution 847, the gentleman from new york, mrr opposed each will control five maines. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york.

mr. molinaro: thank you, mr. chairman. the committee on foreign investments in the united states, cfius, is the chief body responsible for monitoring our national security risk and security risk it poses. my amendment would direct cfius to monitor adversarial nations. food security is national security. a disturbing trend of increased ownership of farm operations by entities to ties to chinese and russian goves is alarming and dangerous. whether it's farmland or advanced agribusinesses, adversarial control over these provide them an opportunity to spy on military assets, steal revolutionary ag tech knowledge and research and undermine the united states food system. this issue has tbarnered bipartisan support on the agriculture committee because it's essential for us to protect america's agricultural land and protect our family farms.

cfius can be a critical tool in better evaluating the risk and improving our response to this threat. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment of course is -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the chair. this amendment of course is an add-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. the chair: does the gentleman reserve. mr. hoyer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. molinaro: sending a powerful message to our adversaries that america's food security is our national security is important and critical. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from maryland is recognized.

mr. hoyer: are there anymore -- the chair: the gentleman from new york yielded. mr. hoyer: no additional speakers? if not, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. molinaro: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the yeas and nays are requested. does the gentleman request a recorded vote? does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. molinaro: yes, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 118-269.

for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. grothman: i've got an amendment, the amendment eliminates funtding for the department of treasury's community development financial institutions fund. this amendment, if drafted, would save $280 million in fiscal year 2024. i willem fa size one more time that in putting together all these appropriations bills, the goal of all congressmen should be to reduce the level of spending. in the year just wrapped up, we are borrowing 2% of every dollar

spent. if you're borrowing 22% of every dollar spent you have a big problem even if we stick to the numbers that we agreed to in the raising the debt limit bill. next year the amount we're borrowing will be equal to 23%. of every amount spent. we have a real crisis here. things are getting worse and worse. as we go through these appropriation bills, we should be looking for ways to spend less money and return it to the treasury. the cdfi fund provides grans to community development financial institutions, community development entities and other private financial institutions. because of that, it not -- this amendment not only saves money but saves money by taking away money from a fund that frequently results in public-private partnerships. i think there's nothing worse than public-private partnerships. it mean what is you're doing, you wind up enriching already wealthy people at the expense of the taxpayer and allowing people

in the community to become wealthier, not by necessarily doing something that's better for the community or successful in the free market. you become wealthier by you become wealthy by schmoozing with the local elected officials. i think it is corporate welfare. i don't like corporate welfare. i think over time more and more people are getting wealthy not by providing something that would be winnable in the free market but they do something by taking advantage of grants and credits offered by the government. i'll quote the heritage foundation, the only rigorous empirical assessment to date found it to be largely ineffective in meeting its goals and increasing community investment development. this found that most c.d. investments were relocated rather than new net investments. in other words, transferring one business to another area. suggesting that all m.t.c.

investments do not likely represent new funds to low-income communities. president trump tried to eliminate this in his 2021 budget. president trump sometimes a president who was pushing for less spending in his budget. they noted that the cdfi fund was created to jump-start an industry and limited access to private capital, the industry now has ready access to cabal needed to extend credit and offer financial services to underserved communities. eliminating the need for such grants. in the interest of endy cronyism, saving tax dollars, stopping government waste, and getting rid of a program that i think too frequently makes wealthy development types wealthier, i urge a yes vote on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. womack: i claim time in

opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. womack: i rise in opposition. 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 ensure they are able to provide these underserved communities access to capital by awarding certified cdfi's with tax credits and monetary support. i'm proud that my own state greatly benefits from the cdfi fund and have seen the far-reaching impact it's had on the community. defunding the program would only serve to harm the most vulnerable communities in america. so it's under that pretense, mre amendment. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized mr. grothman: i'll just make one more point here. assuming some of this money

benefits americans, not just the wealthy wheeler dealers, we right now, at least if wisconsin is any indication, have huge surpluses in our stat coffers. it's a good idea it should be handled by the states not by the federal government that is broke out of indmind. one of the reasons we are so broke is too many of my colleagues don't look at the constitution and realize that some things are supposed to be in the state and local government and other things are supposed to be handled by the federal government. by the time you get to the federal government there is a huge amount of waste there. in the interest of trying to keep our dollar, the strong currency it's been throughout our lifetime, i urge adoption of this amendment and send these programs back to the states. the chair: does the gentleman reserves or yield? mr. grothman: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized mr. womack: for the reasons stated previously i urge rejection of the amendment.

yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. grothman: i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grothman: i ask for a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. schweikert: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered

by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: mr. speaker, chairman, ranking member a couple years ago we dove into post offices. particularly those that did not appear to be financially vibrant, surviving. we realized much of the data we were working on had holes in it. we couldn't get certain lease costs. were they real estate owned. all i'm trying to do here is just get updated data. at some point we are going to go back through, you have been watching the accounts, we are going to go back through that discussion again of how we shore up the finances of the u.s.

postal system. it would be nice if we go into that having high quality information. and the optionality that information would provide us. that's as complicated as this is. with 245 i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. hoyer: although i want to 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 post office to the pretty extensive ana analytical chore of -- determining each post office, particularly in rural areas. i don't represent some -- i represent some rural and some suburban. i think this would be a burden and add paperwork without giving us a result. when i say not giving us a result, mr. chairman, let us say that post office a, b, and c were make ago profit and d, e, and f if you look at the unit that is the single post office is not making a profit. 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 we ought to look at. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: mr. speaker, what the ranking member is saying is fair. the goal here to have much better information. the reality is we are going to go back through that uncomfortable exercise again. it's probably a year or two, maybe three years out. but the world has changed. this is one of the great difficulties we have around here. sometimes it's hard to accept. but in a weird way we are sort of protection racket. we protect incumbent models of business, incumbent processes, incumbent bureaucracies. we are all -- how much of those are now paying our bills on this thing. how many of us are communicating on this thing and not licking and envelope with the risk of paper cut. that was funny. and the world is different. and i know we have certain sensitivity to the history, to the communities.

we are going to have to deal with the financial realities that is modern america. and that's all i'm trying to do. if we are going to deal with those, let's have quality information so we understand. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. hoyer: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oklahoma seek recognition? mrs. bice: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, printed in part b of house report number 118-269. offered by mrs. bice of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentlewoman from oklahoma, mrs. bice, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oklahoma. mrs. bice: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this amendment. my amendment directs the commissioner of the internal revenue service to provide congress with the quantity and types of weapons, weapons systems, ammunition, explosive device, armored vehicles, drones, u.a.v.'s and chemical weapons such as tear gas in their possession. since taking office, the biden administration has repeatedly attempted to super charge an already weaponized i.r.s. according to the watchdog organization, open the books, the i.r.s. has spent over $35 million since 2006 to stockpile

weapons, ammunition, and gear. nearly 1/3 of this 35 million or roughly 10 million, has been spent in the last three years alone. the report also mentions the purchase of tactical lighting, optical sites, ballistic helmets. this is not a new issue. and it is not new to oklahomans. the late dr. tomko burn, the godfather of oversight, previously raised similar questions and never received adequate responses from the i.r.s. in july, i sent a letter to i.r.s. commissioner requesting information on this issue. including details on the accounts that the i.r.s. had used to purchase such weapons, gear, and ammunition, and data on the quantity and types of items used in the possession of the i.r.s. information on the specific types of modifications to i.r.s. issued weapons that have been approved. and the number of the requests

that have been approved. this is vital information because part 9 of the internal revenue manual, titled criminal version outlines the modifications that can be made to weapons and process for exceptions. proper oversight dictates that we understand the process and the practice. the i.r.s. still has not replied to my letter. they must be reminded that congress controls the power of the purse and has oversight authority. americans are rightly concerned by the i.r.s.' lack of accountability and they are frustrated that agencies continue to abuse their power. mr. speaker, it comes down to transparency. i fully recognize the historical significance of the i.r.s. and their ability to take down criminal entities. however, the i.r.s. needs to at the time american people exactly what capabilities they have. when the i.r.s. audits an american business or individual,

they first and foremost must ask for an asset inventory list. if you don't have one, it's a serious problem. so why does the same agency refuse to provide their own asset list? what other materials are stockpiled? this is increasingly concerning as we look at recent funding increases through the so-called inflation reduction act in which the biden administration provided millions of dollars to hire tens of thousands of new agents. i would like tree mind my colleagues of the strict rules and processes that are in place on our military as it relates to firearms and munitions. every military commander must keep a detailed and precise record of munitions both spent and otherwise. they are expected to measure to the ounce and can receive significant punishment if the numbers don't match. the i.r.s. should be no different. today the number of armed federal agents is rapidly approaching the size of the united states marine corps.

the lines have been blurred between the i.r.s.' role as a regulatory tax agency and a law enforcement agency. the american taxpayers are providing the funding for these assets, the least they deserve is an accounting of their purchases. my amendment provides much needed transparency on this issue. thank you. i yield back. reserve. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. hoyer: mr. chairman, 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's not true. it's 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. i frankly don't care much about getting this information. i think this information is certainly worthwhile having. but it is not worthwhile in terms of its intent to continue, add nauseam, 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. now this is again, could have included this in the report

language. this is an add-in and then add-out language soivment has no fiscal impact. and it is unnecessary and here we are, some 10 days from the close down of government, we're 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's 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 somehow give this misnomer, this mischaracterization, this misinformation that somehow as they have said over and over

again, these armed, 87,000, absolutely untrue, are going to be at somebody's door trying to check their taxes. what we're trying to collect is taxes from some pretty bad people. and the agents we asked to do that work are doing it for their country and putting themselves in harm's way. and some assertion that somehow the i.r.s. has become an army of agents showing up at doors with machine guns is absolutely wrong. but i hear it all the time. apparently it makes good politics. because apparently some don't believe that people ought to pay their fair share of taxes. and 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're a lawbreaker. you're a criminal. and you owe us and the american people money, legally. and you're doing it illegally, avoiding your taxes. so i hope that this aspersion that somehow the i.r.s. has become this armed army that's 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. vote no on this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve or yield? mr. hoyer: reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from oklahoma.

mrs. bice: they could prove they are not hiding anything or stockpiling weapons by providing the report i have requested. i yield the balance of my time to my friend from arkansas, mr. womack. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. womack: thank you. i appreciate the yuck lady. 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. so 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. mr. hoyer: i said february i was mistaken, i thank the gentleman for correcting me. mr. womack: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment, full committee, robust discussion, i think the information we're working on right now is back in 2018 from the g.a.o. it's firearm the i.r.s.

commissioner to give us this information. i also want to congratulate the young lady for the bedlam battle victory that they had this past week. i yield back the balance our time. mr. hoyer: i yield back. the chair: both sides yield. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman -- pardon me. by the gentlelady from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. harshbarger: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mrs. harshbarger of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 837, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. harshbarger, and a member posed each will wil control five minutes. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. harshbarger: i rise today to speak against the biden administration's decision to use money to purchase weapons for the i.r.s. last year the american people were shocked to learn the biden administration was providing billions to the i.r.s. to hire 80,000 new agents, whose job it will be to go after hardwork, middle class americans. the i.r.s. should be focused on assisting our constituents with tax compliance and ensuring americans receive their entitled refund, not focusing on arming its ages with the aim of further extorting the american taxpayer. the majority of americans done trust the government to be good stewards of their tax dollars and arming the i.r.s. certainly

will not inspire new hope in our system. let me make one thing clear. washington does not have a tax collection problem. it has a spending problem. and by disarming our tax collector, this amendment offered us an opportunity to refocus the image of the i.r.s. and restore faith in our government. after all, under president biden, our government agencies have been weaponized enough. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: i claim time in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. womack: i rise in opposition. as i mentioned before we had a robust debate about the issue in full committee and adopted an amendment which capped i.r.s. firearms an ammunition levels as of july 13, 2023. i think that's reasonable. this amendment would remove that cap. i understand that some of my colleagues have concerns about federal agencies holding vast

amounts of firepower. however we need to be careful not to deprive our agencies of the ability to purchase firearms to carry out their lawful duties. so it's under that circumstance that i a oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. harshbarger: i understand why the i.r.s. criminal investigation agents carry weapons but you know, i'm looking at a 2019 report where it was reported by the end of 2017 the i.r.s. already had 4,487 guns and over five million rounds of ammunition. i don't know what they need that for. so you know, when we have more agents carrying weapons than we do marines carrying weapons that's a problem. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from arkansas.

mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. yes, i'll yield to my friend, the ranking member of the full committee. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i adopt not only his premise that we have language in the bill that was fully debated in committee, that will, i think, achieve the knowledge that we need, but in addition, i would reiterate. we ought to respect law enforcement whether it's called i.r.s. agents because people are breaking the law. and for whatever reasons, people feel compelled, if they're tax chis or drug dealers laundering money or some ilk like that, who are dangerous group of people, particularly when they've got criminal gains and not paying any taxes on that, although it is clearly owed, it is unfortunately that -- unfortunate that we continue to

a, defund those folks, and limit them. i think the chairman's absolutely right in his objection to this. but it demeans the officers who are risking their lives to do the duty that we have given them. and that they have a responsibility, a sworn responsibility to do. and if they recall -- if they were called the rolling heights police department and you said we're going to cap their weapon, we're going to do this, i think people would be on your side of the aisle, with all due respect, standing up and saying they're defunding the rolling hills police department. isn't that awful. but because they're called i.r.s. agents to enforce the law, to confront crimes, that's somehow, they're lesser law enforcement officers. at lesser risk. i think that's not the case.

and i join the chairman in opposition. i yield back. mr. womack: i would say not withstanding the fact that these federal agencies engaged in law enforcement activity, whether it's i.r.s., f.b.i., doesn't make any difference. they're engaged in some very dangerous activities. notwithstanding the fact that they're engaged in activities, we should all remember that part of their mission is also to train for dangerous circumstances. and there are training events and weapons qualifications, all kinds of things that require the expense of ammunition, maybe not for nefarious target down range but in order to be able to make them better at their trade should that circumstance present itself. so it's under those conditions that i oppose the gentlelady's amendment, reluctantly, and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the jerusalem from tennessee. ms. harsh barlger: the last thing i heard, we have a couple of people who haven't paid taxes. hundreder biden is one. more than likely president biden. and the i.r.s. should not be the

agency that goes after criminals, that's called an agency by the letters of the f.b.i. and if they want to enforce the board we are gun, then quo after the eight million plus illegals coming across the border and also the known terrorists that we have in this country. and with all that said, this is my amendment and with that, i yield back, sir. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlelady requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 13, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. tts now in order to consider amendment number 16 presented in

part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. davidson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk dwil designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16, offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. davidson: this amendment expands upon the base tax. the base tax says none of these funds may be used to establish a central bank digital currency. a central bank digital currency shouldn't be established. establishes could mean it has already been created. waiting in the wings in case we need it. so far "star wars" fans, imagine if we let the empire build the death star as long as they promised not to turn it on. let's not do that. let's not build the darn thing in the first place. we shouldn't design or develop it.

it shouldn't exist. that's the point of this amendment. stop wasting your time on something the american people don't want and congress hasn't authorized. so i think the base text sort of gets at that. i wanted to expand upon that to be more clear. we don't even want it to exist. and why is this important? well, on march 9 of 2022, the biden administration released an executive order outlining the administration's approach stemming to digit aal assets and block chain technology. this included a directive to explore a united states central bank digital currency. on march 1 of 2023, the undersecretary ofor domestic finance, nellie lang, gave a speech focusing on the administration's efforts thus far to design and develop a central bank digital currency. quote, a cbdc would involve both a new form of it would potentially a new set of payment rails. both real time payment systems

and cbdc's present opportunities to build a more efficient and inclusive payment system. quote the creation of the working group to complement the fend's work. these are excerpts from her speech. the federal reserve has made substantial steps towards developing a central bank digital currency as well. they have done numerous research on projects on the design, but the san francisco fed is recruiting and hiring for a senior crypto architect of a central bank digital currency to develop a u.s. central bank digital currency. article 1, section 8 of the constitution is clear. the authority for creating money rests with this body. we clearly aren't authorizing that. in testimony that chairman of the federal reserve has made it clear that they couldn't actually establish it without congressional authorization. we want them to stop building it. what is the central bank dingle

it currency? it is a corruption of the concept of money from its proper use as a store of value and means of exchange into a tool for coercion and control. the version that's being studied is the same version that the chinese communist party is implementing in china which is essentially managed, central the money is used for coercion and control. in fact, the book of revelation,

what i consider scripture, talks about this. in our time we are seeing the technology that could do it in over 100 kron countries this kind of development work is under way. the united states should not partake in it. it's always taken as evil. we should have no more. i urge adoption of this amendment. not only do we want it established, we do not want to exist. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland seek time in opposition? mr. hoyer: i claim time in opposition. i thank the gentleman. i have a credit card in my pocket. it's a piece of plastic. i'm sure that 150 years ago, or 100 years ago somebody said that's plastic. that's not money. but very frankly most of us no longer carry significant sums of money because we use our credit cards. now, aim not an expert on this -- i'm not an expert on this. this is an authorizing issue. the authorizers in the financial services committee and the

experts who deal with this should be deciding whether we ought to even look at it. that's what this amendment would preclude. looking at an option. i'm sure it's much more economy complicated than my simple analogy of a credit card. i guarantee you people 100 years ago thought you could spend this plastic and they would have said, are you crazy? i don't know whether the fresh rush hour or federal reserve would see something that would make it more efficient and effective to transfer money from one place to another. which is what we do from the credit card. we transfer from the bank, we do it by giving somebody plastic. they put it in the system. the system puts my money nigh miaccount in the -- my money in my account and into the sellers

account. i don't know if that's accurate. but i do say 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 and more accurate and more user friendly. i don't know the answer to that. but i certainly don't believe that we ought to say don't look at the options. i would oppose this amendment. i'm sure it's well-meaning. i certainly believe the gentleman is concerned about what china does. i don't know exactly what they do. i heard his brief explanation. but the fact of the matter is, looking at an option, the gentleman is correct. we have to approve that option. we, the congress, the united states, the representatives of the american people, senate, approve that option and we would have authority over that because, as he said, that's what the constitution says. but not looking at options i don't think is a good policy to

this country for any business or for any family. look at your options. i would urge us to reject this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from maryland reserve or yield? reserve. the gentleman from ohio. mr. davidson: i thank the chairman. the gentleman's argument is not against the language of this text. the gentleman's argument is about studying something. or researching it. and clear language does not prohibit research or study. it does present designing or developing t we don't want them to create it. research all you like. understand how evil it is. i assure the gentleman i am actually an expert in this field and i am on the authorizing committee. we have as a committee passed language that prohibits the use of a central bank digital currency by the united states of america. the appropriation is aligning with the work of our authorizing committee. this is not legislating or it wouldn't have been made in order. it is a simple prohibition of

the use of funds to do certain activities. we don't want them to create this. they can research, they can come and say we have studied this we think there are interesting ideas. here's a proposal for something that might exist someday. we simply don't want them to create it. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from ohio's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: let me yield to the gentleman. is the gentleman opposed to the working group? that now exists? mr. david: the working group is within the purview of study and research. we want to make sure they don't cross the line into designing and developing. it looks like they are starting to do that. we don't want them to create something and see it already exists. we didn't appropriate money for them to do that. we didn't tell them to create t we want to be more clear on what we want them to do. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time my time. the gentleman indicates he's an expert and knows more than i do. i take that as a given. secondly, he's on the

authorizing team. that committee has full authority to do that. he says it wouldn't be in order. it is not authorizing, but it's none of the funds which means whatever is going on can't use any funds to do this, he says it's about creating not studying. i hear him. but this is an authorizing issue. it ought to be in the hands and in the consideration of the committee of jurisdiction. and apparently it hasn't moved, which is why the gentleman is now trying to get it through by backdoor, in effect, of saying none of the funds can be used for the purposes that are ongoing. i would oppose this amendment and urge its rejection. the chair: does the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio ohio. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order it considered all in 18 printed in part b of house report number 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. ever since its ill-advised inception and inclusion in the dodd-franc act, republicans have largely unified about many, many issues with the consumer financial protection bureau. it's unconstitutional, unaccountable leadership structure has been litigated before the supreme court.

its uncurveball funding structure, chiefly the fact its funding comes from the federal reserve, not the duly elected members of congress, will likely be addressed during the court's october session. none of us know nor should presume to know what the court will decide on the latter issue. as written, the underlying bill addresses concerns with funding structures, with the funding structure by funding the cfpb through the regular appropriations process. this amendment retains that provision at a level of zero. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the cfpb is a vital safeguarding the interests of american consumers. you're on your own. that's the ongoing message that americans hear from our

republican colleagues. you're on your own. we are not going to protect you. it serves 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. and there is no consumer except the most expert who can, on their own, make sure they are getting a fair shake. on their own make sure they are not getting rolled. make sure that they are not being ripped off. that's what this agency is supposed to do. by holding financial insti institutions accountable, the cfpb protects consumers from predatory lending, fraud, and other forms of financial exploitation. that's the little guy.

that's 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, what's going to happen is 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 competence among consumers and businesses alike. if we don't have it, if we zero fund it, guess what? competence will go away. guess what? financial institution, some very small, some medium sized. the large maybe they'll get away with it. they'll be able to sustain themselves. but the financial system will lack competence. we know that competence is critical to the financial

community and our economy operating effectively. cfpb conducts investigations, issues fines, and enforces compliance to deter companies from engaging in harmful or fraudulent activities ultimately reducing the risk of financial crisis and market instability. 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 1920's we didn't have these. the 1920's. not the 2020's. in the 1920's we didn't have any of these protection agencies. and the reason they were create the in the 1930's to stabilize the markets. very frankly we have had an extraordinary market for the most part. i have been here when we have had some real down turns and competence was lost. but if we eliminate cfpb and

other like acies -- agencies or reduce the resources that some agencies like the s.e.c. have to make sure that our markets are safe and secure and transparent, then our economy is not going to be the kind of economy that we want and very frankly 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 i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not about politics. this is about our economy. its stability. and competence that people have in it. vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yield. mr. hoyer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. it's amazing to me somehow this country made it a couple hundred years without the cfpb. 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. they lack the agency and intelligence to choose products and services that fit their needs. instead must be infantailized while furthering the power of a government that doesn't have their best interest at heart. their services by banks and credit unions leaves our constituents with fewer, more expensive options. i yield to the good the gentleman from florida as much time he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. donald: thank you, mr. speaker. members. we should be in support of this amendment. for one very important reason. the cfpb is unconstitutional. it is an agency given a legislative powers through dodd-frank, one of the worst pieces of financial regulatory legislation ever to come through this chamber, and it has no accountability and no oversight from the members of congress. they go they go to the federal

reserve to get their money and writing regulations and putting oversight that congress hasn't voted for and no oversight. just yesterday the cfpb went to apple and google and came up with new proposed rules on digital wallets when this chamber has not come out with legislation. we have not done that work in the peoples' house. to allow an agency to continue to operate with no oversight and go in and out of any company based upon the whims of mr. chop ra and not befit of an agency. i will also add that the bill presented by mr. barr from ken ducky is a step in the right direction and allow us to do the

thing that mr. perry is arguing for and zeroing out this agency and eliminating it all together. before cfpb, consumer protection worked within the purview of the other federal agencies that are under the oversight guys -- guis emp of congress. i have no problem with making sure that consumers are protected but not by a rogue agency that should not exist. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: we had this discussion 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'll be in session and can

respond to that. this is a matter that ought to be considered out of the financial services committee. ought to be reported to the floor and 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. and by the way, those of you who have not been here a long time, there was a conference. a conference is that we pass legislation and senate passes and then they meet. we hardly do that. conferences are good. that's the way the process ought to work not just putting something here and zero funding an agency that was created. i yield back. the chair: members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: the cfpb was all a

democrat conference. no republicans. i yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman. mr. norman: this agency is a rogue agency. let me give you an example to my friend to my left. the cfpb is irresponsible. in february of 2023 cfpb employee made an unauthorized transfer of records to a personal email account containing information of 256,000 customers and affected over 45 institutions. we sat with chopra. i don't know if you have been on the bank board, they are the most regulated group. you know who pays the price of the fines? all these customers that are trying to borrow money. it should have never existed and to keep it funded and keep it under as it exists with the

personnel. we are going backwards. i fully support this. i yield back. mr. perry: i yield to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. ms. barragan: i -- mr. barr: i comply be meant him for introducing a legitimate amendment to address the unconstitutional structure of the agency and the fact they are a rogue industry. and i asked mr. chopra and i rise in opposition to this amendment not because the agency deserves a check, but because it is important for this institution that we assert in the long run, the appropriations power of this body and that's why i support the womack bill, which funds the agency and deprives the court of the excuse

to uphold the agency. the chair: all time having expired, question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in part b of house report 118-269. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mrs. ramirez of illinois. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois.

mrs. ramirez: thank you, mr. chair, the bottom line is this, undermining the consumer federal protection bureau harms america's financial security. i am offering my amendment and its independence, which is essential in protecting americans from predatory practices. i offer this amendment at the coalition for immigrant and refugee rights, an organization in my district. established after 2008 financial crisis, the cfpb protects americans from predatory financial practices. and first 12 years the cfpb has been able to return and restore $17.5 billion to american consumers in compensation, canceled debt and other relief

and filed over 4 million complaints on behalf of consumers. congress should not medical in an independent agency and acknowledges the importance of the bureau in protecting consumers from predatory practices including crushing medical debt. the work is important especially as medical debt continues to burden communities in my state and affects black and brown people. 41% of u.s. adults currently have unpaid medical or dental bills. i know many of them and many of them in my own family. during my time as executive director of an organization that worked to advance economic opportunity i have seen medical debt destroy individuals' and

families' economic security. medical debt puts people in impossible positions and they have to choose between seeking health care and paying for food, housing, heat, and while we can solve the challenge through universal health care, medical debt continues to plague the american people. we have to protect our communities from deseatful practices. one of those practices is deferred interest medical credit card. research from cfpb are exploring the practices around which has average interest rates, 10 times higher than our average credit cards. think about that. our credit cards have extremely high interest rates. these are 10 times higher. patients given this options are

not aware of the costs of the full balance if not paid by the deadline. the cfpb cracks down on debt collectors who try to trick patients to pay medical debt that unlawfully exceeds cost caps and removing medical debt from credit reports. and should never limit a person's opportunity for a prosperous and thriving life. it is why, mr. chair, that it is critical for the cfpb to maintain its independence from congressional meddling so it can continue to address practices that are harming consumers, especially predatory leaping that leads to medical debt and hold back actors accountable. as someone who is deeply concerned of housing access and affordability, the work to

remove medical debt from credit reports would change the outcome for thousands of working families and improve their credit scores of millions of americans, opening up access to rental housing, insurance, the purchase of a first home and even employment for many who experience barriers due to low credit scores. cfpb lenders use inaccurate information. it is an essential function protecting americans from predatory practices. and let me say this loud and clear, an attack on the cfpb is an attack on every day americans and working families. we must protect independent funding of the cfpb and have to reject every assault. we have to allow cfpb to move forward with this important work. its job, number one job is to

protect the american consumers. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. anyone seek time in opposition? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by gentlelady illinois. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. now in ■order toconsider amendment number 21. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in part bmp of house report 118-269 offered by mr. ogles of ten tee. -- the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: my amendment reduces funding for the consumer product

safety commission to f.y.2019 levels. and under the democrat f.y.2023 omnibus which every republican last year voted against the congress appropriated over $152 million. f.y.2019 appropriation was $127 million, which when measured against the appropriation in this bill is a modest $12 million cut. no one opposes the good intentions and this amendment doesn't gut the agency at all. everyone wants to make sure our fellow citizens are safe. it is fair to say that it has gone well beyond consumer protection. earlier this year the they plan to take up action on banning gas

stoves. that effort failed, but the fact that the consumer product safety commission took action on gas stoves is an indication how far this agency has gone off the rails. if an agency can regulate indoor air, what can't they regulate? i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: helping the consumer does not seem to be the objective of the amendments that are made to this bill. you have heard numerous statements by others -- ranking member, ms. wasserman schultz and others about how the consumer is confronted with extraordinary 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 the labs to analyze whether that's the case. they don't have the researchers able to understand that and it's not that they are dumb. and i think one of the members who spoke here -- i think they are smart, bright people but don't have the capacity to know what's in that product. they can't analyze it or what toxics may be in it. that's what this agency is about. this would reduce the safety commission's funding below the fiscal year 2019 levels. that was five years ago. we are doing the fiscal we are doing the fiscal 2024 budget now. and clearly would harm individual consumers who rely on

their work. period. it would harm the agency'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 c.p.c.'s funding level down from its fiscal year 2023 funding level, of 150 million, to its fiscal year 2019, $127. a 20% reduction. consumer, you're on your own. that's what the mantra is. consumer, you are on your own. i would 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. 32 million people. sought redress for an injury related to consumer product. an estimated 57,000 deaths in 2021 related to consumer products. under this amendment, and imports of consumer goods, would be significantly slowed. companies seeking help with recalls would face significant delays and c.p.c. -- to address the online sale of recalled products would be great-l harmed. consumer, you're on your own. that's unfortunate. because the consumer, we call constituents, our fellow americans, they need to have competence. they need to have confidence in the banking. they need to have confidence in

the products 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. yes, even in their cars. i would urge us as protectors of consumers, not republicans and democrats, but people who want to protect consumers, to reject this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: mr. chairman, i thank you. i agree. i think we all can agree that we want to keep consumers safe. but this is a modest $12 million cut. to an agency that has gone beyond its purview. i live in a rural community. i live back in the valley on top of a hill. on occasion we have ice storms. so having a gas stove is important to me and my family. in rural america, having gas stoves, probane, is important to america. yet this agency tried to ban gas

stoves. why? because they are driven by a political agenda far beyond their mission statement of keeping americans safe. this is why we need a modest cut to a rogue agency to send them a message to get back on track to do your job and quit pushing the woke biden administration's agenda. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: 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 the yard or anything of that nature. but 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. absolutely untrue. it was a sidebar comment by one commissioner about we need to

look at gas stoves. like defunding the police. or the i.r.s. being an armed army. furthermore, this is not a minor cut. this is a 20% k not this amendment. when you tad to that which was reduced in the bill itself, it's a 20% cut in protecting consumers. i think that's a pretty big cut. i urge its rejection. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: mr. chairman, i guess that's common core math because attempting to block an increase isn't a cut. we are talking about touchdown million off the current appropriations. that's a modest cut. and by the way, the gas stoves, that was attempted through rulemaking. my colleague, who i greatly respect, must assume that the american people are stupid. because they attempted to regulate and ban gas stoves. that's a fact. it can't be disputed.

i am appalled that was even mentioned whether it been in passing. it should be noted two democrat presidents reduced the size of this agency's budget. both carter and clinton. at a time when bipartisan support was there for fiscal restraint. that's what we are asking for. that's what we should do. we should send them a message that enough is enough. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. reserves. the gentleman from has the only time remaining. mr. ogles: i would urge adoption. we are in a crisis in this country. our southern border is overrun. spending is out of control. agencies have gone woke. this president has failed us. it is time we get our fiscal house in order. and i urge adoption of my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has

requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. it is now in order -- for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: pro forma amendment. the chair: does the gentleman rise as the designee? mr. hoyer: i rise as the designee of the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i think my friend has left the floor. maybe he hasn't left the floor. but let me read you a message, you're going to reject it out of hand because it comes from the c.p.b. for what it's worth, we never proposed a gas stove ban. period. total nonsense. we had one commissioner say

something in an interview, then the chair shot it down. but there is no staff working on anything like this. no proposal to do anything like this. saying congress is doing something because one member of congress is introducing the bill. defund the police. thousands of army. from the i.r.s. you ought to stop scaring the american people and giving them misinformation. that gas stove is baloney that you talk about. that the gentleman talked about. but it's a really great political talking point you think. because the guy with a weber stove in the yard is going to

think the feds are out to get my weber. baloney. but it's a good talking point. because if you keep saying a lie over and over and over again maybe somebody will believe it. i try to tell the truth when i'm on the floor. the bible tells me the truth will set you free. be honest with america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. amendment number 24 hint presented in part b of house report number 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry,

and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment reduces the amount available for salaries and expenses of the federal trade commission to f.y.2019 levels at just over $306 million. it should come as no surprise i disagree with the biden administration's weaponization of the federal trade commission, much like others, the biden administration people approach to finance service regulations the f.t.c. policies under chair lena cone threaten to moving away to welfare standard towards arbitrary standards to break up companies or stop them from merging simply because they are too big. we can't even be bothered with the consumer not having as my friend on the other side of the aisle says, not having the capacity to determine what's in their best interest. which is affronting enough. all of us dumb rubes out here in

america, we don't know what the heck we are going to do with that government to tell us -- without government to tell us what to do. we can't do that now. we have to come up with arbitrary things that we don't like. then weigh in. the f.t.c. has targeted the following standard business 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's going to cost you something. somebody has to pay for that. that's how business is done. the use of non-compete clauses in contracts. and the idea that mergers themselves rather than down stream effect on consumers -- 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

contrast between two willing parties. if you don't like what's in the contract provisions, whether it's a non-compete 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's pretty easy. in the last couple years the level of f.t.c. salaries and expenses has increased from just over $#00 million to $430 million in f.y.2023. that's $130 million in extra salaries and expenses. i don't need to tell everybody here, i hope, we are 33 -- when i checked the debt clock two days ago, $33.7 trillion. there ain't no end in sight. as my young daughter tells me, she looked at it for the first time, she said it doesn't stop. no kidding it doesn't stop. because this place just keeps spending like there is no tomorrow. we keep going there might not be a tomorrow for this country. i appreciate the bill's author

wrote it at a lower level than f.y. 2024. 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 tactics, the questionable tactics of this administration's f.t.c. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized mr. hoyer: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the chair. you're on your own. consumer. you're on your own. mom, you're on your own, dad. that's what they said in the 1920's. i keep peteing. you're on your own. the markets went wild. and they crashed. and millions and millions and millions of people suffered badly.

this bill already cuts f.t.c., and this amendment brings salaries and expenses down to its fiscal year 29 levels to say it cuts in half the complement of employees at the f.t.c. that's not a nick. that's a you're on your own. for the pleaders doing things that are not legitimate, mr. chairman, must be a long line. we don't want to be regulated. i am not calling anybody a rube, but i will tell you, maybe you can. but i go to the gas station i put the pump on anti-gas goes in -- and the gas goes in. there is not a single way i can tell whether that product is what they say it is. you know what i rely on, mr. chairman?

i rely on both the state and federal level somebody's checking on that gas. to make sure it's not going to blow up my car. but i can't do that. i rely on government to do it. to make sure that i'm safe. to make sure my car is not damaged by when i pull that pump and some liquid goes into it. i don't know what it is. i presume it's gasoline. i presume it's up to standard. and safe for my automobile. why do i presume that? not because the gasoline company says it is. because the gasoline may have some incentive to, hey, maybe shortchange a little of this and that, but if somebody's checking, a, that incentive is eliminated. just like when people are checking on making sure you pay 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 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're going to erode this economy and diminish the quality of life for people and their security. so, this agency was reduced significantly by this committee. and this is not just a nick at it, it's a cut of the muscle and the ability to do the job that consumers and constituents we call them, expected to do for them, their families, their children. i oppose this amendment and urge its rejection.

i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: i thank the chairman and good the gentleman from maryland says you are on your own. i don't know. -- well, you said it over and over again. you're implying, you are on your own. and somehow we made it 2023. by the grace of god, i guess, because the good gentleman refers to the 20's, i imagine it's the 1920's. it's the 20 20's and things have changed. neither of us were around in 1920. things have changed a little bit. i pumped gas for a living and i know the difference between gasoline and diesel and kerr seen and i have a knows --

nose. do people change diesel into gasoline and most people in america can read, they figure it out. we don't need the government to figure out this stuff out for us or wiping our rear end every time we go to the bathroom, but that's what you would have us believe, that americans are so dumb, they can't do without the federal government. somehow this country survived a couple hundred years and became the greatest country on the planet and wasn't because the federal government was wiping our rear end the whole way. i urge adoption. i yield. mr. hoyer: i'm not going to dig any file that with a response, but i think the american public are very bright, but they don't

have the assets -- you may smell the gasoline and may be an expert on that. i put it in my lawn mower, chain saw, put it in my car. i have no idea beyond the smell whats in there. that's my point. and my point is they expect us to be making sure that when that big gas tanker rolls into the gas station and puts that liquid in there it's something tay won't hurt their car and hurt them. that's my point. and don't misrepresent my position as saying americans are dumb, they're not dumb. they're smart and smart enough to know that they need someone checking up on the caught of that gas before they put it in their car. i urge a no vote. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania.

those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the i.c.e. have i -- ayes have it. mr. hoyer: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. amendment number 25 will not be offered. now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part bmp of house report 118-269. mr. brecheen: i have an amendment at the desk. clerk amendment number 26 printed in part b of house report 118-269. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. brecheen: this amendment is going to return funding for the general services real property activities of the federal buildings fund back to the 2019

levels. modest cut of $12.7 million. this amendment would put .05% of the entire bill. this is one half of 1%. this amendment returns spending for the specific funding back to precovid discretionary spending levels. to my colleagues, the discretionary outlays total $1.7 trillion and last year's deficit was $1.7 trillion. that means 100% of discretionary spending is borrowed from our kids and grand kids. 100% that we are discussing these last many weeks is borrowed money. we have to start cutting significantly. can we go back to 2019 as a start? this amendment cuts a modest

$12.7. not even being full utilized. g.a.o. released a report entitled real property preliminary results and federal buildings are underutilized. this report assessed 24 federal agencies and departments use of building space. the review was conducted between january and march of this year long after the covid-19 pandemic ended. 17 of those 24 agencies listed -- utilized 25% or less of their head quarter building capacity. even on the higher range, these agencies used 39% to 49% of their headquarters on average. for one agency the g.a.o. did not name, they calculated even if all agency staff were physically present, only 67% of the facility would be occupied.

the same report detailed that underutilized office space cost 24 agencies $2 billion a yore. loss of wasted office space. and that was only for paintance and operation costs. they spend additional $5 billion on leasing office space. a meeting, almost half of the participating agencies acknowledged that their head quarter building had excess space. head quarter office. the g.a.o. report mentioned all 24 agencies have reduced in-office work and have not returned to prepandemic levels. they struggled to determine how much space they needed to fulfill their missions. retaining excess and utilizing office space is one of the reasons that it has remained on the g.a.o. high risk list since

2003. g.a.o. listed this as a 20 year problem. it identifies and resolves serious weaknesses more than half of g.s.a. leases which account for 83 million square feet are set to expire. the time to reduce this inefficiency must be now. this amendment can help achieve that and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: first of all, this bill urges every federal agency to return people to the offices. and then we are arguing, well, we don't need the offices now, so we can save money.

you can't have it both ways. operational costs are going to go up and capital costs are going up when you purchase federal space, which may -- existing federal space may not be the right place and pape you need to rent something as well. but here rental space is cut by $158 million. not a nickel and dime there. it's a significant decrease and this amendment brings it down to 2019 levels. 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, but i think it doesn't -- and obviously and constitutionally

couldn't do that. so that reducing the costs without -- reducing the revenues without reducing the costs is going to cause a very substantial imbalance and the ability to operate effectively. this would bring the funding level from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal 2019, a 3% reduction. six times higher than .05% reduction but not insignificant. g.s.a. plays a critical in managing federal procurement including our own offices. reduced funding may increase costs in government activities. the chairman is not here, but i know that he believed because that's what he proposed and

that's what was adopted that the appropriate reduction was $158 million. in addition to that, we had an agreement at 2023 levels. 149 republicans voted tore that agreement. i don't know whether the gentleman offered this amen amendment, but a large number of us voted for that. 314 members in total. 75% of the congress voted for a level of funding, which the senate is doing, because they believe that's the appropriate level. in light of the fact it has already been reduced substantially, i would strongly oppose this amendment and urge the congress to reject it -- the house to reject it and remember

they have office space and they are worried about their own office space either it's rented in the private sector or public buildings and pay an offset in the public buildings, and know what happens to their cost and act accordingly. and don't expect others in the federal government to do what we are not doing ourselves. and so i would ask to reject this amendment, stay with the reduction that has been made which i think is excessive myself, but nevertheless, a very substantial reduction already in going into fiscal year 2019 levels was not contemplated by anybody on the agreed funding levels in this bill. i want to be fair, the agreed

funding levels were not by item, it was an overall cap. but contemplated cut of this nature is going to severely undermine the ability to operate in an efficient and effective way and g.s.a. does that and needs the resources to do it on behalf of all americans and getting those people back in offices is great. reducing the ability to maintain those at the same time is not good-byes. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. brecheen: 17 of the 24 agencies that they surveyed used only 25% of their head quarter office space. they are -- 75% of their office space, headquarters of the largest agencies are seeing

vacant office spaces. this is returning back to 2019 levels. talking about millions, $12 million in cuts what the g.a.o. says is a $7 billion problem. it has been on their high risk list for years. if we are going to account $1.7 trillion deficit, can we start by cutting millions out of billion dollar problems? with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . . . . in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

mr. burlison: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. burlison of missouri. the chair: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. burlison: i rise in support of this amendment which would increase/decrease to express the office of personnel management should reinstate the clearance of david grush. he scorched the u.a.p. task force from 2019 to 2021. he recently testified before congress claiming that partial fragments and attack vehicles have been found for decades by the federal government, our allies and defense contractors. according to mr. grush, objects and vehicles are exotic orr jane

based on their more fueling -- more fuelings -- morphologie s and material testing. he also said they are in possession of nonhuman life forms. he said they had been briefed on football field sized aircrafts, that the u.s. government transferred some crashed u.a.p.'s to defense contractor, and that the intelligence officials were also briefed on malevolent activity from extra extraterrestrial beings. all of this is very interesting to me and a number of my colleagues on the oversight committee. and my first question when i had an opportunity for mr. grush was to say that those are pretty incredible claims. but i'm from the show me state, you're going to have to show me. and i requested specifics.

which could not be conveyed in that hearing, not in a secure setting, and unfortunately he's unable to provide us with any supporting evidence to back up his claims because his security clearance has lapsed. now my understanding is that mre proper channels here by turning over classified information to the i.c. inspector general. he ultimately filed a complaint to the i.c. inspector general alleging that the information that he presented to the i.c. has been illegally withheld from congress. so i'd like to know more about these claims and so would a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisles. i -- now i'm certainly pleased that the oversight committee is working hard to bring the relevant inspector general so we can cut through all of the roadblocks that have been presented since mr. grush stepped forward. but we need to cover all possible angles here and if we can get mr. grush in a scif with

an active security clearance that would go a long way. this amendment simply expresses the support for the office of personnel management to renew the security clearance of david grush so that he can show us his work. now, i'm a freshman member. i've seen a lot of these increasing-decreasing amendments. and while on its face they appear to not do anything, it's my understanding that they generally -- that the agencies generally pay attention to the legislative history and intent which is why i'm offering this amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman seek time in opposition? the gentleman does not seek time in opposition, the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. burlison: i yield. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 28 will not be offered.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 30 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. schweikert: mr. speaker pro tem i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 30 fingerprinted in part b of house report 118-249, offered by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 267, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you. to my friend and colleague from arizona and the ranking member, what we're pursuing here is, during the pandemic we remember the loans, there may be as much as $62 million in impairment. there's a difference in impair mentd and delinquency.

we actually have an intense concern on some of the articles and other things that have come to our attention that collection, and look, this is never a happy conversation when you're talking about going out and collecting loans, but this is money that is owed to the hardworking taxpayers. it's only fair. we made a deal. we actually believe, if we take the mean of some of the reports we have been best able to get, there's about $33 billion that's ready for functionally some type of hard collection. they're substantially delinquent. we're here fighting over dollars. we're fighting over pennys sometimes. if there's billions of dollars out there that are owed back to the small business administration, we have the legal obligation to collect. that's the deal. and the amendment here is trying to move away from an article here from "the washington post" that was basically saying, small

business administration had either slowed down or stopped pursuing collections. let's go collect the money as we are, you know, lifting every seat cushion around here trying to find resources. there's a stack of resources here. the other thing that also would help us understand is how much fraud ultimately there was in the program. and without the collection effort, you cannot truly, truly document those numbers. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i'm really not going to get too much into opposition but i would make an observation. understand what the gentleman is saying. the i.r.s. says there's $688 billion, not chump change, not behind the sofa cushion, $688 billion.

and they say if they have the resources they can collect a large sum of that. which is really what the gentleman is lacking to do in this amendment with this agency. but this bill provides for a 23% cut in enforcement on moneys that are due and owing under the current law to the government of the united states. and the gentleman and previous speak verse said how concerned they are with the deficit. i would think that again, i'll use the collection department of a corporation, as the example, you'd want to collect that mo money. fanned the principle that you espouse is a good one, and i frankly think it is, that we ought to apply that to that $688 billion. $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 these cuts combined in perhaps all of these bills. and i find it confusing and contradictory that you want to collect these debt, which of course the agency says would cost more to collect than would be collected. that's their position. whether that's true or not, i'm not arguing that. but that's their position as i understand it. in the case of the $688 billion, what essentially, particularly if you're at the upper end, $1 of expenditure for $12 of revenue. frankly at the lower end that's much less, $1 to maybe $1.67 or

$1.87. relatively small return on the investment. but a big return on the bigger taxpayers whether corporate or individual. so i think the principle that you enounsuate is a good one. i would hope you'd pursue it in talking about the i.r.s.'s ability to oversee very complicated, very 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 you want to get and re-- in reducing that debt. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: mr. speaker may i inquire the time left? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. schweikert: thank you. you'll be happy to know you accepted in en bloc two of my

amendments because i'm blessed to chair oversight in ways and means and within there is the use of technology. because as we have actually had to deal with the reality if you are reading some of the reports coming from our -- from the i.r.s., they can't seem to hire the people to do the audits. apparently there's a shortage of people with accounting and that type of talent. so we brought actually two amendment, both were made into the blocks, so i appreciate that. to actually go and use a.i. and technology to talk about exactly what the gentleman from maryland, and i actually believe in many ways that's a much more ethical, moral, because i can audit an algorithm. i can't audit someone's heart. or their personal politics. and so we actually have demonstration, also in the customer service side, the use of chat a.i. that's the i.r.s. we're here talking the small

business administration. i'm just trying to be intellectually consistent. we did our amendments there to pursue in a rational using of technology. but if it's true there may be, according to this article, estimated $62 billion in past due pandemic loans, if it costs more than $62 billion for small business administration to go collect $62 billion, the world has come to an end. let's be intellectually consistent here. we have the legal obligation, this agency has the legal obligation, to collect these loans. and my fear is there may have been so much fraud that there's almost this discomfort of peeling back the onion and saying a third of the book, 20% of the book, what is it, is actually -- will never be performing loans. mr. speaker, to my friend from

maryland, this is actually just moving some money around so the small business administration does what they're actually supposed to be doing and what is actually already part of the law. we're just now actually moving some resources so it can be accomplished. with that, i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in part b of house report 118-269. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the

gentleman -- the chair understands that amendment number 35 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. barr: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. barr of kentucky. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from kentucky and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, my amendment would prohibit the treasury department from issuing license number 8-h, 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 un enforceable, especially outside of the g-7. and russian oil is trading well above the cap, funneling billions of dollars, 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 climas have limited the tools available to them and pushed our country into a price cap strategy in lieu of closing the huge loophole they created for

energy-related transactions. that's right, for the americans watching on television who have been given an 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 that allows putin to finance this war. license number 8h is extensions by this administration going to the very start of the war in ukraine that permit u.s. persons to engage in any transaction with campingsed institutions if the transaction involves russian energy. this is the biden administration's weak policy towards russia. it includes not only russian energy sales but production and refinement. sanctions on banks, the licensing has exempted dealings

that has the most vital source of funding to moscow. why this administration punishes our energy and rewards putin, this is perverse. green lighting russians as it asks for billions of dollars. the left hand destroys while the right hand builds. the administration is stumped that this war grinds on without end. had biden continued the thrum administration energy dominance strategy, he wouldn't be constrained and global energy markets would be far less dependent on russian oil and gas and making sanctions without a general license far less painful. my amendment says enough is enough. if we want to help ukraine and help the ukranian freedom fighters, we have to end

russia's ability to wage war and that means to cut off every avenue to fund its hostilities. russian tax revenues for oil and gas surpassed $17 billion, an increase of 25% from the previous year. these revenues are bolstering moscow to threaten ukraine and increase military spending by 70%. under my amendment, the united states will not be complicit in these energy sales and ensure that russian banks are sanctioned. the loopholes that russia has enjoyed thanks to president biden will be closed and 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 of the administration's multi lateral efforts. even if we close the u.s. and financial system from these

transactions, the treasury department has rolled back a price scheme for oil. treasury's own data that the price cap allows russia to earn billions of dollars each month. the world bank recently concluded that the price cap appears quote increasingly unenforceable end coat. the om way to counteract this challenge that the war in ukraine will not end until russian energy dries up. enforcing sanctions and not rolling them back and start here with the licensing. my amendment is an important step towards this goal. if you want to get tough on putin, stop his energy exports. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and bring energy independence back to the united

states. mr. hoyer: i claim time in opposition. if you want to get tough on putin, don't elect one of his friends, president of the united states. this legislation that's been offered, as i understand it, wants to see a full sanctioned 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. 8h is one of the principal ways in which we implement sanctions that we urge and to do away with that ability without replacing it -- and i may be wrong in what

i'm saying, so the gentleman can correct me -- does not seem to be a worth while objective. in other words, if you need more, let's legislate more sanctions and we can do that. but don't take away sanctions that currently exist even though as the gentleman says they are not as effective as they ought to be. i very much want to help ukraine. i hope your speaker brings ukraine to the floor pretty soon. that is going to help ukraine and we need to do it sooner rather than later. we have 300 votes on average to help ukraine. on average, on your side and my side of the aisle. and it seems to me that's the way we ought to go about it rather than trying to do with what is relatively clumsy in one

sense 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. but the way is to do it through the legislative process and have that debate and know the consequences. for that reason, i am opposing the amendment and urge its rejection. ms. barragan: i appreciate the sentiment and i'm with you on providing -- mr. barr: i'm with you on providing support on ukraine. it's the exception to the sanctions. i give president biden credit and secretary yellen credit for the sanctions on russian banks and central bank. the problem is the huge loophole they created with the general license. what my amendment proposes to do

and i just came from a meeting with deputy secretary, but we are saying the price cap is not working. close loophole. sanction russian energy exports and i offer that as a bipartisan amendment. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me ask you -- not having the information you have available to you, one of the reasons those exemptions are given 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 a lot of your colleagues have been talking about, awful prices at the pump. am i correct in that thought? mr. barr: that's the key question and to the administration's credit and they are trying to solve this

difficult question, how do we impose sanctions on russia and putin without hurting our allies and us. our allies are overdependent on russian sources of energy. the problem is this price cap scheme they have concocted, russian oil is trading above the cap. so it's not affecting anything. and the truth is there are two solutions, number one is to decrease our and our allies' dependence. this is where the climate agenda is in conflict with our national security. but secondly, the general license is the problem. if they repealed the general license and help our allies in case by case scenarios with a special license, let's say for germany, ok they retain that authority, treasury would. but a general license that says

putin can sell all of his energy with no ramifications through a general license is not tough on russia. mr. hoyer: do i have time? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. hoyer: i'm going to ask for a vote. -- i withdraw that request. the chair: the gentleman withdraws. now in order -- mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. now to consider amendment number 38 printed in house report

118-269. mr. barr: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 118-269. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. gar and member opposed wech i will control five minutes. mr. barr: tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad, the biden administration should this executive order. yet republicans see right through this. this executive order is another example of the biden administration's effort to circumvent the peoples' house and advance their radical agenda by depriving the financing it neds from the capital markets. if we want to work in our

national security interests, 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 initiatives where the goal is to politicize capital and steer investments into climate transition. to protect national security interests we should pass h.r.1 and not just for our economy but for our national security. the biden administration releases this executive order that calls for the u.s. to rejoin the paris agreements and creates a task force including the secretary of treasury and secretary of defense which with will result in agencies taking their eye off the ball and global stability to focus on political initiatives and calls for a government-wide approach.

but what might be the most agrege us to tamper with with financial flows toward load greenhouse gases. the biden administration is calling for the government to put its thumb on the scale, pick winners and losers a starve energy companies of the financing they need and redirect capital into speculative green energy technologies that are unproven and will not fix the climate. this is in contradiction. increases our energy dependence on our adversaries and democrats are pursuing the radical and detrimental agendas. i urge my colleagues for the interest of our economy and the interests of national security to support this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition. first of all our economy is doing better than almost any economy in the world. i had numerous debates or discussions with the majority leader in the last congress and he kept talking about american energy. i kept pointing out to him, 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. at the same time, we are not undermining the energy industry, but we are 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 to build

resilience both at home and abroad against the impacts of climate change. nationwide communities are 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, dr. 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 particularly nuclear. i've been a supporter of nuclear energy for a long time, i have a big nuclear plant in my district. and it is an alternative clean energy option. i want to see that further expanded. right now, it's not -- it's

somewhat cost prohibitive in terms of getting loans. but at a time of tremendous need and challenge, this amendment, mr. speaker, 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. the industries have recognized that need and are pursuing that need. not as vigorously as they perhaps were last year or the year before that, but pursuing it vigorously. i visited a number of the energy companies themselves who are involved in the fossil fuel industry also looking at alternative energy because they see that as the future.

and this amendment i think undermines both the focus and the process of moving toward that which the white house is trying to do. why? because they have responsibility for all americans. and they have a responsibility to look at more than 24-month cycles. we in congress are sort of hide-bound by 24-month cycles. but we need to look long-term and that's what the -- that's what president bide season trying to do. look long-term and be prepared. be prepare forward time when we are smothering our little globe. and heating it up. and melting the ice of the world.

and making agriculture unattainable in certain arias. making life difficult in certain areas. so it's necessary that we look long term. it's necessary that we have a longer vision. and it's necessary that we have an administration that has the ability and inclination to do just that. that's what they're doing. i think this amendment certainly speaks to one segment of the energy that we have in this country. and that's the fossil fuel. we'll be using fossil fuel for some years to come. maybe some decades to come. but we need to look long term. at more efficient and effective energy sources that do not cause a danger to humanity. soy urge that we not pursue this. we allow the administration to continue its efforts.

and that we admit that climate change is a crisis happening now. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman seeks a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in part barvetion of house report 11-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. bean: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. bean of florida. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 847, the gentleman from florida, mr. bean, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. bean: thank you, mr. chairman, and good afternoon to you. i rise today in full support of my amendment 39 to h.r. 4664. i want to thank chairman williams and my colleagues on the small business committee for their support. this may, the small business administration implemented a rule which disregards congress' authority and makes its community advantage pilot program permanent. the program was created in 2011 and had been continuously authorized, re-authorized, on a short-term basis by congress. in fact, it's already authorized to continue operating through september, 2024. however, not so fast. the s.b.a. got tired of relying on congress to take our direction and decided to make the program permanent. by creating an entire new class of lending entities.

these new entities are called community advantage sblc's and now the s.b.a. no longer has to come to congress to make sure the program continues to operate. we all know this is not how agencies are supposed to work. if the community advantage program was successful, then it's the duty of congress to evaluate it to make sure it should be permanent. unfortunately, the s.b.a. does not want to operate in this fashion and removed the elected members of the body from the equation. this amendment reasserts congressional authority over the process by prohibiting any funds from implementing and administrating any licenses for the new community advantage sblc licenses. not only does this amendment ensure that congress' authority is not ignored, but it sends a strong message to all federal agencies that they cannot act outside their jurisdiction without consulting congress.

this is an important step to holding the federal government accountable to the american people and i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: this program has been a very successful program and it's been a successful program for this little guy, the small business. the pilot program has proved to be very successful. and has been operated 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 believe this is a program that

works. the permanent program includes all 112 of the pilot's lenders who wanted to continue s.b.a. lending along with 31 new mission-driven lenders that were recently approved. by blocking the s.b.a. from continuing this program, mr. chairman, the amendment would deny economic opportunities for communities and small businesses that need them the most. i've talked about, you're on your own. this is an area where small businesses need help. this is an area where, apparently, three administrations thought it was working. and now we're extending it. now we hear about well it's in the congress' area. of course it is, we could prohibit this. but the administration made a judgment that it works. the lending community has made a judgment, apparently they're not losing money on it, that it

works. and i'm strongly opposed to this amendment and if i can, at this point in time, yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. chu: i rise today in strong opposition to this amendment which would prohibit the small business administration from implementing the community advantage sblc program. this amendment is an attack on veterans, rural and low-income entrepreneurs and it should be rejected resoundingly. one of small business' greatest challenges is to obtain access to financial capital and for over a decade now, the community advantage program has been helping close this funding gap. community advantage lenders are required to make at least 60% of their loans to underserved markets defined as veteran-owned businesses, rural businesses, new businesses, businesses located in hub zones, empowerment zones an other

low-income communities. these are the types of businesses that too often find themselves on the margins. their owners lack the ability to qualify for more traditional loans because, for example, they may lack a credit history or pre-existing relationship with a bank. what's unique about community advantage lenders is that they are mission based primarily nonprofit, focused on economic and community development. they go beyond just providing loans. they provide technical assistance to the businesses they serve. as a result, community advantage has been far more successful than the traditional small business administration 7-a loan program of reaching underserved groups like veterans. community advantage was operating as a pilot up until the s.b.a. just this past month established the community advantage sblc program to provide more permanency for the program and lenders. congress needs to build on these efforts by providing statutory

permanence for community advantage so that veteran, rural, and low-income small business owners can continue to be served. this amendment would do the exact opposite, eradicating this proven program and undoing all our progress. i urge my colleagues to support our nation's veterans, rural, and low-income entrepreneurs by rejecting this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. bean: it's really irrelevant whether or not the program is doing a good job or not. they do not have the authority to make up their own rules and own programs without congress. it's as if they've left the band and s.b.a. is trying to start a solo career on their own. we were a team. we worked together. and the way it works is congress is the one that enacts new programs to work with them. so whether or not it's --

whether or not it's a good program is irrelevant. they do not have the authority. why even have a congress if all federal agencies are just going to go out and do what they want? mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, who just happens to be the chairman of the small business committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. williams: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise in full support of my colleague, congressman bean's, amendment to h.r. 4664. mr. bean's noncontroversial approach to ensuring government agencies do not overstep their authority. serving on both the committees on small business and education and work force, congressman bean is a passionate voice for our job creators in congress and i am grateful that -- to serve with him. with all that in mind, i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield my time back. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is

recognized. mr. hoyer: i'm asking the gentleman to yield? mr. bean: happy to yield. mr. hoyer: i understand you say it's irrelevant whether it wars or not, on my side i think it's relevant we feel think it's working, we think it's advantaging small business, we think it's advantaging minorities and we think it's advantaging veterans. in that context we think it's 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. if they don't have the authority to do that, then we ought to raise that issue. i'm not sure that's the issue you're raising. but i think that's the issue you're raising. but the fact of the matter is, fine, then let's have a hearing on it. again, let's have the

authorizing committee that's responsible for this say, this not working or we think it is working and we ought to continue it. absent a vote continuing it, then one could draw the conclusion that congress withdraws its approval of it. but i think by simply doing this, members are not -- 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. and in light of that i would urge that we reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bean: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you so much for the interest to my colleague from maryland. the issue is one thing. the issue does this agency or any agency have the act, have the ability, to go out on their own on a solo career and not have congressional oversight? i say no.

i say no. we can talk about the program in the cloakroom or in the fireplace room and talk about how great it is. but hopefully we will see eye-to-eye that federal agencies that don't have the authority to go in a particular direction shouldn't go in that particular direction. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: my point is we have the right to oversight. the gentleman has the right to call them to come and testify. call others to testify on whether this program works or doesn't. we haven't given up that authority. oversight as the gentleman refers to it. i think we ought to tiers that. -- ought to exercise that. i don't think we ought to stop a program that worns behalf of people i think we all want to help. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded

vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 40. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? mrs.boebert: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 40 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by ms. boebert of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, gentlewoman colorado, ms. boebert and a member opposed will recognize the. mrs.boebert: this prohibits funds from being used in violation of federal immigration law for sanctuary city policies. the concept directly violate

article 1, section 8 of the united states constitution gives congress clear jurisdiction on immigration matters, a nation of laws must enforce established laws. not seek ways to circumvent them. these sanctuary cities are 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 section 642-a of the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996. this federal law prohibits sanctuary policies from law enforcement officials sharing immigration status within the immigration and naturalization service.

more than 200 states 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 less radical open border agenda. since biden has taken office, border patrol has encountered 6.3 million illegal aliens who have illegally entered america, released 2.9 million illegal aliens into our communities and let more than 1.7 million known got-aways 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 the fiscal last year. the f.b.i. stopped more than 172 illegals on the terrorism watch list. our pourous southern border is literally a major national security risk. these open borders and sanctuary cities are destroying, chicago, denver, chicago, los angeles and new york are begging for more money to handle the influx of

illegal aliens rather than changing their illegal alien policies that has ex as ser patrioted the problem. i thank the committee's hard work on this bill and i ask that my colleagues join me in support of the rule of law by voting in favor of my amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i ask the gentlelady to yield. i'll ask you if you yield for a question. what funds in this bill are used for the purposes are opposed to?

mrs.boebert: i was getting clarification. this is precautionary. sanctuary city policies that are in place that are allowing the refuge of illegal aliens in this and influx of crime and drugs in these cities and there is no way for these folks to even report what is taking place because they are protected under this safe policy that has been created that is subduing the actual rule of law. mr. hoyer: i understand that. but what you have said none of the funds in this bill can be spent for this -- what funds are in this bill that are to be spent for this 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. there are no funds in this bill to accomplish that objective. you don't believe that the chairman would put funds? mrs.boebert: i do not trust my administration with taxpayer funding that they are handling. they are mishandling our taxpayer. if the gentleman says there is no funds and i would urge that you support this amendment. mr. hoyer: if we do this amendment, any subject that anybody has an interest in would be subject to such an amendment. the rules committee has waived points of order contrary to what they said they wanted done when we were in charge because they didn't want points of order, but there are no funds in this bill,

mr. speaker, for the objective that the gentlelady wants to prevent. i guarantee chairman womack wouldn't have included to protect such activity. he feels strongly about this. so this amendment has no place in this bill, because there is no money in this bill. you can argue about the sanctuary cities and argue about the border and do all of that, but this is not the bill to do it on. and this raises therefore a suspicion that somehow there is money in this bill that mr. womack put in or i would sanctioned to accomplish that objective, that is simply not true, mr. chairman. and this has no place in this bill. reserve. the chair: the chair reminds to

direct all marks and formally and reclaim time under recognition. mrs.boebert: i just want to state one more time that the white house has had a reputation of spending funds to protect illegal aliens that have broken our nation's laws to enter our country and i want to make very clear in this bill that these funds cannot be allocated in that way. if we don't put the cuffs on this administration, they will continue to go rogan waste the tax 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'm putting the handcuffs on the biden administration with this amendment. if the gentleman as i said agrees there are no funds, there should be no problem to say we

cannot allocate funds to protect these sanctuary cities. mr. chair, i have spoken my piece on this amendment. i am prepared to close. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i have said there are no funds. but she said because this amendment she is going to handcuff the administration. you can't handcuff the administration prohibiting funds that don't exist. i yield back and i urge opposition. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in part b house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in part b of house report 118-269. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentlewoman from colorado, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs.boebert: i rise today to offer my amendment to the financial service and general government appropriation act for fiscal year 2024 to prohibit performance awards or bonuses for senior executives service employees at the i.r.s. joe biden has weaponized the internal revenue government and started off with a big brother proposal directing the i.r.s. to snoop on peoples' bank accounts and monitor transactions of $600 or more. he then spent $80 billion to build an army of 87,000 armed

i.r.s. agents to target families and small businesses with enforcement activities. it's clear the i.r.s. has long lost touch with its mission to serve taxpayers. american families don't need more audits or red tape. my amendment returns the i.r.s. and ensure hard working taxpayers receive satisfactory customer service without a fear of supercharged i.r.s. we need to protect the taxpayers and rein an unaccountable federal agency and reverse course of 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 i.r.s. leaking tax information about president's political opponents, then support my amendment.

if you disapprove of the i.r.s. targeting conservative groups for their political beliefs, then support my amendment. if you disapprove of the i.r.s. ignoring congressional subpoenas, then support my amendment. if you disapprove of this agency's stonewalling congress destroying evidence and lying to the american people, then support my amendment. finally, if you disapprove of i.r.s. senior executives receiving bonuses for their work, then support my amendment. again, i thank the chaimple and ranking member for their continued work on the committee. and mr. chair, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves -- mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: so sad to hear on

this floor assumptions made that have little or any basis in truth. it is so sad to hear a debate that if you are for or against something that's 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 debate -- not in this instant debate, because it is totally untrue. and it is defaming. 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. but it's sad that some of us do it. it's sad that some of us demean people who are performing an outstanding absolutely essential service for the united states government, for the people of this country and to carry out the duties that we give them. and this assertion of this army of 87,000 people, armed guards at everybody's door has been repeated i think probably a million times over the last two years or year and a half. it's not true. and they know it's not true.

but they don't care whether it's true. they believe that the constant assertion of that fact and unfortunately through social media and other means becomes fact for people do not know the facts. how sad that we have come to this point. and i say we have come to the point, we have been at that point probably for a very long period of time. where people assert things that are not true, but do it over and over and over again. we had a president of the united states who did that. and because he did assert it, they believed it. and then of course, along comes their chief of staff and says, we knew it wasn't true. but we kept telling the american

people. until they believed it so much that they perpetrated and insurrection in trying 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 and do what we ask you to do, and do you it effectively, we are not going to recognize the fact that you did outstanding service. because you are an i.r.s. agent or i.r.s. executive. the i.r.s. is the biggest agency

in this -- in the treasury department and in this bill. and it is on the basis of which all other agencies and departments operate because that's where the revenue comes from. and 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 would hope that we would not continue to defame and to de demote. maybe my hope is misplaced as rewee reduced federal employees -- reduced -- we reduced federal employees one after another over and over to $1 in salary because we don't

like what they do. we don't like the policies they pursue for the administration. vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. boebert: i have never been more thrilled to be a part of the republican party. i would much rather stand with the american people rather than stand in this chamber and defend i.r.s. agents. 87,000 armed i.r.s. 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 i.r.s. agents. we do not want to give i.r.s. agents who target conservative groups, who release tax information about the president's political opponents, who ignore congressional subpoenas. we have had i.r.s.

whistleblowers before the oversight committee who said they were told that they must protect joe biden's son. that's 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 see the rot within the i.r.s. and they came forward. i am proud to stand with the american people and say we should not issue bonuses to i.r.s. agents. taxation is theft. and arming 87,000 i.r.s. agents to go after the hardworking middle class -- well, that's just flat out armed robbery. mr. chair, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i yield. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 42 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. burchett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42, printed in part b of house report number 118-269. offered by mr. burchett of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. burchett, and the member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. burchett: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment is very simple. it deals with a man named gary gensler, head of the securities

and exchange commission. he's been implementing woke policies and abusing the rulemaking process. one of the primary responsibilities is to protect investors. rather than implementing his rules to protect, grow investments which he's supposed to do, he's focused on catering to the left-wing mob. he's forcing companies prioritize green new deals, and diversity quotas over the interest of investors. additionally, mr. speaker, he's abused the rulemaking process which he's been called on the carpet by both parties. he continues to put forth many highly controversial rules with little time for public comments. during the last congress, republican and democrats both expressed their concerns as i mentioned regarding his habit of proposing rules wowed allowing adequate time for public comment. biden securities and exchange commission has proposed nearly twice as many rules as the trump administration as proposed in the same time frame.

this drastic increase under his leadership demonstrates where his real priorities lie, mr. speaker. he's more committed to pushing a political agenda on publicly traded companies which he has no business doing than performing his official duties as chairman of the securities and exchanges change commission. his insistence on corrupting the rulemaking process to further the biden administration's radical agenda at the expense of investors, contradicts his duties as chairman of the s.e.c. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment in the financial services and general government appropriations bill that reduces chairman ginsler's salary to $1. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. for what purpose does -- referee. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. hoyer: there have been over 55 of these amendments. there have been some passed on voice vote.

every one put on the roll has lost. and this one will lose. it is a nonserious amendment. and not offered as a serious effort to legislate as so many requested be done, which is why they wanted so many amendments. these are not serious amendments. i oppose it. the chair: the gentleman reserve? mr. hoyer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized mr. burchett: i would like yield two minutes to my friend and mentor, the gentleman from arkansas. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: i thank my friend from tennessee. i rise in support of this amendment. now, 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's been overused. and the record can be reflected that i don't think i have -- am on the record for voting for any of the holman rules to date. i want to make that disclosure up front. but that's just a personal opinion. that is what i believe. holman rule is a serious tool in congress. and i think we have to be careful when we are establishing precedence on the use of it. i do think there are times when the holman rule is justified. unfortunately, in my opinion, the securities and exchange commission under chairman gary ginsler is an example of the

time when i think the holeman rule can be used as a messenger to the s.e.c. chairman. the health and vibrancy of our markets and economy writ large can be tested by an aggressive and overzealous rulemaking agenda. over the last three 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 ginsler must be considered thoughtfully and competitively. unfortunately, they have not -- competitivelily -- competitivel comprehensively. unfortunately, they ever not been. the s.e.c.'s private funds rule that will expand the disclosure regiment -- regimen. additional 30 seconds. mr. burchett: had a seconds --

45 seconds. mr. womack: this list goes on to about 50 proposed and finalized rules by the chairman. a breakneck speed of rulemaking given that he's been chairman for three years. to me it's unacceptable. we have had that dialogue. in hearings. speed and volume should not be defining characteristics of the rulemaking process. i stand with the gentleman from tennessee. and the gentleman from south carolina. the authors of this amendment. i will support this holman rule in this particular case. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. and the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from tennessee has 15 seconds. mr. burchett: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank, as i said, my friend and mentor, the gentleman from arkansas. when i first got up here was

probably one of the most influential persons on my life on this floor. i want to thank him for his friendship and support on this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hoyer: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: does the gentleman seek a recorded vote? mr. hoyer: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43, printed in part b of house

report number 118-269, offered by mrs. cammack of -- cammack of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentlewoman from florida, mrs. cammack, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the -- recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. mrs. cammack: i rise today in support of my amendment which would restrict funds at federal agencies falling under the financial services and general government appropriations act from being used to finalize any rule or regulation that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. the biden administration has continually hamstrung the american people with agency rules that circumvent congressional oversight. agencies like the s.e.c. and the cfpb do nothing to combat the hundreds of billions of dollars in regulatory costs our constituents have been faced with since bribe took -- president biden took office. unreasonable regulations relating to climate and e.s.g. disclosure requirements, as well as aggressive and abusive i.r.s.

enforcement measures are examples of hurdles that our financial agencies place upon everyday americans. my amendment seeks to prevent these types of abuse from these agencies by -- before finalizing major rules and regulations which often involved major policy decision that is should be decided by congressi. by including my amendment we restore congress' article 1 authority by preventing acies from -- agencies from imposing rules behind closed doors. we commit ourselves to the way the process is intended. transparent, open, in congress, in the people's for example, under chairman gensler, the s.e.c. has bombarded the government with more proposals than any other predecessor since the 2008 global financial crisis. the s.e.c. put together a total of 47 proposals that substantially affect the financial markets since gensler

took the chair. they have more than $100 million of industry impact apiece. according to the financial times, the current s.e.c. stands out for a number of proposals that are not mandated by congressional legislation. just 17% of gensler's s.e.c. proposals were required under dodd frank financial reform, meaning the majority of the s.e.c.'s proposals may not be necessary, let alone constitutional. the regulatory regime is a quintessential example of executive overreach. as "the wall street journal" editorial board puts it, if it moves, the s.e.c. will regulate it. the s.e.c.'s analytics rule is a example of costly misguided regulations. the predictive analytics rule seek recognition to prohibit certain technologies that investment firms use to automatically inform investors about financial news. under this rule companies who

offer zero commission trading would be at of firms with larger operations. speaking of compliance costs, the s.e.c. would litter public companies and financial disclosures and institutions with unnecessary reporting requirements. banks and companies would have to conjure up plans for greenhouse risks. there is no clear legal basis for these requirements as they are meant to ultimately advance a political agenda rather than the will of the people. it's simple, congress should have oversight of these burdensome rules and regulations and we should have an open and transparent process. this apartment is bipartisan and a earlier version was passed earlier on the floor. let's make congress transparent and take back the power from this overreach.

with that i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hoyer: to rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: it would be challenging at best and harmful at worst to our country and to our economy and to our people and i urge the amendment's rejection. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. hoyer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from -- the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. cammack: why he thinks this would not encourage members of congress to do the work we are

hired to do rather than unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in a basement somewhere in market. i think it's important we reassert our authority prescribed by the constitution. with that, i know the gentleman from georgia would like to speak, and if i could inquire to my remaining time. the chair: one minute remaining. ms. cammack: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in support of her amendment and ensure congress is conducting the proper oversight of the executive branch. this amendment mirrors the rains act of which i'm a proud co-sponsor and passed in the house earlier with overwhelming support. it's clear the american people believe the overreach of the executive branch must come to an end. there's 2.1 million bureaucrats and not merely enough transparency in the process and

this amendment defines a major rule so more rules are put in effect than the effect on the economy. it's our duty to keep the executive branch accountable and what this amendment does. checks and balances must be reasserted and we must stop wasteful spending. the american people do not want bureaucrats making impactful decisions when they're struggling to purchase everyday items. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: the reason i'm opposed to this is not because i'm opposed to making regulations more clear, less burdensome and less undermining of economic development. the reason i'm opposed to this amendment is a blanket amendment across the board. that i think is harmful to the

administration, any administration, republican or democrat, how many or how few those regulations may be, if they make a determination regulation is necessary. i appreciate the gentlelady saying we ought to do our work. this congress is not doing that very well, of course. had trouble electing a speaker, had trouble electing a second speaker and having trouble passing appropriation bills. so somebody's got to sometimes act. we're not doing a very good job at that and we ought not preclude across the board the administration from doing any major rule making and think it's a mistake and urge the opposition to this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yields back? mr. hoyer: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have is it. and the amendment is agreed to.

% amendment 44 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. collins. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. collins of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment prohibits money being used for salaries and other expenses. kamala harris has been a failure of vice president and with her

ability to lead her colleagues and her job is border czar and she's not secured anything. looking at the numbers, since the biden administration took office, there's been over 6.2 million illegal crossings at our southern border. in september alone, there were 269,735 illegal immigrants encountered at the southern border. that's an increase of over 300% since september of 2020. customs and border protection has seized over 27,000 pounds of fentanyl just in fiscal year 2023. 169 people whose names were on the terrorist's list were stopped trying to cross the border. cartels are making more than $13 billion a year from smuggling people across our border. the biden-harris far left border policies are to blame for this

crisis and what has this border czar done about it? nothing. the only thing our vice president has succeeded at is failing us, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you. there's a lot of vice presidents i haven't agreed with. i would have never contemplated offering, mr. chairman, an amendment to strike their ability to carry out the duties to which they were elected by the american people. any more than i would suggest a member of congress that doesn't perform very well or efficiently or effectively had have their offices defunded. they were elected by the people

and they're entitled to the resources to carry out those duties and responsibilities given to them by the american people. i hope this amendment is overwhelmingly rejected. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: i think the facts speak for themselves on our border czar, and i reserve. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, the chairman of our committee. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. >> i thank you, mr. chairman, and my ranking member, and with all due respect to my colleague, i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. womack: this bill funded the office of the vice president at a 20% cut from last year.

so we've 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's no question about that. but i think it's wrong for us to take our grievances out by carte blanche eliminating funding for the office of the vice president of the united states. now that's just a bridge too far as far as i'm concerned. we need to have these debates about whether or not border security is correct or 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 congress, the house of representatives, to take a very sober view of an amendment like this and understand these kinds of things cut both ways, and 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, so i strongly oppose this amendment and yield back my time. the chair: does the gentleman from arkansas yield back? does the gentleman from maryland reserve? mr. hoyer: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: i'm prepared to close. i'm a businessman. and the only problem in this country is that southern border down there is wide open and

folks are flooding across that place and don't know what they are. we have hot spots all over the world and we already announced how many terrorists from the watch list we've caught there. i'm a businessman and i look down there to see who is in charge of that. that's vice president kamala harris. if you can't change who is in charge of it, it's our duty as representatives make sure she's not paid for doing her job. the american people should no longer be on the hook for vice president harris' failures. i urge all my colleagues to adopt this amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 45 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 45, printed in part b of 118-269 offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. davidson: i thank the

chairman. we recognize one of the chief rivals of the united states is china p. really more specifically the chinese communist power of china and one of the key tools for their power is their currency. the amendment i'm offering today would limit the treasury's ability to go along with an organization we helped to create, the international monetary fund. the international monetary fund is supposed to support financial stability in the world. and part of the way they do that is with something called special drawing rights. this is a basket of currencies they extend to others. and they added the chinese renminbi. special drawing rights are not only a reserve asset in central

ranks around the world but serve as a unit account for the i.m.f. the i.m.f.'s decision was something of a coup for beijing as the renminbi sits in a club with the euro, the dollar, the pound sterling and the yen. i believe the i.m.f.'s elevation of the china lacked rule of law as it does today, nevertheless the i.m.f. tall validating beijing would encourage their government to pursue reform and work within the international community. none of this has come to pass, of course. china went on to assault hong kong's democracy. they increased state control of their economy. they threatened taiwan actively. they act as

mr. davidson: i'm pleased to southeast update the administration doesn't anticipate changing it. let's be clear, it doesn't prohibit them having flexibility. they can actively work to decrease the weight of the r.m.b. they can't work to increase t since they say that's their stated policy goal, i think it provides them exactly what they need. reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. davidson: i thank the chairman. this is a commonsense amendment. it checks the power and growth of the influence of the chinese communist party. and their currency, the r.m.b. that's what this amendment could help accomplish. i urge all our colleagues to support it. i yield back. he. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. yet is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. my, those opposed, no -- those in favor will vote aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 46 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. emmer: i have an amendment at the desk e. the clerk: amendment number 46, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mr. emmer of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. emmer: thank you, mr. speaker. regulation by enforcement is a practice all too common with this administration. this is particularly the case at the s.e.c. and chair gary

gensler's approach to our capital markets and financial services industry, especially with our emerging digital assets community. my amendment seeks to put an end to his pattern of regulatory abuse, a pattern that is rushing american innovation and capital formation without undermining our ability to go after criminal and fraudsters. specifically my amendment prohibits the s.e.c. from using funds for enforcement activities related to digital asset transactions until congress passes legislation that gives the s.e.c. jurisdiction over this asset class. this will keep chair gensler, who has proven himself to be ineffective and incompetent, in check while congress continues working to give this industry a chance to grow and develop right here in the united states. let's just look at the facts. under his leadership the s.e.c. has pursued dozens of enforcement actions against the digital asset industry despite never finalizing a sing rule or regulation for the industry to

follow. chair ginsler -- how can the industry comply if there are no rules or guidelines to follow? on top of that he has developed a track record of going after actors like coin base, a publicly traded company desperately trying to survive and innovate right here in the united states instead of going offshore like so many are forced to do. he's done this while missing bad actors like f.t.x. at a time when clear guidance is desperately needed, he spends taxpayer resources praising himself for targeting celebrities like kim kardashian while sam bankman-fried was running a ponzi scheme under his nodes of what's worse the s.e.c. doesn't even have jurisdiction from congress over this asset class to begin with. yet the s.e.c. has no came shays-meehan in trying to expand their -- has no shame in trying

text spawned their jurisdiction -- to expand their jurisdiction. last year the director of enforcement admitted during a committee hearing that the s.e.c. pursues enforcement actions on ensits tits that are outside of its jurisdiction. one of these cases was the s.e.c.'s landmark crypto enforcement case against a company alleges x.r.p. is a security. in july the southern district of new york sided against the s.e.c., asserting that x.r.p. is not itself a security. in august, the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit found the s.e.c. to be acting arbitrarily and capriciously in its refusal to approve gray scales bitcoin spot e.t.f. application. just last month the general accounting office found the s.e.c. to create an illegal crypto accounting rule that is out of compliance with the administrative procedure act and the congressional review act.

the unique characteristics of digital assets make it hard to fit this asset class into any existing regulatory framework. that doesn't mean it's up for grabs by whatever federal bureaucratic agency has the most taxpayer funded and enforcement resources to burn. congress is working on legislation to establish a framework for how we classify specific digital assets as a security or a commodity which will dictate the regulator of jurisdiction. importantly, while congress works to pass this necessary legislation, my amendment will not prevent future bad actors like f.t.x. from being pursued and punished to the fullest extent of the law. the department of justice, treasury, and office of foreign asset control all have the existing and sufficient authority to prosecute criminal acts of fraud, abuse, tax, or sanctions evasion. some would even argue these entities have done a better job of attacking fraud and criminal activity in this space than the chairman anti-s.e.c.

this amendment is designed to send an important signal not just to the s.e.c. but to every regulatory entity in the federal government. congress will hold unelected bureaucrats accountable. s.e.c. chair gensler cannot continue to abuse the powers of his agency to fulfill a political agenda driving the new and promising digital asset industry offshore. congress must be allowed to finish its legislative work so the future of digital asset innovation is determined by americans not unelected bureaucrats in d.c. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i thank the chairman. i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: however i want to say that we are doing the financial services business in this bill. we are the financial services committee to fund regulatory agencies. to that extent i understand its

relevance. i must say it's going to be difficult for members who haven't seen this process by the financial services committee to fully understand the ramifications of the proposal. i think that's unfortunate. having said that, i also believe, again from nonmember of the committee, that this crypto currency and crypto financial instruments certainly need to be looked at and are being looked at on both sides of the congress to ensure that brinkman-fried actions don't happen to defraud a lot of people. i really think what will happen here is when we go to conference, assuming we go to conference, that this is going to be looked at. we'll hear from treasury on it. and also obviously the s.e.c. to

see where we ought to land on this issue of no funds to carry out -- i presume any enforcement action related to crypto asset collection. i understand from the gentleman's comment there are three other agencies that would have the ability to move. mr. chairman, i think the best thing to do this amendment obviously will move forward and i'm going to urge both the s.e.c. and treasury anti-administration to look at it as it moves through conference. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. emmer: i appreciate our friend from maryland and his comments. i do want to point out that you are absolutely correct. the concerns here are bipartisan concerns. this is not a republican-democrat issue. this is an issue about the digital asset space in this country.

and the whole purpose of this amendment is to try and stop what we believe -- thank you. i urge support. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the question then is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. this amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? mrs. fischbach: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47, printed in part b of house

report number 118-269 of, offered by mrs. fischbach of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. fischbach, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota. mrs. fischbach: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of my amendment to prohibit funds from being used by the s.e.c. to regulate or require the disclosure of data regarding agricultural emissions. mr. speaker, the s.e.c. under chair ginsler has been marked by a radical and tyrannical enforcement agenda that stretches the bounds of the s.e.c.'s jurisdiction and buries hardworking men look no further than the s.e.c.'s climate related disclosure rule which would require public companies to disclose the emission data for their supply chains, for food

companies and agribusiness that relies on farmers and ranchers means selecting emission data. the s.e.c. has no authority to regulate farmers and ranchers. the s.e.c. is charged with facilitating financial market activity and not policing the tens of thousands of family farms for district. the proposed rule would burden my constituents with mountains of paperwork and regulatory burden if they want to do business with a public company. this is something the counterparts don't have the departments to satisfy the requirements under this rule. production agriculture is already regulated by the e.p.a., the usda and state and local governments. as a result, farmers and ranchers are climate champions, not villains.

the last thing they need is more unelected bureaucrats in washington, d.c. who never set foot on a farm telling them how to do their job. this amendment eliminates the duplicative regulatory efforts and allows farmers in my district and throughout the country to do what they do best, feed and fuel the world. i'd like my colleagues to support my amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition. in section 550 of the bill it seems to do the same thing. am i incorrect, or i'll ask mrs. fischbach? the chair: reading from the bill

itself, it says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule titled enhancement, climate related disclosure for investors, federal reg, etc., etc., or any substantial similar rule. is that the same effect as this amendment? the chair: it may be duplicative but twice as nice, so, yeah. we'll provide. mr. hoyer: i'd be half as articulate about it. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. mrs. fischbach: there's no issue on being duplicative and what we're trying to accomplish with this amendment because it's important to make sure we are protecting the farmers, those people, like i said before that feed the world. i'd like to yield two minutes.

>> i thank the chairman and gentlelady for her amendment. i rise in support, plain and simply, environmental policing is not within the s.e.c. scope. it's just not. and i know this process we've undergone sounds like we're gaining up on gensler, and maybe we are. and for good reason. skunk 3 emissions are hard to quantify shifting the information needed from outside partnering companies like family farmers. the information that needs to be reported, for farmers it's overly burdensome. farmers are american heroes. they don't need any more negative input factors on how they feed and clothe and fuel this nation. they've already goto enough to deal with.

high inflation, markets, weather. somebody's got to stand up for the family farmer and why i'm proud to support my colleague from minnesota's amendment. i support the amendment and would encourage my colleagues to do the same. the farmer needs an advocate and that's what we're doing. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. does gentlewoman reserve? mrs. fischbach: i reserve. mr. hoyer: like the chairman says, standing up twice is better than standing up once. i want to say something about my friend, mr. gensler, who i've known since a young boy and his father was a friend of mine when i was in the maryland state senate. he's a good man. he's been in two administrations at least at this point in time,

doing an important job. some people may differ with him but he's an honest, hard-working , extraordinarily intelligent representative chosen by the administration chosen to carry out their policies. i would be negligent not to say that of somebody i've known as long and who i believe has great integrity though he may have differences with people. but we've already said this. we're going to say it again. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. mrs. fischbach: how much time is left? the chair: gentlewoman has one minute remaining. mrs. fischbach: thank you, mr. speaker. i just wanted to say -- echo some of the things that the chair said regarding protecting the farmers. we have to protect the farmers. it is a national security issue

and a food issue and it is a fuel issue, and it's important we make sure we get the legislation, the bills right, the language right in order to protect them. so i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back and the question is on the amendment of the gentlewoman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment 48 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? fitzgerald: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 48 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by

mr. fitzgerald of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. fitzgerald: this amendment would oppose the subpoena authority of the treasury's federal insurance office. it removes the subpoena authority of the office of financial research. you know, for about 150 years, state insurance regulators and the law is passed by those state legislatures have regulated insurance companies and worked out very well. the federal insurance office, fio, created under dodd frank, has grown increasingly aggressive in collecting data from insurance companies. most recently issuing a proposed data collection to assess, quote, unquote climate related financial risk. despite working with state

regulators on previous efforts, fio chose not to collaborate with state regulators on this climate data call. not only has the office been unclear how they intend to use the data they collect, the effort would be duplicative in many ways as many states already collect similar but maybe not the exact set of data as required by the federal government. any efforts by treasury or fio to sidestep state insurance regulators blatantly undermines congressional intent and why i introduced the data act to secure subpoena power and would have the same rules and i urge my colleagues to vote yes to this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i rise in objection. this is another time when we retreat from oversight. we talk a lot about oversight on the appropriations committee and talk a lot about oversight in the committees to find out what people are doing what we asked them to do, that they're doing it properly and the same is true with those folks who serve in the regulatory agencies and treasury and others to make sure the consumers are being treated fairly. i don't know why we keep retreating from that. if they do wrong we ought to call them out for doing wrong and if they're doing too much we ought to call them out for doing too much. but to say they can't do it undermines the consumer and undermines the american people who are expecting us to make sure people are treating them fairly and on the up and up and

not taking advantage of them. not because they're not smart, they are. but they may be expert on what they're dealing with. so i would oppose this and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. fitzgerald: i reserve. mr. hoyer: yield. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. fitzgerald: i would say once again, mr. speaker, the state regulators have done a wonderful job this many years and should continue to be the focus of any of this data collection. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment 49 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. fitzgerald: are we on amendment 39? the chair: 49. mr. face gerald: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? mr. fitzgerald: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 49 printed in part b of 118-2 269 offered by mr. fitzgerald of wisconsin. the chair: mr. fitzgerald and a member opposed each will control

five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. fitzgerald: this amendment would prohibit the s.e.c. from rule defining for purposes of the federal trade commission act. the f.c.c. issued substantial rules concerning unfair methods of competition, u.m.c., as referred to in financial service including a nonblanket ban on noncompete agreements. since commissioner kahn has taken over the s.e.c. is a weapon and expands agency power and discards decades of precedent. chair kahn is basing this authority on tenuous legal ground that predates the major questions. as the supreme court made clear in west virginia versus the e.p.a., an executive agency needs a clear authorization from

congress to issue a regulation that has great, quote, economic and political significance. unfair competition rule making would be a claim of kwasi legislative power that would district the agency from its core mission of case by case expert application of the f.t.c. act through administrative actions. it would also be inconsistent with the explicit grants of rule making the congress has given the f.t.c. on consumer protection issues. this is not what they're looking for on competitive grounds. allowing this much authority to the f.t.c. which overseas nearly all aspects of our economy would open the door to significantly more harmful rules that would empower this administration to coerce companies to bow to its radical, what i consider radical agenda. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman

reserve or yield back? mr. fitzgerald: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i want to read the remarks of the commission in response to this amendment. they say the amendment would prevent the f.t.c. from implementing, administering, and enforcing any rule it may promulgate pursuant to the national proposed -- notice of proposed rule making that proposes a ban on employers imposing noncompete restriction on workers. workers are locked in sometimes because they have no other option. if it then goes on to say evidence shows noncompete restrictions are reducing the competitiveness of labor markets and prohibiting the talent pool they need to enter or expand.

it would increase $200 billion a year and 30 million are bound by noncompete clause. in other words what the effect of this amendment would have is having 30 million workers getting less pay because of the noncompete. because they don't have a place to go. we passed legislation. to trap their employees in doin. but this amendment is so broad it may be used to implement, administer or enforce any rule for finding and describing unfair methods of competition. i can't see that we're going to

let them tell you unfair competitive practices. i would hope we defeat this motion as way too broad and harmful. the f.t.c. says 30 million people and as much as $300 billion in reduced wageses. and i would urge congress at this point in time on this bill not do this without much greater thought of the ramifications of 30 million people and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

today we have an f.t.c. guided by political wins and i guess the overall notion that big has to be bad. so as a result, numerous rule makings have raised serious questions for the american people and american businesses of all size. especially true for rules developed under the f.t.c.'s

unfair method of competition standards. so i stand here today in support of my friend from wisconsin's amendment by prohibiting section 5. and i thank him for his thoughtful amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: look -- i think we all understand that the chair of the f.t.c. is a controversial figure. i get that, but to draw a piece of legislation this broadly, i think misserves the role that

the congress established, the commission to pursue. and we can certainly step in when there are abuses. this says any rule, good rule, bad rule no rule, none of the funds to implement or administer or enforce any rule, not the rule that's necessarily under consideration that we have been discussing, any rule. i think that's bad policy as i have said, it's dangerous to the american worker and the american purchaser of goods and i think that we ought to hone in on this particular and not paint with a broad brush that i think will cause harm of the agency. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized.

mr. fitzgerald: i urge a aye vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from maryland yields back. the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from wisconsin. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 118-269 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by

mr. molinaro of new york, amendment number 9 by mr. grothman of wisconsin, amendment number 15 by mrs. harsh berger of tennessee. amendment number 18 of mr. perry. amendment number 21 by mr. ogles of tennessee. amendment number 24 by mr. perry, amendment number 37 by mr. bower -- barr. amendment number 42 by mr. burchett of tennessee. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is requested for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 118-269

by the gentleman from new york on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. month lynn airo of new york. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]