the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 336 and the nays are 86. the amendment is adopted.

the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 118-269 of the the gentleman from wisconsin mr. grothman on which further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the america. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. 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 two-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.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 115, the nays are 306. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 118-269 by the gentlewoman from tennessee on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 offered by mrs. harsh berger of tennessee. the chair: those in request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 187, the nays are 238. the amendment is adopted. is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 18 printed in part b of house report 118-269 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, on which the further proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in part b of house report 118-26269, offered by mr. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, the recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas 140. the nays are 286. this amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 21 printed in part b of house report 118-269.

the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, 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 21, printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rises and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 183, the nays are 2. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on the amendment number 24 printed in part b of house report 118-269 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas preentrailed voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in part b of house report 118-269. offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172, the nays are 257. the amendment is not adopted.

the chair: the unfinished business is a request for a report on amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 118-269 by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. barr of kentucky. the chair: a report has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a this will be a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 250, and the nays are 174. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a report on amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 118-269 by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. barr of kentucky. the chair: a recorded vote is ordered has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a report is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a this will be a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 219, the nays are 210. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a report printed in house report 118-269 by the gentleman from florida, mr. bean, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39, printed in part b of house report number 118-269 offered by mr. bean of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 205, the nays are 220. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote is ordered on amendment number 42

printed in part b of house report 118-269 by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. burchett on which further proceedings were postponed and yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. burchett of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a this will be a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 175, the nays are 252. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report 118-269, by the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44, printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. collins of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 106, the nays are 322. the amendment is not adopted.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in part b of house report 118-269. the house will come to order. the committee of the whole will come to order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. fitzgerald: i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50 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 each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. fitzgerald: mr. speaker, thank you. this amendment would prohibit the f.t.c. from bringing cases under section 5 that deviate from traditional antitrust statutes commonly known as the sherman act and clayton act. since the start of the administration, the f.t.c. has taken several steps that stray from traditional procedures and norms while pushing the limit on statutory bounds congress had already placed a limit on this area. the f.t.c. act does not define, quote, unfair methods of competition. in 2015, the f.t.c. issued the statement of enforcement

principles that clarified the priority of consumer welfare in the application of the antitrust law through the f.t.c. act. in particular, it has confined its section 5 cases to conduct that diminished consumer welfare by harming competition or the competitive process as opposed to conduct that merely harms individual competitors or poses public policy concerns unrelated to competition. in 2015 -- in the 2015 statement, it was replaced by an ambiguous new statement. in november of 2022 that causes confusion and strays from the rule of law. rather than promoting competition, the f.t.c. is imposing more costs on businesses, driving up prices for consumers that simply pile on to inflation. if the f.t.c. and the unaccountable bureaucrats at

other agent seiches as the fdic continue to stray from the rule of law, americans will face higher prices, less innovation and reductions in quality as these agencies seek unchecked authority to regulate and micromanage the american economy. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: thank you. i rise in opposition to this amendment. this would create confusion and legal uncertainty in case in which the f.t.c. seeks to use this authority to stop unfair methods of competition that hurts consumers, honest shawl businesses and workers. the november 2022 policy statement informs the public business community and antitrust

bar how the agency interprets the law based on principles from prior case law and agency. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. fitzgerald: i would say that's the issue that there's more confusion now that the f.t.c. has wondered away from what ultimately was legal precedent. so i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: i oppose and yield back the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. fitzgerald: i simply would urge an aye vote, mr. speaker. 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 number 51 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. fitzgerald: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51 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 each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. fitzgerald: mr. speaker, this amendment would prohibit funds from being made available to the f.t.c. to enforce the suspension of early terminations to merger filings made under the hart-scott-rodino act. the f.t.c. is authorized to terminate this early at the request of the pears or on their own. after determining that a transaction doesn't pose significant competitive concerns the ruling will be made in. february, 2021, the early

termination process was, quote-unquote, temporarily suspended, due to the impact of covid. the suspension remains in place nearly three years later. prior to the suspension, early termination was granted in approximately half of all reported transactions. the world obviously has moved on from covid, we've moved on from covid and time for my colleagues to move as well. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i rise in opposition to this amendment. current law require as party wishing to complete an acquisition must delay the transaction 30 days before following the submission of a premerger qualification to give the f.t.c. and d.o.j. an opportunity to determine the transaction and investigate further.

the transaction gives the f.t.c. and d.o.a. permission to wait for 30 days and this consumes the resources and a delay. i strongly oppose this amendment and urge a no vote and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. fitzgerald is recognized. mr. fitzgerald: i would move an aye vote and reserve. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? yeah. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. poke an: we oppose the amendment and yield back. mr. fitzgerald: i also yield. the chair: gentlemen he yields. 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. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment 52 printed in part b of 118-269. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i rise to offer amendment 52 -- the chair: the gentlewoman would suspend. ms. foxx: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 52 printed in house report 118-269 offered

by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to prohibit the office of o.m.b. from implementing its april 6, 2023 recisions to o.m.b. circular a-4. these revisions are an attempt to rewrite and water down the regulatory guardrails currently in place so that the biden administration can promulgate regulations that dramatically overstate the benefits and underrepresent the costs. the biden administration has big plans to spend your hard earned money and reshape your way of life. they're working to concoct all matters of massively expensive regulations, including rules on climate change, social equity, income redistribution to create

a, quote, social cost of carbon, end quote. even the biden administration has realized it faces checks and guardrails on the regulatory authorities as a result of o.m.b. circular a-4 which provides objective and nonpartisan guidance to agencies for considering the impacts of different regulatory actions. o.m.b. circular a-4 came from a 1993 clinton era executive order providing agencies with a framework and guardrails for considering different regulatory approaches that truly maximize benefits for the american people and minimize the cost. the april 6, 2023 recisions to o.m.b. circular a-4 are a departure from bipartisan and widely accepted practices and principles and are a thinly veiled attempt to push through the radical leftist agenda at the cost of stacking the deck and costly regulations. the most egregious part of these

revisions is it would allow agencies to consider not only the benefits of regulations to the americans who are the ones putting the bill but to the benefits of the crew across the entire world and would surely result in agencies dramatically overstating the purported benefits of regulations that can be seen as having global benefits such as anything invoking the phrases "climate change" or "social cost of carbon." in order to enact the agenda, the biden administration needs to rewrite o.m.b. circular a-4 so the cost of the regulatory regime can be minimized and the benefits dramatically overstated. we must react to quote, stop stacking the deck so the biden administration can reach even deeper in our pockets and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. poke an: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the proposed amendments it seeks to block to o.m.b. circular a-4 include updates that consider the social cost of carbon and other regulatory impact analysis. this change recognizes the urgency of addressing climate change and aligns the federal agencies to recognize its impact and urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this and i reserve my time. we don't need this concoction of social cost of carbon visited upon us in this country that will cost us lots and lots of money. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pokan: we oppose this

amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: we need to stop the biden administration from invoking its revisions to o.m.b. circular a-4 implementing its revisions. we don't need to water down the regulatory guardrails currently in place and dramatically overstate the benefits and underrepresent the costs of their rules. this needs to be stopped. i urge a yes vote on my amendment and i yield the balance of my time movement. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. 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 53 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. fry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 53 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. fry of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. fry, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. fry: i rise today to introduce a amendment that prohibits the funding of the treasury department's climate hub initiative which was rolled out by the biden administration in 2021. my constituents sent me to washington to restore fiscal sanity in our federal government and get back to the basics. it makes zero sense to have a climate hub under the treasury department. this country is over $33 trillion in debt and americans

are tired of seeing their tax dollars used to bloat and embolden federal agencies. they're tired of seeing these agencies usurping power to pursue extreme agendas and they're tired of this administration turning a blind eye to address real problems americans face while pursuing an agenda only liberal elites benefit from. they've loosely defined their so-called climate strategy while pumping billions to pursue and enforce out-of-touch regulations. as our country seeks deeper and deeper in debt every day, i see no basis for a climate hub to exist in a department that should be focused on our country's finances. instead of prioritizing legitimate functions within the treasury department such as promoting economic growth in america, managing our government's finances effectively, and ensuring the soundness of our financial system, mr. chairman, the treasury department's climate hub is just another example of how democrats and this administration want our federal government to grow in scope and power and ignore the core

functions of their mission. time and time again we've seen this administration embark on a rogue spending spree and apply its own definition to fiscal spending rather than consider the problems facing our country, the democrats are caught in their own echo chamber and many care more about a photo-op instead of enacting sound policy. this administration tells the american people climate change is the only threat to humanity and is more serious than nuclear war. everyday americans can see right through the hypocrisy of this administration. i'd like to remind everyone americans deserve better from their government. my amendment would put an end to the treasury department's wasteful climate hub. the united states treasury has no reason to use taxpayer funds for this initiative. i'm committed to standing up for that fiscal responsibility and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. chairman, thank you and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the

gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the climate hub is there to confront the growing threat of climate change. in over two years the hub has been instrumental in the implementation of the tremendously successful inflation reduction act. the hub contributed to successful negotiations that led to a substantial public-private climate finance commitment with south africa and indonesia. this amendment would impede treasury's climate policy strategy as our nation faces global climate threats and urge my colleagues to vote no and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. fry: again, i think the basis of this, and i'll continue to reserve, we must get back to the basics. the treasury department has no basis for undertaking this initiative. and i continue to urge my

colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: i oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. fry: we cannot accept every company can focus their access outside of design and control. if we hope to get our economy back on track and our country on track, we can't continue to allow this administration or the treasury department to ignore its core responsibilities. i'm proud to introduce this amendment and once again urge my colleagues to support it. with that i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. 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 54 printed in part b of house report 118-269.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. gates: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: printed in part b of 118-269 offered by mr. gates of florida. the chair: mr. gaetz and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. gates: thank you, mr. chairman. the f.b.i. wants a massive new complex for their washington, d.c. area based activities and want to spend more than $300 million on that complex, though the f.b.i. has an employee base that's about 2.3% of the united states military. mr. speaker, they're literally asking for something that is larger than the pentagon for the f.b.i. so my amendment would disallow any planning, spending, distribution of funds for that purpose. i don't believe the f.b.i. deserves a massive new

headquarters or washington field office. the activities inside of washington, the greater washington metro area have really driven a lot of the investigative work we've done. it's not bad folks from the f.b.i. out at some field office in middle america or elsewhere in the country, it is the washington, d.c. based activities that have pressured other field offices for no good law enforcement reason, it's the d.c. based entities that have suppressed credible investigative leads over the objections of other bureaus and offices and they've initiated investigations into american citizens merely for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. they've attempted to entrap mens of the united states senate by holding false classified meetings which is testimony from senator grassley and senator johnson. they've worked hard to censure factual information harmful to their preferred political candidates, notably the hunter

biden laptop story which the f.b.i. was in charge of cajoling. it would enable the washington field office's nefarious behavior and we shouldn't do it and adopt this amendment to ensure that's the case. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman, and my thanks to the minority side for giving me an opportunity to speak. i rise in opposition to the gentleman from florida's amendment. we're not always going to hate the f.b.i. i realize there are people on my side of the aisle that don't like some of the activities of the f.b.i. i'm not going to pick an argument on that. but what i will argue is that it

is bad policy for the congress to be taking steps to deny a federal agency that is in serious need, in my opinion, of an improvement to their headquarters. now notice, i said improvement. i didn't say some massive big expansion necessarily. but what i do know is that when i toured the f.b.i. headquarters, i saw it in a state of disrepair that is going to need the attention of the owners of that property. and that's us. so to deny the f.b.i. the opportunity to be able to explore other alternatives, i think, is a bit shortsighted. give me an additional 30 seconds? mr. pocan: 30 second. the chair: the jell is recognized. mr. womack: the building is crumbling. there's going to be a need to do something. what that something is, i'm not an expert on. but i think it would be wrong

for us to be taking this action today, pursuant to this amendment, without having at least a hearing and an opportunity for the people responsible for the facilities, f.b.i., g.s.a., any other stake holder, to be able to help us understand what the situation is today and what the needs are of tomorrow. that discussion can take place, should take place, but i think it's a bit shortsighted and premature for us to be taking the action that this amendment would call for here today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. gaetz: it is not my grave concern that the f.b.i.'s building is crumbling. it is my tbraif concern that the civil liberties of americans are crumbling and i wish we were more worried about that and less worried about whether or not we got new carpet and wallpaper and the f.b.i. building mitch colleague from arkansas said the f.b.i. headquarters is in a state of disrepair. mr. speaker,s the f.b.i. itself that is in a state of disrepair. so while my colleague from

arkansas may be right that we may not always hate the f.b.i., how about while we were most concerned about the things they are doing we not go build them a new $300 million building. my colleague says there needs to be a hearing. let me tell you about the hearing that mattered to me and frankly many of my democrat colleagues who were also worried about civil liberty. the hearing where we learned that the f.b.i. conducted over 27,000 illegal queries on the fisa system. or the hearing that said the inspector general found that 38 times an hour these people were violating fisa. the notion that we would stand here and defend them, frankly, is deeply disappointing and i think those folk december serve to sit in a rat-informed j. edgar hoover building until they get their act straight with american's civil liberties. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from maryland,

mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank the chairman for his comments. i understand what the gentleman, mr. gaetz, is saying. his ire is directed at people they have people will be transer to. people come and go. members come and go from the congress of the united states. what will not be transer to is the ability to have a critically important agency for us in the long term to carry out its duty which is, after all, to defend america, our constitution, from enemies both foreign and domestic and their duties have been changed to a significant degree since 9/11. so what this structure that is proposed to be built is supposed to do is to accommodate not only the fact that the present building is falling down and is

dangerous to those who work there. some of whom are clerical people not making any decisions with respect to policy. and i would think the gentleman would be concerned about their safety as am i, and as is the chairman. and the safety of those, frankly, who walk around the building, because as the gentleman visited there, he's going to see netting around the building because the concrete is falling off the building. so i would share obviously the chairman's view, and i'm not totally objective. they're going to build it somewhere in this region. i live in this region. i'm supportive of this region. but i think to transfer ire against the people who are in positions in the f.b.i. at this point in time, this build, when

and if it's built, will be built sometime in the future but it is absolutely essential. and f.b.i. directors preceding the present f.b.i. director, for a number of times, have said this is needed. experts have said it's needed. the g.s.a. says it's needed. and i would hope that we would not, because of the temporary displeasure or ire or anger or stronger feeling if you want to express it, of the present occupants or the actions they are taking, would not adversely reflect on the judgment as to whether or not a new capital facility for a critically important agency is necessary at this time. i would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. i don't expect that to happen. and if -- if he doesn't withdraw it, i hope it's defeated. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from florida is

recognized. mr. gaetz: where i think leader hoyer is correct is that this effort would be incleat in the absence of major reforms to fisa and other authorities abuse nod matter who the people are. but the people is change and the corruption has remained the same at the f.b.i. under republican and democrat leadership we have seen consistent abuse of american's civil liberties. to take tax money away from our fellow americans who are the victims at times of these abuses and then build a new center for the f.b.i. seems deeply unwise to me. i yield. mr. hoyer: the gentleman's interpretation that i adopted the gentleman's premise. i disagree with him. mr. gaetz: i appreciate that clarification, i don't think anyone would confuse your views with mine as it relates to the f.b.i. mr. hoyer: thank god for that. let me say in the concept of what we're doing this is

necessary. forgetting about any of the other issues. i understand what you're saying. i disagree with you but i appreciate your position and why you're saying it. but to be so, in my opinion, short sighted that we delay further -- this building has been delayed, the first request for new facilities was 2009. so we're now talking a decade and a half essentially. so that was my point. but i don't want to be confused that i adopt your premise on the f.b.i. activities. mr. gaetz: i appreciate the distinction. i am grateful that there are a number of democrats like ms. lofgren and mr. nadler who are working closely with republicans to try to reform these authorities so that people's fourth amendment rights are violated, doing that alongside creating some new $300 million monstrosity for the f.b.i. that's quite literally larger than the pentagon sends the wrong message. i support adoption of the

amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: we stand with the bipartisan statesmen who argued against this amendment and we oppose the amendment and we also yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. 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 to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. womack: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the proceeding offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. good: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 55 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. good of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from virginia, mr. good, and a member opposed, each will control five maines. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. good: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my amendment that would ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used to implement a vaccine mandate. this amendment applies across the federal government as well as to the district of columbia since the district falls under the oversight of the congress and uses taxpayer dollars for its operation as the seat of the united states government. we cannot forget how the covid lockdowns were exploited by the government to infringe on the personal libber toifs americans. these tyrannical lockdowns and mandates were used to inflict unneeded economic damage on small towns and rural america and on business owners across the country.

the government, the government, crushed the economy during covid. with unjustified lockdowns, lockout, restrictions, mandates and more. the government harmed and mistreated our children during covid, closing schools, requiring masks, enforcing vaccines, on those who were never truly at risk if the virus. the government suppressed information and perpetuated lies. the government prevented document, health care providers from doing what they believed was best for their patients to combat covid. the government trampled on basic liberties such as freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to worship, freedom of assembly, freedom to make a living and operate your business, the freedom of movement and travel and to educate your children and much more. the government lied about the risk of the virus. the government about the effectiveness of the vaccine. the government lied about the need to wear a mask. the government treated everyone like those who were truly at risk, the elderly and those

extra co-morbidity factors. the government determined frontline personnel, military personnel for not getting a vaccine regardless of whether or not they were at serious risk or had home run had the virus and therefore had natural immune tough. he government strapped way the right to privacy, medical freedom and bodily autonomy. the government didn't follow the science. history will judge the government harshly for the harm done to the american people, especially to our children during the pandemic. president biden mercifully, finally, dedlaird covid-19 public health emergency over just on may of this -- on may 11 of this year. this was clock past due. unfortunately though, vaccine mandates are still in place in some places across the country. in fact, nearly 100 universities across the country still require a covid-19 vaccine just to attend school this year. for college students. who were never, never, at

serious risk for the vaccine. it's time we protect taxpayers from unwillingably -- unwillingingly funding more restrictive mandates. more importantly it's time to protect americans' most basic, fundamental liberties. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from d.c. seek recognition? ms. norton: i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i strongly oppose this amendment. this amendment would prohibit the district of columbia from using its local funds to require an individual to receive covid-19 vaccine. how d.c. spends its local funds which consist of local taxes and fees should be a decision for d.c., not congress. if d.c.'s local elected

officials want to spend local funds on requiring individuals to receive a covid-19 vaccine, they should have the authority to do so. if they do not want to spend local d.c. funds on requiring individuals to receive a covid-19 vaccine they should have the authority not to do so. d.c.'s local elected officials are accountable to d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like the decisions of their local elected officials they can vote them out of office. d.c. residents, a majority of whom are black and brown, are capable of and worthy of governing themselves. if house republicans cared about democratic principles, or d.c. residents they would bring my d.c. statehood bill which would give d.c. residents voting representation in congress and full local self-government to this floor.

congress has the constitutional authority to admit the state of washington, d.c., it simply lacks the will. i say to every member of congress, keep your hands off d.c. if you want to legislate on local d.c. matters, become a d.c. resident. and get elected mayor or councilmember. i urge colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. 34* good: mr. speaker, i agree with my colleague from the other side that yes, this amendment would prohibit the requirement of the covid vablg seen in washington, d.c. -- covid vaccine in washington, not just the covid vaccine, though. can you believe they require the covid vaccine now, nearly four years later? we're talking vaccines more

generally and broadly. we need to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. unfortunately, d.c. has demonstrated they certainly need the congressional oversight afforded to this body in the constitution. covid-19 restrictions hurt millions of americans, countless businesses, and many communities in our great nation. too many people were forced to make a choice between freedom, basic fundamental freedom, and keeping their job. the virus was going to do what the virus was going to do. we all got it. there was nothing we could do to prevent us from getting it. the federal government was the worst offender imposing draconian mandates to stop the spread. we all remember that. how many employees were fired because they made their own personal medical choices, not to mention our service members who were dishonorably discharged for exercising their freedom not to

get the vehicle. taxpayer dollars should never flow to an entity that require as shot. we must preserve our freedoms. isn't that the responsibility of this congress? and protect the right for all americans to make the best medical decisions for themselves. we must say in no uncertain terms, never again. never again with what we allowed the government to do to the american people during the covid pandemic. my amendment simply blocks funding from going to any authoritarian vaccine mandate, anyone. and i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. good: then i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman from d.c. is recognized. ms. norton: mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. 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 56 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. good: i rise as the designee of the gentleman from texas and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 56 printed in house report 118-269 offered by mr. good of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from virginia, mr. good, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. good: mr. speaker, the biden administration promised us they would be the most transparent administration in our nation's

history. unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they've not followed through on that promise. in fact, the white house visitor log policy provides the american people the ability to see who is lobbying this administration. however, the biden administration has made significant efforts to ensure this policy is nearly impossible to take effect as intended. despite republicans sending correspondence to the administration requesting the disclosure of this information, the white house has not followed through and remains highly secretive. while they've released some portions of visitor logs, the american people deserve full transparency. here's just a few examples of the biden administration's secrecy. the white house has deliberately omitted hunter biden's visitor logs from the database. they've made it apparent no visitors to the delaware residence exists, but when asked

to disclose the details, they denied any intent to publish visitor access logs at the president's delaware home. but mind you, the president has spent well over 200 days of his presidency at that location, which was also investigated when confidential, classified documents were found. their failure to disclose all visitor logs between the white house and the president's delaware property have directly contradicted this administration's claims of being the most transparent administration. these failures prove the administration's commitment to restore integrity and transparency and trust in government is merely lip service. we've seen this all across all levels of the biden administration, whether it's the press secretary selectively allowing only cherry picked questions, or the white house hiding the visitor logs to his retreat in delaware where he was keeping classified documents. this amendment would simply require the white house to be

transparent and prohibit them from failing to disclose visitor logs in a timely and accurate manner in any way. we can no longer allow the biden administration to use a lack of transparency as a shield to mask their actions from public accountability. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: the amendment doesn't do anything but says funds in the bill can't be used to prevent voluntary disclosures. administration is already doing this. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. good: they've omitted hunter biden's visitor logs and from the president's logs in delaware where he spent 200 days and i

reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves and gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i yield back. the chair: gentlemen yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. 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 57 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. braves: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 57 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. graves of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, mr. graves and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. braves: thank you, mr. chairman. when our constituents go to the ballot box and vote for their member of congress, they expect it's going to be someone that actually represents them and represents their values, represents the community. what we've seen in this administration is we've seen bureaucrats, people that are unelected and unaccountable draft new regulations that impose incredible financial hardship on the american people. in fact, during just the first two years of the biden administration, there are estimates that show hundreds of billions of dollars in new regulatory costs were heaped upon american businesses and heaped upon american families. let me say that again. hundreds of billions of dollars in additional regulatory costs, otherwise saying it's a hidden tax. these are not members of congress that are approving,

that are drafting these regulations, they're bureaucrats. what our amendment simply does is it says those bureaucrats can continue to draft the amendments, but if their regulation is going to cause over $100 million in compliance costs, then it must be submitted to the congress to allow for their elected representative to either affirm or deny that regulation, that cost from the american people. it's a very simple amendment, mr. chairman. i want to make note this amendment has been accepted -- included in previous appropriation bills. i hope my friends on the other side agree we need to be representing our constituents and not unelected bureaucrats. i hope they share the concern i have, that hundreds of billions in invisible taxes being heaped on american businesses and families is inappropriate. reserve. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. pocan: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: this amendment would block any rule making the office of management and budget office determines to be significant. each year that division can review anywhere from 300 to 700 rules and there's no available data to determine how many of these reviews result in a significant determination. however, roughly, a hundred rules each year clear the higher economically significant threshold and this amendment would brock block any work on the 100 significant rules and blocks countless others in a significant determination. this would grind government to a halt and halt the improvement of the life of many. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. graves: mr. chairman, i appreciate the gentleman's concerns but let's go ahead and think about what his concerns are based upon. the gentleman raises concerns if this amendment passes, it's going to prevent the biden administration from unilaterally implementing regulations 100 times that each costs over $100 million to comply with. i'm sure my friends share the concern, this really needs to be the action of the congress where we come in and affirm congressional intent and affirm the interpretations of the law, if a bureaucrat is going to impose that type of cost on american businesses and most importantly on american families that are already struggling with record high interest costs and with interest rates and with inflationary costs that are all being imposed on these family members. this harms those who can least afford it the most.

so it really seems like my friend could reconsider the objection, that we could simply allow for members of congress to represent their constituents as opposed to unelected bureaucrats? i urge adoption of this amendment and i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: we oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. graves: thank you. i regret the gentleman is opposed. earlier this year he voted in support of ad administrationive pay-go provision that takes a similar approach that puts in a threshold that requires that additional scrutiny be applied to any regulation or it be offset with additional costs. i think this is compatible with that and takes the next step to ensure that american citizens are represented by their members of congress. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. 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 58 printed in part b of house report 118-269. it is now in order to consider amendment number 59 printed in

part b of house report 118-269. it is now in order to consider amendment number 60 printed in part b of house report 118-269. it is now in order to consider amendment number 61 printed in part b of house report 118-269.

it's now in order to consider amendment number 62 printed in part b of house report 118-269.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. womack: i rise as a designee of the gentlelady from texas, ms. granger. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. womack: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. womack: thank you,

mr. chairman. look, i rise to point out something that is pretty obvious to everybody. and that is that this process that we are going through right now is -- can come across very complicated but it's a broken budget process system. what i would like to see happen as we matriculate through the remainder of the financial services and general government bill, and as we move toward trying to get something done on commerce, justice, science, and labor, health, and human services that maybe we would have this moment of so bright as a -- so breathe as a house and recognize fixing this broken budget process is going to be essential if this congress is going to be successful. we are sitting here today with the clock ticking, sands in the

hourglass running right through to where on november 17 we could be facing a government shutdown. and there have been many opportunities for us to complete our work on appropriations, move bills through the house, get them conferenced with the senate, get them signed into law. of course we are working against a deadline at the end of this year that will require a 1% see quester -- sequester if we don't get all 12 bills through. it's my fervent belief congress can fix this issue if congress will recognize it has an issue. i think the american people recognize it. we are looking right down the barrel of a government shutdown if we can't find the resources to prevent a lapse in government funding by next weekend. and even at the end of this year we are as i said facing that 1% see quester -- sequester. we have a lot of work to do that is going require the cooperatin of the left and right to come to terms, fix our broken budget

process system, and get this regular order system back working for the american people. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: i was hoping for some buy-in from my friends on the left because they, too, recognize that this process -- i guess they look at us and say, well, you are the governing majority. it's up to you to make this thing work. look, it has been broken with both sides being in control. so it is essential, i think, that we do that. with that i'm going to yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. it is now in order -- it is now

in order to consider amendment number 63 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 63, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mrs. harsh barringer of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. harshbarger, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. harshbarger: thank you, mr. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment which would defund and effectively eliminate the biden administration's pro-abortion and pro-transgender policy council which is housed in the executive office of the president. the biden administration has declared war on science, basic

biology and the concept of gender. the american taxpayer should not be funding an office in the white house that is dedicated to spreading this administration's woke d.e.i. agenda. americans should know what d.e.i. really stands for. division, exclusion, and indoctrination. through various directives, such as the department of education's president biden has made it clear that his priorities are not promoting policies that benefit the majority of americans but promoting an extreme agenda. forcing our daughters to compete against biological males in sports. forcing young women to share locker rooms and bathrooms with men, launching pressure campaigns to encourage minors to take life altering hormones or undergo experimental surgeries. one must ask why are we promoting these radical policies and why is the taxpayer funding it? the gender policy council's executive director wants to lecture americans, specifically our children, about her belief

that racism and sexism are somehow built into our health system. the white house gender policy council exists in a white house that is incapable of defining what a woman is. this amendment is as much about curbing wasteful and unnecessary government spending and being good stewards of taxpayers' money as it is about putting abend to the biden administration's far left ideology being forced on americans and their children. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin -- mr. pocan: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. chair. to the -- my distinguished league from arkansas, mr. womack, i'm so appreciate your promptness we run on your subcommittee. i was just giving you the promptness through this process. that's why i was allowing you to use the time you had. just want to explain that to you realize why i was sitting back.

i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the white house gender policy council is vital in advancing gender equity and equality. it helps ensure that all individuals regardless of their gender have equal opportunities and rights. the council takes a holistic approach to addressing gender issues, looking at areas such as economic security, health care, education, and violence prevention. this comprehensive strategy allows for a an effective response to against related challenges leading to bert outcomes for individuals and communities. by establishing a dedicated council at the highest levels of government, the white house sends a clear message about the importance of gender equity and inclusion. the white house gender policy council is important for advancing gender, equity, and equality. we strongly oppose this amendment and we urge a no vote. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. harshbarger: i have a question why we have a gender policy council when that, the

authority should fall under the department of health and human services under secretary becerra. i think it's a redundancy we do not need. with that i reserve my timeout. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from new york -- sorry. one minute to the gentleman from new york, the distinguished democratic leader, mr. jeffries. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for the minute. mr. jeffries: i want to thank my accomplished colleague from the -distinguished colleague frm the great state of wisconsin for yielding time to me on this amendment. and on the underlying bill. the question was just asked, why do we have a white house gender policy council. it's a pretty simple answer to that question. because here in america there are two contrasting visions as

it relates to reproductive freedom. democrats believe in a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive health care decisions. extreme maga republicans have a very different view. extreme maga republicans want to criminalize abortion care. extreme maga republicans want to impose a nationwide ban. extreme maga republicans want us to live in a society where women have government mandated pregnancies. that's the dichotomy that we confront right now. reproductive freedom is at issue. all across america. and you either on the right side of that issue or you are on the

wrong side. and we believe that my republican colleagues continue to march us toward a nationwide abortion ban. just look at the underlying legislation. which, by its very definition, restricts one hundreds of thousands of people here in the district of columbia as it relates to reproductive freedom. why is it in this bill? it's because there's a real policy difference. house democrats support a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive health care decisions. period. full stop. a choice that should be between a woman, her doctor, her faith, her family. not a bunch of edges treatment -- extreme politicians. but that's the vision that's

being offered to us. by our friends on the other -- that's the reason why the white house has taken the step forward to make sure that they are protecting women all across america from efforts to try to criminalize abortion care. and i wonder, what lesson has been learned from the events of just this week. what lesson was learned in ohio? what lesson was learned in virginia? what lesson was learned in kentucky? the deepest of red states. why does this continue to ha happen? jam an extreme right-wing ideology down the throats of the women of america. that is what we are against. that is why we oppose this amendment. that is one of the reasons we oppose this underlying bill.

from the very beginning of this congress, house democrats have made clear, we want to find common ground with our republican colleagues on any issue, whenever, and wherever possible. if it relates to making life better for everyday americans. house democrats are all about putting people over politics. fighting for things like lower costs, growing the middle class, safer communities. things that will make a difference. solve problems in the lines of -- lives of everyday americans. and part of the challenge that we face is that the extreme maga republican agenda continues to be focused on the wrong things. extreme maga republican agenda focused on defaulting on america's debt. shutting down the government.

crashing the economy. criminalizing reproductive freedom. cutting social security and medicare. impeaching president biden. and doing nothing to affordability issues or improving quality of life the everyday americans. that's a shame. so, yes, we are going to continue to oppose republican efforts to criminalize abortion care. now, tomorrow, next month, next year, and forever. until this effort to take away reproductive freedom is buried in the ground never to rise again. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. and the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. harshbarger: thank you, mr. nowhere in my remarks did i mention the hyde amendment. i'm talking about a gender

policy council that should not exist. and for over 40 years we have had the hyde amendment in place to where american taxpayer dollars didn't go to fund abortions. and nowhere did i say that a woman shouldn't have a right to do what she wanted to do. but with the roe v. wade reversal, that decision went back to the states where it rightly belonged. and in my opinion, over the last 40 to 50 years, women have been indoctrinated to think it was a constitutional right to abortion and it never was. so i'm here to set the record straight. it went back to the states where it belongs. all i'm trying to say is we need to get rid of the gender policy -- policy council. if they want to put that anywhere, h.h.s. is the department it should fall under and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: we strongly oppose this amendment. we yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. ms. harsh barger: i yield. the chair: the amendment is offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. pocan: i demand a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. it is in order to consider amendment number 64 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from jacker seek recognition. mr. hill: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 64 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by

mr. hill of arkansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. hill: i thank the chairman and i rise to offer an amendment i hope will garner bipartisan support. i do it with mr. luetkemeyer, who is here with me today. in 2021 the treasury department approved $650 billion in an allocation of special drawing rights at the international monetary fund. that's a bunch of technical words but in plain english it means they were lavishing $650 billion on all the countries of the world with no strings attached. the biden administration claims this allocation is necessary to have the global advocacy of

reserves in each of the sovereign countries of the world. in other words, these reserves from the i.m.f. went to healthy countries, countries that don't need the money, like countries in europe or the united states, and many countries ended up using this i.m.f. money just to pay short-term bills. worst of all, this drawing rights allocation provided billions in unconditional liquidity to some of the worst regimes in the world. $40 billion went to china. $17 billion went to the putin regime in moscow. and iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, the funder of hamas, the killer of israelis on october 7th, received $5 billion to boost its reserves. that's completely at odds with american policy, completely at odds with our sanctions policy against some of the worst regimes in the world.

so the amendment we propose today would prohibit the treasury department from allocating any more special drawing rights from the i.m.f. to the ayatollahs in tehran. following the october 7 attack by hamas against our friends in israel, it would be unacceptable for the i.m.f. to once again bolster the reserves of iran. money is fungible and that money goes to hezbollah and that money goes to hamas. some of our colleagues might counter prohibiting more s.d.r.'s for iran means prohibiting them for everybody. not true. mr. chairman, the i.m.f. has the authority to do special allocations and allocate these special drawing right reserves to countries of a particular need or concern. we don't have to give this kind of largess to wealthy countries like the netherlands or the united states or to rogues like

china and iran. some may argue that excluding this is too dramatic and that treasury itself can designate the whole country as a jurisdiction of primary money laundry concern and therefore can't get it. well, look, this administration has already freed up money for iran in their recent hostage deal. so if treasury really wants to argue that the world's terrorist sponsor, iran, should receive more strings attached money, come to congress and make the case. but this is significant and it should be decided by the elected officials in this body, not agency officials at the treasury. last month's assault on israel was a clarifying moment for so many people around the world. this amendment sends a unified message, no more money for bad regimes around the world, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition. mr. pocan: i claim in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: this amendment does not deal with the bill and we don't deal with the i.m.f. and special drawing rights which would be in the states foreign operations bill which we've already taken up and i would urge the sponsor to take it up in the fiscal 2025 bill, assuming we ever get to that and urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. hill: i don't consider that a very convincing argument to support this amendment. this amendment is a good idea to counter a bad policy. blanket money for rogue regimes through the i.m.f. and approved by our treasury department and encouraged by the biden administration is bad. voting for this amendment is good and it sends a message to rogue regimes you don't get a free lunch from the united states of america. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

arkansas reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: we're not debating the merits of the amendment but it's not appropriate in this bill, period, so we oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. hill: how much time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. hill: let me say in conclusion, this is the treasury bill, the bill that appropriates money for the treasury. the rules committee made this amendment in order because it concerns spending money at the treasury for bad ideas. those on this side of the aisle want to counter terrorism, counter bad ideas and counter bad spending by the i.m.f. to help rogue regimes. in conclusion, i'd encourage all members who to counter terrorism and counter rogue regimes and speak up for freedom in israel and speak up for freedom in ukraine and the island of taiwan, they should support this amendment and i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. 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 65 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. huizenga: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 65 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from michigan, mr.ize i thinker, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. in a way this is sort of a

continuation of my friend, mr. hill's amendment, and earlier today mr. barr's and other amendments we've talked about today which is really about whether we are going to allow the largest state funder of terrorism to continue to have access to hard dollars, continue to have access to the capital funding groups like hamas and hezbollah and islamic jihad. mr. speaker, the deadliest terror attacks of october 7th made one thing abundantly clear, the united states cannot continue to allow the iranian regime access to funding that could in turn be used against our allies and even american citizens. i'm pleased to offer this amendment today and hope it will receive bipartisan support because a very, very similar amendment, mr. speaker, received

a voice vote in 2016, right along these lines. so as i was saying, last month's barbaric attack against our friends and allies in israel was a powerful reminder of the dangers opposed by hamas and others. by the way, hamas, which receives 93% of their total funding from tehran. and as we mentioned, tehran and iran being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, they must be cut off from their ability to wage hostilities abroad. so as far-reaching as our iranian sanctions are, it may surprise some of my colleagues we've not actually closed all of the financing loopholes. the administration still controls the ability to deal with these countries. the trump administration made

the construction, mining, manufacturing, and textile sectors of the iranian economy subject to u.s. sanctions in addition to the sanctions that have been put in place. many of those going back to the 2012ndaa act. the treasury department later added the financial sector to this group blacklisting 18 iranian banks in october of 2020. at the same time, treasury's offense of ofac retains broad discretion transactions with sanctioned iranians. under the broad nuclear deal, for example, treasury had aircraft sales which previously had been sanctioned to the irgc and to the defense ministry. an amendment to the fsgg appropriations bill to prohibit these licenses was adopted by the house in 2016 by voice vote.

we must not let licenses undermine sanctions under these executive orders which is why my amendment would prohibit them if they allow iran to use the u.s. financial system. it's that simple. the attack on israel has underscored how we cannot become complacent when it comes to blocking iran from the goods, technology, and hard currency it needs to fund terrorist groups such as hamas, hezbollah, palestinian islamic jihad and many others. in addition to being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, iran has been designated by treasury as a jurisdiction of primary laundrying concern. mr. hill referenced that in his amendment that treasury does have the ability to put these jurisdictions on money laundrying but they've rescinded that, mr. speaker. they allowed these exemptions, that's why mr. hill's amendment and my amendment and other amendments are trying to narrow that down and tighten that down so we should shield our

financial institutions from contact with the country to the furthest intent possible. let me address potential objections. some might ask about humanitarian aid under this pressure. my amendment does nothing to effect existing exemptions for agricultural commodities, food, medicine, medical devices. these exemptions have long been codified into our laws and this amendment does not change that. this is explicit in the text of the amendment. now, mr. speaker, you might be asking yourself, you've heard and seen those media reports, though, about phantom false billing that might be happening or black market deals where those goods and services are delivered, yet they are going and being misused and even sold on the black market for that cash. that's another issue and we need to address that, but that's not what we're getting after here in this one. others might ask whether this amendment could limit treasury's ability to license transaction as future ransom for hostages,

for example, or even as part of a new nuclear deal. while i did not support the iran nuclear deal -- the chairman: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. huizenga: with that i encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition. mr. pocan: mr. chair, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the treasury department identified technical concern with this amendment, specifically the agency has concerns about how the amendment's construction would impact general licenses authoredded by the office of foreign assets control. i strongly agree with the need to enforce sanctions included in executive order 13912 with respect to any person determined to operate in the construction, mining, manufacturing and textile sector of the iranian economy, however, some terms like islamic republic of iran and for or on behalf of are

vague and would create confusion as to how they would relate to existing authorizations. treasury believes this phrasing could cause unintended cons consequences outside of the intended scope and for these reasons i oppose the amendment and recommend a no vote and i also will yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the we is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. 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 68 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. luetkemeyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 68, printed in part b of house report number 118-269. offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman

from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to offer this amendment today also with mr. hill as a co-sponsor. i'm confident it will garner bipartisan support. my amendment would prohibit funds from this bill from being used to support a share holding increase for china at the international monetary fund, the i.m.f. the i.m.f. is the world's lender of last resort and plays a critical role in ensuring multilateral cooperation on a wide array of financial matters. as the i.m.s. largest shareholder, the u.s. is the only member to wield a veto over important decisions at the fund. this includes decision that is change country share holding weight at the institution. across administrations the u.s. has advocated for the i.m.f. to support fiscal responsibility among borrowers, responsible governance of exchange rates, and transparency in sovereign lending. these principles support global

financial stability. but they have now been put at risk by china's dictatorship. put simply, the emergence of china as the word's largest official creditor has saddled countries around the world with opaque and onerous debt that the i.m.p. has been called upon to resolve. none of this lending complies with international rules and norms like those established by the club and the economic cooperation and development. although china -- the chinese lending to developing countries has declined since its heyday in 2016, it still racked up $79 billion across the board in 2021. much of this lending is shifting from infrastructure to emergency lending. in other words, china itself is adopt ago role that the i.m.f. has been playing. it mirrors the nontransparent management of its currentlycy it's shocking but undeniably true that the i.m.f. has limited

insight into the exchange rate regime of the world's second largest economy. this is why my amendment is so important. the i.m.f. is finishing a review of its share holding by the end of this year. china continues to argue its shares, referred as quota, don't accurately reflect its weight in the world economy. it has pushed and will continue to for a greater say on the board. share holding at these inconstitutions is not about the size of the country's economy, rather its commitment to international rules and good faith cooperation. as long as china dismisses every principle of the i.m.f. foundation, we cannot reward it with a stronger voice at the fund. it would be add second degreemurder to increase the share holding weight at the i.m.f. when it is refusing to restructure the lend together fund's borrowers. the treasury department represents us at the fund. i am pleased it has conveyed congress' skepticism. this amendment will help ensure boosting china's influence is

off the table. the amendment also sets a marker for future share holding reviews. where my colleagues on the financial service committee and i will insist on realbility from beijing. it is china's disregard for transparency making our opposition to its influence at the i.m.f. and other organizations vital. i would add that china's abuse of human rights at home, include genocide of the uyghurs, is another reason why legit legitimatizing beijing at international institution is unacceptable. we must draw a line in the sand. i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment doesn't belong in this bill. we don't deal with the i.m.f. in share holding. that would be part of the state and foreign operations bill which has gone through this

body. i would urge the sponsor to take up the issue in that bill. i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: i would argue that the treasury department is in charge of various activities with regards to the governance of these words. whether world bank, i.m.f., etc. these are entities that we fund. we are on these boards. and these boards direct funds so we have put into these entities. it's our job to make sure that the treasury department does its job which is to monitor this, be on the boards, behave in a responsible fashion, and also to stop the nonsense going on around the world with bad actors such as iran and this situation i am talking about of china. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: we oppose the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from missouri --

mr. luetkemeyer: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from missouri yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. 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. the chair understands that amendment number 69 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 70 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. meuser: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mr. meuser of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 87, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meuser, and a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meuser: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meuser: i rise today in support of my amendment, number 70, to h.r. 4664. in may of this year the small business administration implemented a final rule in affiliation and lending criteria that eliminated long-standing guardrails and lending standards for its flagship 7-a loan program. chief among these changes the s.b.a.'s decision to eliminate the scrippive lending criteria that has allowed program to function with integrity for decades. the 7-a lending program offers government-backed loans to businesses guaranteed by the taxpayer up to 85%. by removing the underwriting in the program, the s.b.a. has opened up the program to increased fraud and losses. these changes will add risk to the s.b.a.'s loan portfolio. if enough of these loans go

back, congress will have to step in and bail out the program to keep it operational. meaning the weak underwriting standards implemented by this rule could lead to a significant loss of taxpayer dollars. and, mr. chairman, such risk is unacceptable when taxpayers are on the hook. this year our country experienced the largest bank failures we have seen since the 2008 financial crises. the s.b.a. should not be moving forward with their plan to reduce underwriting standards in the 7-a lending program during these uncertain economic times. this important amendment would undo the troubling underwriting changes made by the biden administration. this commonsense measure will restore guardrails on these loans and ensure the longevity of the 7-a loan program. i would like to thank small business committee chairman roger williams, along with representatives luetkemeyer, stauber, ellzey, and alford for their co-sponsorship of this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support t with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i rise in opposition to this amendment. for years the small business administration has rightly been concerned about small business from underserved communities accessing s.b.a. loans. through the agency's affiliation rule, to combat consistent gaps in access to capital that affects the small businesses. by modernizing the lending criteria and conditions for s.b.a.'s small business loan programs, and reducing red tape for s.b.a. lenders, we'll see improved access to capital for underserved business owners, including women, minorities, veterans, and rural entrepreneurs. unfortunately, this amendment pulls out the rug from underneath the s.b.a.'s important effort to bert support these businesses. i strongly oppose this amendment and urge a no vote. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mr. muser: mr. chairman, i have no further speakers at this time. i am prepared to close. i reserve my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: we oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. meuser: my amendment will strengthen the already mea meaningful piece of legislation we are considering today. which cuts wasteful spending and reduces burdensome costly regulations on small businesses. of particular importance the underlying legislation prohibits the biden administration from implementing the s.e.c.'s climate disclosure rule. which prioritizes ideology over capital formation for investors. it rightfully brings the con consumer finance protect -- protection bureau under the purview of the congress appropriations process. the s.b.a. has lacked transparency and accountability for years while being funded directly by the federal reserve. this bill will give congress the authority to provide appropriate oversight. additionally, the bill will halt the c.p.b.'s -- cf.p.b.'s data

collection rule which places undo cost and compliance burdens on america's small businesses and lenders. mr. chairman, h.r. 4664 is a win for taxpayers, consumers, and for the american financial system. my amendment will help make it an even greater win for small businesses by protecting the soundness and integrity of a program that offers access to affordable and reliable capital for entrepreneurs. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. and the underlying legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the opinion is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 72 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mooney: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 62, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mr. mooney of west virginia. mr. mooney: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mooney: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to push back against what could become one of the greatest government surveillance threats of our time. a central bank digital currency, or cbdc. my amendment would prohibit funding for the cbdc working group led by the treasury department. a cbdc, commonly referred to as a digital dollar, would be issued and easily tracked by the federal government. make no mistake, a federal digital dollar can very easily be used to spy on american citizens and become a social credit system. in communist china, the digital

iowan is being used to crack down on dissent. do not think for second the biden administration will not use a digital dollar to track your gun purchases. house billions have been clear the federal reserve does not have the authority to issue a digital dollar without an act of congress and we reaffirmed that in the financial services committee on which i serve. however, right now the federal reserve is contracting with the private sector to build potential digital dollars for the united states far beyond what can be considered traditional research. early last year president biden issued an executive order directing government agencies to study creating a federal digital currency which led to the creation of this cbdc working group. this group is vaguely tasked with supporting the federal reserve's central bank digital currency efforts. to be clear, congress has not given the executive branch or

the federal reserve any direction when it comes to federal digital currencies. i'm grateful that the underlying bill prohibits federal funding for the establishment of a federal digital currency, but congress cannot give an inch. regardless of your thoughts on a potential digital dollar in the united states, i have severe concerns that congress should not have any authority on such a significant issue. if this white house wants to research a government surveillance tool that the overwhelming majority of americans oppose, that direction should come from congress. that is why my amendment prohibits funding for the cbdc working group to prevent the executive branch from bypassing the will of congress. i urge my colleagues to support the bill. thank you, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pocan: i rise in opposition to this amendment. it seems short sighted to defund an effort to even look at an issue. the central bank digital

currency working group is intended to complete the fed's efforts by considering the implications of a u.s. cbdct would be a good idea to examine whether there are economic benefits, including lower transaction and borrowing costs for u.s. households, businesses, and government. in addition the u.s. uses sanctions and other financial measures to address national security threats and deny criminals and other illicit actors access to the u.s. and international system. vet of foreign cbdc's including multicbdc platforms could diminish the use of our dollar and effectiveness of our tools in this space. i think it's at least worth letting treasury look at the issue. i oppose this am. urge a no vote. i reserve. . from virginia reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman for yielding, 130 countries right now, 90% of the world central banks are studying and doing research on digital currencies and in particular government-backed digital currencies. this amendment would prevent the united states from researching an area that 130 countries are researching. so it would put us very far back at the end of the pac. as ranking member, i rise in strong opposition to the financial services appropriations bill and misguided amendments that would prevent our government from exploring and researching our government should central bank currency. we watch the collapse of

mid-sized u.s. banks. and a banking crisis requiring action. to protect american investors. and in the aftermath of a catastrophic demise of the crypto market. just this week, ftx was convicted of seven counts of financial fraud after he stole $14 billion from customers and investors. yet in this climate that demands regulatory oversight and thorough understanding of this will market, this appropriations bill ducks funding for critical funding to protect investors. moreover to the great detriment

of u.s. global leadership, it would prevent -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. repeat the time. mr. pocan: i yield an additional minute. mr. lynch: more than 130 countries and 90% of the world's central banks are exploring their government-backed digital sorns cyst. we shouldn't be suppressing without examining the risks and the benefits. join me in opposing this bill that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: we oppose this amendment and i yield. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia, those in favor say aye.

they 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 73 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 73 printed in part bmp of house report 118-269 offered by mr. mooney of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, mr. mooney and a member opposed each reek have five minutes. mr. mooney: many reckless and irresponsible rules. my amendment prohibits funding for the costly and unnecessary private fund adviser rule. i oppose this rule because

overwhelmingly of private and equity investments would go to small businesses. this rule would have a detrimental impact on the small businesses across america and my home state of west virginia. these are pools of money collected by from small businesses. this rule would reduce the ability to continue supporting small businesses in west virginia and america by placing burdensome compliance costs on these funds such as new quarrel statements and annual audits. the s.e.c. hasn't been able to articulate. they are regulated and required to act in the best interest of the investors. it is wealthy individuals and

sophisticated individuals like pension funds that invest in these private funds. nothing -- this is nothing more than regulating for the sake of regulating. when the s.e.c. proposed this rule, my colleagues expressed concerns about the negative impacts this would have on small businesses. they asked the s.e.c. to conduct a full analysis of this rule. many of my colleagues wrote to the s.e.c. expressing concerns about the negative impacts of this rule on the access to funds for small companies. s.e.c. has not addressed these concerns or not responded to these letters. given high interest rates and new capital rates that will further restrict lending, now is not the time to not invest in

west virginias. 85% of equity-backed companies are small businesses and will fer 89% invest in private equity funds. this rule would unnecessarily restrict private funds and crowd emerging funds. s.e.c. commissioner put it best when she said that this rulemaking is quote, historical, unlawful, confusing and harmful. closed quote. instead of making the public markets more attractive they are make inthe private markets less attractive. this will protect will protect investors and efficient markets. it imposes a one size fits all approach and restrictions on

institutional investors and i ask support for the small businesses in their district. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. >> claim time in opposition. mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this amendment. it is an admirable thing what the gentleman from virginia is proposing, protecting investors and making sure money is secure and well protected, but this is attacking the s.e.c. private advisor rule and that is something that protects advisers with oversight and the private fund adviser rule increases protection by subjecting private

fund advisers to regulatory scrutiny by the s.e.c. when you hear the word regulation, think protection. it minimizees the risk associated with private fund operations. private funds can impact markets due to their size and extend of their investments. it aims to enhance investor protection and improves market integrity and framework for private fund advisers, this is the kind of protection we need to instill confidence by investors in the market and keep capital flowing in this country. i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized.

mr. mooney: i yield the balance of my time to mr. womack. mr. womack: i rise in support of my colleague's amendment. when i hear regulation, i don't hear protection, but more red tape and bars to success. the rulemaking is a perfect example of the posture that he is taking to threaten our financial systems. and past time, mr. chairman, that these rules be stopped. the sweeping proposal for private fund advisers is the agency's tail you are to conduct analysis missing the serious potential impact of businesses and asset managers. this could create additional

hurdles force those who created their own. therefore, i support the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> we oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 74 printed in part b of house report 118-269. the clerk: amendment number 74 printed in part bmp of house report 118-269 offered by mr. moore of utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

ms. moore: -- >> the steering council was created to improve the transparency, predictability and outcomes of the federal for certain large scale critical infrastructure projects. it is to enhance coordination between state and federal reviews and provide more transparency. as my constituents here in utah our permitting system has been too complex. the house passed h.r. 1, the landmark bill aimed at lowering energy costs. we passed the fiscal responsibility act this year which includes important wins to expedite permitting for everyone. colleagues understand the permitting reform and cannot

lower energy prices without it. in september, the federal permitting and improvement steering council limited the scope of mining projects eligible. this is short sighted and exascerbates that stifles the mining industry to produce cleaner and cheaper energy. this will hurt important critical mining projects in my state. council is addressing the delays that is the most substantial risks. this change will threaten u.s. national security and mineral objectives. i urge the administration to reverse course and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: does any member claim time in opposition?

seeing none, the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. moore: and it will limit our scope. we have to be able to look at what we can do better here in america to provide cleaner technology and i yield back. the chair: the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. 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 76 printed in part b of house report # 118-269. mr. norman: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 76 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by

mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes mr. norman. mr. norman: prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce a proposed rule entitled conflicts of interest with predicted data analytics by broker dealer advisers. on july 26, 2023, the s.e.c. proposed a new rule that requires broker dealers to confront challenges posed by data analytics and related technologies like artificial intelligence. they did this despite no evidence that this technology harms investors. . . . . while it has significantly be

answered the financial industry's record keeping and surveillance, the s.e.c.'s proposed rule despite being technology neutral appears to be fundamentally hostile to these advancements. this rule creates a comprehensive regulatory regime governing any analytical or computational tool whereby information potentially relevant to investments is presented to the public. this misguided paternalistic rule declares it is, quote, conflict of interest for a firm to communicate to customers any information generated using technology that so much as takes into consideration any interest of the firm. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek wreck? mr. cartwright: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. million cartwright: i rise in opposition to this particular amendment.

it's about protecting investors. the s.e.c.'s rule addressing conflicts of interest in the use of this so-called predictive data analytics by broker dealers and investment advisors places a strong emphasis on protecting investor interests. the rule promotes unbiased decisionmaking by requiring firms proactively to manage and disclose conflicts associated with predictive data analytics. by addressing conflicts of interest, this s.e.c. rule contributes to market integrity and fairness. that's what we need for the constant flow of capital to where it needs to go in this country. i urge my colleagues to vote no. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized mr. norman: just like my good friend from arkansas said, any time i hear an arm of the federal government saying it's

going to protect the public, that means another fine, it means another tax. it means another regulatory commission to control -- controlled by bureaucrats. this proposed -- this proposal is misguided and rests on a false premise that delivering information to customers should be presumed harmful simply because it is consistent with the firm's interest. the new rules would impose significant operational challenges and expensive burdens on broker dealers and investment advisors that use virtually any technology to any degree. without citing any compelling authority or evidence of abuse or wrongdoing. it's abuse at its highest. it's vague at it's highest. the scope of the new rule presents challenges. as the s.e.c. commissioner has to observed the proposed definition of cover technology can include technologies long used by broker deal earns in

investment advisors such as spread sheets, commonly used software, math formulas. statistical tools. urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mr. cartwright: the amendment is opposed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: i reserve the balance of my time to my good friend from arkansas. the chair: does gentleman yield the balance of his time to the chair from arkansas? mr. norman: do i. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: i thank the chairman. thanks to my friend from south carolina. i'm just going to be really brief. what we don't need is a disruption of innovation. that's what we don't need. what we do need in the financial industry are clear rules of the road not confusing compliance standards within the analytic

space. i am pleased to support the gentleman from south carolina amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the amendment is agreed to -- have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 77 printed in part b of house report number 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 77, printed in part b of house report number 118-269. offered by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. mr. norman: mr. speaker, what my amendment does is prohibit use of funds by the o.m.b. to consider the quote, social cost

of greenhouse gases. try to define social cost. it's just resulting in another fine by government bureaucrat. it is used in the development and implementation of budgets, federal procurement processes, or environmental reviews. president biden is directing agencies to consider the flawed social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets in the federal procurement process and environmental reviews. democrats use a social cost of greenhouse gas metrics to justify sweeping climate policies and strict regulations and i might add strict fines. this impacts everything from purchasing goods and services, conducting environmental reviews for all kinds of projects, and levying climate penalties against private businesses. this is against every private business that is under a lot of stress right now in this

country. this is all this bureaucratic process does. the social cost of greenhouse gas is an extremely inefficient policymaking tool that can easily be manipulated. by boosting the climate cost of projects, regulators could use the social cost of carbon to derail everything from energy and infrastructure projects, not to mention the cost of complying. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cartwright: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the inclusion of the social cost of greenhouse gases in regulatory analysis ensures that the full spectrum of costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions is considered. this is about full and open and honest accounting. it includes not only economic costs but also health,

environmental, and societal costs. providing a more accurate and comprehensive assessment. the social cost of greenhouse gases accounts for the health related impacts of climate change such as heat related illnesses, air pollution, and the spread of diseases from mosquitoes, ticks, and flees -- flies, inclusion leads to decision that is prioritizes the protection of public health, reducing the burden on health care systems. this leads to a more comprehensive cost evaluation, encouragings admission reduction, preserves the environment, and promotes sustainable economic growth. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: this is just another attempt by this radical administration to put up another

commission to fleece the american taxpayers who are struggling as it is. on january 21, 2021, president biden signed the radical climate executive order 13990 which established an interagency working group on the social cost of greenhouse gases. directed the working group to publish interim estimates of the social cost of carbon nitrous oxide and methane. it is now -- biden is now directing agencies to consider the scghg in the development and implementation of the budgets, federal procurement processes, environmental reviews. social cost of greenhouse gas metrics are inefficient, policymaking tool used to justify sweeping radical climate policies, and strict regulations that interpreted by lifelong bureaucrats. i urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mr. cartwright: mr. chair, this amendment is opposed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: i close, 12 states including south carolina filed a lawsuit against the biden administration claiming its calculations and use of social cost of greenhouse gases is arbitrary and capricious and would harm the local economies. urge the passage of my amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. yet is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. 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 78 printed in part b of house report number 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 78, printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mr. far monday of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from something s. mr. norman,

and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman. mr. norman: what my amendment does is prohibits funding for the s.e.c.'s proposed rule entitled substantial implementation, duplication, and resubmission of shareholder propostals under act rule 14-a-8. since its origins in the 1940's, the shareholder proposal process has evolved from moodest effort to give shareholders a tool for influencing corporate governance to a complex and overpoliticized process. under the current s.e.c. rules, even small shareholders no meet the $2,000 ownership requirement for at least three years can submit proposals on public company ballots. this process is overwhelmingly exploited by activists driven by social or political agendas, and leads to hundreds of resolutions being filed related to environmental, social, and

political issues. rather than focusing on the company's growth and competitiveness. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this particular amendment which would block a rule that promotes meaningful shareholder engagement by requiring a higher level of shareholder support for resubmitted proposals. it's a rule that helps streamline the shareholder proposal process by discouraging the repetitive submission of proposals that have failed to gain substantial support in the past. by requiring shareholders to demonstrate substantial support for their proposals, the rule encourages responsible activism and discourages the use of the shareholder proposal process for

purely symbolic or nuisance proposals. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: mr. speaker, any time i hear government setting a streamline anything, it raisings my eyebrows. in fact, based on the s.e.c.'s own data, a single shareholder proposal can impose costs of more than $100,000 to many firms reporting significantly higher costs which is ultimate-l borne by the company shareholders. the congress never granted the s.e.c. authority to make it mandatory for companies to include shareholder proposals in their corporate proxy statements. especially after companies having already rejected substantially similar politically charged proposals. not only does this rule overstep the authority given to the s.e.c., it also raises numerous constitutional concerns and is a clear violation of first

amendment prohibition on government compelled speech. political performance does not belong in the boardroom. instead, companies should focus on maximizing shareholder value. all this does is add another bureaucratic nightmare to the taxpayers already struggling. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: this amendment is opposed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: urge adoption of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. 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 79 printed in part b of house report number 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 79, printed in part b of house report number 118-269. offered by mr. norman of south carolina.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman: mr. speaker, this is just another long list that you witnessed today and really all through this administration of bureaucratic oversight and fines for the taxpayer. what my amendment is prohibit use of funds to implement, finalize, and force a proposal rule entitled enhanced disclosures by certain vin hement advisors and investment companies about environmental, social, and government investment practices. on may 25, 2022, the s.e.c. proposed rules that mandate additional disclosures for funds incorporating or contemplating e.s.g. factors in their investment if adopted the rule would reflect a significant shift for private fund sponsors by

disclosures on a targeted aspect of the investment process. the primary purpose is to address the risk of greenwashing and furnish investors with comprehensive information regarding e.s.g. strategies. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this amendment as well, contrary to the misrepresentations made by environmental, social and government's opponents, the s.e.c. disclosure rule on e.s.g. rule takes no position. the rule does not define e.s.g. or any particular approach to it. those who make such investments, the disclosure of information

about how it is dwiebd and implemented in applicable investment portfolios. the rule will offer increased transportation and protect them from exaggerated or unfounded claims related to e.s.g. investments being made. if it passes, my friend from south carolina's amendment would leave investors in the dark and leave them vulnerable getting misled about e.s.g. claims. i strongly oppose this amendment and i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: i take issue. the supreme court decision in west virginia versus e.p.a. raises concerns about the commission to implement this proposal and the broader climate

disclosure rule under the major question doctrine. this is overexcessive. it'ses i havely broad, vague and just another bureaucratic commission set up to fleece the taxpayers and fleece the people that made this country. i urge adoption of my amendment and i yield. mr. cartwright: for the reasons previously stated this amendment is opposed and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. 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 80 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek

recognition? mr. nunn: thank you, mr. chair, consideration of number 80. the clerk: amendment number 80 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. knop of iowa. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution the gentleman from iowa and member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. nunn: i lead this with prohibits the cyber risk and incident disclosure rule. as someone who has served cybersecurity in the u.s. military and chief of counterintelligence for the as well as service in the obama administration's white house as part of the national security council. combatting cyberattacks are important to both my colleagues

on the left and us here on the right. irrespective of this, the s.e.c. to standardize these requirements, these new disclosure requirements have the opposite effect on our cybersecurity and safeguards at home. instead of working across the federal government, this creates burdensome regulations and causes more confusion. worst yet, the s.e.c. rule compromisees the confidentiality of each company's cybersecurity program opening them up to further attacks that can harm instead of protect. this rule mandates disclosure of any cybersecurity incident within four business days. the disclosure requires companies to disclose when is a victim of the cyberattack, the nature, the timing and scope of the incident oftentimes before

the law enforcement has the opportunity to disclose this. this would achieve the same effect as disclosing these vulnerabilities leaving other bad actors to provide a best practices to the worst actors. it's clear we must work together to increase resiliency but the s.e. kremplet's fails to strike the right balance and improving security outcomes. therefore, i am offering this amendment to ensure we don't jeopardize reporting strategies and divulge bad information to bad actors. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek time in opposition?

mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this amendment that would block the s.e.c.'s rule to require companies to disclose cybersecurity incidents to their investments. as s.e.c. chair puts it, whether a company loses a factory in a fire or millions of files in a cybersecurity incident, it may be material to investors. mr. chairman, many public companies already provide their investors with incident disclosures, these rules make such disclosures and capable in a way that can be useful for those making investment decisions. why in the world would you want to invest in a company that hides its cybersecurity incidents? efforts like this amendment would undermine transparency and

provide investors with less information regarding cybersecurity events. i strongly oppose this amendment and i urge a no vote. i retain the balance of my time. mr. nunn: i respectfully disagree with the premise and the impact that my colleague has represented here. we have multiple lines of efforts when it comes to protecting cybersecurity. first and foremost the department ofhomeland security has privacy on this issue. the department of justice must be informed. and there are requirements for reporting standards and unelected individuals at the s.e.c. who weigh in with new regulation and we find ourselves not only confusing the issue and exposing our sensitive information to our adversaries. we have seen the threat imposed

by foreign actors of what we are doing and disclosing as a way to attack us. they are using it as a model and playbook to go after us. ensure that our investors and cyber hygiene are protected before we are put out in the public space information that could harm national security. with that, i reserve. mr. cartwright: this will amendment is opposed and i yield back. mr. nunn: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. now in order to consider number 81 in house report 118-269.

mr. nunn: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 81 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. knop of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from iowa, mr. knop and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. nunn: i rise today to offer an amendment to push back on yet another ill-informed and reckless proposal. this amendment which i co-lead with ms. wagner is a straightforward amendment to protect businesses that many communities across america and to mitigate harm to investors. this would prohibit unelected bureaucrats from using funds in this legislation to require a small business to be forced to consider unrelated external factors as they review financial

statements. i agree that preventing fraud and maintaining financial reporting integrity is essential to u.s. capital markets. however this proposal is exramly burdensome. if passed, it would divert resources from a business' responsibility and make every auditor into a pseudo attorney. small businesses are already the subject of highly complex and technical laws and regulations at both federal, state and local authorities. the language included creates ambiguity and would create costs that are passed on. the estimated report from this proposal could triple the annual costs for public companies to a tune of more than 55 billion per

year. mr. speaker, i came toll congress like so many in this room to serve my constituents and roll back the type of bureaucracy and bureaucratic requirements that are crushing main street businesses in my hometown and businesses across iowa. a bureaucrat who are sits there and writes these regulations with no consideration of the impact to hometown america, we do ourselves a disservice. this is a step forward to fulfilling our commitments that we share on the left and the right. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this amendment that would block the public county oversight board proposal

to strengthen standards to more proactively identify and communicate a company's noncompliance with laws and rules. why in the world wouldn't we want to warn investors about scoff law companies. the proposal will increase auditor vigilance against fraud and noncompliance with laws and regulations. steps like these would encourage companies to reduce harm to investors. this amendment would represent a significant set back the pcab efforts to combat fraud. let's protect investors. i sphrongly oppose this amendment. mr. nunn: thank you very much,

mr. speaker, the 80% of businesses that comment on this proposal, i would have to disagree with my democratic colleague. we have a folklore hero in the heartland called will rogers. if they don't read it they will know there is a problem out there. we heard back from individuals who are operators in this space. the feedback evaluates the effectiveness of any rule and striking the right balance between fraud prevention but reporting the financial duties something they have been doing for years. the pcaob has failed not to get in a dialogue and taking into account the detrimental impact to small businesses across america. while i respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i would urge them to consider all the good work being done and ask

that the pcaob listen americans and implement exercises that will assist, not regulations that will terminate. and i yield. mr. cartwright: this amendment is opposed and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. 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 the speaker pro tempore: it is now in order to consider amendment number 82 print in house report number 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. ogles: i have a an amendment at the desk. i the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 82, presented in part b of house report number 118-269. offer by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, and a member opposed each will control

five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles. mr. ogles: my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated by this act from being used to enforce any covid-19 mask mandates. i was fortunate enough to introduce this amendment during both energy and water as well as interior appropriations, and i'm happy to do it again today. that being said, we are the post covid world. people are educated on masks and whether or not they want to use them. so instead of imposing this type of mandate on individuals, let's trust their judgment. mr. chairman, i yield time to my colleague and friend from georgia, mr. carter. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of mr. owingle's amendment which will prohibit the funds from being used to institute mask mandates. mr. speaker, when president

biden admitted that there is no federal solution to covid-19, he aid mitted the mask and vaccine mandates were never about public health. they were about control. placing mask mandates on the american people and dictating they must comply or else runs contrary to our commitment to america. let's noter if get that throughout the entire -- not forget throughout the entire pandemic democrats ignored their rules while forcing children to wear them at school and even outside on extremely hot days. liberal elites were even spotted without their mask at hair salons, fancy restaurants, and more. while these -- while those same hypocritical leaders shamed others who did not comply with the mask mandates that they ignored. the american people see right through democrats' masking political theater and will never forget how they played politics with our children by shuttering their schools and masking their faces, even as doctors were

noting the harm those mandates were causing our children. as a pharmacist, i trust patients to work with medical professionals and their families to make health care decision that is are best for them. a decision to receive a vaccine or wear a mask is a personal one and should only be done in consultation with a trusted health care professional. that is why we need policies that empower workers to work, allows children and families to thrive, and encourages patients to foster relationships with their health care providers. not one size fits all mandates nothing short of government overreach in its most tyrannical form. i thank representative ogles for working on this amendment. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose president biden's unconstitutional mask mandates. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the balance of my time. mr. ogles: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in

opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cartwright: mr. chair, acknowledging that there's probably no member of this house happier than i am not to have to wear a mask this afternoon, i rise in opposition to this amendment. it is a useless amendment. the covid public health emergency has ended. this is water over the dam. we should stop wasting the houses' time on useless amendments. i oppose the amendment and urge a no vote. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: i would like to point out with mask mandates that includes any mask can be utilized or worn. even n-95 mask, the gold standard of masking, it was pointed out in a "new york times" opinion piece by epidemiologist tom jefferson that masks did not show and effective means to block the virus. that being said, mr. chairman, i would ask adoption of this

amendment. i ask my colleagues and my friends from the other side to support. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: the amendment is opposed. i yield back. the chair: 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 is agreed to. it is now in order to considered amendment number 83 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. ogles: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 83, printed in part b of house report number 118-269. offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment prohibits funds to implement or enforce the

consumer financial protection bureau's rule entitled the small business lending under the equal credit opportunity act. that's a mouthful, mr. chairman. quite frankly, i would argue cf36789b is unconstitutional, should not exist, and should not make this rule. that being said the cfpb's final rule implementing section 1071 of the dodd-frank act requires lend -- d.o.d.-frank act requires lenders to report data including ams from minority owned, women owned, and lgbtq-owned small businesses. information that is private to them and should have no bearing on creditworthiness but rather is an intrusion into their privacy. there is no reason why the government should be requiring the collection and disclosure of this information. there is no reason why money should be allocated to enforce this rule. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this amendment which would hinder efforts to promote transparency and accountability in small business lending and create hurdles for lenders and community organizations working to help women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses access capital. the cfpb's rule make will go provide small business owners, lenders, and the public with grit critical information about the $1.7 trillion small business financing market. this amendment would harm all those who stand to benefit from this expanded transparency and accountability. small businesses are the engines of our american economy and congress should not take actions such as this amendment to hurt their ability to prosper. i strongly oppose this amendment. and i do urge a no vote. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is

recognized. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. do i respect and appreciate my colleague's comments. i do want to point out the cfpb i would argue is an unconstitutional bogeyman for so many small businesses, one that force lendtories report date -- data from women-owned businesses. i asked mr. chop a what is a woman. he couldn't answer the question, chose not to. so i would argue how do you -- how does this information, how does this data even reliable when they can't define what a woman is. mr. chairman, this is one of those situations that in the name of transparency the government is collecting more information, information that they don't need, in order to warrant or grant creditworthiness. there is a point which you stop in collecting data. there is a point which you have an obligation to protect the consumer when you look at all

the data breaches our own government and banks have had over and over again. i would urge adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mr. cartwright: mr. chairman, we oppose the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from yields. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: i thank my colleague for his comments. i respect his opinion. i would urge adoption, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. schaffer. 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 it's now in order to considered all in 83 printed in part before the of -- part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. ogles: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 84 printed in part b of house report number 118-269, offered by mr. ogles of be tennessee. the chair: pursuant to solution 847, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, member

opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. our republic depends on our bureaucracies faithly implementing the laws and policies set for the by our elected officials. a misguided rule proposed by the office 6 personnel -- office of personnel management could threaten the president's ability to ensure the executive branch is appropriately staffed to carry out his or her policies. during the trump administration, some career federal employees were either unwilling or -- unwillingly to appropriately carry out president trump's agenda. more often found themselves ill-equipped to make, implement, or communicate policies with which they disagreed. all presidents, republican or democrat, have this problem to some degree. they have a right to staff their offices. president biden now outrageously finds himself facing resistance

by state department employees who disagree with his opposition to hamas. i would urge that we allow this amendment to pass. it empowers a president regardless of policy, regardless of party to do their job to staff their offices. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to the amendment. nonpartisan civil service ensures federal agencies carry out their missions with professionalism, safeguards the rule of law over partisanship, and ensures continuity between presidential administrations. this didn't used to be a dispute in washington, d.c. there was a clear long-standing bipartisan consensus behind these principles until the

previous administration attempted to undermine statutory merit-based protections for federal civil servants. their effort would have moved tens of thousands of career federal employees to a new job classification that would remove their employment protections. this amendment seeks to block the office of program mana management's efforts to uphold these vital protections and works to undermine the integrity of a merit-based nonpartisan civil service. for these reasons i strongly oppose this amendment. and i do urge a no vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague for his comments. it should be noted we have civil service protections to protect career federal employees from being fired or demoted just because the president or their supervisor disagrees with them

politically. however, we must allow an administration the flexibility to decide that certain people are a bad fit for certain key roles and to let them transfer people so that the role can be filled with someone better suited for it. that's all we are asking. that's all this does. to accomplish this the trump administration created schedule f which identified positions that had a confidential policy determining, policymaking, or policy advocating character. and provided that the administration could change who served in those specific roles to make sure that they were willing and able to advance the agenda of the president that they chose to pursue. and again this would apply to biden. this would apply to trump. this would have applied to obama. regardless of party. my amendment simply defunds the biden rule that blocks the president from use -- presidents from use ago similar policy in the future. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: mr. chair, at this time i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minute. mr. connolly: i thank my friend. i thank the chair. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. which would block the biden administration's proposed rule titled upholding he civil service protectses and merit system principles which would help prevent any future administration from reinstating the so-called fedle f -- schedule f. the gentleman who is the author of this amendment all we are asking for is flexibility. baller dash -- balledder dash. we already know that the trump punitive presidency in exile has plans for moving 50,000 federal employees initially into this new schedule f, not authorized by congress. that's not flexibility. that is gutting civil service protection that's been in place since the 1880's.

congress created by statute a politics free professional cadre of federal employment to protect federal employees anti-public from the previous corrupt spoil system and political interference of president after president irrespective of party. going back to that system is an enormous step backward and a huge disservice to federal employees and to the public very serve and we serve. if we are going to do this, then congress has to be consulted. no president should have the unilateral authority to create a new profound schedule for the civil service. if it was if it was created by statute, must also be heard by congress and acted on by statute. schedule f would be a destructive instrument at the whim of any president and the

gentleman says obama could have done it, so could trump and so could biden. no president should have this breathtaking power. congress needs to stand up and protect the original legislation creating a nonpartisan service and protect the employees. mr. cartwright: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: it is time that congress empowers nip president to be able to staff their office and if they have a member of their administration who is undermining their policies that they are able to -- and not that we are saying fire the individuals but put them in another role so the president can carry forward.

it is my understanding you have people within administration that don't agree with him on his policies. that's not their call. this is empowering the president, the administrative office to run like a business. i would urge adoption of this amendment and puts a check and balance in place on career politicians with more focus on their agenda than serving congress or the administration. mr. cartwright: this amendment is opposed, and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the -- mr. cartwright: request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? pursuant to rule clause 6 of

rule 18, further proceedings will be proceedings. amendment number 85 will not be offered. and it is now time to consider number 86 printed in house report 118-269. the clerk: amendment number 86 printed in part b of house report 118-269. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. ogles: my amendment to the cfpb rule registry of subject to certain agencies and court orders. there is a reoccurring here because the cfpb is unconstitutional and i hope and

expect the supreme court to rule in that way so congress can rule and administer funds appropriately. we have an obligation to bring in their out of control regulation. there is are establishing a data base of enforcement actions. specifically, the proposed rule would require certain nonbank entities to register with the bureau. the rule includes obtaining enforcement actions that have settled with state or local authorities. this is empowering an agency that has gone too far and gone beyond its mandate and it is unconstitutional and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek time in opposition?

mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this amendment. congress gave the consumer financial protection burro the cfpb the job of ensuring that consumer protection laws are enforced consistently and companies do not engage in unfair, deceptive or abusive practices. such is clear that this extends to nonbank companies that offer financial services or products and consistent with its mission of protecting consumers from abusive practices, the cfpb nonbank registry will provide increased transparency over the sect tire and -- sector and this would stymie consumers and prevent abusive practices by

nonbanks that offer products. congress has to focus its attention on strengthening consumer protections on working people and investors and preventing companies by supporting enforcement to crack down on unscrupulous behavior. i urge a no vote and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: the cfpb is or chess traiting a name and change scheme and weaponizing the power of the federal government to target market participants. it can be weaponnized and leveraged and don't like how you are not woke enough or green enough. the cfpb does not have the authority to promulgate registration requirements nor

does it have the authority to establish a data base. such a registry will have measures recovered for nonbank entities much of which are small businesses. we are hearing from the adjacent sectors because of the cfpb the rulemaking is off the charts and the consumer paid that cost. i reserve. right right we oppose and i yield back. mr. ogles: i thank my colleague, mr. chairman, would ask that this amendment be adopted and the cfpb be dismantled. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee, 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 87 printed in part b of house report 118-269, for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. ogles: itch an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 87 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles. mr. ogles: this will the proposed rule which would restrict federal employees ability to opt out and the right for someone to opt out and should have that right. and the supreme court that government employees have a

first amendment right to obtain their jobs and and sustain from participating in a public sector union. they have proposed a rule to violate the intention of that ruling. it restricts federal employees to a limited window each calendar year to opt year to have union dues. and requires agencies to assume that employees have opted out of paying dues want to resume of paying dues in the future which requires the employee to opt out again. this is not the intent of the supreme court decision that the employee should be empowered, not basically helped in by a regulatory rule. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek time in recognition?

mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the federal labor relations authorities' proposed changes to rules as to how and when federal employees can cancel payments of their union dues merely restores a longstanding policy about dues' payments that had been in place since 1981. the policy merely establishes that employees may opt out of their union deuce' payments during a certain time period each year. under this procedure, federal employees that choose to join the agency's union are made away of the annual dues' revocation period. every year they c emp as. this amendment would block these decades' old rules and introduce less stability and less

financial security and less predictability for federal employee unions and i strongly oppose this and i urge a no vote. egg. mr. ogles: i want to point out, the supreme court affirmed that employees have a first amendment right to ocht out. the decision didn't say that you have a first amendment right one month out of the year. it said that you have the right. so this rule is unreasonable in that it requires an employee if they need or decide want to opt out, they have to wait 11 months. that's not what the decision says. you have a first amendment right to say no. furthermore, once you have opted out, why then can the union then

ignore our first amendment right and opt you back in the following year? that's not the intent and not our obligation to ensure the stability of a union, moreover this was to protect the rights of workers. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. cartwright: i oppose the amendment and i yield back. mr. ogles: i urge adoption and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. cartwright: i demand a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. amendment number 88 will not be offered. now to consider amendment number 89 printed in part b of house report 118-269, for what purpose

does the gentleman frommon tonna seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 89 printed in house report of 118-269, offered by mr. rosendale. mr. rose: mr. speaker, my amendment number 89 will prohibit any funds made available in this act being used to enforce the federal supplier climate risk and resilience proposed rule. this is part of the biden administration's plan to reach net zero procurement. it seeks to have climate reporting standards on a large and medium-sized government contractors of which small businesses make up 29% and 64% respectively. climate and emission standards

should not be integrated into financial reporting especially for the small businesses who lack the resources to meet these extreme standards. these government contractors play a role in providing essential goods and services, weapons systems to our military and the very uniforms they wear. wool from montana is used in the production of our army's uniforms. 10% of medium-sized contractors and 31% of large contractors disclosed these reporting requirements. they represent a burden especially those who collect emissions data to comply with these regulations these small businesses will be required to invest significant amounts of time, money and manpower to

establish emissions reporting regimes. such an endeavor will be crippling. as congress, we should ensure that the best companies for the job are the ones who get the contract, not just the massive government contractors who produce time-consuming reports. we shouldn't be imposing these standards on any businesses particularly on the family ranches that produce our military uniforms. this amendment is about ensuring our government remains impartial and does not become a platform for large corporations to stifle competition. we must champion true and fair competition within the government contract space promoting economic fairness and level playing field over an environmentalist agenda. i urge my colleagues to support

my amendment to uphold the principles of fairness, competitiveness and financial i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. target wright: i claim time -- mr. cartwright: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. cartwright: this requires manufacturers to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and set science-based emissions reducks targets. the federal government is the world's single largest buyer of goods and services, purchasing over $630 billion in the last fiscal year alone. accordingly the rule recognizes that the federal government also faces significant financial risks from climate change. this amendment could have us

bury our heads in the stand and ignore the federal government's exposure to climate change impacts and prevent us from walking toward common sense climate goals. so for those reasons, i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: thank you, mr. speaker. just so everybody understands this proposed rule if thed bien administration requires major contractors to annually disclose scope one, two, and three emissions and to establish science-based target raiments. let me tell you what scope one is. greenhouse gas emissions from sources owned or controlled by the reporting entity if i'm raising wool, am i supposed to follow around behind each and every sheep that runs through the pasture to check the flatulence that they are releasing from their derriere? this is absolutely ridiculous

and this is the kinds of things that the other side of the aisle is requiring. i am not going to around a nebraska sheep on the southbound end of him trying to find out how much is being emitted. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. chairman. we oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i think we have quickly demonstrated how ridiculous this standard is. i hope all my colleagues would support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. 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 90 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana s seek

recognition? mr. rosendale: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 90 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by the gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale. the chair: the gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from montana. mr. rosendale: amendment number 90 would prohibit any funds made available by this act for the purchase or construction of any federal building in washington, d.c. our nation is over $33 trillion in debt with an expected annual deficit this year of nearly $2 trillion we need to find innovative ways to reduce this spending. the federal government spends approximately $25 billion annually to operate, maintain, or lease over 278,000 buildings. some real torse out there are getting very, very wealthy

managing these properties. a recent g.a.o. report found that in early 2023, well past covid home working, 2/3 of federal agencies used a mere 25% or les of their space at headquarters. that -- you cannot keep vacancy rates like that on any commercial enterprise and stay in business. the same report also found that on the higher range, agencies used an estimated 39% to 49% of capacity of their headquarters. the federal government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars to own and maintain buildings and barely uses them. this is unacceptable. quite frankly it's an insult to the taxpayers of montana. moreover, having all our federal agencies in washington, d.c. makes them less accountable to the american people. one of president trump's accomplishments was moving the

bureau of land management headquarters to colorado. agencies should be closed to constituents where -- close to constituents where their actions have the biggest impact. unfrmt, secretary haaland reversed course and knifed b.l.m.'s headquarters back to washington, d.c. if the b.l.m. was still headquartered in colorado, maybe, just maybe, director stone manning would be more accessible to the constituents whom her disastrous rules have harmed. our nation is trillions in debt and wastes billions on underutilized federal buildings. no organization can operate this way successfully. the status quo must change. my commonsense amendment would simply prohibit funds for constructing or purchasing new buildings in washington, d.c. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. cartwright: i rise in oppositon to this amendment. this amendment would block the construction of federal building in washington, d.c. and with all due respect to the gentleman from montana, it's based op -- based on a fundamental misconception. it's not like these projects go up at the whim of the administration. buildings have to have appropriated funding and there's a prospectus process on the authorizing side, this is a misguided amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i verve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: let me reiterate this again. federal agencies used 2/3 of federal agent sis used 25% or less of their space at headquarters. this was not during the peak of covid when we had a lot of people working from home. this is a report that the g.a.o. just produced from 2023.

we have vacant buildings. people are probably wandering around there wondering what the echo sound is. in january of 2023, a meeting of the federal real property council, more than half of the agency officials acknowledged that their headquarter buildings had excess space prior to the pandemic. that was even prior to the pandemic. mr. speaker, we have too much real estate, we need to liquidate some of these assets. we need to get some of those buildings off the books. and then we can have a conversation about where new construction can take place. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the distwinge wished gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank my good friend for yielding. i strongly oppose this amendment this amendment would prohibit

the use of funds in this bill for the purchase or construction of any new building in the district of columbia. the purchase or construction of new federal buildings can save taxpayers money and improve government operations. the ongoing consolidation of the department of homeland security headquarters at st. elizabeth's in the district of columbia is a prime example ow how -- of how new construction can result in significant savings for taxpayers. the department is currently housed in more than 50 separate locations throughout the national capital region and 79% of these leases will expire in the next five years. consolidating the department of -- the department at st. elizabeth's will reduce the department's leasing portfolio and costs by at least 20% in accordance with the reduce the footprint policy of the general

services administration. as required by congress. and is estimated to result in $1.17 billion in savings. if this amendment were adopted, the cyber security and infrastructure security agency and the office of intelligence and analysis will be forced to extend expensive, short term leases at significant taxpayer costs. the consolidation of the -- the consolidation of the department at st. elizabeth's is important for streamlining operations and coordination among key department agencies and offices. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: we oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is now on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. 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 91 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. rosendale: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 91 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. rosendale of montana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale. mr. rosendale: thank you very much, mr. speaker. my amendment would reduce funding to the commission by 50% saving taxpayers $69 million not including the savings from the

unnecessary regulations on the industry. and the obligation that the regulatory state has created on them. biden appointed cpsc commissioners began talking abbanning gas this last year. after major pushback, they said they weren't looking into a ban on gas stoves. however the biden administration still moved forward with the department of energy rule on gas stove emissions. i was proud to vote for representative kelly armstrong's gas stove protection and freedom act in june and i am pleased that the base text of this bill includes a provision to protect americans from unserious and evasive emissions standards. however, this ordeal has led me to lose any confidence in the consumer product safety commission. which should probably not exist in the first place. and should only issue recommendations.

these unelected bureaucrats get paid to work out of a beltway office and decide what products americans can buy. it's time to rein them in. american people and businesses should be the ones making those decisions. if there's a particularly egregious product, consumers have legal recourse. and congress can step in and make a law, not unaccountable bureaucrats who are invested in keeping themselves employed by continuing to overregulate products. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. cartwright: i rise in oppositon to this amendment. for more than 50 year, the united states consumer product safety commission has worked to fulfill its statutory mission to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injuries

and deaths associated with consumer products. now by cutting the cpsc's budget by half, this amendment would gut the agency's staff and undermine its mission. it's an extreme measure that would place children, families, and communities around the country at greater risk of injury and death from product hazards. this amendment would leave consumers vulnerable to products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard that can injure children. i strongly oppose this amendment and i do urge a no vote. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: thank you, mr. speaker. besides trying to ban gas stoves, the consumer product safety commission has also proposed other ridiculous rules. for example, on act 25, of 2023, not the early 1900's, 2023, the

commission proposed a rule on furnaces that states that u.s. consumer product safety commission has determined preliminarily that there's an unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with residential gas fired central furnaces, boilers, wall furnaces and floor furnaces. this is all gas furnaces and boilers. let's get to the crux of this. this agency is trying to put the natural fuels that we have in our country out of business. this is another ploy by the biden administration to drive us all to this broken idea of relying upon renewable energy. it's not realistic. this is just another agency that's trying to perpetuate that and they do not need more money to attack the american people and the american industries. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized.

mr. cartwright: this amendment is opposed.. mr. cartwright: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from r. this is nothing more than trial. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. cartwright: demand a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 92 printed in part b of house report 118-269.

mr. rose: i have an amendment at the chair. the clerk: amendment number 92 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. rosendale of montana. the chair: the gentleman from montana and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes mr. rosendale. mr. rose: -- mr. rosendale: president biden created the office of gun violence prevention allowing his administration to bypass congress and implement the left control agenda and this is being

overseen by vice president harris and staffed with former gun control lobbyist and allow the swamp toville control. in montana, 64 percent of the households have firearms and will not go along with the white house attempt to undermine our second amendment rights. what are they afraid out there in montana. why do they need firearms? we are not and it's because we have our firearms. and unacceptable of gun owners in montana to fund the salaries of unelected gun-grabbing who are hell bent on showing them as gun thieves.

and impose further restrictions on our second amendment rights. it's time we drained the swamp and kick the gun control lobby out of the white house. i reserve. mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition to this senseless amendment. the white house gun violence task force is committed to treating gun violence as the public health crisis it is. by approaching this issue from a public health perspective, the task force aims to reduce the staggering number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the united states. the task force he emphasizees of data driven and evidence-based policy decisions that will balance the rights of law-abiding gun owners with the need for public safety. mr. chair, as a gun owner

myself, that task force will seek gun safety measures that the majority of americans support. these include background checks for all gun sales, closing the gun show and online and to keep people from are a and i urge a no vote. i urge a no vote. mr. rosendale: vice president harris has no special credentials and will act as nothing more than a figure head. the office will rely on left-wing special lobbyists on the democrats' war on the second amendment and rewarding with curby jobs at the white house. rob wilcox, the deputy director

led federal policy at every town for gun safety which is financed by michael bloomberg while my colleagues are trying to undermine and compromise our second amendment rights. they fail to recognize the prosecutors they have put in place around the country that refuse to prosecute the criminals that should not have guns and have been doing crimes with illegal firearms. that's where the focus needs to be. i reserve. mr. cartwright: at this time, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. frost. frost frost i rise today in strong opposition to this amendment which president biden took historic action to create. this year, there have been more

shootings than days in the year. it has been a deadly year and the america cab people want to take us action. but my colleagues aren't listening to the american people but the gun lobby and gun manufacturers, the gun lobby that emailed about this amendment that we are debating saying they are endorsed against any poll tissue an and email saying this office was made to take guns away. it is created to save lives. the american people fear for their safety and should be more important than republican politicians' fear for their careers. how many more dreams need to be extinguished until we say enough is enough. and the swamp/radicals we are referring to are people like greg jackson a survivor of gun violence who was shot not too

far from this chamber and almost died cue to senseless gun violence and committed his life to saving all of our lives. i'm offended that someone who call him the swamp. the office will save lives and voting no is eliminating a fema-like response. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from -- mr. cartwright: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from montana. mr. rosendale: what my colleagues fail to recognize is the fact that we have so much crime that takes place, criminal on criminal or criminals committing these crimes and across fire and innocent victim gets tied up in it and also

refuse to recognize that these communities and cities that are led by democrat leaders have had increased crime rates since the biden administration has taken over. they have prosecutors that are not charging and prosecuting these criminals and letting them off without proper punitive measures taking place. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: i yield one minute to mr. frost of florida. frost frost my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will make this about criminal on criminal activity. this office, one of the core tenets is community violence intervention that go into communities and find out people who are most likely to shoot someone and most likely to be shot create relationships and intervene. so this office is working to

solve exactly the problem that you just it rated. i hope if you follow your own logic, vote no on this will amendment so we can save lives across the entire country. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. cartwright: we oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: i would like to finish up, forgive if i don't trust a federal agency to be policing a community and using their discretion about who may or may not be committing a crime in the future. my gosh, we have just witnessed the f.b.i. conducting surveillance on catholics because they were attending latin masses and watched them conduct surveillance on parents because they attended school

board meetings and now we are going to unleash the federal agencies to conduct surveillance on people who might own a firearm, who may not own a firearm and may commit a crime in the future. the people across montana will not support that or tolerate that and this amendment deems to get rid of an agency that will do just that. please support this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have -- mr. cartwright: i demand a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 93 printed in part bmp of house report 118-269.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 93 printed in part b of house report 118-269 offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847 the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. roy. mr. roy: i thank the chair, the amendment that i'm offering would prohibit the district of columbia from using federal funding to require that elementary or schools student take the covid-19 and all the vaccine to attend school. they created a mandate that d.c. students be vac natured. it what delayed as the parents of more than 40% of children in d.c. decided that the covid-19

was not worth of the risks and declined to get vaccinated. it would keep 73% of students between 12-17 out of classrooms. now the issue here is two-fold. whether congress should have a role in impacting policy choices in the district of columbia which the constitution clearly contemplates. the district of columbia is not a state. and not designed to be a state. it's not going to be a state because the district of columbia was set up in our constitution to be our national capital, by design, very specifically. and one of the things tay we are able to do as congress is a policy in the district of columbia, whereas we are not supposed to intervene in the laboratories of democracies.

and my colleagues never find any limit to want to interject. one of the things we can do in d.c. is to impact policy here. now the fact is that these vaccine mandates were completely ineffective and they were destructive. c.d.c. website said the cases were seen in adolescent and young adult males. and it has occurred in some people who received the vaccine more commonly in adolescent males. they placed a warning label. i could go on and on with the concerns. these mandates have on freedom and importantly our children. now importantly, and obviously the rule for this was passed before yesterday when the d.c.

city council unanimously voted to repeal this jon scientific mandate. this isn't a vast republican mandate put in d.c. the department of health, office of superintendent of education each testified in favor of repealing the vaccine mandate. what we are doing is making clear it's the position of the united states congress who is constitutionally charged with ensuring that the district of columbia is managed appropriately, is no longer upon the children in live in the nation's capital a frankly intrusive and harmful vaccine mandate and it should not continue. i reserve. . . . . the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from washington, d.c. seek recognition? ms. norton: i rise to claim time in oppositon to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i strongly oppose this amendment this amendment would prohibit the district of columbia from using its local funds to carry out the section of d.c.'s immunization of school students act of 1971 -- 1979, that required students to receive a covid-19 vaccine. d.c. has already repealed this section. while the repeal of the section expired -- expires on january 23, 2024, yesterday, the d.c. council passed legislation that would permanently repeal this section. nevertheless, how d.c. spends its local funds which consist of local taxes and fees should be a

decision for d.c., not congress. if d.c.'s local elected officials want to spend local d.c. funds to carry out covid-19 vaccine requirements for students, they should have the authority to do so. if they do not want to spend d.c.'s local funds to carry out covid-19 vaccine requirements for students, they should have the thrt not to do so d.c.'s local elected officials are accountable to d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like the decisions of their local elected officials, they can vote them out of office. d.c. residents, the majority of whom are black and brown are capable of governing themselves. if house republicans cared about democratic principles or d.c. residents, they would bring my d.c. statehood bill, which would give d.c. residents voting

representation in congress and full local self-government on this floor. congress has the constitutional authority to admit the state of washington, d.c., it simply lacks the will. i say to every member of congress, keep your hands off d.c., if you want to legislate on local d.c. matters, become a d.c. resident and get elected mayor or councilmember. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized mr. roy: well, president biden signed in march of this year legislation that we moved through this body overturning the criminal code revisions of the d.c. city council that reduced the maximum penalties for burglary, carjacking and robbery. our own colleague, the gentleman

from texas, was carjacked at gunpoint nine blocks from where her right here. the fact of the matter is, d.c. needs continued oversight from this body. i'm glad that we acted and passed that legislation that forced change to the code and i'm glad president biden signed it. what we are doing here is not just academic. i understand the d.c. city council acted yesterday. but it is important for this body for the house of representatives to make clear that the students in this country should not be subjected to mandatory vaccine mandates that undermine their health through pseudo science. we have an obligation to ensure that we are ensuring that the nation's capital is doing the right thing and frankly we have the ability to influence that in ways we should not when interfering directly with the laboratories of democracy. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized.

ms. norton: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas mr. roy: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 94 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 94 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and a member opposed, shall each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, for five minutes. mr. roy: i thank the chair. the amendment i'm offering here prohibits any funding in the financial services and general government appropriations act from being used to carry out president biden's executive orders on climate change.

this is something i've been offering to each of the appropriations bills because i believe the implications of the president's executive orders on climate change are significant. they're undermining our well being, undermining the prosperity of american citizens, they are harming the economy, they are driving up inflation, they are minimizing options for the people of this country to go about doing their jobs, they are driving up the price of energy. they're making cars more expensive, making home more expensive. we want to wonder why we have high inflation? look no further than the radical environmental poll smoifs democratic colleagues. in september the department of treasury issued its, quote, principals for net zero which highlighted best practices. they proposed ruled to force companies to report on their emissions. the $1.2 trillion in subs dirks

including in the i.r.a. again, $1.2 trillion in climate subsidies including in the i.r.a. one of our strongest blessings from the good lord that this country has, to be able to stand independently, in the energy -- energy independent and be able to have a significant force in the world. these orders have directed the general service administration to overhaul the federal building portfolio and vehicle fleet. each agency's light duty vehicle acquisition shall be zero emission vehicles by the end of fiscal year 2027. each agency shall achieve net zero emissions by 2045 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. this rapid overhaul of the federal footprint should concern everyone. we're going to make our federal vehicle fleet dependent on an e.v. supply chain that's 90%

dominated by china eight of the 10 largers solar equipment makers are in china. 10 of the 15 largest wind equipment makers are chinese. the fact of the matter is the implementation of the president's executive orders undermine ours national security, empowers our enemy, undermice our ability to have a prosperous economy and for that reason i'm glad that it has been adopted in virtually every one of the appropriations bills we have moved a forward and hope it will be here. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: i claim time in on opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mines mr. cartwright: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. climate related financial risks can have significant adverse economic impacts on businesses, communities, the financial sector. come on. addressing these risks is essential to safeguard economic stability and resilience and these things are crucial in the face of a changing climate. financial institutions and

federal agencies ought to consider climate risks in their decision making processes. particularly in investment and leaning practices. by doingsociety promotes responsible and sustainable investment choices that support prompts and businesses with low environmental impacts. these executive order -- these executive orders underscore the importance of the united states taking a leadership role in global efforts to combat climate change. by setting ambitious nestic goals and engaging with international partners, the united states can encourage other countries to follow suit, resulting in a more effective global response to climate change. the united states should be leading this effort. these executive orders are essential for combating climate change because they address climate related financial risks, encourage responsible

investment, promote global leadership, strengthen resilience and accelerate the transition to clean energy they collectively contribute to a more comprehensive and effective approach, mitigating the impacts of climate change and advancing environmental sustainability. for these reasons, i strongly oppose this amendment and i do urge a no vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: well, the gentleman says come on. to my assertions about the damage that this causes. but i would just say, come on. with respect to the family that has to choose between food and fuel this month. because that's what's happening. it was the secretary of transportation who literally said, quote, the american people need to feel pain, end quote, earlier this year. now imagine if the secretary of transportation allegedly in

charge of making sure we have roads and the ability for people to move around this country, engage in commerce, take care of their family, have a strong economy for our national security, for our well being, our prosperity. that secretary says to all of the families out there, oh, i'm sorry. come on. looks at them and says, well, too bad. you've got to experience some pain, don't you understand. never mind the 1,100 coal fired plants in china. never mind they've got two a week they keep adding. never mind if you eliminate the internal combustion engine you're not going to den co-2 production around the world. we're pursuing a radical agenda to the detriment of the american people and they know it they feel it. they see it every single day with the high price of gas. high price of electricity. the inability to buy goods and services that rely on that energy. and they see it every day in a world destabilized around the globe because we are not pushing out american energy, lick if id natural gas, we're not building nuclear power, we're not doing

all the thing we can do to be significantly energy independent near to make sure we are not buy into unicorn energy undermining our national security and prosperity. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. cartwright: this amendment is opposed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: i yield. the chair: the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. 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 95 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. salazar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 95 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by ms. salazar of florida.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. salazar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. salazar. ms. salazar: thank you. i rise today in support of my amendment which would simply prohibit the executive branch from using the term latinx in official public documents. although 98% of latinos rejected the term x, the white house has made a point to continue referring to us, the latinos as latinx. mr. speaker, let's talk about the epidemic of wokeness in our community. wokeness has taken over our schools and our children and now it wants to take over the hispanic culture. the reality is that the spanish language has two genders. masculine and feminine. male and female. period. there's no x. but a new generation wants to modify a universal hispanic reality. it wants to erase a grammatical

rule that's been in place for centuries. in 2004, the term latinx first appeared online on google trends. it's supposed to signify a nonbinary option for latin noahs by removing the a for female or o for male when addressing someone. latinx has been overwhelmingly rejected by the hispanic community in this country. only%, two, of the hispanic community uses the term latinx while 90% prefer to use hispanic or latino. what we're seeing is the use of latinx is growing in university classrooms where political correctness has taken over academics and intellectual rigor. now listen to this. we are seeing the use of latinx in government documents at a time when the people it refers to don't even want to use it. how could that be?

that's being -- that's improsing on us. we don't want it. that's why i've introduced this amendment to prohibit the biden administration from using latinx in official public-facing government documents. this is an important move that would prevent this wokeness from being forced onto us, the hispanics, a conservative community that uses male and female, period. i strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to stand with the latino community. latino and a, latina with an a, not latinx. they are doing this to please a small group of people that don't even know anything about us. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does any member seek time in opposition in seeing reserve. does anyone want time in

opposition? seeing none, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. salazar: mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yield. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. salazar: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to considered number 96 printed in part b of house report number 118-269. for what purpose does gentlewoman -- the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 96, printed in part b of house report number 118-269.

offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from texas, mr. session, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. this past march the inspector general of the general services administration issued a report into the identity verification and validation service log-in.gov. i seek unanimous consent to enter this report into the record. the chair: it will be covered by general leave. mr. sessions: log in.gov is madgemaned by technology transportation service within the g.s.a. and was built upon and by a group called 18-f. which lies within t.t.s. and describes itself as a, technology designed consultiancy with the u.s. government inside the u.s. government.

login.gov was intended to provide the public with single website through which they can access digital services with a single user name and password. for agencies it is supposed to ensure someone who they are trying to access service and we even know who they were as they came through login.gov. so it's security and convenience was met. what could go wrong? well, the i.g. report that i have now entered into the record detailed how employees at login.gov knowingly misrepresented the level of security they provided to their clients within the government. it even build agency clients -- billed agency clients over $10 million for services they knew that the products did not exist nor did they provide. without getting too technical,

login.gov claimed it offered a level of security that included biometric comparisons for applicants. i realize there have been and still are concerns about the biometric comparisons returning false positives within certain ethic groups. if there were concerns they should have addressed them. instead the proper way to deal with the situation was not to lie and provide a service you did not provide, but to continue on. when the i.g. report came out, the oversight committee of the house held hearings which i was the chairman of. and it came at a time that we looked at this federal program. we heard how the taxpayer had lost hundreds of billions of dollars to bad actors from the i.r.s. and a central tactic in such fraud was identity theft, which is at the very heart of what this d-18 group is about. we have here a federal entity

marketing a service to a federal customer that is intended to assure identity, but that federal entity is not telling the truth. this targets 18-f. why 18-f and not login.gov itself? this is because since its inception in 2014 in the wake of the health care.gov debacle, trouble has followed 18-f around. it was envisioned to be a tech savvy group within the federal government that would bring start-ups to a high level of competency to usher federal agencies into the digital era. in practice it was no more than a group run amuck. a group run amuck that intended to deceive people and yet at the same time lie about what they

were doing. in 2016, the i.g. report issued describing how 18-f had run a deficit of $31 million between 2014 and the third quarter of 2016, even though it was supposed to generate enough revenue to cover its costs. in 2017, the i.g. issued another report describing how 18-f routinely circumvented fundamental security policies and guidelines established by our government. in 2023, the login report by the i.g. shows that despite the concern raised in the two previous reports, the culture of 18-f and parent group was still a problem. one federal tech executive is quoted saying about 18-f, they came in to solve one problem and created two problems. mr. chairman, we are here to ask that what we do is have an

amendment that takes care of 18-f by not allowing them to be funded. 18-f has been in operation for over a decade leaving a trail of expensive problems and questionable value. we held a hearing on this. it was a bipartisan hearing. and at the hearing my colleagues on both sides of the aisle had their opportunity to talk about this and we came up with this answer. mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. any members seeking opposition? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. 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 97 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: mr. speaker, as the designee of mr. steil i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 97, printed in part b of house report number 118-269. offered by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman: so many amendments i along with many other put up today, this is an assault on the taxpayers and more bureaucratic red tape he they want the taxpayers to pay for. this amendment is to prohibit the use of funds to implement the s.e.c. staff legal bulletin,

141, also known as slb-149 -- 141. staff legal bulletin. what it does is it allows the s.e.c. staff to open up a big loophole for activist proposals to the detriment of american workers and retirement savers. doing one of two things, paying staff twice while hiring staff to do something that was not anticipated by the s.e.c. traditionally under the rule 14-a, public companies could request a no action letter from the s.e.c. allowing them to exclude shareholder proposals that are irrelevant to the company's business. the s.l.b., or staff legal bulletin, have said they will not issue no action letters if a proposal concerns an issue with

a broad societal impact. i don't even know what that is. a broad societal impact. try defining that. and in other words if it doesn't matter if a shareholder proposal is illegal or relevant to the company. if it's on a significant social policy issue abroad societal imact, whatever that is, it has to be considered. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mr. cartwright: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the s.e.c. guidance that this rule would block provides clear guidance for companies for disclosure of nongenerally accepted accounting principles, gaap. this clarity helps investors better to understand a company's

financial performance making investment decisions more informed. it's as simple as that. i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i reserve the balance of my team. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: my friends on the opposite side of the aisle is saying is the investors are too stupid to know whether they are putting their money where they put their money if it's legitimate or not. they need, get this, help from staff judgments to decide which societal policy issues to prioritize. basically saying the american people are stupid. nobody should be surprised that this has led to a spike in e.s.g. related shareholder proposals. again, this political performance does not belong in the boardrooms. companies should be governed to a maximum shareholder value on our retirement plans that should work towards healthy returns. i guess they are going to get the staff judgments to say if

the healthy returns or not. allow the s.e.c. to politicize the shareholder proposals, hurt workers, hurt retirement savers, and the american people. i urge adoption of my amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: thank you. we oppose this amendment. i do yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. 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 98 printed in part b of house report number 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: mr. speaker, as the designee of mr. steil, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 98, printed in part b of house

report number 118-269. offered by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, and a member posed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman: again, mr. speaker, this is pretty much what the previous amendment i had. stopping the assault on the american taxpayer. what this amendment would do is prohibit funds for the s.e.c.'s 2022 proxy advisory rule. by issuing this new rule the biden s.e.c. gutted key safeguards from the previous administration. those safeguards provided sorely needed accountability and transparency for the proxy visor industry. i.s.s. and glass lewis, the new main proxy advisor firms. control 97% of the market for proxy advice. the businesses that manage our retirement savings rely on these firms when deciding how to vote

on corporate governments issue. the two they rely on control 97%. they are the ones that have the expertise. and this is -- to say anything different is just flat out wrong and not in reality. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mr. cartwright: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the s.e.c.'s 2022 proxy visor rule -- advisor rule promotes transparency and accountability by requiring approximate any advisory firms to provide more disclosure about their methodologies, their potential conflicts of interest, and their engagement with issuers. this rule aims to improve the accuracy and reliability of proxy advisory recommendations

which play a crucial role in corporate governments. the s.e.c.'s 2022 proxy advisor rule strikes a balance between the interest of issuers, investors, and proxy advisory firms. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: mr. speaker, i'll close with the fact that instead of this powerful fueling a movement to weaponize your retirement funds to basically push a political agenda that this biden administration has been so adamant on. both firms often recommend in favor of harmful e.s.g. measures and proposals that violate state or local law. . they have a listening track record of factual errors and

special interests. the biden administration continue to push a political agenda and make bad decisions. our retirement savings should be geared toward higher return, not political objectives. i urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. cartwright: we oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. agreed to. it is new in order to consider amendment number 99 printed in part b of house report 118-269. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. steube: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment neurm 99 printed in part b of house report 118-269, offered by mr. steube of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 847, the gentleman from florida, mr. steube, and a member opposed reach will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. steube: thank you, mr. speaker. our federal bureaucracy is riddled with wasteful and purposeless offices that do nothing but fuel the flames of divisiveness in our government. why sour federal government more concerned with advancing programs that fuel racism over the needs of the american people? these offices seek to treat people differently based on immutable characteristics like the color of their skin or their gender. that should be offensive to all office in congress. my amendment would eliminate funding for the communications, equity and diversity commission within the f.c.c. the mission of this woke d.e.i. office is to, quote, advance equity and the provision of and access to digital communications

services. further it seeks to advance progressive priorities by elevating certain small businesses based merely on the race or gender of the business owner. through the establishment of this council it's clear they're working for politically faiferred groups rather than the american people as a whole. we are seeing the results of this through draft rules implementing an obscure provision that directed the f.c.c. to prevent, quote, digital discrimination. your guess is as good as mine as to what that has to do with infrastructure. democrats on the f.c.c. seek to go beyond the plain letter of this law and define digital discrimination to include disparate impact as evidence of discrimination. this means that the f.c.c. could find the internet providers are guilty of discrimination simply because some arias of the country have lightly is -- slightly better access to the internet than others regardless of whether there's evidence of actual, legitimate discrimination. unfortunately, even our internet

access to not immune to the scourge of d.e.i. ideology. these divisive deform e.i. ideologies deserve no place now federal government and i progressive, woke ideology. i reserve. the chair: f from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition that amendment. the equity and diversity council at the f.c.c. is instrumental in promoting inclusivety within the organization. by championing diversity it ensures that the work force represents a broader spectrum of perspectives fostering a more incluesive and equitable workplace. the council's existence improves decision making at the f.c.c. by incorporating diverse viewpoints, diverse teams are more likely to generate innovative ideas, leading to better policies and regulations that benefit a wider range of people in the ever-evolving

communications and technology sector. the equity and diversity council also plays a crucial role in ensuring the f.c.c. complies with american law. as well as ethical guidelines related to diversity and equity in employment. for these reasons i strongly oppose this amendment and i do urge a no vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. steube: section 60506 of the iiha mandates the f.c.c. develop a regulation to prevent digital discrimination of broadband access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, realor national origin. they want to use this provision to promulgate a regulation that goes beyond intentional discrimination they want toin collude disparate impact as a form of discrimination under the rule. under a disparate impact

analysis, evidence of discrimination can be found solely in the outcome of certain practices. essentially internet service provide have to provide the same exact product at the same speeds turnover customer to avoid a potential government investigation. if there's even a small difference in connectivity in an area inhabited by low-income individuals in comparison with wealthier air dwhraryks f.c.c. could claim the provider is guilty of discrimination under the draft rules promoted by these rules. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. the chair: is the gentleman yielding back in mr. steube: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mr. cartwright: we oppose the amendment. i yield back. and i say good evening. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized mr. steube: i encourage my colleagues to vote for this very good amendment and 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 to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. westerman: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having

had under consideration h.r. 4664, directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the chair: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4664 and has come to no resolution -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union and is issued a veto. current government funding run out friday, november 17 at midnight. you can watch live coverage of the u.s. house when members return here on c-span. if you ever missed c-span

coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you through interesting and newsworthy highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> c-span is our unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more. including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports-span as a public serv