[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1960-H1977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2811, LIMIT, SAVE, GROW ACT OF 
2023, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 39, DISAPPROVING THE 
 RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RELATING TO ``PROCEDURES 
  COVERING SUSPENSION OF LIQUIDATION, DUTIES AND ESTIMATED DUTIES IN 
             ACCORD WITH PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 10414''

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 327 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 327

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2811) to 
     provide for a responsible increase to the debt ceiling, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their 
     respective designees and the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 39) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Commerce relating to ``Procedures Covering Suspension of 
     Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With 
     Presidential Proclamation 10414''. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time is 
yielded for the purposes of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on House Resolution 327.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and met 
and met and reported out a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 
2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, and H.J. Res. 39, a joint 
resolution of disapproval that ends President Biden's rule protecting 
Chinese solar manufacturers that are illegally violating U.S. trade 
law.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2811 under a closed rule. 
It provides 2 hours of general debate and one motion to recommit. The 
rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 39 under a closed 
rule with 1 hour of general debate and one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the United States Government hit our 
statutory debt limit of $31.3 trillion. That is an astonishing number. 
It is over 120 percent of our annual gross domestic product.
  This level of spending is simply unsustainable, and the American 
people know it. Three out of every four Americans support taking action 
on the national debt. They know that if we do nothing and keep moving 
forward as we have been doing, the result will be leaving a huge burden 
for our children and grandchildren; a pile of debt, a weak economy, and 
a broken currency.
  You would think, given all that, the staggering reality, that 
President Biden and congressional Democrats would acknowledge the need 
to do something to address this problem. You would think they would be 
open to doing what we have done many, many times in the past: to couple 
needed fiscal reforms with an agreement to lift the debt ceiling. You 
would even think that President Biden, who himself personally 
negotiated several debt ceiling increases over the years, would be 
willing to sit down with us and talk.
  Instead, we have heard none of this. No, we will not negotiate with 
you. No, we will not talk about the Federal budget. No, we won't look 
at commonsense reforms. No. No. No.
  Instead, President Biden and congressional Democrats insist it is 
their way or the highway. There will be no reforms, no changes to 
Federal spending, not even clawing back the unspent pandemic relief 
funds that are no longer necessary.
  With the passage of the Limit, Save, Grow Act, the House will stand 
with the American people who desperately want us to fix our national 
debt problem. That fix starts here in today's bill.
  Mr. Speaker, our second item for today, H.J. Res. 39, is a joint 
resolution of disapproval of a Biden administration rule that would 
suspend import duties on solar panels made with components from the 
People's Republic of China.
  Mr. Speaker, Communist China does not play by the same rules as the 
rest of the world. Chinese leadership will do whatever it takes to 
advance the Chinese Communist Party's interest to the detriment of the 
American economy.
  China has been unfairly subsidizing the production of solar cells and 
modules and dumping them on the U.S. market at below cost. It should 
come as no surprise that China is also attempting to get around the 
existing import duties by routing their subsidized solar components 
through four countries: Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.
  Instead of holding them accountable for their actions, President 
Biden suspended the penalties for 2 years, presumably to appease 
climate activists who have no interest in America's job creators and 
manufacturers. If the House does not act, China's bad behavior will go 
unchallenged, and American solar manufacturers will continue to get a 
raw deal.
  Mr. Speaker, we must stand up to Communist China. We must call out 
their inappropriate behavior on the global stage. When it is called 
for, we must protect American manufacturers against unfair competition. 
H.J. Res. 39 will accomplish all of these goals and will do so in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1961]]

  

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let's begin. We are dealing with this default on America 
bill. It is a doozy, even by the measurements that we judge this 
current majority in Congress. How did we get here?
  I will tell you how we got here. The process is lousy. It stinks. We 
heard promise after promise after promise about how great Republicans 
would be when they were in charge; about how open and transparent and 
fair things would be here. It is clear now that it was all a bunch of 
talk, all phony. They never meant any of it.
  There was no hearing, no markup, no amendments, no nothing. The CBO 
score came out 5 minutes before the hearing started. The manager's 
amendment released at 12:45 a.m. The Rules Committee met for 6 hours 
and then we adjourned until 11:30 p.m. Democrats sat waiting in an 
empty room for 45 minutes.
  We were told to come back at 1:45 in the morning.
  In the midnight seance that the Republicans conducted in the 
chairman's office, out comes this new language that is supposed to 
satisfy the extreme rightwing of the extreme rightwing.
  Basically, some of my Republican colleagues had an objection that the 
bill didn't screw people fast enough. Get this, after all their talk 
about how horrible the Inflation Reduction Act was, we find out that 
some of their Members actually love parts of the Inflation Reduction 
Act and demanded that we protect it, even if it meant changing the bill 
at 2 a.m. in the morning.
  Let me tell everyone else, in case you missed it--because some people 
go to sleep before 2 a.m.--this all happened at 2 a.m. Shhh. Secret.
  Speaker McCarthy said himself that you just can't throw something on 
the floor. Those were his words. But here we are and this bill is being 
thrown on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, 25 of the 32 rules this Congress has done have been 
completely closed. The Rules Committee has allowed to the floor only 91 
amendments so far. When I was in charge, at this point we had allowed 
to the floor 199 amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of all Democratic amendments have not been 
allowed to be debated. Republican Whip   Tom Emmer told us yesterday 
that the bill was closed. It is not getting changed, he said. And then 
what did they do just a few hours later? They changed it.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked Chairman Smith last night in the Rules Committee 
if he liked the way this bill was being brought up. You know what he 
said to me?
  I am not in charge.
  Well, it is his committee. Who is in charge of whether or not they 
hold a hearing or a markup?
  Just as a lesson for our new Members who demanded more regular order, 
this is not it. I would like a single Republican to come down here and 
defend the process that was used here. I bet they won't because they 
cannot.
  Here we are debating this bill, the default on America act. We are 
happy to have a conversation on our spending priorities. Absolutely. We 
welcome that conversation. This isn't a conversation. They handed us a 
ransom note.
  They say that in order to agree to pay our bills for 1 year, we have 
to make 10 years of deep cuts that will hurt our constituents. This is 
a ransom note. Then what happens a year from now? What is next? Do you 
want our first-born children in exchange for paying the bills on time?
  Republicans have said that unless we screw regular people, working 
people, veterans, the environment--I could go right down the list--
unless we do that, Republicans are going to push this economy off a 
cliff, damaging our credit rating, crashing Wall Street, resulting in 
all kinds of job loss, and putting us into a recession. That is the 
choice they are giving us here today.
  Here is the deal, and this is what is really galling. Republicans are 
telling us that in order to get our fiscal house in order so we can pay 
our bills, not a single dollar can be saved at the Pentagon, that 
billionaires can't pay another cent in taxes. To get our fiscal house 
in order, we need to nickel-and-dime moms and dads, workers and 
veterans, and regular people.
  Billionaires and CEOs received trillions in tax cuts when Republicans 
were in charge. Trillions. They want to screw the people that I came to 
Congress to represent--it takes my breath away, Mr. Speaker--regular 
people, working people, the farmers, and the veterans. They want to 
kick people off healthcare. They want to cut funding to stop drugs from 
coming into America. They want to fire teachers, and they want to take 
food away from women, infants, and children. What is wrong with them, 
Mr. Speaker?
  I know my friend, Chairman Cole--and he is my friend--cares deeply 
about programs like Head Start. In his own State, this bill would cut 
3,300 children off of Head Start. These are real kids for God's sake. 
Don't take my word for it. The National Head Start program says:

       Make no mistake, the current debt limit and budget 
     legislation under consideration in the House of 
     Representatives will cause irreparable damage to Head Start.

  It is not mathematically possible to make the cuts that they are 
talking about without hurting our own constituents. All this so that we 
can appease the extreme MAGA wing of the Republican Party.
  The contempt that so many on the other side of the aisle have for 
people who are poor, who are struggling, who are working hard but 
having trouble making ends meet because the other side won't even raise 
the minimum wage, it is stunning.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a bill loaded up with all these new work 
requirements and hurdles for people to jump through. It will result in 
people losing SNAP, losing Meals on Wheels benefits, losing assistance 
to pay for infants and children. Yet, there has not been a single 
hearing on this topic. Not one.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked: Who are these people in real life that you 
claim don't work who are on SNAP? Who are the people you are talking 
about?
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the 
Budget Committee gave me a blank stare. I asked: What is the average 
SNAP benefit? That is a pretty basic question if you feel strongly 
about this program. They had no idea. Not a clue. Not even a guess.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked: What is the average length that someone is on 
SNAP? They had no idea. This is not about substance or reality, Mr. 
Speaker.
  By the way, the average SNAP benefit per person per meal is about $2. 
The average time somebody is on the benefit is less than a year. This 
is not about substance or reality.
  The bottom line is if this is what the American people want, as the 
Republicans say--many of them kept saying it over and over in the Rules 
Committee, which I could not believe because I think most people in 
this country are horrified about what they are trying to do here--if 
they think that is what the American people want, then they should win 
the White House and win the Senate.
  They were supposed to win the House by a huge margin, but that red 
wave turned into a pink splash. I don't think you are going to be 
around in the leadership here much longer, quite frankly.

                              {time}  1230

  Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. America pays our bills. This is a 
ransom note.
  Republicans want to default on America, and all Democrats are asking 
for is that you listen to Trump. You know him. He is the guy you are 
all afraid of. He said: ``I can't imagine anybody ever even thinking of 
using the debt ceiling as a negotiation wedge. . . . That is a very, 
very sacred thing. . . . We could never play with it.''
  That is the guy whom you are all afraid of. That is what he said.
  Listen to Speaker McCarthy in 2015: ``When the United States makes 
promises, it keeps them, which is why the House voted today to avoid 
the threat of a debt default.''
  That was Speaker McCarthy. I guess he forgot.
  This is a simple, routine part of doing our job, something all of us 
should be able to get behind.
  If you want to have a conversation about spending priorities, that is 
the

[[Page H1962]]

appropriations process or the budget process, but it is not holding our 
Nation hostage. It is not a ransom note.
  Don't default on America, Speaker McCarthy. Do your job. Do what you 
said we would do: keep America's promises. Don't mess around with the 
full faith and credit of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on 
the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great respect for my friend, Mr. McGovern, but, of course, 
most of the things he mentioned simply aren't in the bill.
  What really happened last night is that we have been trying to get 
you guys to negotiate for weeks and for months. We are going to raise 
the debt ceiling, something we said we were going to do and do in the 
legislation, and here is our opening offer.
  Where is yours? We don't have one. We don't have one from the 
President. We have a Democratic Senate that can't produce one. So, we 
are going to put the ball over and see what you guys are actually going 
to do with it.
  I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the work 
requirements we are including in this legislation are, in fact, less 
strict than the ones that then-Senator Biden supported in the 1990s. We 
should be helping people attain self-sufficiency as opposed to having 
them simply depend on the Federal Government.
  That doesn't seem like a radical idea. That seems like common sense 
to me, and I think most Americans anyplace in the country would support 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy), who is my very good friend and a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I never know who I am, whether I am a rightwing MAGA 
extremist or a Ron DeSantis-supporting RINO. Today, where I am here on 
the floor is--I would just say this: ``I cannot agree to vote for a 
full increase in the debt without any assurance that steps will be 
taken . . . to reduce the alarming increase in the deficits and the 
debt.'' Those aren't my words. Those were Joe Biden's words in October 
1984, when the debt was $1.5 trillion.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hiding. They want to 
hide behind process. What they don't want the American people to know 
is that this bill has been available since last Wednesday; that of the 
20 debt ceiling increases since 2000, only two have gone through 
committee; that H.R. 1 in this bill went through regular order and 
passed off the floor; that the REINS Act, which is in this bill in its 
existing form, passed this very body on a bipartisan basis in 2017; 
that the spending repeals that we have in this bill are clean cuts, 
cutting the very things that this body with Democrat control passed 
with 158 proxy votes in August, calling people back and forcing some of 
us to have to fly back with the kind of process that we learned to 
expect under Speaker Pelosi.
  Instead, here, what did we have last night? Yes, we had an agreement 
late at night. Do you know what that agreement was, Mr. Speaker? It was 
a recognition of the deal that had already been constructed, which was 
to say we are going to repeal the god-awful IRA subsidies destroying 
our economy, which are absolutely going to enrich a handful of 
corporate America, pushing their green subsidies, enriching themselves, 
and destroying the American economy and energy freedom.
  That is what we are doing: restoring exactly what agreement had been 
reached that we had decided last week.
  The simple fact is that the American people don't really care what my 
Democratic colleagues have to say because it is more of the same scare 
tactics.
  They want to say that we are cutting spending to oblivion, yet the 
reality is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, is if you kept the 
fiscal year 2023 defense level spending--last year's defense spending--
and add to it the nondefense level of that MAGA extremist Barack Obama 
that he proposed in his last budget for fiscal year 2024, then you get 
exactly the $1.471 trillion level we are proposing. That is the truth.
  Proposing pre-COVID nondefense level spending; proposing a defense to 
match China; proposing the kind of cuts the American people expect us 
to do in upfront first-year cuts, to cut student loans that are unfair 
to the plumber and making sure that they are biased toward kids who 
rack up debt; we are going to make sure that we are increasing our 
economic productivity by getting rid of the regulatory stranglehold 
with the regulations that are in the IRA regulations; and then we are 
going to make sure that we get rid of the COVID spending to $50 billion 
of unobligated dollars, in addition to making sure that the American 
people can carry out their business without constraint from 
government--in short, we are going to shrink Washington and grow 
America.
  The American people are tired of the same. They want us to do our 
job. They are tired of Chuck Schumer and President Biden doing 
absolutely nothing.
  Republicans in the House are doing our job, and we are going to send 
this over to the Senate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report by The 
Balance titled: ``President Trump's Impact on the National Debt.''

                   [From the balance, Jan. 26, 2022]

             President Trump's Impact on the National Debt

                          (By Kimberly Amadeo)

       The national debt increased by almost 36 percent during 
     Trump's tenure.
       Republican candidate Donald Trump promised during the 2016 
     presidential campaign that he would eliminate the nation's 
     debt in eight years.
       Instead, his budget estimates showed that he would actually 
     add at least $8.3 trillion, increasing the U.S. debt to $28.5 
     trillion by 2025. But the national debt reached that figure 
     much sooner. The national debt stood at $19.9 trillion when 
     President Trump took office in January 2017, and it reached a 
     high of $27 trillion in October 2020.
       The national debt reached another high of $28 trillion less 
     than two months after President Trump left office. In 
     December 2021, Congress then increased the debt limit by $2.5 
     trillion, to almost $31.4 trillion, as debt rose again under 
     President Joe Biden.


                  How Did the National Debt Increase?

       At first it seemed that Trump was lowering the debt. It 
     fell $102 billion in the first six months after he took 
     office. The debt was $19.9 trillion on Jan. 20, the day Trump 
     was inaugurated. It was $19.8 trillion on July 30, thanks to 
     the federal debt ceiling.
       Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling on Sept. 8, 
     2017. The debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in 
     U.S. history later that day. Trump signed a bill on Feb. 9, 
     2018, suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019. The 
     total national debt was at $22 trillion by February 2019. 
     Trump again suspended the debt ceiling in July 2019 until 
     after the 2020 presidential election.
       The debt hit a record $27 trillion on Oct. 1, 2020 before 
     reaching further peaks in 2021 that caused Congress to act 
     again to raise the debt limit in December.
       Trump oversaw the fastest increase in the debt of any 
     president, almost 36 percent from 2017 to 2020.


             Did President Trump Reduce the National Debt?

       Trump promised two strategies to reduce U.S. debt before 
     taking office: He would increase growth by 4 percent to 6 
     percent, and he would eliminate wasteful federal spending.


                           Increasing Growth

       Trump promised while on the campaign trail to grow the 
     economy by 4 percent to 6 percent annuallv to increase tax 
     revenues. Once in office, he lowered his growth estimates to 
     between 2 percent and 3 percent. These more realistic 
     projections are within the 2 percent to 3 percent healthy 
     growth rate.
       President Trump also promised to achieve between 2 percent 
     and 4 percent growth with tax cuts. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
     cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent 
     beginning in 2018. The top individual income tax rate dropped 
     to 37 percent. The TCJA doubled the standard deduction and 
     eliminated personal exemptions. The corporate cuts are 
     permanent, but the individual changes expire at the end of 
     2025.
       According to the Laffer curve, tax cuts only stimulate the 
     economy enough to make up for lost revenue when the rates are 
     above 50 percent . It worked during the Reagan administration 
     because the highest tax rate was 70 percent at that time.


                 Eliminating Wasteful Federal Spending

       Trump's second strategy was to eliminate waste and 
     redundancy in federal spending. He demonstrated this cost-
     consciousness during his campaign when he used his Twitter 
     account and rallies instead of expensive television ads.

[[Page H1963]]

       Trump was right that there is waste in federal spending. 
     The problem isn't finding it. The problem is in cutting it. 
     Each program has a constituency that lobbies Congress. 
     Eliminating these benefits may lose voters and contributors. 
     Congressional representatives may agree to cut spending in 
     someone else's district, but they resist doing so on their 
     own.
       More than two-thirds of government spending goes to 
     mandatory obligations made by previous acts of Congress. 
     Social Security benefits cost $1.2 trillion in Fiscal Year 
     2021. Medicare cost $722 billion, and Medicaid cost $448 
     billion. The interest on the debt was $378 billion.
       Military spending must also be cut to lower the debt 
     because it's such a large portion of the budget. But Trump 
     increased military spending in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 to $933 
     billion. That includes three components:
       $636 billion base budget for the Department of Defense
       $69 billion in overseas contingency operations for DoD to 
     fight the Islamic State group
       $229 billion to fund the other agencies that protect our 
     nation, including the Department of Veterans Affairs ($105 
     billion), Homeland Security ($50 billion), the 
     State Department ($44 billion), the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration in the Department of Energy ($20 
     billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity for the 
     eDepartment of Justice ($10 billion)
       Only $595 billion was left to pay for everything else 
     budgeted for FY 2021 after mandatory and military spending. 
     That includes agencies that process Social Security and other 
     benefits. It also includes the necessary functions performed 
     by the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue 
     Service. We'd have to eliminate it all to make a dent in the 
     $966 billion deficit.
       You can't reduce the deficit or debt without major cuts to 
     defense and mandated benefits programs. Cutting waste isn't 
     enough.


      Did Trump's Business Debt Affect His Approach to U.S. Debt?

       Trump said in an interview with CNBC during his 2016 
     campaign that he would ``borrow, knowing that if the economy 
     crashed, you could make a deal.'' But sovereign debt is 
     different from personal debt. It can't be handled the same 
     way.
       A 2016 Fortune magazine analysis revealed Trump's business 
     was $1.11 billion in debt. That includes $846 million owed on 
     five properties. These include Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, 
     and 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York. It also includes 
     the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., and 555 California 
     Street in San Francisco. But the income generated by these 
     properties easily pays their annual interest payment. Trump's 
     debt is reasonable in the business world.
       The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was 129 percent at the end of 
     2020. That's the $27.8 trillion U.S. debt as of December 
     2020, divided by the $21.5 trillion nominal GDP at the end of 
     the second quarter this year.
       The World Bank compares countries based on their total 
     debt-to-gross domestic product ratio. It considers a country 
     to be in trouble if that ratio is greater than 77 percent.
       The high U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio didn't discourage 
     investors. America is one of the safest economies in the 
     world and its currency is the world's reserve currency. 
     Investors purchase U.S. Treasurys in a flight to safety even 
     during a U.S. economic crisis. That's one reason why interest 
     rates plunged to historical lows in March 2020 after the 
     coronavirus outbreak. Those falling interest rates meant that 
     America's debt could increase, but interest payments remain 
     stable.
       The U.S. also has a massive fixed pension expense and 
     health insurance costs. A business can renege on these 
     benefits, ask for bankruptcy, and weather the resulting 
     lawsuits, but a president and Congress can't cut back those 
     costs without losing their jobs at the next election. As 
     such, Trump's experience in handling business debt did not 
     transfer to managing the U.S. debt.


                   How the National Debt Affects You

       The national debt doesn't affect you directly until it 
     reaches the tipping point. It slows economic growth once the 
     debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77 percent, for an extended period 
     of time. Every percentage point of debt above this level 
     costs the country 0.017 percentage points in economic growth, 
     according to a World Bank analysis.
       The first sign of trouble is when interest rates start to 
     rise significantly. Investors need a higher return to offset 
     the greater perceived risk. They start to doubt that the debt 
     can be paid off.
       The second sign is that the U.S. dollar loses value. You 
     will notice that as inflation rises, imported goods cost 
     more. Gas and grocery prices rise. Travel to other countries 
     also becomes much more expensive.
       The cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on 
     the debt will skyrocket as interest rates and inflation rise. 
     That leaves less money for other services. The government 
     will be forced to cut services or raise taxes at that point. 
     This will further slow economic growth. Continued deficit 
     spending will no longer work at that point.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, talk about spending. The national debt 
increased by almost 36 percent from 2017 to 2020 during Trump's tenure.
  I say to the gentleman who just spoke--a lot of yelling here. The 
last time I heard that kind of tone was when he was yelling about the 
need to have more regular order here. I guess he has forgotten about 
that. Just because the gentleman yells doesn't mean he is right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule to 
advance this cruel, extreme, and unworkable default on America act that 
will throw us into a recession, that will crash our economy, and that 
will throw 1.7 million women and children off of nutrition assistance 
and seniors off of Medicare.
  It is hypocrisy for my Republican colleagues to say that they somehow 
suddenly care about the debt when they passed the 2017 tax scam that 
increased the deficit by $2 trillion. Nearly half of those tax cuts 
went to the top 5 percent, but now, all of a sudden, they care about 
debt and want to cut nutrition assistance to nearly 3 million women, 
children, and seniors.
  Democrats cut child poverty in half, and we taxed the wealthiest 
billionaires and corporations to pay their fair share. We are building 
our economy while MAGA Republicans are threatening to throw us into 
chaos, and that is on the pocketbooks of regular, working Americans, 
who are going to suffer if we go into default, if we go into recession, 
and if we lose millions of jobs.
  This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Langworthy), who is a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, which 
provides consideration of the Limit, Save, Grow Act. It is a bill that 
is critical to our country's economic future.
  President Biden characterized the Limit, Save, Grow Act as 
``irresponsible,'' that this commonsense legislation was really asking 
hardworking Americans, seniors, and children to shoulder an enormous 
new burden. The only thing irresponsible would be to do nothing.
  If we want to talk about a burden on the backs of hardworking 
Americans, then let's actually talk about it. Let's dig into it.
  Let's talk about how folks in my home State of New York had to pay as 
much as 40 percent more this winter just to heat their homes while the 
Biden administration halted new pipeline construction and new 
exploration, and they brought the approval of new oil and gas 
infrastructure to a standstill.
  Let's talk about how seniors in rural communities across my district 
living on fixed incomes can now afford less in an inflation-ridden 
economy where the basic cost of goods and groceries has exploded and 
crushed their budgets.
  Let's talk about the $80 billion for the IRS to supply an army of new 
bureaucrats ready to rain down audit after audit onto middle-class 
families and small, mom-and-pop business owners.
  These are the burdens shouldered by the American people for the 
trillions of dollars in spending that Democrats have foisted onto their 
backs and onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, if we care about the future that we would like to leave 
our children and grandchildren, a future that isn't crushed by debt, 
inflation, and paying the price for today's excesses, then we should 
have no problem in supporting this critical step forward.
  I strongly support the Limit, Save, Grow Act, a bill that saves 
hardworking Americans from continuing to shoulder the burden of 
Democrats' destructive spending policies.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to debunk this talking point that I hear over and 
over again from my friends. I just heard it right now when we were 
talking about spending.
  Let's remember a couple of things.
  First, when Donald Trump was in charge, $8 trillion was added to the 
national debt. That is a 39-percent increase. It is one-quarter of the 
entire debt from all of American history. So, please, give me a break.
  Second, let's be clear: Inflation is a global problem. Mr. Speaker, 
if you think that the American Rescue Plan drove up prices in Italy or 
the U.K., then I have news for you. If you think emergency rescue 
checks are responsible for inflation in Brazil and Australia, maybe you 
got your economics

[[Page H1964]]

degree from Trump University. That is not how things work. Don't take 
my word for it. Look at the numbers. Actually, look at the research.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Social 
Security Administration, which states that Republican spending cuts 
would eliminate field offices, drive up wait times for initial 
disability and retirement claims processing, lengthen phone wait times, 
and create backlogs across the board.
                                   Social Security Administration,


                                             The Commissioner,

                                    Baltimore, MD, March 17, 2023.
     Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
     Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your January 19, 
     2023 letter asking for information to help Members of 
     Congress understand the impacts of capping fiscal year (FY) 
     2024 discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted level, 
     which would be approximately a six percent cut from our FY 
     2023 enacted funding. Returning SSA to the FY 2022 funding 
     level or, more drastically, cutting funds by 22 percent from 
     the 2023 enacted level, would greatly harm our ability to 
     serve the public as we are already struggling to recover from 
     the effects of the pandemic.
       We are actively using the funding increase we received in 
     FY 2023 to support our hiring efforts to increase staffing as 
     we work to restore sufficient staffing from our lowest 
     staffing levels in over 25 years, particularly in our field 
     offices, teleservice centers, processing centers, and State 
     disability determination services (DDS). Hiring new staff is 
     necessary to improve major workload challenges that affect 
     the public we serve, including people waiting far too long 
     for a disability decision. Funding cuts of the magnitude 
     described above would take us backwards and hurt our 
     customers.
       If we return to FY 2022 funding levels in FY 2024, we 
     would:
       Close field offices and shorten hours we are open to the 
     public, cutting off vital access to face-to-face service 
     delivery.
       Increase the amount of time individuals wait for a decision 
     on their initial disability claim, leading to an average wait 
     time of 9 months, or up to 30 percent longer than today.
       Implement a hiring freeze for the agency and the DDS, which 
     means a reduction of over 5,000 employees who are essential 
     to processing retirement claims, making disability decisions, 
     answering the National 800 Number, and issuing new and 
     replacement Social Security cards.
       Furlough staff for over 4 weeks and lay off approximately 
     6,000 employees--producing even longer wait times than 
     customers experience today on our National 800 Number and in 
     our field offices, causing delays to decisions on retirement 
     claims and delays in processing Social Security cards and 
     verification of Social Security Numbers for individuals 
     seeking employment.
       Eliminate overtime pay, reducing our ability to keep pace 
     with claims and other service requests.
       As noted above, a cut to FY 2022 levels (a six percent cut 
     below current funding) would significantly affect our ability 
     to serve the public and undermine our core mission--producing 
     longer wait times for benefits and to reach SSA 
     representatives, as well as reduced access to in-person 
     service.
       Congress expressed an expectation for continued 
     modernization of our IT by providing dedicated funding for 
     this purpose. A six percent reduction would support IT 
     funding only for basic operational requirements and would 
     halt our efforts to improve the customer experience, expand 
     our online services, and enhance our systems to improve 
     employee efficiency. We would have to drastically cut IT at a 
     time when we need it to help mitigate other cuts like office 
     hour reductions, a hiring freeze, and layoffs.
       The impacts would be even more significant with deeper 
     cuts. If we are faced with a cut of more than six percent, it 
     would be catastrophic for the agency and for the people 
     depending on Social Security programs supporting their daily 
     needs. For every $100 million below the 6 percent reduction, 
     we would have to lay off an additional 1,000 people, further 
     undermining services to the public. Every 1,000 staff lay off 
     is the equivalent of closing over 40 field offices.
       Cuts on this scale would dramatically undermine our ability 
     to function effectively. It would cut in-person access to our 
     field offices, drive up wait times for initial disability and 
     retirement claims processing, lengthen phone wait times, 
     prohibit development of online tools to compensate for the 
     difficulties to reach us by phone and in-person, and create 
     backlogs across the board. It would take years to recover and 
     restore services to levels the public expects.
       Millions of Americans depend on Social Security programs to 
     provide income support essential to meeting daily needs, and 
     significant budget cuts prohibit us from providing people 
     with access to vital support. The payments and benefits our 
     programs provide are integral to the economic fabric of our 
     Nation. We appreciate the opportunity to explain the harm a 
     return to FY 2022 funding levels or less would cause for the 
     public we serve, as well as our employees.
           Sincerely,
                                   Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., M.S.W.,
                                              Acting Commissioner.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Republicans are trying to make it harder for seniors to 
access the benefits that they have earned.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, 
then I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration 
of a resolution that allows the House to state unequivocally that it is 
our responsibility to defend and preserve Social Security and Medicare 
for generations to come and reject any cuts to these vital programs.
  By the way, these two programs have come under attack by Republican 
after Republican.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a fierce defender from New 
Mexico to support this amendment to defend our Social Security and our 
Medicare.
  As our colleagues across the aisle are trying to gut Social Security 
and Medicare, Democrats are looking for long-term solutions not only to 
expand these lifesaving programs but to ensure that they are solvent 
for generations to come.
  These programs are lifelines for people in New Mexico. In fact, in 
New Mexico, we have the highest share of individuals who are on 
Medicaid by population in the country. That is 873,000 New Mexicans who 
depend on Medicaid. Our children in New Mexico depend on Medicaid. Over 
half of our children are on Medicaid.
  These programs save lives.
  I ask my colleagues: What kind of cruel ransom note are they putting 
forward that would gut these programs, that would gut programs that 
feed our children, and that would gut our environmental programs in the 
name of raising our debt ceiling?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask: What is it that we are actually trying to do here 
today?
  That is why I oppose the underlying bill that we are debating today 
and why I support this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and 
to return to the work of the people who elected us.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for 
a couple of points.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend is concerned about the Social Security Act. We 
have a bill on that, a bill very similar to what President Biden 
himself voted for when he was in the United States Senate, both the 
creation of a commission and its final results. I invite my friend to 
look at it. Perhaps he would join it, and it would be inherently 
bipartisan.
  My friend made the point that inflation is a global phenomenon. I 
agree. It absolutely is.
  Mr. Speaker, if you screw up the greatest economy in the world, then 
it has global consequences. That is exactly what my friends did.
  Don't take my word for it. They were warned by Larry Summers, the 
Secretary of the Treasury for Bill Clinton, a distinguished economist. 
They were warned by Steve Rattner, who managed the auto industry under 
President Obama. They were warned by Jason Furman, who was the Chairman 
of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Biden.
  If my friends pass something as large as the American Rescue Plan, 
then we are going to have inflation within a year. We did.
  If my friends would listen to their own economists, then we could 
have avoided this, and we might not have had to take the drastic action 
we are today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, my favorite part of this building is not 
the rotunda or Statuary Hall or even this Chamber. It is a simple quote 
painted above a door downstairs. It is, ``When tillage begins, other 
arts follow. The farmers, therefore, are the founders of human 
civilization.'' It was written by

[[Page H1965]]

Daniel Webster in 1840. It is just simply time for some more truth-
telling.
  It is disingenuous to say publicly that we are ``all of the above'' 
for American energy if we do not embrace biofuels.
  Simultaneously, it is disingenuous to set policy that de facto 
abolishes petrochemicals and yet admits that we will be dependent on 
them for at least another decade. Both positions have been made in this 
Chamber.
  I find this to be either duplicitous or foolish, and I choose to be 
neither.
  Our first President, who overlooks this body, was clear about public 
policy and agriculture. ``It will not be doubted . . . agriculture is 
of primary importance. In proportion as nations advance in population 
and other circumstances of maturity this truth becomes more apparent, 
and renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of 
public patronage.''
  This was written 9 years after the signing of the Declaration of 
Independence, and when Washington says ``more and more'' he 
acknowledges that agriculture has always been an object of public 
patronage and must always be.
  The initial writing of this bill did not acknowledge that. It did not 
stand with the farmers, and I will always stand with our farmers.
  Early this morning, our Conference made great strides in recognizing 
our farmers by including elements of my amendment that protect our corn 
growers and biofuel industries.
  With that said, if this final bill as returned from the Senate 
includes further provisions that do not show the proper respect for our 
farmers, our national security, or the future of nuclear energy, I will 
not vote for its passage. There will be no further negotiations from my 
office.
  To be clear, I voted for Kevin McCarthy for Speaker because I 
believed that he was the person called at this moment to lead this 
Conference and this body, and I don't feel that my 15 votes were in 
error. I have full confidence that he will take the opportunity to keep 
his word to this body and to the American people, and this confidence 
was earned by his willingness to remove several devastating provisions 
from this bill.
  I remind my friends, as Members of this body, we did not take an oath 
to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, we didn't take an oath 
to the President. We all took the same oath to the Constitution. With 
this oath came a responsibility to the people that we represent.
  In reference to this current discussion on the debt ceiling, our 
first President articulated this in a manner that for such a young 
country can only be described as timeless: ``No pecuniary consideration 
is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public 
debt. On none can delay be more injurious or an economy of time more 
valuable.''
  By President Biden refusing to negotiate with this body, he is adding 
to a growing train of usurpations of the constitutional authority 
vested in us by the people that sent us here to represent them. This is 
no more appropriate now than it was when Thomas Jefferson wrote it.
  It is our obligation to get Speaker McCarthy to the table. It is 
Speaker McCarthy's burden to get the President to a place that can both 
meet our collective obligations articulated by George Washington and to 
secure the future for both our progenitors and our progeny.
  I will support this bill. I will vote in favor of it, and I encourage 
all my colleagues to join me in doing so.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I am a little confused after the last speech.
  Mr. Speaker, with the way the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my 
friend, has been talking, you might think that President Biden caused 
inflation all on his own. That is just simply not the case, and 
everybody here knows that.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the nonpartisan, 
nonprofit Economic Policy Institute titled: ``Rising Inflation is a 
Global Problem, U.S. Policy Choices Are Not to Blame.''

           [From the Economic Policy Institute, Aug. 4, 2022]

 Rising Inflation is a Global Problem. U.S. Policy Choices Are Not to 
                                 Blame

          (By Josh Bivens, Asha Banerjee, And Mariia Dzholos)


                             key takeaways

       An international comparison among OECD countries shows that 
     rising inflation is a global phenomenon, not unique to the 
     United States.
       This fact argues strongly that high inflation in the U.S. 
     has not been driven by any unique American policy--not the 
     American Rescue Plan and other generous fiscal relief during 
     the pandemic recession and recovery nor anything else U.S.-
     centric.
       Some have argued that the global rise of inflation means 
     that many countries--including the U.S.--overstimulated their 
     economies and generated excess aggregate demand. But this 
     explanation is not supported by the data. The countries with 
     larger declines in unemployment over the past 18 months have 
     not seen larger inflation spikes.
       Consumer price data for June 2022 showed another month of 
     rapid inflation, with overall inflation rising 9.1 percent 
     year-over-year and core inflation (which doesn't include 
     volatile energy and food prices) rising by 5.9 percent. This 
     level of inflation has obviously become a major political 
     issue this year. But however this issue resonates 
     politically, as an economic matter a common narrative that 
     blames the Biden administration and its policy choices for 
     causing the inflation is deeply misleading.
       This is not simply a case for exonerating the Biden 
     administration's choices--how the recent inflationary 
     outbreak is interpreted will have huge consequences for how 
     policymakers respond. A loud chorus of economic analysts and 
     influential policymakers continue highlighting the need for 
     the Federal Reserve to continue raising interest rates 
     sharply to slow growth to ``rein in'' inflation. This 
     approach risks terrible consequences and threatens to cast 
     aside the amazing policy achievement of a full jobs recovery 
     from the pandemic recession. In the COVID-19 recession, the 
     economy lost over 22 million jobs. But by June 2022 (after 28 
     months), the level of employment in the U.S. matched the last 
     month pre-pandemic (February 2020). Compare this with job 
     growth after the Great Recession of 2008-09, when it took 
     more than six years (75 months) to regain the just under 9 
     million jobs lost and match pre-recession employment levels. 
     The far faster recovery from the COVID-19 recession was 
     significantly driven by a much more aggressive fiscal policy 
     response.
       This more aggressive fiscal response is often blamed for 
     the inflation outbreak over the past 18 months. The most 
     persuasive evidence casting doubt on this interpretation is a 
     comparison of inflation between the U.S. and a large set of 
     other rich countries that undertook a wide array of fiscal 
     responses. Despite the different fiscal responses, 
     essentially all of these countries have experienced a rapid 
     acceleration of core inflation. This means that today's 
     inflation is not a uniquely U.S. problem, and therefore not 
     connected to the necessary and effective economic policies 
     that spearheaded the rapid economic recovery we see today.
       In Figure A, we focus on core inflation (stripping out the 
     prices of energy and food) because that is widely considered 
     a better target for basing decisions about macroeconomic 
     stabilization. Energy and food prices are not just volatile, 
     they are also set on global markets, meaning that their price 
     changes carry very little information about whether the U.S. 
     economy specifically is currently experiencing macroeconomic 
     imbalances. It's also useful to highlight core inflation 
     because much commentary has claimed that inflation in other 
     advanced economies is overwhelmingly about energy and food 
     prices, and far less about core prices. This claim is not 
     supported by the data in Figure A.
       As Figure A shows, all but one Organization for Economic 
     Co-operation and Development (OECD) country saw an 
     acceleration in core inflation. More significantly, this 
     international comparison tells us that the U.S. is not an 
     outlier in its experience with accelerating core inflation 
     (the one obvious outlier in this data--Turkey--is currently 
     experiencing inflation over 40 percent and is not included in 
     the figure). The U.S. is on the higher side of inflation 
     experiences, but far from the top and not that far above the 
     average (or even the median) for all other OECD countries. 
     The upshot of the figure is clear: A global phenomenon--
     accelerating inflation--demands a global explanation, and 
     ``Biden policies'' obviously do not provide that.
       Some have argued that the global rise in inflation is 
     actually just evidence that the excess demand growth they see 
     as driving inflation is also global. Of course, even this 
     perspective provides some small bit of exoneration for 
     American policymakers: if every advanced country in the 
     entire world made similar policy decisions, then it seems 
     hard to argue that the American approach was an avoidable 
     mistake. But, another cut at the international data casts 
     doubt on a simple story of macroeconomic imbalances driving 
     the global inflation surge. Specifically, countries with 
     larger declines in unemployment over the past 18 months have 
     not seen larger inflation spikes.
       In Figure B below, the vertical axis is the acceleration of 
     core inflation relative to pre-pandemic trend that we showed 
     previously in Figure A. On the horizontal axis, we subtract 
     the average unemployment rate of March-May 2022 from the 
     average unemployment rate that prevailed in 2018-2019. This 
     can be taken as an indicator of how much unemployment has 
     improved in a country in the

[[Page H1966]]

     recent period relative to pre-pandemic conditions. The higher 
     the number on the horizontal axis, the lower is current 
     unemployment relative to pre-pandemic averages. If one 
     interprets unemployment that is lower today than pre-pandemic 
     times as evidence of strong demand growth, one would expect 
     to see a positive relationship between the improvement in 
     unemployment (horizontal axis) and the acceleration of 
     inflation (vertical axis). But there is no such significant 
     relationship (in fact, there is a weak relationship the other 
     way, with countries with higher unemployment relative to pre-
     pandemic times seeing higher inflation).
       This finding should further complicate the claim that the 
     ``macroeconomic overheating'' argument should simply be 
     applied globally. And if there is not strong evidence that 
     today's global inflation is simply driven by excess global 
     demand, the payoff to strongly reining in demand could be 
     quite small, and the damage caused by this quite large.
       Rather than the specific policies of the Biden 
     administration driving inflation, the roots of today's 
     inflation are a more complicated cocktail of other forces: 
     from the spike in raw material, energy, and commodities 
     prices due in large part to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 
     to lingering supply chain disruptions and distorted consumer 
     demand patterns stemming from the pandemic. These shocks and 
     their unexpectedly large ripple effects are the global 
     explanation for rising inflation.
       Again, this is not an academic exercise or simply providing 
     political cover for any particular policymaker. Instead, 
     there is real economic danger from misdiagnosing the 
     inflation problem. An engineered, unnecessary recession will 
     only cause more economic pain to those still just recovering 
     from the COVID-19 recession, and will undercut the strong 
     economic recovery underway.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Mark 
Zandi of Moody's Analytics which states that Speaker McCarthy's radical 
cuts would meaningfully increase the likelihood of a recession and 
result in 780,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2024 compared with a clean 
bill to avoid a default.

                        [From Moody's Analytics]

                     The Debt Limit Drama Heats Up

                   (By Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros)

       The political drama over the Treasury debt limit is 
     suddenly heating up. With April tax receipts coming in weaker 
     than expected, at least so far, it appears that the X-date, 
     when the Treasury will run out of the cash needed to pay the 
     government's bills on time, may hit as soon as early June. 
     House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's recent unveiling of proposed 
     legislation to increase the limit is thus none too soon. In 
     exchange for increasing the debt limit just enough so that it 
     will not be a problem again until about this time next year, 
     the Speaker wants to significantly cut discretionary spending 
     over the next decade, impose stricter work requirements on 
     healthcare, food and other assistance for low-income 
     households, and roll back much of the Biden's 
     administration's agenda on climate change and student 
     lending. In this note, we assess the macroeconomic 
     consequences of the Speaker's debt limit legislation.


                               The X-date

       The Treasury debt limit--the maximum amount of debt that 
     the Treasury can issue to the public or to other federal 
     agencies--was hit on January 19, and since then the Treasury 
     has been using ``extraordinary measures'' to come up with the 
     additional cash needed to pay the government's bills. Nailing 
     down precisely when these extraordinary measures will be 
     exhausted, and Treasury will run out of cash and thus be 
     unable to pay everyone on time--the so-called X-date--is 
     difficult. It depends on the timing of highly uncertain tax 
     receipts and government expenditures.
       Since Moody's Analytics began estimating the X-date early 
     this year, we have thought it to be in mid-August. But April 
     tax receipts are running 35 percent below last year's pace, 
     which is meaningfully weaker than anticipated. And despite 
     weaker tax refunds than anticipated, it appears that the X-
     date may come as soon as early June. If not, and Treasury is 
     able to squeak by with enough cash, then the X-date looks 
     more likely to be in late July. That is because Treasury will 
     get a cash infusion from non-withheld tax payments around the 
     June 15 estimated tax deadline, and then another tranche of 
     extraordinary measures will become available, providing 
     Treasury with a few more weeks of cash.


                         Investors take notice

       Regardless, time is running out for lawmakers to act and 
     increase or suspend the debt limit, and global investors are 
     suddenly focusing on the risks posed if they do not act in 
     time. Credit default swaps on Treasury securities--the cost 
     of buying insurance in case Treasury fails to pay its debt on 
     time--have jumped in recent weeks. At close to 100 basis 
     points, CDS spreads on six-month and one-year Treasury 
     securities are already substantially more than in 2011 when 
     that debt limit drama was so unnerving it caused rating 
     agency Standard & Poor's to strip the U.S. of its AAA rating.
       This may overstate investors' angst as the CDS market for 
     buying insurance in the case of a Treasury default is not 
     actively traded, and it does not take much trading to push up 
     the cost of insurance. A few hedge funds speculating on the 
     CDS could drive up the cost since they are purchasing 
     something akin to a lottery ticket. Moreover, the current 
     spread remains far from signaling that investors are 
     attaching much of a probability on a default. For context, 
     during the European debt crisis in 2011, the CDS spread on 
     the sovereign debt of stressed countries in the periphery of 
     the euro zone, including Greece, topped out at 1,400 basis 
     points. Even the CDS for core euro zone countries such as 
     Germany and France were more than 200 basis points at the 
     time.
       That said, the run up in Treasury CDS should not be 
     dismissed out of hand. The recent sharp decline in one-month 
     Treasury bill yields also signals mounting investor angst. As 
     it has become clear in recent days that April tax receipts 
     were coming in weak and the X-date may be just a few weeks 
     away, investors have piled into the safety of one-month 
     Treasury securities. Yields have plummeted, from 4.75 percent 
     at the start of April to less than 3.4 percent currently. At 
     the same time, yields on three-month Treasury bills have 
     continued to rise. The difference between one- and three-
     month Treasury bill yields has never been as wide. Global 
     investors thus appear to be attaching non-zero odds that the 
     debt limit drama will end with a default sometime in June or 
     July.


                       House Republican proposal

       It is thus none too soon that House Speaker McCarthy 
     unveiled the ``Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023'' on April 19. 
     House Republicans hope the legislation will put political 
     pressure on President Biden to negotiate changes in fiscal 
     policy in exchange for an increase in the debt limit. The 
     president continues to reject these efforts, arguing for a 
     so-called clean debt limit increase--an increase in the debt 
     limit without substantive changes to policy. His position is 
     that increasing the debt limit is necessary to pay the 
     government's bills resulting from past fiscal policy 
     decisions, over which there can be no negotiation.
       Speaker McCarthy's proposed legislation would increase the 
     debt limit by $1.5 trillion or until March 31, 2024, 
     whichever comes first. In exchange, it would cut government 
     spending by $4.5 trillion over the next decade and implement 
     a number of consequential changes to fiscal policy. The most 
     significant spending cuts would come by setting fiscal 2024 
     discretionary spending equal to fiscal 2022 spending levels. 
     Annual spending growth would then be capped at 1 percent for 
     the next decade. While not stipulated in the legislation, 
     Republicans would likely work to exclude discretionary 
     spending on defense and veterans' benefits from the cuts, 
     putting the burden of the cuts on nondefense, non-VA 
     discretionary programs. If nondefense discretionary outlays 
     were to bear the full brunt of the proposed budget cuts, they 
     would fall to 2 percent of GDP by fiscal 2033, the lowest 
     since at least the early 1960s.
       The Speaker's debt limit legislation also works to roll 
     back a number of President Biden's policy initiatives. On 
     energy policy, the legislation would focus on increasing 
     fossil fuel supplies through the enactment of House 
     Republicans' energy package, which aims to boost oil and gas 
     production and mining by cutting down on the time it takes to 
     greenlight energy projects. It would also end tax breaks for 
     clean-energy projects and qualifying electric vehicles 
     included in the Inflation Reduction Act.
       On student lending, the legislation would prevent a couple 
     of key executive orders by the Biden administration, 
     including the White House's plan to provide up to $20,000 in 
     student loan forgiveness for some borrowers. That hit a 
     roadblock last year when it was met with several legal 
     challenges, and the Supreme Court is expected to decide its 
     fate later this year. An income-driven repayment plan rolled 
     out by the Education Department earlier this year is also in 
     the crosshairs.
       The Speaker's legislation also imposes restrictions on 
     income support programs, including work requirements on 
     Medicaid recipients who do not have children, an increase in 
     the age limit for work rules under Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program (food assistance), and a requirement that 
     states report on work outcomes under the Temporary Assistance 
     for Needy Families program. It eliminates much of the 
     additional funding provided to the IRS last year to help 
     increase tax enforcement efforts and improve taxpayer 
     services, and it rescinds unspent COVID-19 relief funds. And 
     the legislation would also require congressional approval 
     before major regulations could take effect.


                         macroeconomic impacts

       The Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023 would cut into near-term 
     economic growth if passed into law. Compared with a scenario 
     that includes a clean debt limit increase and no other 
     significant changes to fiscal policy under current law, real 
     GDP in the year ending in the fourth quarter of 2024 would be 
     0.65 percentage point lower. That is, in the Clean Debt Limit 
     scenario, real GDP is expected to grow 2.25 percent in the 
     year compared with 1.6 percent if Speaker McCarthy's 
     legislation becomes law.
       While the economy skirts recession in both scenarios, 
     recession risks are uncomfortably high, with a consensus of 
     economists and many investors and business executives 
     expecting a downturn beginning late this year or early next. 
     The timing of the government spending cuts in the Limit, 
     Save, Grow Act

[[Page H1967]]

     is thus especially inopportune as it would meaningfully 
     increase the likelihood of such a downturn. Indeed, under the 
     legislation, GDP growth is so weak that employment declines 
     in the first three quarter of 2024, and the unemployment rate 
     rises by more than a percentage point to 4.6 percent by the 
     fourth quarter of 2024. Compared with the Clean Debt Limit 
     scenario, by year-end 2024, employment is 780,000 jobs lower, 
     and the unemployment rate is 0.36 percentage point higher.
       The significant government spending cuts in the Limit, 
     Save, Grow Act are substantial headwinds to near-term 
     economic growth. The cuts reduce nondefense outlays by $120 
     billion in fiscal 2024 compared with the Clean Debt Limit 
     scenario, equal to about half a percentage point of GDP. The 
     multipliers on this spending--the change in GDP a year after 
     a change in spending--are estimated to be just over 1, as the 
     programs suffering budget cuts are essential government 
     services and tend to benefit lower-income households that 
     quickly spend any support they receive from the government. 
     Adding to the economic headwinds created by the legislation 
     is the considerable uncertainty created by having to address 
     the debt limit again a year from now. Given that 2024 is a 
     presidential election year, that future debt limit drama may 
     well be even more heated than the current one. This is sure 
     to weigh on investor, business and consumer confidence and 
     thus economic activity.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio).
  Mr. DELUZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule to advance 
this bill. I am opposed to the bill.
  This bill includes massive cuts to veterans' care, 30 million fewer 
medical visits for my fellow veterans. We are going to see my fellow 
veterans wait longer to have their claims heard. They are going to see 
telehealth get worse, mental health services get worse, and 
homelessness issues get worse. This bill is a betrayal of the 
obligation this country has to everyone who served.
  I have seen my fellow veterans used as props on folks' websites and 
in their ads, people wrap themselves in the flag.
  Guess what? You don't get to claim you are here for veterans, 
standing up for veterans when you cut their care. That is what this 
bill does. It is a disgrace. Everyone in the country ought to know it. 
We ought to vote it down.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself quickly such time as I may 
consume just to correct my friend. I did not blame all inflation on 
President Biden. He had a lot of help. He had a Democratic House and a 
Democratic Senate that worked with him to get there, so he certainly 
didn't do it on his own.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock), my very good friend, and a distinguished member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in my 15 years in 
Congress, I will vote for a debt limit increase because for the first 
time we have a bill that is serious about controlling the reckless 
spending that is destroying America's productivity and its prosperity--
$4.8 trillion in savings.
  How could anyone who cares about the debt not vote for this measure?
  The debt limit is there for a reason. If your family is living beyond 
its means and needs to raise its credit limit, it better sit down 
around the kitchen table and have a serious discussion over the 
circumstances that have gotten it into this mess and what steps it 
needs to take to get out. The debt limit is there to assure that we 
have exactly that discussion as a Nation.
  Now, the President and the Democrats across the aisle say they are 
not willing to engage in that discussion. Well, to coin a phrase, 
``Come on, man.''
  When Bill Clinton lost the House in 1994, he reached across the aisle 
to work with House Republicans. Together, a Democratic President and a 
Republican House accomplished wonderful things. They reformed the 
welfare system, as this bill does; they cut spending as a percentage of 
GDP; they produced the biggest capital gains tax cut in history; but 
most importantly, they balanced four budgets in a row and produced one 
of the greatest economic expansions in our Nation's history.
  By the way, Clinton was reelected.
  Americans are soon going to ask themselves, are we better off than we 
were 4 years ago?
  Mr. Biden is going to need a better answer than doubling down on 
policies that two-thirds of Americans are desperately trying to tell 
him have put our country on the wrong track, and that answer is right 
here before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I beg the Democrats to join us to set our Nation's 
finances in order.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, extortion is not a negotiation. 
President Biden actually has a budget that will reduce the deficit. It 
would be better if the Republicans actually came up with a budget, and 
we could talk about that. We are willing to have a conversation, but we 
are not willing to be extorted here.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the fact that this bill could 
monumentally hurt our Nation's heroes.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America and a letter from the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 
opposition to this bill.

        [From the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Apr. 25, 2023]

    Congress, Protect All Services and Programs Needed by Paralyzed 
                      Veterans and Their Families

       Washington, D.C.--Today, Paralyzed Veterans of America 
     Executive Director Carl Blake issued a statement in light of 
     the House' consideration later today of the debt limit 
     package (Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023).
       ``Right now the House of Representatives is preparing to 
     take action on legislation that would couple raising the debt 
     limit with significant cuts in federal spending. PVA has 
     received assurances from some Republican leaders that 
     veterans' funding will not be a target of these cuts, and we 
     appreciate these assurances! But the pending legislation 
     provides no specific protections for veterans with 
     catastrophic disabilities, specifically the services and 
     supports they and their families depend on. Efforts to 
     address the federal deficit must provide concrete protections 
     for veterans, their families, and caregivers, which means 
     explicit direction that the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
     budget will not suffer significant cuts.
       Although ensuring the VA will have the funding needed to 
     meet its fiscal year 2024 needs is our foremost concern, we 
     urge Congress to remember that veterans with significant 
     disabilities depend upon many other Federal services and 
     supports outside of the VA that protect their disability 
     civil rights, employment support, affordable accessible 
     housing, as well as provide benefits that help their families 
     and caregivers. Our responsibility as a nation is to ensure 
     that those who have already sacrificed so much for our way of 
     life are not forced to do so again.''
                                  ____



                                     Veterans of Foreign Wars,

                                                   April 25, 2023.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy: On behalf of the 1.5 million members 
     of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Auxiliary, a 
     significant number of whom rely on U.S. Department of 
     Veterans Affairs (VA) health care and benefits, we write to 
     express our grave concerns with the proposed reports of 
     returning to Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) funding levels for the 
     federal government and its potential effects on veterans 
     programs. Congress has championed monumental advancements in 
     veteran care and benefits in the past few years and we 
     believe we need to continue pushing forward instead of taking 
     steps backward in serving our veterans.
       Plainly stated, the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022 did not 
     exist when funding levels were set for FY 2022. The VFW is 
     gravely concerned the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023 missed 
     the mark by not protecting the advances in care and benefits 
     for toxic-exposed veterans. This could set our collective 
     hard work back years and make veterans once again have to 
     fight for the care and benefits they have earned.
       Through PACT Act reforms, we believe we are on the cusp of 
     resolving many issues that have plagued VA for decades, 
     thanks to the years of hard work from veteran advocates 
     around the country, as well as our faithful supporters in the 
     past few Congresses and across multiple Presidential 
     Administrations. Military Toxic Exposure claim denials, VA 
     processing backlogs, hiring delays, and unacceptable 
     appointment wait times will hopefully be a thing of the past, 
     and we will once again be able to point to VA as a world-
     class provider of healthcare and benefits. These advancements 
     will fade away if they are not resourced properly, which is 
     why the VFW believes returning funding levels to FY22 would 
     likely jeopardize the care and benefits our nation's veterans 
     have earned.
       Bills aiming to return the budget to FY22 funding levels, 
     without explicitly securing care and benefit programs for 
     veterans are intolerable to our organization. The service 
     members, veterans, and families we represent have seen the 
     true cost of more than 20 years of war, and it is 
     unacceptable to ask them to now pay the bill.
       Mr. Speaker, the VFW understands your goal of fiscal 
     responsibility, but we respectfully ask that in the context 
     of Limit, Save,

[[Page H1968]]

     Grow, that you provide explicit assurances on how Congress 
     will continue to properly invest in VA programming--
     specifically, the reforms authorized through the PACT Act. 
     The members of the VFW and our Auxiliary hope you will 
     continue to honor the promise made to the men and women who 
     served our country by reinforcing your long-standing support 
     of those who stood in harm's way. Returning VA to FY22 
     funding levels will negatively affect millions of Americans 
     across the country and we look forward to working with you to 
     make sure this does not happen.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Ryan M. Gallucci,
                        Executive Director, VFW Washington Office.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear our veterans are against this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  This bill makes good on Speaker McCarthy's threat to hold the economy 
hostage. Several of my colleagues have spoken about the draconian cuts 
that this bill would make to our social safety net, to services for 
vulnerable veterans, seniors, families, and children, but it also 
jeopardizes critical investments that were just enacted as part of the 
historic and long-overdue climate rescue measures that were included in 
the Inflation Reduction Act, and those cuts have received less 
attention.
  If you didn't know that this bill gutted billions of dollars of 
environmental measures, you are not alone. Those cuts were made in a 
deal the Speaker negotiated with the extremists who control his 
Conference sometime after midnight last night, around 2 a.m. this 
morning. I am not surprised that they are trying to sneak this 
provision into a bill that they are ramming through the House with no 
hearings.
  The Speaker and his far-right allies argue that Federal spending 
poses the most significant threat to our country while blocking 
legislation to address gun violence, healthcare concerns, and other 
pressing concerns for all of our constituents, but climate change is an 
actual existential threat to our children and to all future 
generations.
  I know the Republican Party isn't fond of looking at the science, but 
without intervention, the facts are clear: Our children will be forced 
to face more frequent climate disasters, new and devastating health 
threats, and untold economic loss. The extremist bill before us 
dismantles the clean energy climate rescue programs that we passed in 
the IRA that are essential for our children to thrive.
  This bill eliminates a billion dollars to promote energy efficient 
construction, $5 billion for loans to back energy infrastructure 
projects, $1.9 billion to improve access to public transportation in 
low-income neighborhoods, and $5 billion to reduce climate pollution in 
addition to gutting environmental review protections.
  Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the Republican Party would so 
carelessly leverage our children's future, health, and safety to 
satisfy political extremists. I am disturbed by the shadowy process 
used to put this bill together.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in response to my friend's statement, we are certainly 
not trying to extort anything from anyone. Quite frankly, it is my 
Democratic friends who are trying to extract something from us that 
they can't get for themselves. If you believe a clean debt ceiling is 
the way to go, pass one in a Democratic Senate. You can't do it. The 
reality is there has to be a negotiation here. What we have said is: 
Hey, we are in good faith extending the debt ceiling; we are doing it 
in this bill. We have a lot of Members who have never voted to do that, 
who are actually doing it.
  Here is our opening position in the negotiation. What is yours? We 
haven't heard that. It is just simply, well, give us what we want and 
pass the President's budget. If they genuinely want to talk, we are 
giving them the opportunity to actually do that.
  I remind my friend, we look forward to discussion, but the first step 
is to raise the debt ceiling. That is what we are going to do here, 
then we will see what the Democrats do in the United States Senate in 
response. Then we can all go to conference and talk this thing out and 
hopefully come to a bipartisan solution.
  The hysterics and theatrics might make good print. That is not the 
reality of the process here. We are operating within the spirit of the 
process. We hope our friends do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished 
member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I left the Capitol at 3 a.m. this 
morning, after fighting Republicans' plans to default on America unless 
we impose drastic spending cuts, cuts that are so severe they will hurt 
farmers and ranchers, kids and families, and this beautiful place we 
call home. Nobody in any State will be protected from their draconian 
cuts.
  When I asked how to explain the bill's drastic cuts to rural 
communities in my district, the Republicans' response was, ``You should 
tell them that we have to prioritize.''
  The Rules Committee Republicans then blocked my amendment to protect 
rural water, housing, and business development programs. In essence, 
they said to rural America, you are not a priority.
  The Republicans blocked my amendment to protect veterans' healthcare, 
the Indian Health Service, and clean energy investments. Veterans are 
clearly not their priority. Healthcare is clearly not their priority. 
Addressing the climate crisis that is fueling disasters across America, 
across the United States, and across this planet is clearly not their 
priority.
  Do you like knowing your food is safe?
  The Republicans' bill could cut 1,800 USDA food inspectors and cost 
our farmers, ranchers, and restaurants $89 billion in lost production 
and $2.2 billion in lost wages.
  The majority blocked my amendment to protect the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service from cuts.
  When Republicans now demand we cut spending on healthcare, safety, 
and housing, what is it for?
  To pay for the tax cuts for the rich that they pushed through in 
2017. Protecting the rich and the wealthy tax cheats clearly must be 
their priority.

                              {time}  1300

  Through backroom dealings, the Republican majority has now settled on 
a bill that backstabs working families. Their bill delivers poison, not 
prosperity.
  Congress must not default on America. America pays its bills. America 
knows how to prioritize what is essential for our prosperity.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think if you happen to be listening to the debate, 
you might get confused. It is as if we are going to impose our will on 
somebody.
  The reality is the Democrats control the United States Senate. The 
Democratic President of the United States has a veto that he can 
sustain in either Chamber.
  What we are saying is let's sit down and talk things through, and 
here is our opening position. That is all that is going on here.
  We are not in a position here to do what my friends did last time, 
and that is both what they regret losing and fear might someday come to 
pass.
  The last time my friends didn't have to negotiate 2 years ago, what 
did they do? An explosion of spending that generated the worst 
inflation in modern American history; the worst inflation in over 40 
years.
  Looking around this Chamber, I think I am probably the only one here 
old enough to remember it.
  The reality is they took a crisis that was ending and used it to 
justify $1.9 trillion worth of spending that many of their own 
economists warned them would lead to inflation. They jammed it through 
without a single vote.
  The next year, they called something an Inflation Reduction Act that 
we all know was a climate bill. They crammed through another $500 
billion worth of spending.
  That doesn't even include plussing up the regular discretionary 
accounts of the United States. My friends own the inflation that has 
impoverished every single American.

[[Page H1969]]

  Every American family is worse off, not better off, given the 
economic stewardship of this administration and, frankly, the 
Democratic Congress.
  We look forward to the debate. We look forward to something my 
friends aren't used to doing, that is actually negotiating, and that is 
what we are talking about.
  We are going to extend the debt limit, just as we said we would. Here 
is our negotiation. Here are our ideas where we can save money. Do you 
have any ideas where we can save money?
  Let's talk about that because you can't get what you want. You can't 
pass through a Democratic Senate a clean debt bill.
  If you can't do it there, you are certainly not going to do it here, 
so let's begin the discussion sooner rather than later.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, my good friend from Oklahoma said that we are engaged 
in theatrics. Well, let me put that to rest. I mean, we are dealing 
with real numbers.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, I asked the chairman of Ways and 
Means and the chairman of the Budget Committee some basic questions 
about the SNAP program. They had no clue.
  People who don't have a clue shouldn't be writing legislation to 
determine policy. They should do the hearings and learn about what the 
facts are.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following:
  A letter from the Department of Energy, which states that reductions 
of this magnitude in this bill would have significant setbacks on U.S. 
competitiveness to adversarial nations like Russia and China;
  A letter from the Department of Labor which states that these cuts in 
this bill would prevent more than 4,000 veterans experiencing or at 
risk of homelessness from receiving critical employment care;
  A letter from the Department of Education, which states that under 
these radical cuts, funding for more than 100,000 teaching jobs 
nationwide would be eliminated, and it would reduce aid for more than 
6.6 million Pell Grant recipients;
  A letter from the Small Business Administration, which states that 
Republican spending cuts would mean that almost 300,000 fewer small 
businesses would be able to participate in their entrepreneurial 
development program;
  A letter from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which 
states that 286,000 families will lose rental assistance under the 
Republicans' proposed budget cuts and thousands more would be at risk 
for homelessness;
  A letter from the Department of Homeland Security, which states that 
the proposed cuts could lead to more illegal drugs entering our 
country, including 350,000 grams of fentanyl. That is over 200 million 
fatal doses of fentanyl that Republicans will be responsible for 
letting into our country.
  Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the 
Department of Agriculture detailing how these radical Republican budget 
cuts would lead to more than a million new mothers losing WIC 
assistance.

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2023.
     Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeLauro: I share the concern expressed 
     in your letter dated January 19, 2023, about potential 
     impacts of proposals that would cap fiscal year (FY) 2024 
     discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted levels. While 
     Congressional Republicans have not released a specific plan, 
     cuts on this scale would have very real and damaging impacts 
     on our families, our communities, our economy, and our 
     competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical 
     services the American people rely on in their everyday lives.
       President Biden's FY 2024 Budget, which he released on 
     March 9, details his plans to invest in America, continue to 
     lower costs for families, protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare, and reduce the deficit. Meanwhile, 
     Congressional Republicans have reportedly proposed 
     unprecedented cuts in FY 2024 funding for key services, 
     programs, and protections such as education, public safety, 
     research, nutrition and more. Such action would have serious 
     consequences for Department of Energy programs and 
     initiatives at the Federal, state, Tribal, and local levels, 
     and would jeopardize recent bipartisan gains targeted at 
     improving the lives of everyday Americans.
       Impacts would be felt across the country and could rise to 
     the level of jeopardizing the Department's ability to do its 
     part in protecting national security interests from energy 
     security and nuclear security threats.
       Capping funding at this level would also hamper our ability 
     to cut energy costs for families and businesses across the 
     country, reduce the number of everyday Americans that can 
     access tax breaks for clean energy, and reduce the impact of 
     the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
       Specific examples of potential impacts are listed below.
       Scenario l. Across-the-board cap on FY 2024 discretionary 
     spending at FY 2022 levels. Example impacts are listed below:
       A reduction to FY 2022 funding levels would delay all 
     National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) major 
     construction projects of at least one year, increasing 
     operational risks and the likelihood of cost increases. The 
     FY 2022 funding level represents a \1/3\ reduction from 
     planned execution in FY 2024.
       The W93 and W87-1 warhead modernization programs would be 
     delayed at least 1-2 years, with significant risks for the 
     aging U.S. stockpile, DoD plans for delivery system 
     modernization, and U.S. support for the United Kingdom's 
     Replacement Warhead.
       Hundreds of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy research 
     projects and 2-3 large infrastructure projects at national 
     labs would be cancelled or paused, resulting in up to one 
     thousand (1,000) layoffs within the labs, partner 
     organizations, and the local construction and support 
     workforce across the country. This would negatively impact 
     the ability of the national laboratories to continue to 
     advance cutting edge research.
       Scenario 2. Across-the-board 22 percent reduction to 
     current enacted funding levels (FY 2023) for FY 2024. Example 
     impacts of this scenario are listed below. Scenario 1 impacts 
     would also be intensified:
       At a minimum, research at Office of Science national 
     laboratories and universities would be reduced by about $700 
     million, resulting in substantial reduction of nearly 5,200 
     scientists, students, and technical staff.
       Many of the Administration research priorities would 
     receive significantly less funding resulting in curtailed 
     research efforts in the areas of Climate Change; Artificial 
     Intelligence; High Performance Computing; emerging 
     technologies in Quantum Information Science, 
     Microelectronics, and Biotechnology; Fusion Energy; and 
     Isotope Production.
       At a minimum, Office of Science facility operations funding 
     would be reduced, resulting in only 68 percent of operational 
     funding and a substantial reduction of over 6,000 users of 
     the over 38,000 annual users at the 28 scientific user 
     facilities across the national laboratories.
       All facilities would have a significant reduction in force 
     of personnel, with loss of critical expertise. A review would 
     be required to determine which facilities to close to 
     maintain adequate operations at the remaining user 
     facilities. Facilities cannot operate safely at this funding 
     level. This action would result in major economic impact to 
     the United States, both in the short-term and in the long-
     term as the U.S. will be subject to loss of scientific talent 
     and leadership.
       At a minimum, thousands of low-income households (anywhere 
     from 4,400-8,800) would be deferred from weatherization 
     services, and reductions in state energy programs more 
     broadly would limit efforts to cut energy costs for families 
     and businesses, disproportionately affecting smaller states 
     and US territories.
       Reductions of this magnitude would have significant 
     setbacks of U.S. geopolitical competitiveness to adversarial 
     nations like Russia and China.
       This would include the reduction of the Idaho National 
     Laboratory operational status to the minimal allowable for 
     safe and secure support of DOE and national security programs 
     and research.
       It would also include elimination of all efforts to support 
     the deployment of American nuclear energy technologies as the 
     preferred alternative to Russian and Chinese technologies in 
     countries looking to implement large scale power sources.
       These are a few examples of the serious impacts of these 
     scenarios on ongoing efforts by the Department in the areas 
     of national security, safety of critical infrastructure, 
     threats to the Nation's competitive edge, and impacts on 
     consumers and industry.
           Sincerely,
     Jennifer M. Granholm.
                                  ____

         U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant 
           Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental 
           Affairs,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for contacting the 
     Department of Labor (DOL) with important questions about the 
     impact of capping discretionary spending levels at the fiscal 
     year (FY) 2022 enacted level on workers and their families. 
     The Department of Labor's mission is to foster, promote, and 
     develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and 
     retirees of the

[[Page H1970]]

     United States; improve working conditions; advance 
     opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-
     related benefits and rights. This includes centering our work 
     on the most vulnerable and marginalized workers, those facing 
     barriers to employment, misclassified workers, and workers in 
     temporary jobs or other jobs that heighten their economic 
     insecurity and vulnerability.
       On March 9, 2023, the President released his Fiscal Year 
     (FY) 2024 budget. The FY 2024 budget request builds on the 
     Biden-Harris Administration's successes, reinforces President 
     Biden's investments in America, continues to lower costs for 
     families, protects and strengthens Social Security and 
     Medicare, and reduces the deficit. The Department's role in 
     this effort is to ensure that all workers and job seekers in 
     America--particularly those from disadvantaged communities--
     have access to high-quality jobs that can support a middle-
     class life. That includes accessing training and finding 
     pathways to high-quality jobs as well as protecting workers' 
     rights and benefits, health and safety, and wages once they 
     are employed.
       The potential cuts you describe in your letter would have 
     very real and damaging impacts on our families, communities, 
     economy, and competitiveness--undermining a broad range of 
     critical services the American people rely on in their 
     everyday lives.
       These drastic reductions in spending proposed by certain 
     Congressional Republicans would be devastating--undermining 
     our ability to protect our nation's most vulnerable workers 
     and hindering our efforts to address critical issues like 
     exploitative child labor. These types of cuts would send an 
     unmistakable message that the workers who were essential 
     during the pandemic are expendable, diminishing the value of 
     their work and failing to honor them by ensuring their wages, 
     health, and safety are protected. Additionally, drastically 
     cutting funding levels would mean fewer resources for 
     workforce training programs designed to ensure there is a 
     workforce armed with the skills needed to fill high-quality 
     jobs in our growing economy.
       Below please find specific examples of how funding cuts 
     would impact Department of Labor programs and the workers we 
     aim to serve. For each example, the Department analyzed two 
     scenarios: (1) FY 2024 appropriations equal to 22 percent 
     below currently enacted levels and (2) FY 2024 appropriations 
     equal to the FY 2022 enacted levels.


  Limiting Access to Training for Job Seekers and Workers Across the 
                                Country

       The Employment and Training Administration provides grants 
     to states for running the Adult, Youth, and Dislocated Worker 
     employment programs, which provide training and job 
     assistance services. Reductions to each of those programs 
     would result in people losing critical services they need to 
     obtain and retain better jobs.
       Workfbrce Development & Training: A 22 percent reduction 
     would prevent about 750,000 job seekers from accessing 
     services and training through ETA-funded programming. A 
     return to FY 2022 enacted levels would result in about 
     125,000 fewer job seekers receiving services and training 
     from the workforce development system.
       Registered Apprenticeship: A 22 percent reduction would 
     lead to over 100,000 fewer workers being employed through 
     Registered Apprenticeships. A return to FY 2022 enacted 
     levels would lead to 76,000 fewer workers being employed 
     through Registered Apprenticeships.
       Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP): A 22 
     percent reduction would lead to almost 10,000 fewer low-
     income older workers participating in paid community service 
     work.
       Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC ): If funding 
     levels were reduced by 22 percent, there would be significant 
     processing delays across the labor certification programs. 
     Labor certification decisions for nonimmigrant visas, 
     especially for seasonal nonagricultural businesses, would be 
     delayed. Employers would have to wait up to 2 additional 
     months for decisions on their ability to hire H-2B workers.
       In the PERM immigrant program, labor certification decision 
     would increase 73 percent, from 188 days (FY 2022) to 
     approximately 325 days. Similarly, if funding levels reverted 
     to the FY 2022 level, and workloads continued to rise, 
     average processing times in the FLC programs would continue 
     to increase. OFLC would prioritize available resources to 
     address more time-sensitive H-2A and H-2B applications for 
     farmers and seasonal nonagricultural businesses.


           Weakening Wage and Safety Protections for Workers

       The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) promotes compliance with 
     basic labor laws and ensures that workers receive the 
     protections they are entitled to under the law. Last year, 
     WHD staff recovered more than $213 million in back wages for 
     nearly 153,000 workers--an average of $1.400 per worker. 
     These recovered wages make a real difference for workers 
     struggling to pay rent. buy food, pay for childcare, or cover 
     gas or transportation costs to get to their jobs.
       Cuts to WHD funding levels would undermine the agency's 
     ability to ensure workers receive the wages that they've 
     earned. WHD would be forced to reduce the number of 
     compliance actions, investigations, and targeted inspections 
     that result in recovery for thousands of workers.
       Specifically, a 22 percent reduction in funding levels 
     would result in about $156 million less in back wages for 
     135,000 workers or an average over $1,000 per worker. A 
     return to FY 2022 enacted levels would result in $24.5 
     million less in back wages recovered for nearly 21,000 
     workers.
       The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
     works to assure safe and healthful working conditions. Every 
     worker deserves to return home safely at the end of the day. 
     Cutting OSHA's budget by one-fifth would mean fewer 
     inspections, fewer staff, less enforcement, and less safe and 
     healthy workplaces.
       A 22 percent budget reduction would result in OSHA losing 
     at least 270 inspectors and conducting 10,800 fewer 
     inspections. This would be by far the lowest level of 
     enforcement in OSHA's 52-year history. Fewer inspections 
     would significantly reduce OSHA's ability to conduct 
     proactive and more complex inspections such as those 
     involving chemical exposure, heat, musculoskeletal injuries, 
     and workplace violence. A return to 2022 enacted levels would 
     result in 2,800 fewer safety inspections and 715 fewer health 
     inspections.
       OSHA would drastically cut back on responding to worker 
     complaints and proactive inspections, including strategic 
     priorities like silica, heat, and fall protection. Reducing 
     OSHA's ability to conduct preventive inspections would result 
     in more workplace injuries and illnesses--allowing 
     unscrupulous employers to put workers in danger under a 
     weaker, more predictable, and less strategic OSHA.
       The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) works to 
     prevent death, illness. and injury from mining and promote 
     safe and healthful workplaces for U.S. miners. MSHA's 
     enforcement responsibilities--statutorily mandated 
     inspections, accident investigations, and responding to 
     hazard complaints, among others--have contributed 
     significantly to the reduction in fatal mining accidents.
       Significant budget cuts would jeopardize the health and 
     safety of the nation's miners. For example, under a 22 
     percent reduction, MSHA would not be able to complete 
     approximately 4,400 mandatory inspections of surface and 
     underground mines. Fatal accident investigation activities 
     would continue but MSHA could not perform serious injury 
     accident investigations and could only investigate 75 percent 
     of hazard complaints in a timely manner. Targeted safety and 
     health initiatives that address hazards associated with the 
     leading causes of mining fatalities and occupational 
     illnesses would not occur. Approximately one third of coal 
     mine plan and addenda approvals, which are necessary for 
     operators to continue mining operations, would be delayed by 
     approximately a month.
       At the FY 2022 funding level, MSHA would not be able to 
     complete approximately 2,200 mandatory inspections of surface 
     and underground mines. Fatal accident investigations would 
     continue, but MSHA would be limited in its ability to perform 
     any serious accident investigations and could only 
     investigate 50 percent of the hazard complaints in a timely 
     manner. Approximately 3,200 samples for respirable dust, 
     silica, diesel particulate matter, and other toxic substances 
     would not be taken, putting miners at risk of developing 
     preventable debilitating occupational illnesses like Black 
     Lung and silicosis.


         Eliminating Critical Employment Services for Veterans

       The Department's Veterans' Employment and Training Service 
     helps veterans transition to employment, protects their 
     employment rights, and promotes their employment 
     opportunities.
       The Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program provides 
     intensive employment and job placement services for eligible 
     veterans, and JVSG fund allow states to hire qualified 
     veterans to provide these services. There are currently over 
     1,800 JVSG staff at 2,300 American Job Centers (AJC) 
     nationwide. A 22 percent reduction would result in 4,282 
     fewer veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness 
     receiving employment services through the Homeless Veterans' 
     Reintegration Program (HVRP). A return to the 2022 enacted 
     level would lead to a reduction of 16 staff serving veterans 
     at AJCs as well as 1,428 fewer veterans experiencing or at 
     risk of homelessness receiving employment services through 
     HVRP.
       I have seen first-hand the positive impacts of the Biden-
     Harris plan. 202 1 and 2022 were the two strongest years of 
     job growth in our nation's history. More than 12 million jobs 
     have been created since President Biden took office--
     including nearly 800.000 manufacturing jobs. The unemployment 
     rate has been below 4% for more than a year, and a record 
     number of small businesses have started since President Biden 
     took office. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans have 
     near-record-low unemployment rates and people with 
     disabilities are experiencing record-low unemployment.
       The Department stands ready and committed to continuing the 
     plan as laid out by the Biden-Harris Administration to build 
     an economy and a labor market that is more just and equitable 
     and creates opportunity for all.
     Liz Watson,
       Assistant Secretary, Congressional and Intergovernmental 
     Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor.

[[Page H1971]]

     
                                  ____
                                   The Secretary of Education,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2023.
     Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your letter of 
     January 19, 2023, requesting details regarding the potential 
     impact of proposed budget cuts on the economy, neighborhoods, 
     and other essential government functions that keep people 
     healthy and safe.
       President Biden's FY24 Budget lays out a detailed plan to 
     invest in America, continue to lower costs for families, 
     protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and 
     reduce the deficit. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have 
     proposed unprecedented cuts in fiscal year (FY) 2024 funding 
     for key services, programs, and protections such as 
     education, public safety, research, nutrition and more. Cuts 
     on this scale would have very real and damaging impacts on 
     our families, our communities, our economy, and our 
     competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical 
     services the American people rely on in their everyday lives.
       Your letter specifically references a plan to cap fiscal 
     year 2024 discretionary spending at the fiscal year 2022 
     enacted level. Your letter makes clear that the impact of 
     such a plan on agency appropriation levels is at this time 
     unknown, as the specifics of the plan have not been publicly 
     released. If we assumed that defense funding would be 
     shielded from budget cuts under this plan, it would equate to 
     a cut of about 22 percent to non-defense discretionary 
     funding. Accordingly, we analyzed impacts at two levels: 1) 
     FY 2022 enacted and 2) 22 percent below the currently enacted 
     level for FY 2023.
       As you know, the Federal government has long played a 
     critical role in supporting States, school districts, and 
     postsecondary institutions in meeting the needs of students, 
     especially underserved students and children in under-
     resourced communities, children with disabilities, English 
     learners, and those experiencing homelessness. While 
     representing but a small portion of overall education funding 
     nationwide, Federal resources help States and school 
     districts fill gaps in State and local support and meet 
     critical needs for our most vulnerable students. From 
     supporting additional staff positions and educational 
     materials, to expanding after school programming, providing 
     access to life-changing education and training, and helping 
     students afford college, the Federal investment in education 
     makes a positive difference in children's lives every day.
       The Department of Education has examined several of our 
     most significant programs to assess potential impacts 
     resulting from 1) receiving FY 2022 funding and 2) receiving 
     funding 22 percent below currently enacted levels:
       ESEA Title I Grants to LEAs--a reduction to the FY 2022 
     enacted level would cut $850 million in funding from this 
     program--a cut equivalent to removing more than 13,000 
     teachers and service providers from classrooms serving low-
     income children; a 22 percent reduction from the currently 
     enacted level would cut approximately $4.0 billion in 
     funding, impacting an estimated 25 million students and 
     reducing program funding to its lowest level in almost a 
     decade--a cut equivalent to removing more than 60,000 
     teachers and related service providers from classrooms 
     serving low-income students.
       IDEA Grants to States--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted 
     level would cut $850 million in funding from this program--a 
     cut equivalent to removing more than 13,000 teachers and 
     service providers from classrooms serving low-income 
     children; a 22 percent reduction from the currently enacted 
     level would cut more than $3.1 billion in funding, impacting 
     an estimated 7.5 million children with disabilities and 
     reducing Federal support to its lowest share since 1997--a 
     cut equivalent to removing more than 48,000 teachers and 
     related services providers from the classroom.
       Title II-A (Supporting effective instruction State grants) 
     and Title IV-A (Student support and academic enrichment 
     grants)--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted level would cut 
     more than $35 million for these activities; a 22 percent 
     reduction from the currently enacted level would cut more 
     than $500 million in annual support for teachers and 
     students, curtailing learning opportunities for teachers and 
     school leaders, and hampering school districts' efforts to 
     promote a well-rounded education for students in safe 
     schools.
       Pell Grants--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted level would 
     likely have a minimal effect on students and parents, while a 
     reduction of 22 percent from currently enacted levels would 
     likely reduce the maximum Pell award by nearly $1,000, 
     decreasing aid to all 6.6 million Pell recipients and 
     eliminating Pell Grants altogether for approximately 80,000 
     students. Cutting the discretionary funding by 22 percent 
     without cutting the maximum award would eliminate the surplus 
     and create a $17 billion shortfall by 2026. The program 
     cannot function with a shortfall that large.
       Administering Student Financial Aid--a reduction of 22 
     percent from currently enacted levels would cut $468 million 
     in federal support to determine, disburse, and service 
     student aid. This level of funding would have devastating 
     effects on student and parent interactions with the 
     Department, as well as on their ability to successfully apply 
     for and receive student aid. However, even if funding were 
     kept at the FY 2022 enacted level, more than 40 million 
     student loan borrowers would be impacted through decreased 
     service hours and longer turnaround times to make changes to 
     student loan repayment plans, or obtain a deferment, 
     forbearance, or discharge of student loans. More than 17 .6 
     million students and parents applying for student aid and 
     calling the Department for information could experience 
     multiple-hour wait times and reduced center hours, and 
     student aid applicants requesting specific assistance with 
     the FAFSA, student loan promissory notes, PLUS loan 
     applications, or other student aid applications could see 
     their requests take weeks longer to process. Additionally, 
     the oversight of the more than 5,500 schools and enforcement 
     of the Higher Education Act would suffer, putting taxpayer 
     dollars at risk.
       Federal Work-Study Program (FWS)--a reduction to the FY 
     2022 enacted level would provide less aid for all program 
     recipients and eliminate FWS financial support for 
     approximately 11,000 students; a cut of 22 percent from the 
     currently enacted level would provide less aid for all 
     program recipients and eliminate Work-Study financial support 
     for approximately 85,000 students. Schools would be forced to 
     make impossible decisions around whether to cut essential 
     positions reliant on FWS funds or the amounts that students 
     are able to earn under the program.
       Should you have additional comments or questions, please do 
     not hesitate to contact the Office of Legislation and 
     Congressional Affairs.
           Sincerely,
                                         Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D.,
     U.S. Secretary of Education.
                                  ____

                                               U.S. Small Business


                                               Administration,

     Washington, DC, March 20, 2023.
     Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeLauro: Thank you for your January 19, 
     2023 letter to the U.S. Small Business Administration 
     (``SBA'') regarding plans by House Republican Leadership to 
     cap Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 discretionary spending at the FY 
     2022 enacted level. President Biden's FY 2024 Budget lays out 
     a detailed plan to invest in America and the small business 
     economy, continue to lower costs for families, protect and 
     strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and reduce the 
     deficit.
       Strong Federal support and investments by Congress ensure 
     that America's 33 million small businesses have the resources 
     they need to create jobs across our nation. SBA offers access 
     to affordable capital, training, and technical assistance to 
     help small businesses grow and thrive. These resources have 
     been critical especially during the surge of new-start small 
     businesses over the past two years under the Biden 
     Administration. Congressional Republicans have proposed 
     unprecedented cuts in FY 2024 funding for key services and 
     programs. While Congressional Republicans haven't released a 
     specific plan, cuts on this scale would have very real and 
     damaging impacts on our small businesses, our communities, 
     our economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad 
     range of critical services the American people rely on in 
     their everyday lives. That is why I share your concern that 
     proposed budget cuts could have a negative impact on SBA's 
     ability to deliver important services to American citizens 
     and small businesses who rely on the SBA for guidance and 
     support and capital.
       One example of the potential impact is to the SBA's 
     Entrepreneurial Development appropriation which funds 
     critical programs that served 1.2 million small businesses in 
     2022. If Entrepreneurial Development program funding levels 
     are capped at FY 2022 levels--a cut of $29.9 million from FY 
     2023 enacted funding levels--we estimate that up to 125,000 
     fewer entrepreneurs and small businesses would have access to 
     free business counseling supported by SBA, including the 
     Small Business Development Centers, that help bolster the 
     small business economy. If Entrepreneurial Development 
     Program funding levels were reduced by 22 percent from FY 
     2023 enacted, this would be a reduction of $70.4 million, 
     which would equate to nearly 295,000 fewer small businesses 
     being served. Either scenario would have a significant impact 
     on the agency's ability to ensuring that undeserved 
     communities such as Veterans, Women, and Native American 
     entrepreneurs receive the support they deserve. We estimate 
     that thousands of veterans and women entrepreneurs would be 
     impacted negatively as they look to start or grow their own 
     businesses. For instance, we would have fewer opportunities 
     to further expand equity efforts for underserved and 
     underrepresented small business communities, including 
     specific reduction to support Veterans, Women, Native 
     American entrepreneurs.
       Additionally, reductions to SBA's Salaries and Expense 
     funding would be detrimental to SBA's operations. If funding 
     is reduced to FY 2022 enacted funding levels in FY 2024, SBA 
     will not have sufficient funding to fully support the 
     Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Certification 
     program. A cut to funding in this program could significantly 
     impact SBA's ability to certify service-disabled veteran-
     owned small businesses. This certification is crucial to the 
     35,000 veterans and service-disabled veterans that

[[Page H1972]]

     compete for and provide integral services to the Federal 
     Government.
       Reverting to FY 2022 spending levels would also shrink 
     SBA's staffing by up to 203 positions which has a direct 
     impact on the agency's ability to deliver and oversee 
     services for small businesses. Staff reductions will result 
     in SBA customer service degradation in loan processing, small 
     business outreach, training and counseling, processing 
     government contracting, and validating small business 
     certifications. Small businesses and resource partners will 
     likely experience longer wait times, and SBA may become to 
     network and cybersecurity infrastructure threats and attacks 
     at the risk of all SBA stakeholders.
       A 22 percent reduction from FY 2023 enacted levels would 
     reduce Salaries and Expenses by nearly 385 positions, which 
     could not be attained without a reduction in force and 
     further reductions to services and outreach to small 
     businesses provided across the board. This would also reduce 
     Disaster Loan Program Administration by nearly $8 million, or 
     over 45 positions, hurting SBA's ability to respond quickly 
     when a disaster strikes to ensure access to capital for 
     disaster survivors.
       Finally, maintaining SBA's Office of Inspector General 
     (OIG) funding at the FY 2022 enacted level would decrease 
     OIG's investigative and fraud enforcement capabilities by 
     over $25 million in FY 2024, and would undermine the SBA's 
     OIG mission to fight fraud and abuse, including in COVID-19 
     relief programs. SBA is committed to combating fraud, waste, 
     and abuse, and the taxpayers benefit greatly from the 
     Inspector General's ongoing efforts. We need to ensure that 
     we continue to build on that commitment.
       I stand ready to provide Congress with any further 
     information to ensure the small business owners and 
     entrepreneurs can continue to be supported. Thank you for 
     your partnership in helping the American people and the 
     economy.
           Sincerely,
                                         Isabella Casillas Guzman,
     Administrator.
                                  ____

         U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
           Secretary,
                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2023.
     Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your letter 
     requesting the impact of the proposed House Republican 
     Leadership 2024 budget cuts on Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development (HUD) programs and assisted families. In 
     short, the reduced funding scenarios would represent the most 
     devastating impacts in HUD's history.
       On March 9th, President Biden released his Budget showing 
     his plans to invest in America, continue to lower costs for 
     families, protect and strengthen Social Security and 
     Medicare, and reduce the deficit. Congressional Republicans 
     are reportedly planning unprecedented cuts in 2024 funding 
     for key services, programs, and protections such as 
     education, public safety, research, nutrition and more. While 
     Congressional Republicans have not released one specific 
     plan, cuts on this scale would have very real and damaging 
     impacts on our families, our communities, our economy, and 
     our competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical 
     services the American people rely on in their everyday lives. 
     This letter will consider two scenarios, a reduction to 2022 
     enacted levels and a 22 percent reduction to 2023 enacted 
     levels.
       Most HUD programs received modest increases in 2023. 
     Increases in the 2023 enacted budget levels relative to 2022 
     primarily serve to maintain existing programs, not to permit 
     program expansions. Except for targeted funding increases for 
     homeless assistance and tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers 
     (HCV), almost all of HUD's programs remained at or near level 
     funding with zero or minimal increases. Consequently, any 
     cuts to the 2023 level do not eliminate ``extra'' funding 
     added in 2023 but translate to direct cuts to the 2022 
     baseline. These cuts, in turn, would reduce existing services 
     that families and communities rely on, including programs 
     housing low-income families.
       Today's HUD rental housing programs' funding levels are 
     necessary to maintain existing rental assistance to keep 
     currently assisted families in their homes. Under the 22 
     percent potential funding cut scenario, it would be 
     impossible to stave off mass evictions.

                  If These Draconian Cuts Were Made--


              Thousands Would Lose Housing Choice Vouchers

       Nearly the entire increase in voucher funding between 2022 
     and 2023 (aside from small amounts for homeless veterans and 
     at-risk youth) supported renewal of existing assistance to 
     families in their current units. The dollar increase relative 
     to 2022 was necessary to match major cost increases in the 
     housing market. For example, between 2022 and 2023 the 
     national population-weighted average Fair Market Rent (FMR) 
     increased by nearly 10 percent, with 16 HUD Metro FMR Areas 
     increasing by 20 percent or more. Rents are expected to stay 
     high in 2024, even as growth slows down. Any cut to the 2023 
     funding level will not simply revert to the same number of 
     families that could be supported in 2022, but will put large 
     numbers of the most vulnerable and lowest income American 
     families at risk of losing their rental assistance entirely. 
     HUD rental assistance serves the most vulnerable low-income 
     families, with an average income of only $15,000 per year, 
     and includes older adults, persons with disabilities, and 
     families with children. The Housing Choice Voucher program 
     currently assists approximately 2.3 million families.
       2022 flat--eliminates funding for 350,000 families.
       22 percent cut to 2023 funding--eliminates funding for 
     640,000 families.


  Families Living in Public Housing Would be Exposed to Unsafe Living 
                               Conditions

       The needs of public housing portfolio continue to grow, so 
     major cuts to this program threaten to remove important 
     affordable housing assets from the inventory. If there is a 
     22 percent cut, HUD calculates an expected 78 percent 
     proration for the Operating Fund. At this level, there would 
     be significant impacts to PHA operations. All PHAs would need 
     to drastically cut operations, including regular property 
     maintenance, services to families, and likely staff layoffs 
     to right-size operations to expected revenues. Deferred 
     maintenance would decrease housing quality, potentially 
     exposing families to unsafe living conditions such as mold 
     and lead-based paint. Finally, there would be the likelihood 
     of PHA insolvency or other program failures. The projected 
     $700 million cut from the capital grants would leave no 
     funding to address backlog needs and $2 billion in unfunded 
     accrual needs. Unmet capital needs mean the further 
     deterioration of the inventory and contribute to lower 
     occupancy rates, higher costs for utilities, less resilience 
     to climate change, and increased health and safety risks for 
     residents.


 There Would be an Unprecedented Loss of Existing Affordable Housing, 
                       Leading to Mass Evictions

       HUD's Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) program, which 
     serves approximately 1.3 million families, needed almost $1 
     billion above 2022 levels to just renew the existing owner 
     contracts for 2023. These increases are statutory and reflect 
     increased costs, and HUD cannot avoid them within the 
     contracts. As a result, any cuts to the 2023 level would 
     force HUD to short fund or cancel existing contracts between 
     the federal government and private property owners. The 
     termination of contracts with rental owners will likely lead 
     the owners to convert their housing to market-rate, leaving 
     currently supported tenants in units that are now 
     unaffordable to them, likely resulting in evictions. This 
     would represent an historically unprecedented loss of 
     existing affordable housing, a breach of federal contracts, 
     and a repudiation of decades of long-term bipartisan federal 
     investment.
       2022 flat--eliminates funding for approximately 87,000 
     families
       22 percent cut to 2023 funding--eliminates funding for 
     approximately 286,000 families


      States and Localities Would Be Prevented from Making Basic 
                      Infrastructure Improvements

       In addition to rental assistance, HUD's programs also 
     include the most popular and effective funding programs for 
     states, cities, counties, and towns: Community Development 
     Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships. CDBG 
     and HOME provide flexible block grant assistance whereby 
     funding decisions are locally controlled.
       CDBG: The median CDBG annual grant is $1 million provided 
     through a block grant allocation formula. Urban and rural 
     municipalities and counties rely on the funding for basic 
     housing-related infrastructure such as rehabilitation of 
     existing affordable housing, water and sewer connections, 
     sidewalks, as well as direct assistance for small businesses, 
     economic development, and essential services. The estimated 
     impact of the funding cut of 22 percent will reduce the 
     average grant by approximately $440,000.
       HOME: As with CDBG, the vital HOME Program received zero 
     increase in 2023. Funding cuts to HOME would result in fewer 
     new affordable rental and homeownership opportunities for 
     low-income families, fewer grants for repair and 
     rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, and less 
     tenant-based rental assistance available, resulting in 
     increased risk of homelessness. This will directly exacerbate 
     the existing national affordable housing crisis. The 
     estimated impact of the funding cut of 22 percent from 2023 
     to the average HOME formula grant of $1.5 million will reduce 
     the average grant by $330,000 and will result in more than 
     6,700 fewer units of affordable housing produced.


       Thousands More Americans Would be Sleeping on the Streets

       HUD received a targeted increase in funding for Homeless 
     Assistance Grants in 2023, which would sustain existing 
     resources for emergency shelter, increase availability of 
     permanent supportive housing, and continue to provide other 
     homeless assistance to the most vulnerable Americans. Undoing 
     this increase will severely curtail the services that 
     communities across the country would be able to provide to 
     those experiencing homelessness. Cuts to the Emergency 
     Solutions Grants (ESG) program from the 2023 baseline would 
     result in less emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, 
     and rapid rehousing. A funding cut of 22 percent would result 
     in over 24,000 fewer people receiving assistance, likely 
     leading to large increases in the number of people sleeping 
     on the streets.
       In the Continuum of Care and Youth Homelessness 
     Demonstration Program, funding provides permanent supportive 
     housing for people with severe disabilities and illnesses, 
     and rapid rehousing and transitional

[[Page H1973]]

     housing for youth and adults to help them achieve housing 
     stability and self-sufficiency. In recent years, HUD has 
     significantly expanded assistance to people fleeing domestic 
     violence. Providing funding at the 2022 level for CoC 
     renewals would result in at least 54,000 fewer homeless 
     people and domestic violence survivors receiving assistance 
     than in 2023, and a 22 percent cut from 2023 levels would 
     result in nearly 95,000 fewer people receiving assistance. 
     These cuts would eliminate new funding for the Youth 
     Homelessness Demonstration Program, an effort that has helped 
     reduce the number of homeless unaccompanied youth by more 
     than 25 percent since 2017.


     Dire Housing Conditions in Indian Country Would be Exacerbated

       Housing conditions in Indian Country are among the most 
     dire in the United States. Thus, any cuts to the 2023 formula 
     funding level would have a significant impact on the program, 
     which is the single largest source of funding for Indian 
     housing assistance. It would make it almost impossible for 
     most Tribal grantees to construct new affordable housing 
     units and a challenge to meet the basic operations and 
     maintenance needs of their existing housing. It would also 
     make it extremely difficult to leverage other non-Federal 
     resources to develop affordable housing. Funding for the 
     formula block grant component would be reduced by $173 
     million with a 22-percent cut, which would reduce funding for 
     Native American Housing Block Grants to its lowest level 
     since it was implemented in 1996 (adjusting for inflation).


             Efforts to Abate Lead Hazards Would be Slowed

       HUD's Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes programs to 
     reduce lead poisoning hazards for children in lower income 
     families, together with a variety of programs aimed at 
     reducing indoor home health hazards. Home health hazards are 
     scientifically proven to cause lifelong damage when ongoing 
     exposure occurs during childhood. For example, even low 
     levels of lead exposure during childhood have been linked 
     with lifelong impacts on intelligence, attention, and 
     academic achievement. Further cuts below the previous 2022 
     level would substantially slow and adversely affect the 
     Federal government's planned efforts to abate lead hazards 
     and prevent home health hazards from negatively affecting 
     child development.


                 Critical Research Would be Jeopardized

       The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) 
     enables the Congress, the Secretary, and other HUD principal 
     staff to make evidence-informed decisions on budget and 
     legislative proposals and strengthens housing and community 
     development policy. The total investment for research, 
     evaluation, and technical assistance was essentially level 
     between 2022 and 2023. Thus, any cuts would substantially 
     reduce HUD's ability to conduct research, program 
     evaluations, and provide critical technical assistance (TA) 
     and capacity building support, including, for example, 
     through the Distressed Cities TA program that supports small, 
     rural and underserved localities. A 22 percent cut to PD&R's 
     2023 funding would result in a $32 million cut to existing 
     activities and investments, placing major PD&R-funded survey 
     efforts at risk, such as the American Housing Survey, 
     jeopardizing critical research providing the next generation 
     of evidence on how HUD can most effectively support 
     affordable homeownership and quality rental housing.


  Efforts to Combat Housing Discrimination Would be Severely Impacted

       A 22 percent cut to Fair Housing Programs would severely 
     impact the ability of the Fair Housing Assistance Program 
     (FHAP) to support state and local agency enforcement of the 
     Fair Housing Act nationwide. FHAP agencies currently 
     investigate about 75 percent of all fair housing complaints 
     filed under the Fair Housing Act, and this level of funding 
     would jeopardize the FHAP agencies' ability to conduct 
     investigations, litigate complaints, retain staff, and keep 
     up with inflation. This level of funding would also hinder 
     the Department's ability to admit new FHAP agencies into the 
     program.
       A 22 percent cut to the Fair Housing Initiatives Program 
     (FHIP) would significantly impact the geographical 
     representation of and activities performed by fair housing 
     organizations nationally. Last year, as usual, HUD was unable 
     to fund all Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI) qualified 
     applicants. A reduction would further limit HUD's ability to 
     fund organizations in underserved and unserved communities. 
     This also could prevent HUD from maintaining the current 
     maximum level of funding under the Private Enforcement 
     Initiative (PEI), which funds fair housing organizations to 
     conduct testing, investigations, and public education and 
     outreach on the rights and responsibilities under the Fair 
     Housing Act. Lastly, the Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST 
     program would be severely limited in maintaining a broad 
     scope of services, especially focused on addressing 
     accessibility compliance in federally-assisted affordable 
     housing programs.


                 Highlighted Impacts on HUD Operations

     Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
       If HUD's 2024 appropriation were equal to the 2022 
     appropriation, that would result in a reduction of $152 
     million from our current 2023 enacted level and require HUD 
     to absorb a staffing reduction of over 650 full time 
     equivalents (FTE), which would have devastating impacts on 
     HUD services in all Program Offices. A reduction of this size 
     would require an immediate hiring freeze and the potential 
     for at least some furlough days, which would cause HUD 
     services to the public to be suspended or delayed, including 
     providing assistance to existing FHA homeowners, increasing 
     homeownership opportunities for potential homebuyers, 
     processing fair housing complaints and conducting complex 
     closings of multifamily properties.
       A 22 percent reduction from the 2023 enacted level would 
     reduce S&E by $390 million and require a staffing reduction 
     of more than 1,700 FTE. Given HUD is unable to attrit that 
     amount of FTE during a fiscal year, it would require either 
     implementing a Reduction in Force (RIF), incurring up to 60 
     furlough days, or a combination of the two, which would cause 
     HUD services to the public to be delayed or suspended. 
     Additionally, it would result in dramatic reductions in 
     contractor support services to include areas such as federal 
     protection services for building security and financial 
     oversight and audit support services.
     Information Technology (IT)
       Reducing the Department's IT resources to the 2022 level 
     represents a significant operational vulnerability. Such a 
     reduction will have agency-wide implications on HUD 
     operations and program administration. At this reduced 
     funding level, the current operations and maintenance 
     contracts will be scaled back resulting in a diminished 
     service level for software and systems across the Department. 
     While HUD will make every effort to keep public facing 
     systems operational and available for external partners and 
     the public, HUD cannot guarantee full functionality of these 
     systems with budget reductions of this magnitude.
       A 22 percent reduction in IT resources creates an extremely 
     high level of risk to the Department's core technology 
     infrastructure and services. At this level, a portion of 
     HUD's existing operations and maintenance contracts will stop 
     work due to insufficient funds. The likely impacts include 
     prioritization of contractor support for existing major 
     systems and cancelation of support for systems within the 
     nonmajor portfolio. This diminished support will lead to 
     grantee and stakeholder interruptions due to inability to 
     access HUD grant systems and financial interfaces. Such 
     challenges may delay state, local, and non-profit partners 
     access to formula grant funding and rental assistance due to 
     service disruption in relevant IT systems and contractor 
     support. Local governments would face delays in implementing 
     the plans that they put in place to, for example, construct 
     affordable housing or provide support to Meals on Wheels, as 
     they waited for HUD's systems. New homebuyers and affordable 
     housing developers could experience delays in FHA and 
     multifamily loan processing to service disruptions to 
     associated systems.
       All IT development will stop and existing contract support 
     for these and any new efforts will terminate. As you can see, 
     the proposed funding cuts would have a catastrophic impact on 
     the ability of HUD to provide quality, affordable homes for 
     all and to develop equitable, inclusive communities. Please 
     do not hesitate to reach out for any additional assistance.
           Sincerely,
     Marcia L. Fudge.
                                  ____

                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2023.
     Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your January 19, 
     2023, letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
     Secretary Mayorkas asked that I respond on his behalf.
       On March 9, President Biden released his Budget for DHS 
     that equips our Department to address the threats of today 
     and prepare for the threats of tomorrow. The President's 
     budget invests in programs that protect us against the threat 
     of terrorism, strengthen the security of our borders, ensures 
     the swift response to and recovery from natural disasters, 
     and more.
       As requested, DHS conducted an analysis of what capping FY 
     2024 discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted level 
     would mean to the services the Department provides to the 
     American people.
       The entire Department and the critical services we provide 
     would be impacted, including but not limited to the 
     following:
       A reduction in CBP frontline law enforcement staffing 
     levels of up to 2,400 agents and officers;
       A reduction in our Department's ability to prevent drugs 
     from entering the country;
       Cuts in federal assistance to state, local, tribal, 
     territorial, and private sector partners for disaster 
     preparedness; and
       Reductions in TSA personnel that would result in wait times 
     in excess of 2 hours at large airports across the country.
       The analysis in the enclosure provides additional details 
     on just some of the significant impacts that may occur.

Operational Impacts of Returning to FY 2022 Funding Levels--Department 
                          of Homeland Security


                U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

       Sea and Land Ports of Entry: CBP's Office of Field 
     Operations (OFO) may need to reduce hours of service at all 
     sea and land ports of entry (220 ports in total) and would

[[Page H1974]]

     deny landing rights at all 241 airports outside of core hours 
     of operation based on personnel availability. With reduced 
     hours, wait times would increase and some land ports of entry 
     may close with commercial and private traffic still in 
     queues, which would result in exacerbated supply chain issues 
     potentially impacting food stuffs and American manufacturing.
       Staffing: CBP may be forced to implement a hiring freeze, 
     which would impact the agency's ability to hire the 
     additional 300 Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) provided for in 
     the FY 2023 budget and the 150 CBP Officers (CBPOs) and BPAs 
     requested in the FY 2024 Budget. A hiring freeze would also 
     result in attrition of frontline law enforcement officers by 
     perhaps as much as 1,000 CBPOs and 1,400 BPAs.
       Fentanyl Impacts:
       Any impacts on CBPO staffing levels, described above, would 
     negatively impact fentanyl seizures as well as other 
     narcotics seizures.
       Impacts could also affect the operations at ports of entry 
     for lawful travel and goods presented for admission to the 
     United States. Approximately 90 percent of resources at ports 
     of entry go through these regular operations, which impact 
     the special operations teams responsible for targeting, 
     enforcement, and analysis. Reductions to these special 
     operations teams will result in a reduction in targeting 
     opioids for both inbound and outbound operations.
       With limited resources, OFO would only be able to perform 
     enhanced inspections upon primary or threshold level targets. 
     Reducing or eliminating outbound operations will result in 
     more money not being interdicted leaving the U.S. and enable 
     more trafficking and deeper concealments, likely increasing 
     the amount of fentanyl entering the country.
       Air and Marine Operations: CBP's Office of Air and Marine 
     Operations would experience 56 percent reduction in 
     operational capabilities equating to 45,833 unexecuted 
     aircraft hours and 11,448 boat hours. A reduction of this 
     magnitude would result in a reduction in our operations 
     equivalent to the following:
       154,657 lbs. of cocaine not seized
       859 lbs. of fentanyl and 1,948 lbs. of heroin not seized
       17,148 lbs. of methamphetamine not seized
       $9M in currency not seized
       561 criminals not arrested, and 57,594 apprehensions not 
     made
       361 people not rescued
       Trade: CBP enforces trade laws and implements measures such 
     as penalties, suspensions, and debarment while enforcing 
     anti-dumping and countervailing duties as well as forced 
     labor laws. Decreasing the capacity of the Office of Trade 
     would result in unprecedented gaps in defending America's 
     economic security, resulting in revenue loss to the U.S. 
     government and economy. Additional impacts include 
     degradation of trade enforcement operations resulting in 
     increased violations of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) 
     such as the production of counterfeit goods, duty evasion 
     through transshipment, misclassification, country of origin 
     claims, and use of forced labor in the production of goods 
     in U.S. supply chains.
       Agriculture: Due to decreased inspectional staff and 
     capacity, these cuts would result in increased risk of 
     introductions of foreign animal disease, including African 
     Swine Fever, and plant pests due to significant increases in 
     cargo and passenger wait times.


        Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)

       Cyber Resiliency: Budget cuts would stifle CISA's early 
     efforts to support cyber resiliency across state, local, 
     tribal, and territorial governments. This critical support 
     ensures resource-poor jurisdictions (or their management 
     service providers) are cognizant of threats and prepared to 
     face them, and are hardening the defenses of the national 
     critical functions under their stewardship (e.g., water 
     supply, wastewater treatment, and emergency communications). 
     Specifically, cyber resiliency provides support to 
     stakeholders and mission partners in their efforts to 
     predict, adapt, and dynamically recover from threats in high-
     risk areas who are significantly underserved with current 
     resources. Without this funding, CISA will not be able to:
       Design targeted assessments for highlighting cybersecurity 
     threats and vulnerabilities to emergency communications 
     systems nor identify mitigating actions;
       Identify requirements, develop, and deliver curriculum that 
     improves cybersecurity and interoperability in the face of 
     evolving IP-hosted communications technology used during 
     responses of varying size/complexity;
       Design specific assessments for urban areas to evaluate and 
     enhance cybersecurity; nor,
       Expand Emergency Communications Coordinators' support to 
     stakeholders via CISA's regional service delivery model.
       In addition, the reduction of funding would eliminate the 
     Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)/Federal Acquisition 
     Security Council (FASC) program. This would impact CISA's 
     execution of DHS's responsibility as the FASC's Information 
     Sharing Agency (ISA) and would terminate support on the 
     development of a doctrine required to respond to Federal 
     Government-wide supply chain risks and planning coordination.
       Cyber Protection: CISA would not have the resources to 
     implement requirements of the Cyber Incident Reporting for 
     Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA). CIRCIA requires 
     CISA to develop and implement regulations requiring covered 
     entities to report cyber incidents and ransomware payments to 
     CISA. These reports enable CISA to rapidly deploy resources 
     and render assistance to victims suffering attacks, analyze 
     cross-sector trends, and quickly share information with 
     network defenders to warn other potential victims. 
     Implementation of this new congressional mandate will result 
     in an exponential increase in the number of incident reports 
     coming from critical infrastructure. If funding is held at FY 
     2022 levels, CISA would not have any dedicated funding to 
     respond to this new requirement and therefore would be unable 
     to collect and rapidly share information with critical 
     infrastructure owners and operators.
       Cyber Incident Response: CISA's Operations Center would 
     lose the ability to ingest, triage, collate. record, and 
     visualize information from over 50,000 cyber incidents over a 
     one-year period. CISA would be unable to provide critical 
     infrastructure owners and operators with analyzed reports, 
     statistics, or trends, leading to a significant decrease in 
     their ability to proactively avoid known and emerging threats 
     and vulnerabilities to the nation's critical infrastructure.
       State and Local Impacts: Budget cuts would lead to a 13 
     percent reduction in CISA's regional field forces. The 
     regional workforce is a critical component of CISA's service 
     delivery model. With reduced funding, CISA would have to 
     reduce assistance provided in response to ransomware and 
     other cyberattacks. It would also have to reduce security 
     assessments and chemical inspections, thereby impacting 
     businesses, healthcare providers, K-12 institutions, state 
     and local governments, municipalities, and critical 
     infrastructure entities. In addition, CISA would have to 
     reduce the number of engagements and support of pre-election 
     security assessments of polling places in communities 
     nationwide. This would result in limiting interactions with 
     local election officials where CISA helps to assure the 
     security of election offices, polling places, and election 
     infrastructure. The number of impacted jurisdictions would 
     vary by state, as some states have tens of election 
     jurisdictions, and some states have more than a thousand.


               Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

       FEMA grant assistance to support and help state, local, 
     tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) and the private 
     sector could be reduced by half. This would negatively impact 
     SLTT capabilities to implement preparedness strategies 
     successfully and reduce or eliminate longterm risks to people 
     and property from hazards and their effects.


              Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

       Passenger Security Wait Times and Aviation Security:
       In FY 2024, passenger volume is anticipated to increase by 
     9.2 percent over FY 2022 levels. Fewer Transportation 
     Security Officers would increase passenger wait times from 10 
     minutes in FY 2023 to upwards of 30 minutes in FY 2024. At 
     larger airports, passengers would experience wait times in 
     excess of two hours where a steady influx of passengers makes 
     it impossible to recover without the necessary staffing. 
     These high wait times would also result in large crowds of 
     unscreened people in the checkpoint queues, increasing 
     potential soft targets.
       Transportation security equipment maintenance would have to 
     be reduced, impacting equipment reliability and increasing 
     passenger wait times while resulting in costly actions to 
     modify contracts.
       Furloughed positions would impact transportation security 
     now and in the future as TSA would see fewer staff at 
     checkpoints. Additionally, TSA would have a greater gap 
     between experienced staff and staff with minimal experience.


                       u.s. Secret Service (USSS)

       Cyber Fraud Task Forces: Secret Service would eliminate or 
     severely reduce the capacity of the 42 Cyber Fraud Task 
     Forces across the country that partner with private industry, 
     state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement 
     agencies and federal and state prosecutors to prevent, 
     detect, and mitigate complex cyber-enabled financial crimes.
       Cyber Forensics Training: Secret Service would shut down 
     the National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) and 
     eliminate training for state, local, tribal, and territorial 
     law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges used to combat cyber 
     threats. NCFI graduates conduct cyber forensic exams across 
     the USSS, completing over 150,000 exams in FY 2022 that were 
     for cases involving murder, rape, and child exploitation.
       COVID-19 Fraud: Cuts would reduce the ability of Secret 
     Service to combat COVID-19 related crime by over 50 percent. 
     USSS is currently focused on four broad areas of COVID-19 
     related crime and to date has arrested over 500 criminals, 
     recovered $1B and responded to over 5,000 investigations and 
     inquiries.


                        U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

       The United States Coast Guard would immediately cease the 
     advancement of acquisitions, procurement, and construction 
     resulting in a reduction to operational readiness along the 
     maritime borders. Specifically, the inability to progress the 
     Coast Guard's two highest acquisition priorities, the 
     Offshore Patrol Cutter and the Polar Security Cutter, would 
     create an operational gap and further delay of the U.S. 
     presence in the polar regions and reduce the ability detect, 
     deter,

[[Page H1975]]

     prevent, and disrupt terrorist attacks and other criminal 
     acts in the U.S. maritime domain as well as our National 
     Defense Strategy.
                                  ____

                                                             USDA,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2023.
     Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your letter of 
     January 19, 2023, requesting an analysis of the impact of 
     potential non-Defense spending cuts on the American people 
     that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) serves. I am 
     very concerned about the unprecedented cuts in FY 2024 
     funding that Congressional Republicans have proposed. While 
     Congressional Republicans haven't released a specific plan, 
     cuts on the scale suggested would have a very real and 
     damaging impacts on our families, our communities, our 
     economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad range 
     of critical services the American people rely on in their 
     everyday lives such as food and nutrition security, 
     protection of life and property from catastrophic wildland 
     fires, a safe food supply, and more. President Biden released 
     a Budget on March 9th that demonstrates his commitment to 
     invest in America, continuing to provide the critical 
     services the American people depend on, and reducing the 
     deficit.
       USDA analyzed two possible House Republican Leadership plan 
     scenarios. One assumes a funding level equal to that of 
     fiscal year 2022 and while the other assumes a 22 percent 
     reduction in funding for Government programs, which would 
     mean a reduction of about $6.15 billion for USDA in FY 2024. 
     A decrease of that magnitude would threaten the safety and 
     well-being of tens of millions of Americans, raise the risk 
     of homelessness for tens of thousands of Americans, and lead 
     to thousands of farm families not having access to the credit 
     and help they need to continue to farm.
       The attachment provides a few examples of impacts but does 
     not capture the entirety of the detrimental effects should 
     the House Republicans' plan come to fruition. I would be 
     happy to meet with you to discuss further or, if requested, 
     provide more information in writing.
       I deeply profoundly hope that Congressional leaders will 
     reach an agreement that will does not result in these 
     draconian reductions to USDA. I look forward to working with 
     Congress to preserve the many priorities of rural America.
       Again, thank you for writing.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas J. Vilsack,
                                                        Secretary.

             Additional Analysis of Potential Spending Cuts

     Bureau: Food and Nutrition Service
     Program: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
         Infants, and Children (WIC)
     Reduction Amount: Up to $1.4 billion
       WIC is a federally funded nutrition assistance program with 
     an average monthly participation currently projected to be 
     6.5 million in fiscal year (FY) 2024. Under both reduction 
     scenarios (FY22 level and a 22 percent reduction), State WIC 
     programs would have to reduce participation and establish 
     waiting lists using the priority system provided in 
     regulation. In the first scenario, nearly 250,000 monthly 
     participants would not receive benefits. A 22 percent 
     decrease would only allow the program to support about 5.07 
     million participants--a reduction of approximately 1,180,000 
     participants from the FY22 monthly average and 1,500,000 
     participants from current FY24 participation projections.
       Since the late 1990's, the appropriations committees' 
     bipartisan practice has been to provide enough funds for WIC 
     to serve all eligible applicants. When funds are not 
     sufficient to support caseload, WIC agencies implement a 
     priority waiting list of individuals. The first to lose 
     benefits would be non-breastfeeding postpartum women and 
     individuals certified solely due to homelessness or migrancy, 
     followed by children. This means some of the participants 
     needing benefits the most would be cut off.
       In addition, Nutrition Services and Administration funding 
     provided to States would be reduced, which would hinder State 
     agencies' ability to provide services in a timely manner and 
     result in losses of WIC-related State and local jobs.

     Bureau: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
     Program: Salaries and Expenses
     Reduction Amount: Up to $250 million
       Drastic changes to the FSIS' funding level would result in 
     an across-the-board furlough of as many as 400 and 1,800 Food 
     Safety inspectors at the FY22 and 22 percent reduction 
     scenarios, respectively. Since, Federal law mandates 
     inspection of meat, poultry, and egg products, approximately 
     6,800 establishments nationwide would experience production 
     impacts. At the higher threshold of the cut, USDA estimates a 
     lost production volume of more than 11.5 billion pounds of 
     meat, an additional 11.1 billion pounds of poultry and over 
     590 million pounds of egg products. Together, the industry 
     would experience a production loss of over $89 billion with a 
     total extended loss including distribution and retail of $416 
     billion. Consumers would experience a shortage of meat, 
     poultry, and egg products available for public consumption, 
     and the shortage may result in price increases for these 
     products. Restaurants, grocers, local merchants, and others 
     who rely on FSIS-inspected products would suffer multiplier 
     effects from the shortfall in production. The impact could 
     force smaller businesses and merchants out of business. 
     Industry workers would also be furloughed, resulting in over 
     $2.2 billion in lost wages. The livestock industry would also 
     incur additional costs for disruption of the pipeline from 
     farms to production establishments as farmers and livestock 
     producers would have to feed and store animals longer than 
     anticipated.
       The FSIS would also eliminate export inspections, resulting 
     in losses for U.S. producers and causing additional storage 
     costs and or loss of product. Export inspections could 
     adversely affect other nations since the volume of products 
     would decline. Furthermore, public food safety could be 
     compromised by the illegal selling and distribution of 
     uninspected meat, poultry, and egg products. Because the FSIS 
     is also responsible for verifying the safety of imported 
     products, cutting import inspections would result in a 
     reduction of 1.1 billion pounds of imported meat, poultry, 
     and egg products entering the country, in addition to the 
     lost production capacity within the United States. Cutting 
     import inspections might be construed as an international 
     trade issue. Moreover, there is limited storage space 
     along the border so unless foreign countries stopped 
     shipments, chill/frozen storage capacity and refrigerated 
     truck/train/ship capacity would be compromised.

     Bureau: Rural Development, Rural Housing Service
     Program: Rental Assistance
     Reduction Amount: Up to $325 million
       The Rental Assistance Program helps eligible low-income 
     tenants, in the USDA-financed multi-family housing, pay no 
     more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent. Approximately 
     288,000 tenants receive the benefit of rental assistance in 
     almost all the apartment complexes financed by Rural 
     Development. The House Republican leadership's planned 
     reduction would cause between 40,000 and 63,000 current 
     recipients to lose rental assistance. The average annual 
     income of families and individuals receiving rental 
     assistance (generally female-headed households, elderly, and 
     the disabled) is approximately $12,501. These Americans are 
     the least able to absorb any increase in the rent due to the 
     loss of rental assistance. Loss of this rent supplement may 
     cause property owners to increase rents, making the units 
     unaffordable to the very low-income residents who have few 
     options for decent, affordable housing.
       With the loss of rental assistance, or higher vacancies 
     resulting from very low-income Americans being unable to 
     afford higher rents, many properties would be unable to pay 
     all their operating costs. Owners may be unable to maintain 
     the property and allow it to fall into despair, or the 
     properties may become delinquent in their loan payments. 
     Currently, the USDA has 160 multifamily properties in the 
     foreclosure process, which may increase with reduction in 
     rental assistance. Ongoing delinquencies will lead to 
     defaults and foreclosure and may result in long-term loss of 
     affordable housing in rural communities in future years.

     Bureau: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
     Program: Conservation Operations
     Reduction Amount: Up to $225 million
       Most of the NRCS' funding is appropriated for the 
     Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) which is the agency's 
     primary program to work with private landowners across the 
     country through the USDA's unique delivery system of local 
     field offices. Working one-on-one, NRCS helps producers use 
     new technologies and implement conservation practices such as 
     organic production systems, on farm energy management, air, 
     soil, and water quality improvement, and enhancement of 
     pollinator populations.
       A reduction of up to $225 million would reduce Technical 
     Assistance Support, resulting in up to 84,000 fewer producers 
     (54 percent) receiving conservation planning assistance 
     (impacting up to 54,000,000 acres). These reductions will 
     have a deleterious impact on landscape-scale conservation, 
     water quality improvements, wildlife habitat protection, open 
     space protection, as well as natural infrastructure 
     restoration, carbon sequestration, weather prediction 
     capacity, plant material development and other programs and 
     services that support extreme weather and climate change 
     adaptation and mitigation.
       Funding cuts of this nature will hurt farm programs and 
     rural America. The Administration is committed to working 
     with Congress to improve options and better target farm 
     programs, saving money for the Federal Government while 
     maintaining a robust farm safety net. Program improvements 
     can level the playing field by ensuring payments and 
     technical assistance support the farmers and ranchers 
     who need them most--not wealthy people, passive investors, 
     or large and profitable agribusinesses. We can strengthen 
     program integrity by excluding non-farmers and investors, 
     addressing duplicative payments and improving the 
     efficiency and effectiveness of the USDA's risk management 
     and mitigation tools.

     Bureau: Farm Service Agency (FSA)
     Program: Farm Loan, Salaries and Expenses, and Grant Programs
     Reduction Amount: Up to $370 million
       Funding cuts would drastically impact service levels 
     currently provided by the FSA.

[[Page H1976]]

     At the upper level of the proposed cut, there would be 5,100 
     fewer direct farm operating loans and 1,500 other farm loans 
     (Emergency Loans, Guaranteed Operating Loans, Highly 
     Fractionated Indian Land, Heirs' Property Relending Program) 
     that could be made. The reduction of farm loan funding could 
     result in a loss of up to 26,250 private sector jobs (plus 
     the hundreds of farmers that would be forced out of farming 
     and into the off-farm job market), reduce the Gross Domestic 
     Product (GDP) by more than $1.6 billion, and reduce household 
     income by more than $1.3 billion.

     Bureau: Forest Service
     Program: Wildland Fire Management
     Sequestration Amount: Up to $515 million for Wildland Fire 
         Management Salaries and Expenses, and Preparedness, and 
         Hazardous Fuels
       Funding cuts under either scenario would place the United 
     States Forest Service (USFS) wildland fire fighting mission 
     in a decreased state of readiness and reduce agency capacity 
     to protect life and property. At the FY22 funding level, 
     efforts to modernize the workforce through pay reform and 
     additional hiring will virtually stop, and the strategy for 
     aerial wildland firefighting resource procurement and usage 
     will need to be significantly revised. The number of 
     firefighters, helicopters and airtankers will all need to 
     decrease which could lead to more fires that escape initial 
     attack and yield more large fires take weeks to contain, 
     endanger nearby communities, damage watersheds and diminish 
     other forest ecosystem services, and increase suppression 
     costs. At a 22 percent reduction, 2,200-2,700 wildland 
     firefighters would be furloughed. For both funding scenarios, 
     fewer firefighters would also reduce performance of hazardous 
     fuel treatments and maintenance of acres already treated, 
     including new priority acres that are at high and very high 
     fire risk (as high as 350,000 acres annually).

  Mr. McGOVERN. These are actual numbers. These are real statistics 
compiled by real experts. When we talk about the fact that no one needs 
to worry about what is being debated here, this is why we are worried.
  This is the impact of what they are trying to do. What they are 
trying to do will hurt regular people, will hurt veterans, will hurt 
people who are struggling to put food on the table, will hurt teachers, 
will hurt the people that we represent. It will hurt children.
  This is unconscionable, what is going on here. We cannot just sit by 
while everybody on the other side says: Oh, don't worry, be happy. It 
will all just work out. No, it won't.
  We don't share these values of these cuts. We have a separate set of 
values if my friends think that it is okay to cut these programs and 
hurt these people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend and I have had a very long day and have spent a lot of time 
together.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Spartz). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, what we have heard on the floor today is incredible, 
astounding, unbelievable, unconscionable contempt for the people that 
we are supposed to be here to fight for.
  When people tell me that both parties are the same, that both parties 
are equally bad or believe the same things, watch this debate and then 
tell me what you think.
  Democrats have different values than Republicans. They have no 
problem racking up $2 trillion in debt when it comes to tax giveaways 
for Wall Street and CEOs.
  Nobody on the other side is talking about having billionaires pay one 
cent toward reducing our deficit. Maybe that is why Speaker McCarthy 
went to Wall Street to announce his plans essentially to screw Main 
Street.
  Now they want to demand--and I say demand because this is a ransom 
note--demand 10 years of cuts unless we stick it to our own 
constituents, unless we take away food from hungry people, unless we 
kick people off of healthcare.
  They didn't win the Senate, they didn't win the White House, and they 
didn't win a big majority as they wanted in the House.
  To get what they want, they want to default on America so they can 
push through their radical MAGA agenda.
  I have to be honest with you. I was disgusted by the debate in the 
Rules Committee last night and even what has been said here on the 
floor today.
  This is unconscionably bad. This is not who we are. If you want to 
have a discussion on the debt, let's have that discussion, but this is 
an extortion.
  You are saying if we don't agree to all these draconian cuts that are 
going to hurt people that we fight for every day on this side of the 
aisle, if we don't do that, you are going to run this economy off a 
cliff.
  That is just an all-time high in recklessness and stupidity, Madam 
Speaker. We cannot accept that. The people we represent are the people 
who will be impacted by these cuts that I just mentioned by including 
in the Record all of the letters from the various agencies in our 
government. Those are our people.
  Billionaires don't need us, but regular people do. People who are 
struggling to put food on the table are counting on us to be on their 
side, not to be making their life more complicated or more difficult.
  Yet, this represents kind of the antithesis of everything that I 
believe is right. This is so wrong. It is so wrong.
  I am not going to sit back and say, oh, well, let the process work 
its will, and maybe it won't be so bad at the end of the day.
  This is bad. This is unconscionable. This is not deserving of a vote 
on the House floor today. People should reject it.
  I urge my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle: 
Reject this. You represent these same people too. They deserve to have 
you on their side, not working against them.
  Wall Street, they have enough support. They have enough people 
rooting for them to succeed. Regular people, people who are struggling 
in poverty, they need us. They are counting on us.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the 
previous question, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution. We have to 
do better than this. This is beneath the dignity of this institution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I begin by thanking my friend for engaging, as he always does, in a 
spirited debate. We don't agree on a lot of things, but I admire my 
friend's passion and appreciate his partnership on the Rules Committee, 
both when I was in the minority and now that I am fortunate enough to 
be in the majority.
  We do look at the world a little bit differently. My friend worries 
about a $2 trillion tax cut which, by the way, was stretched out over 
10 years, much of which paid itself back in economic growth, but 
forgets about a single bill that spent $1.9 trillion last year that 
they managed to do.
  Look at the results. When the President walked in pre-COVID, the 
economy had the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, growing.
  Even after going through that, the Biden administration walks into a 
V-shaped recovery and a 1.4 percent inflation rate.
  In less than 2 years, they managed to flatten that out and give us 
the highest inflation rate in over 40 years.

  How did that happen? That happened by unrestrained Democratic 
spending, out-of-control budget proposals by the President, a 
Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House that wouldn't say ``no.''
  Well, those days are behind us. I understand the agony of my friends, 
that they actually have to sit down now and talk with the Republicans 
and come to agreement.
  Now, we have come forward with a proposal that we think makes a lot 
of sense. My friend is worried about us driving up the debt.
  Why are we passing an extension of the debt ceiling? That is exactly 
what this legislation does. We are saying we just want to talk. Here is 
our opening proposal.
  We don't expect you will take everything or agree with everything. We 
know you control the United States Senate. We know the President of the 
United States has a veto, but you are going to talk with us, and you 
are not going to get a clean debt ceiling.
  We are not going to give you what you can't get yourself in a 
Democratic United States Senate. We are going to have a real discussion 
about what we need to do as a country.

[[Page H1977]]

  Now, my friend says we have different values. In some ways, we do. We 
have a common commitment to the institution. We have a common belief in 
democracy. I think we believe in civil discourse, even when we 
disagree.
  We have many things beyond that that we agree on, but we do differ in 
some ways. We believe we ought to live within our means, and that is a 
good thing to try and do.
  We think the American people ought to be able to keep more of their 
own money to spend on their own family and their own investments.
  We are willing to put some ideas forward how to do it. We think out-
of-control spending is going to make life worse.
  The cruelest tax of all is inflation. My friends are worried about 
the poorest of the poor. I know that is sincere.
  I also know the inflation that this Democratic House and Senate of 2 
years ago and the administration inflicted on the American public is a 
curse to the poorest of the poor.
  Let's sit down, find some common ground. We have done it before. We 
act as if it is extraordinary to actually debate around debt ceiling 
spending restraints.
  That is the way it is normally done, particularly in divided 
government. That is what the American people have given us. I suspect 
they want us to work together.
  We have done our part of the bargain. We will finish that out today. 
We will extend the debt ceiling, as we promised we would do.
  We will put forward a series of suggestions and proposals. We think 
they are good. Our friends won't agree with them all, but at the end of 
the day, they are going to have to come to the table.
  If they can't pass a clean debt ceiling--or if you can pass a clean 
debt ceiling in the Senate, go ahead and do it and come to the table 
with that, but I don't think you will be able to.
  We are going to sit down and find some ways to begin to restrain this 
out-of-control spending, and we are going to do it because there is a 
Republican majority in the House that demands that we do it; that we 
begin to live responsibly; that we not inflict inflation on the 
American people; that we prioritize our spending in some reasonable and 
rational way.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 327 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. I urge 
the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________