[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 184 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5482-H5489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4664, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND 
              GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 847 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 847

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4664) making appropriations for financial 
     services and general government for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2024, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 4664, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, amendments en bloc described in

[[Page H5483]]

     section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments 
     described in section 4 of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     provided by section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 4664 for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 4664 
     for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, 
     as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger 
Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House 
Resolution 847, providing for the House's continued consideration of 
appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024.
  The rule provides for H.R. 4664, the Financial Services and General 
Government Appropriations Act of 2024, to be considered under a 
structured rule with 104 amendments made in order.
  It provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and support the 
underlying pieces of legislation.
  H.R. 4664, the Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 2024, was subject to a robust committee process, 
one that saw both Republicans and Democrats offer amendments during the 
markup.
  This is a work product the whole House can be proud of. Chairman 
Womack and his team, working together with Ranking Member Hoyer and his 
team, have produced a comprehensive and timely bill. While I am sure 
the two sides have differences of opinion on the final product, I am 
also sure I am joined by all my colleagues in thanking them for their 
hard work.
  There are many aspects of this appropriations bill that I want to 
highlight. First and foremost is the commitment to rooting out wasteful 
spending.
  The bill limits funds for 31 unauthorized accounts for a savings to 
the American taxpayer of approximately $64 million. It ensures that the 
Small Business Administration focuses on its core mission--helping 
small businesses--and not undertaking unnecessary climate activism 
outside of its primary responsibilities.
  The bill also claws back wasteful spending from previous fiscal 
years, including money used to hire an army of IRS workers. The 
American people have been very clear. They don't want tens of thousands 
of additional IRS agents.
  I also commend this bill as a product of strong cooperation between 
the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing Financial Services 
Committee, on which I am proud to sit. The bill furthers a lot of the 
efforts we have been working on in that committee.
  It would prevent the SEC under Chair Gensler from finalizing rules 
that vastly overstep the Commission's jurisdiction, including ones that 
push ESG and Green New Deal agenda items over the interests of everyday 
investors.
  The bill prevents the Federal Housing Finance Agency from forcing 
responsible borrowers to subsidize individuals with bad credit.
  This bill also eliminates funding for the Federal Insurance Office 
and stops the Federal Government from taking over the insurance 
industry, an industry that is already successfully regulated at the 
State level.
  I would be remiss if I did not mention the waste and abuse that this 
bill prudently targets, starting with penalizing the administration for 
not submitting its budget request on time. If the President can't 
complete this task, then there must be consequences. This is a basic 
principle in business and in our households, one our government would 
be prudent to similarly adopt.
  Additionally, this legislation prohibits funds for Federal agencies 
until telework policies are reinstated to prepandemic standards. The 
pandemic is over, and it is long past time that the Federal Government 
returned to work. Our constituents deserve fully staffed and responsive 
agencies, and I commend Chairman Womack for his commitment to this 
principle.
  Finally, we are here today and over the course of this week to 
consider more appropriations bills like the one provided for in this 
rule because we must rein in Federal spending.
  To be more exact, this bill comes in at approximately 20 percent 
below the President's request, without sacrificing essential government 
functions. If enacted, it represents a modest 7 percent cut below last 
year's fiscal level.
  The most important number we should all keep in mind is $33 trillion, 
that is $33 trillion in debt. We can no longer afford to kick the can 
down the metaphorical road. Madam Speaker, there is no road left.
  We need to pass this rule and the FSGG appropriations bill so we can 
continue to deliver on the fiscal sanity that puts us back on the right 
path.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Indiana, Mrs. Houchin, for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, after wasting weeks as Republicans tried to get their 
house in order, we have just 10 days left to fund the government or we 
shut down.
  My colleagues across the aisle might say that the House has already 
passed 7 of 12 funding bills, but they know those bills are so extreme 
that they won't get the necessary Democratic or Republican votes in the 
Senate and don't have any chance of becoming law.
  We are reviewing another extreme bill today, H.R. 4664, the Financial 
Services and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024.
  Let's start with the numbers. The bill is 58 percent below last 
year's level. If any of you had a business or just balanced your 
housing budget, what would happen if you cut almost 60 percent from 
what you had to spend from one year to the next? Your business or your 
household would fail.

  If a budget reflects your values, this extreme Republican bill values 
the wealthy, the well-connected, the fraudsters, and the scammers.
  A family putting their baby to bed tonight knows cribs are safe. The 
babies aren't being strangled because of the work of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, which recently turned 50.
  What are Republicans doing in this bill to this well-honored and 
respected

[[Page H5484]]

Commission? They are cutting their funding by 10 percent, so big 
corporations can put profit over safety. Right now a small business 
entrepreneur in a rural community or an affordable housing developer in 
an urban neighborhood that the big banks ignore can secure financing 
from a community development financial institution.
  What is H.R. 4664 doing about those great affordable housing 
opportunities? They are cutting the CDFI funding by $45 million. They 
are cutting the Small Business Administration's entrepreneurship 
program by $72 million. They are destroying opportunities that could be 
created in small places that big banks just don't care about.
  We want to grow the middle class and lower costs for Americans, but 
this bill would do the opposite by slashing the budgets of the agencies 
that protect consumers.
  American consumers can sometimes feel helpless against the robocalls, 
the credit card and bank fees, and the financial scammers. Well, the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helped those consumers get $19 
billion back when they went after those scammers, when they went after 
those excessive fees. However, this bill would weaken this agency, an 
agency that was born out of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great 
Recession, a crisis that I will remind everybody occurred on 
Republicans' watch and brought great suffering to families and 
businesses.
  This bill also undermines oversight of Wall Street when it cuts the 
SEC by $149 million. Remember the SEC? It also came into existence, but 
this time during the Great Depression. In each financial crisis we have 
mentioned, Democratic Congresses and Presidents stood with small 
businesses and working families against greed. Yes, the greed of Wall 
Street and the greed of payday lenders.
  This bill tells us that extreme Republicans are okay with dangerous 
or defective products making their way into homes. Indeed, last night, 
one Republican Member said we should just get rid of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission or just let them make recommendations, maybe 
Congress will act. It is ridiculous to get rid of this important 
consumer product safety agency.
  Finally, this bill rescinds $10.2 billion from funding we gave to the 
IRS last year. Then it cuts more funds for the IRS to modernize or 
protect itself from cybersecurity threats. Why would you want to make 
the IRS vulnerable to cybersecurity threats?
  To add insult, the bill would keep the IRS from developing a program 
so Americans can file their taxes for free. Really? You want to make 
sure for-profit companies can charge taxpayers to file their taxes? How 
cynical is that?

                              {time}  1245

  At a time when Americans are worried about fentanyl killing their 
loved ones, this bill cuts funding for the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy.
  At a time when Americans are worried about terrorism, this bill cuts 
funding for the National Security Council and Homeland Security 
Advisory Council.
  While this bill cuts funding for CDFI, Democrats are fighting to grow 
the middle class by making housing more affordable.
  While Republicans cut funding to the SBA, we are putting people over 
politics by supporting small businesses.
  Democrats, as we have been saying for the last 3 years, put people 
over politics.
  Unfortunately, this weekend the Republican Speaker of the House 
stated he would not put people over politics. Well, today's 
appropriations bill actually proves that.
  I will end where I started. There are just 11 days to fund the 
government. We need spending bills that are bipartisan, that address 
the real needs of American taxpayers instead of just protecting the 
wealthy and well off.
  House Democrats want to work in a bipartisan manner to get things 
done for the American people, but we will not stand for the extreme 
culture wars, the attacks on reproductive healthcare, and the draconian 
cuts House Republicans keep putting up for a vote in these 
appropriations bills.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the sky is not falling. I would remind my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle that the spending levels in this bill 
are the same as they were just 10 months ago. The sky was not falling 
then, and the sky is not falling now.
  We are talking about cuts to some agencies, agencies that are intent 
on overregulating our small and midsize banks out of business.
  If our colleagues on the left would have their way, we would have 
three major national banks and no access to community lending.
  I certainly think my constituents would rather have access to their 
community banks than worry about how much funding level we are giving 
those agencies.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy).
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank my great friend and colleague 
from the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Indiana, for yielding 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, since January 2021, the Biden administration has been 
laser focused on making the fantasy of the Green New Deal a reality for 
Americans.
  Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed 
the so-called Climate Disclosure Project, which would require an 
entirely new level of burdensome, costly emissions reporting.
  Now, who will this rule impact the most? Not big business, as my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like people to believe. 
Instead, all of these new compliance costs, as with almost every new 
rule and regulation imposed by this Biden administration, will be felt 
mostly and most painfully by small business owners, farmers, and 
independent manufacturers.
  Let me be clear: This misguided rule will hurt hardworking Americans 
and hinder economic growth at a time where we should be focused on 
creating jobs and lowering inflation.
  Madam Speaker, the bottom line is this: Main Street can't afford the 
Biden economy. The American people can't afford it.
  It hasn't stopped this administration from plowing ahead with even 
more bans and phaseouts and regulations on everything from internal 
combustion engines to gas stoves.
  My district sees some of the coldest and harshest winters in the 
country in a State that, thanks to Governor Kathy Hochul, is already 
one step ahead of the Biden administration in eliminating natural gas 
as an affordable and reliable source of clean energy.
  We can't afford to allow this administration to take what climate 
extremists in States like New York and California are doing and turn it 
into a nationwide effort.
  At a time when this world is on fire and the rising cost of living is 
unsustainable, the last thing President Biden should be worried about 
is banning gas stoves, nickel-and-diming small businesses for 
emissions, and mobilizing a new IRS and a whole lot more agents to 
target hardworking families and small businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 4664 and protect American families, 
farmers, and small businesses from this administration's reckless 
agenda.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Americans know that the climate catastrophe is wreaking havoc on our 
economy.
  I come from a State where we lost billions due to wildfires that were 
caused by many factors, but this repeats itself over and over again.
  Across America, there is no place that is safe from the climate 
catastrophe: the flooding, the hurricanes, the fires, the drought, and 
those cost money.
  They cost our farmers money. They cost our ranchers money, our 
cities, our towns, our governments, and so yes, we must address that.
  In fact, this administration was elected precisely because he said he 
would address that. We need to emphasize that. To pretend that there 
isn't an economic cost is to put your head in the sand.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), my wonderful colleague representing 
the District

[[Page H5485]]

of Columbia, which is a Democratically elected city, and we should 
respect it as such.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule and the fiscal 
year 2024 Financial Services and General Government appropriations 
bill.
  The bill blocks, repeals, or amends ten laws and policies adopted by 
the District of Columbia's locally elected officials.
  The rule also makes in order three amendments that would block D.C. 
from spending its local funds, which consist of local taxes and fees, 
to carry out local D.C. laws and policies.
  While Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local 
D.C. matters, it does not have a constitutional duty to do so. Instead, 
legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice.
  The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate ``fully 
legislative power'' to D.C. on local D.C. matters.
  D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, has 13 members. All 
members are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like 
the laws the Council adopts, they can vote those members out of office. 
That is called democracy.
  Congress has 435 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents 
of the States. None are elected by or accountable to D.C. residents.
  If D.C. residents do not like the laws Congress adopts, they cannot 
vote the Members out of office. This is the antithesis of democracy.
  The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and 
to end taxation without representation. Yet, D.C. residents cannot 
consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or local 
matters, and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal 
taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal taxes than 19 
States.
  D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable 
and worthy of governing themselves. If House Republicans cared about 
Democratic principles affecting D.C. residents, they would bring my 
D.C. statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting 
representation in Congress and full local self-government to the floor.
  Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of 
Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on a few things mentioned by my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle.
  We talk about no economic cost to what they are doing in this bill in 
terms of climate, but we saw during the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank 
and Signature Bank that our regulators Federally were spending more 
time focused on climate risk to our financial sector than to systemic 
risk.
  This is an asleep-at-the-wheel approach of the Biden administration 
that we are trying to avoid in this piece of legislation.
  My colleagues also discussed the District of Columbia. Well, the 
District of Columbia is receiving Federal funds in this piece of 
legislation which does give us an opportunity to weigh in on what we 
think the policies and the policy riders that should follow within that 
should be attached to this piece of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), an esteemed Member who I look 
forward to hearing his viewpoints on the importance of addressing the 
urgent needs that Americans have told us about such as how do we lower 
costs, how do we make sure that we bring into line Americans' dreams 
with Americans' realities.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the lack of 
resources for safe and affordable housing in the Transportation, 
Housing, and Urban Development funding bill.
  Sadly, it does nothing to address the significant housing and 
community development needs of our constituents.
  Across the country, Madam Speaker, more Americans than ever are cost 
burdened with the price of rent. Parents are worried about whether they 
can keep a roof over their families' head. Frankly, Madam Speaker, the 
rent is too damn high.
  This bill rescinds $560 million from accounts that would address the 
current harmful conditions of the housing that residents currently 
face.
  The New York City Housing Authority has revealed that over the next 5 
years, to address the current and future capital needs, the agency will 
need $60 billion. These needs will only continue to compound.
  Instead of helping make these investments, the bill funds the public 
housing fund at a $150 million below last year's fiscal budget.
  Americans deserve to live in safe, reliable, and dignified housing, 
Madam Speaker. The bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to accomplish 
this, and I urge my colleagues to vote against its final passage.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, again, this bill funds at a level that 
we were just at 10 months ago. The sky was not falling then. The sky is 
not falling now, despite protestations of my friends from the other 
side of the aisle.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House 
Resolution 847 and to reiterate our commitment to equal justice under 
the law.
  As Members of this distinguished body, we all take an oath to support 
and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Financial Services and 
General Government bill we will consider this week will undermine the 
constitutional rights of Americans.
  In this legislation, Federal public defenders face a steep cut--an 
underfunding of nearly $100 million. This is unacceptable and will 
disrupt equal access to justice.
  Nearly 90 percent of defendants in Federal criminal cases cannot 
afford an attorney, which is their constitutional right to have. If 
there are not enough Federal defenders, cases could be delayed, and the 
cost will be more in the long run.

                              {time}  1300

  Defendants will be referred to private panel attorneys, who typically 
have less experience and cost more. That makes no sense.
  This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. This is an issue of 
constitutional rights, and it is smart fiscal policy.
  For several years, I have led bipartisan efforts to adequately fund 
Federal public defenders, and this year, I have led several bipartisan 
calls to fully fund our Federal defenders.
  We must defeat this rule and return the bill to committee so we can 
follow through on our constitutional responsibility to adequately fund 
Federal public defenders. It is their right to have counsel. If it is 
not afforded, they will be referred to panel attorneys, who cost more. 
That makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter from the Defender Services Advisory Group, emphasizing that 
failing to adequately fund Federal public defense will inflict a 
cascade of dangerous and damaging consequences on their program, on 
clients, and on our criminal justice system.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.


[[Page H5486]]


         Federal Public & Community Defenders, Defender Services 
           Advisory Group,
                                     Topeka, KS, November 1, 2023.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations.
     Hon. Chris Van Hollen,
     Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on 
         Financial Services and General Government.
     Hon. Kay Granger,
     Chair, House Committee on Appropriations.
     Hon. Steve Womack,
     Chair, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on 
         Financial Services and General Government.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Vice Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations.
     Hon. Bill Hagerty,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
         Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 
         Government.
     Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
     Ranking Member,
     House Committee on Appropriations.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, 
         Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 
         Government.
       Dear Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, Senator Van Hollen, 
     Senator Hagerty, Chair Granger, Ranking Member DeLauro, 
     Representative Womack, and Representative Hoyer: We write on 
     behalf of the Federal Public and Community Defenders with an 
     update on the federal defender appropriation crisis. We 
     appreciate the opportunity to provide more information on 
     this evolving topic.
       Earlier this month, upon the close of FY 2023, the 
     Judiciary directed us to prepare a fall re-estimate of our 
     budgetary needs for FY 2024. The fall re-estimate reflects 
     two realities: 1) the Judiciary's recognition that we need 
     more on-board staff to adequately represent our clients; and 
     2) the fact that--due in substantial part to the emergency 
     cost-saving measures we initiated earlier this summer--the 
     defender program has a greater carryforward into FY 2024 than 
     we first projected.
       The defender-initiated cost-saving measures have narrowed 
     the gap between the current congressional marks and the 
     minimum appropriation required to meet our obligations. 
     Before, we needed $136.3 million above the Senate mark and 
     about $108 million above the House mark simply to maintain 
     current services. Today--through defender discipline and 
     diligence over the last fiscal quarter--we need at least $109 
     million above the Senate mark or $80.6 million above the 
     House mark. We hope these lower, re-estimated numbers will 
     make it easier for Congress to increase our appropriation by 
     the amount we need to fulfill our constitutional mandate.
       The austerity measures our program implemented over the 
     past fiscal quarter have reduced the total appropriation we 
     need to fulfill our mission in FY 2024. But we must emphasize 
     that our efforts to conserve resources have not been without 
     consequence to our program and our clients. Defender offices 
     around the country have been short-staffed, which strains 
     capacity and morale. We have seen an uptick in defender 
     attrition, an inability to draw and retain experienced 
     defenders, and a reduced availability of defender offices to 
     take on critical assignments both within their districts and 
     in connection with high-profile prosecutorial initiatives 
     (such as McGirt cases). We are already bearing the burden of 
     the appropriation shortfall.
       We must also emphasize that our fiscal situation will 
     dramatically change if we are subject to a prolonged 
     continuing resolution in FY 2024 that caps us at our FY 2023 
     appropriation minus one percent. In that scenario, our FY 
     2024 appropriation amount would be $1.368 billion. At that 
     level, we would need an additional $136.9 million to meet our 
     FY 2024 financial requirements as outlined in our fall re-
     estimate.
       As we have explained elsewhere, failing to adequately fund 
     federal public defense will inflict a cascade of damaging 
     consequences on our program, on our clients, and on the 
     judicial system. These consequences will cost more in the 
     long run than they will save now. We remain in a dire 
     situation where--barring an increase of at least $109 million 
     to the current Senate mark for our program (and $80.6 million 
     to the current House mark)--we will face catastrophic 
     layoffs, unpaid furloughs, or panel deferments that will 
     seriously damage the federal criminal system and our clients.
       We are grateful that Congress still has an opportunity to 
     appropriate or supplement the sum necessary to avert these 
     grave consequences. And we deeply appreciate your ongoing 
     support for the federal defender program. Please be in touch 
     if you need any further information from us or if you have 
     questions about our situation.
           Sincerely,
     Melody Brannon,
       Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas, Co-
     Chair, Defender Services Advisory Group.
     Craig Albee,
       Executive Director, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, 
     CDO-Chair, Defender Services Advisory Group.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with the Nation $33 trillion in debt, a number higher 
than the U.S. GDP, Congress has the responsibility to reduce Federal 
spending when possible.
  According to the CBO, the United States ran a $1.7 trillion deficit 
in 2023, driven by $6.1 trillion in spending and $4.4 trillion in 
revenues following a $1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2022.
  This type of spending is completely unacceptable, and every Member of 
Congress knows it.
  With regard to funding for public defenders, $1.14 billion is 
afforded in this bill for public defender services. This provides $8.7 
billion for the judiciary, of which $110.4 million is above the fiscal 
year 2023 enacted level.
  There is no amount of spending cuts that our friends on the left will 
support. We have to get our fiscal house in order. This is a 
responsible step forward while still providing for the needs of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again that these draconian spending 
cuts are necessary because of the deficit, but let's take a step back 
and think about how we got here in the first place and what we really 
can do about it.
  We need to remember that 36 percent of the debt is due to Republican 
tax cuts, the Iraq war, the Republican war. This does not include the 
$12.5 billion that Republicans are adding to the deficit from their 
cuts to the IRS last week.
  Clearly, Republicans like to talk about this, but they don't fix the 
problem. Indeed, they are the problem. Their tax cuts are the problem.
  While the House GOP continues to blame critical social, economic 
development, and law enforcement programs for the Nation's debt, they 
hide the fact that if it weren't for those tax cuts enacted under 
President Bush and President Trump, our debt wouldn't be an issue. 
Indeed, the report shows that revenues would have kept up with spending 
if we wouldn't have had these tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, let's remind people where those tax cuts went. Who 
benefited? The wealthy and the corporations that to this day still do 
not pay their fair share in taxes.
  If you want to address the issue of the deficit, let's address the 
issue of the tax cuts, which you can see on this chart are primarily 
due to the Trump and the Bush tax cuts, which isn't included on here, 
or the Reagan tax cuts, which is when we started this downward spiral.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note for my friends on the other side of the 
aisle that 40 percent of the debt was incurred under Nancy Pelosi. Both 
parties are responsible, but it is only House Republicans that seem to 
be focused on cutting Federal spending. It just simply cannot continue.
  It is why House Republicans have put forward and support a bipartisan 
debt commission. We are talking about discretionary spending in these 
bills, not mandatory spending. The lion's share of our debt is due to 
our mandatory spending. We must address that.
  Again, I commend Chairman Womack on this piece of legislation for 
trying to cut unnecessary programs, stop funding for unauthorized 
programs, cut spending, and get us back on a better path of fiscal 
sanity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution 
which clearly states that it is the people's House's duty to keep our 
promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social 
Security and Medicare and to fight against any cuts to these vital 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

[[Page H5487]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr.  Robert Garcia), to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, we all know that Social 
Security and Medicare are core promises that we make as a country to 
every American. More than 66 million seniors, people with disabilities, 
and children rely on Social Security, but make no mistake, my 
colleagues in the majority are committed to cutting these programs down 
to the bone.
  In 2020, even our new Speaker wrote a budget proposal that called for 
raising Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages. It called for $2 
trillion in cuts to Medicare and $750 billion in cuts to Social 
Security. It would be devastating to millions of people, including 8 
million veterans who rely on Social Security and Medicare every single 
day and middle-class people across the country who would see their 
benefits cut. Cost of living increases that seniors rely on would also 
be slashed.
  The new Speaker is calling for a commission, which would be empowered 
to slash Social Security and fast-track his extreme proposals through 
Congress.
  Speaker Johnson is so out of touch that he also claimed Roe v. Wade 
and reproductive rights now require us to make more cuts to Medicare 
and Social Security. This is not the agenda the American people accept 
or support.
  Congress should come together to pass H. Res. 178 and commit to 
protecting Social Security and Medicare for all Americans. No cuts and 
no stripping benefits away from the people who work for them.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can bring up this important legislation.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing to say that Republicans want to 
cut Social Security and Medicare, to quote my colleague, ``cutting 
these programs down to the bone,'' doesn't make it so.
  Republicans are committed to reducing spending. We are committed to 
trying to find a way to get our fiscal house in order and to get us out 
of the calamity that we are currently in with our financial situation.
  The debt commission won't make cuts. It might make recommendations on 
how we can restore the Nation's fiscal health, which is a matter of 
national security. It doesn't matter if we don't make cuts or if do we 
make cuts if Social Security becomes insolvent. We cannot let that 
happen, not on our watch.
  Republicans are taking the initiative and taking the lead on trying 
to solve the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I will touch on the idea that the Trump tax cuts 
are suddenly the Pelosi tax cuts. That is ridiculous. We know the Trump 
tax cuts. They claimed them. They want to extend them. In fact, they 
have already been working on a bill in the Ways and Means Committee 
that would increase tax cuts for the wealthy, but let's put that aside.
  Mr. Speaker, let me talk about something else that is in this bill 
that is very problematic. We know that we are in a period when 
elections are so key, and preserving the integrity of our elections and 
making sure that those who work on the democratic process, the day-to-
day process of making sure that our elections work, have all the help 
that they can get.
  Right now, State and local election administrators are working hard 
to make sure that is possible, but they are afraid.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
2023 Brennan Center poll analysis about the high turnover of election 
officials amid safety threats and political interference.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.

          [From the Brennan Center for Justice, Apr. 25, 2023]

Poll of Election Officials Shows High Turnover Amid Safety Threats and 
                         Political Interference

       Forty-five percent of local election officials said they 
     fear for the safety of their colleagues.
       A new Brennan Center survey of local election officials 
     from around the country shows that many election officials 
     have left the field, and more plan to go. In 2020, confronted 
     with the Covid-19 pandemic, election officials ran what the 
     key government agencies at the time called the ``most secure 
     election in American history'' with the highest voter turnout 
     in over 100 years. But since then, the election officials 
     have found themselves targeted by a campaign to lie about 
     election results and undermine faith in American democracy.
       Scapegoated for election outcomes that some politicians and 
     voters did not like, many election officials have faced death 
     threats, online harassment, and abuse. Political leaders 
     interfered in their work by censuring or replacing some 
     officials who told the truth about election security, and in 
     some states they enacted new laws exposing officials to 
     criminal penalties for minor infractions or for taking 
     proactive steps to help their voters.
       The result is hollowing out the ranks of experienced 
     election administration professionals, with potentially more 
     to come in the next year. The survey found that 12 percent of 
     local election officials began their service after the 2020 
     election cycle. Another 11 percent of current officials say 
     they are very or somewhat likely to leave before November 
     2024. If these officials follow through and exit their 
     positions, we will have lost approximately 1.5 election 
     officials per day between the November 2020 and 2024 
     elections.
       The loss of institutional knowledge that accompanies such 
     high turnover can mean that election officials are less aware 
     of resources available to assist them in securing and running 
     their elections. Large numbers of resignations can also 
     result in more administrative mistakes, which can in turn 
     fuel conspiracy theories and threats, continuing the cycle 
     that has led to resignations in the first place,
       The findings of our survey provide some explanation as to 
     why election officials continue to leave office at high 
     rates, as well as some clues as to what can be done to 
     staunch the bleeding and offer support where it is needed 
     most, particularly to the field's newest members.


                           Dangers on the job

       Threats, abuse, and harassment continue to be a significant 
     concern in the field. Cathy Darling Allen, the clerk and 
     registrar of voters of Shasta County, California, has 
     described fearing for the safety of her staff after 
     discovering a surveillance camera planted at the back 
     entrance of her office used by poll workers during the 2022 
     primary. At least one other official discovered a wireless 
     video camera aimed at his front door. In Gillespie County, 
     Texas, election staff endured several kinds of harassment, 
     including volunteer poll watchers calling the police and 
     filming staff in a dark parking lot, attempting to forcibly 
     enter a secure ballot vault, and stalking and threatening 
     some staffers. In August 2022, the entire staff resigned, 
     with at least one person citing threats in her resignation 
     letter.
       This issue is not limited to a small number of places: our 
     survey shows that nearly one in three election officials have 
     been harassed, abused, or threatened because of their job. 
     Alarmingly, more than one in five are concerned about being 
     physically assaulted on the job in future elections. Election 
     officials worry about their colleagues, with 45 percent of 
     respondents expressing concern for the safety of other 
     election officials and workers in future elections. Not 
     surprisingly then, more than half of respondents expressed 
     concern that the attacks will make it more difficult to 
     retain or recruit election workers in future elections.


                Lack of funding hurts election security

       At the same time, 74% of local election officials say they 
     need their annual budget to grow to address security and 
     election administration needs over the next five years. 
     Election systems are critical infrastructure vital to our 
     democracy and national security, and Congress's unwillingness 
     to provide adequate funding is a significant failure. While 
     the Department of Homeland Security's announcement requiring 
     more federal grant money be dedicated to election security 
     was a step in the right direction, our survey shows there is 
     more work to do.
       Election officials say increased funding would allow them 
     to invest in more poll workers and improved voting equipment, 
     as well as strengthen cybersecurity and the physical security 
     of election offices. Many election officials have sought to 
     secure their offices following threats. An election official 
     in Jackson County, Oregon asked the state for about $80,000 
     to install bullet-resistant glass and transaction windows at 
     certain office counters after the parking lot was painted 
     with threatening language. The Brennan Center has estimated 
     that implementing basic physical security measures to protect 
     election workers would cost about $300 million over the next 
     five years.
       Our survey shows that election officials are unable to 
     adopt basic physical and cybersecurity measures because they 
     do not have the funds to do so. Of the 49 election officials 
     we interviewed who availed themselves of free cyber hygiene 
     scans provided by DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
     Security

[[Page H5488]]

     Agency and the 54 who received their free physical security 
     assessments, the vast majority implemented at least some of 
     the recommended improvements. But in each category, only 10 
     adopted all recommendations. Of those who did not adopt more 
     recommendations, lack of funds was the top reason why not.


                         Political interference

       Election officials continue to express concern about 
     political interference in alarmingly high numbers. In the 
     aftermath of the 2020 election, many election officials faced 
     pressure from political leaders to certify certain election 
     outcomes. President Trump notoriously called Georgia 
     Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to ask him to ``find 
     11,780 votes.'' In 2021, Arizona legislators transferred 
     powers from the state's Democratic secretary of state over to 
     the attorney general, apparently to prevent the settlement of 
     lawsuits aiming to improve voter access. In Wisconsin and 
     Arizona, sham partisan reviews of the 2020 election were used 
     to misrepresent the work of election officials and cast doubt 
     on legitimate results.
       Many local election officials see this threat of political 
     interference as ongoing, with 56 percent reporting that they 
     are either somewhat or very worried about political leaders 
     engaging in efforts to interfere with how their fellow 
     election officials do their jobs. And more than one in nine 
     say they are concerned about facing pressure to certify 
     election results in favor of a specific candidate or party in 
     future elections.


                            Federal support

       Most election officials feel that the federal government 
     could be doing more to help, with only 27 percent saying that 
     the federal government is doing a ``good job'' supporting 
     them in their roles. Election officials have reason to 
     complain. In addition to the $300 million mentioned above for 
     protecting election workers from new threats and violence, 
     the Brennan Center has also estimated the cost of protecting 
     against insider threats as a result of growing belief in 
     conspiracy theories around elections could similarly exceed 
     $300 million. Further, we estimated in 2022 that the cost to 
     replace polling place voting machines that are aging out is 
     nearly $600 million over the following 5 years. Despite these 
     massive numbers, Congress provided just $75 million in new 
     money for elections last year.
       While this failure is frustrating, it's also worth noting 
     many election officials aren't aware of the full range of 
     federal services available to them, such as federal grant 
     programs and communications toolkits. This lack of awareness 
     is also an opportunity for the federal government. As soon as 
     possible, federal agencies that provide resources to election 
     officials should develop a comprehensive and coordinated 
     communications plan to establish regular contact with 
     election officials through the 2024 election, promote federal 
     funding opportunities and resources. and provide election 
     officials with a venue to highlight questions and concerns.
       By and large, the 2022 election was a success for election 
     administration. There was limited violence, courts pushed 
     back on efforts to refuse to certify elections, and election 
     deniers lost key governor and secretary of state contests.
       With the 2024 presidential election approaching, now is the 
     time to ask what we can do to further strengthen election 
     administration. It's clear that many election officials still 
     feel they face a hostile environment, with more than 1 in 10 
     saying they very or somewhat likely to exit their office in 
     the relatively short time before November 2024. We should 
     work to strengthen cyber and physical protections for 
     election offices, increase funding, and elevate available 
     resources for election officials.
       Note on Methodology: Our calculation for the rate of 
     turnover among election officials was made as follows: there 
     are approximately 10,000 local election officials in the 
     United States. In our survey, 12 percent of election 
     officials stated they had replaced their predecessors after 
     November 2020, amounting to 1,200 officials. About 900 days 
     passed between the November 2020 election and when the poll 
     was conducted: 1,200 officials divided by 900 days equals 
     roughly 1.34. 11 percent of officials are unlikely to 
     continue serving through November 2024, amounting to 1,100 
     officials. 1,100 officials divided by 560 days until the 
     November 2024 election equals roughly 1.96.

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4664 would make it harder for 
those hardworking election officials to do their jobs.
  This bill cuts funding for the Election Assistance Commission by $8 
million. That funding helps State and local officials administer fair, 
free, and secure elections. H.R. 4664 would also eliminate funding for 
election security grants.
  In New Mexico, the secretary of State has used that money for 
security trainings and to enhance voter registration.
  Don't we all want more people to vote? I know Democrats do.
  Indiana, as an example, has used funds for election security and to 
upgrade voting equipment. This bill says to those election 
administrators: Good luck. We are not helping you anymore with these 
kinds of Federal funds.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not all. This bill includes multiple riders that 
would allow private companies, nonprofits, and government contractors 
to keep their political spending secret. This type of secrecy leads the 
American public to lose faith in our representative government. Our 
constituents deserve transparency and to know that we work for them and 
not some special interest group.
  Let's put this bill aside and instead take up one that our democracy 
deserves. We must always be working to that more perfect Union that our 
Constitution calls out, but it requires work and funding our elections 
at adequate levels.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I note again that this bill is funded at 
levels that we were just under 10 months ago. If we were operating just 
fine 10 months ago under the grants that my colleague mentioned, then 
we will be operating just fine following the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, think about this rule. It sets out many amendments, and 
that is what we have been seeing when we have been coming to the floor. 
We come down and spend 10 minutes debating amendments that would reduce 
somebody's salary to $1, but then it loses overwhelmingly. Over and 
over, we keep coming to the floor and debating these amendments that 
are nonstarters from the beginning, but we are taking up precious floor 
time to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, there was an amendment that isn't in this rule that 
passed out of committee on a 30-30 vote. It was highly bipartisan and 
didn't make it into the underlying bill. We asked last night if we 
couldn't bring an amendment like this that clearly has bipartisan 
support to the floor so that House Members would be able to vote on it.
  Mr. Speaker, that amendment was the bipartisan Aguilar-Ciscomani 
amendment, which would have allowed DACA recipients to work for the 
Federal Government.
  Remember, Dreamers can lawfully work for State, local, and Tribal 
governments and in the private sector. Americans overwhelmingly support 
Dreamers who were brought to this country at a young age and grew up 
here. Up to 73 percent of voters in battleground States support 
Dreamers and their ability to work.
  This is the kind of amendment that this rule should have made in 
order. I am disappointed that it didn't.
  Mr. Speaker, as noted, after waiting weeks for the Republicans to 
stop their infighting, we have just 10 days to fund the government. 
However, my colleagues across the aisle have brought forward a bill 
that slashes crucial funding for agencies that protect hardworking 
Americans. Remember, this bill is 58 percent below what was 
appropriated last year.
  What does it do? It makes it easier for scammers, fraudsters, and 
cheaters to exploit vulnerable citizens, including our seniors and 
children, and makes it easier for them to get away with it.
  The proposed cuts to agencies like the IRS, the Federal Trade 
Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission would expose 
families to greater risk, all while protecting the interests of the 
wealthy and the well connected.
  As if that wasn't enough, this bill reduces support for election 
officials by eliminating funding for election security grants.
  In June, Congressional Republicans and Democrats and President Biden 
made a deal to keep the lights on, and we passed the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act into law. Mr. Speaker, 149 Republicans voted for 
that law.
  Americans expect us to live up to our word. Americans expect us to 
live up to our promise. Americans expect us to live up to a law that 
came out of significant and intense negotiation as to what the funding 
level for government would be.
  Unfortunately, Republicans broke that promise. They didn't even wait 
a week before they broke that promise.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
this

[[Page H5489]]

rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  We face another week of big legislation under consideration for a 
vote on the House floor to better the lives of everyday Americans. H.R. 
4664, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act 
of 2024, as well as the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill, which was provided for under a separate rule, are 
important steps in delivering on our promises for a Nation that is both 
responsive and responsible to the American people and one that delivers 
a government that is accountable.
  It is Republicans that are keeping our Commitment to America. With 
the passage of these two bills, we are closer to finalizing the 
appropriations process. We can continue to lead while also reining in 
out-of-control government spending.
  As I said in my opening remarks, we need to pass this rule and the 
FSGG appropriations bill so we can continue delivering fiscal sanity to 
put us back on a better path.
  I look forward to moving these promises out of the House this week. I 
ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question 
and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as 
follows:

   An Amendment to H. Res. 847 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New 
                                 Mexico

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 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.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________