[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.
____________________