[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 185 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5550-H5643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4664, and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 847 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4664.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0912


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Williams of New York in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member on the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 4664, the 
fiscal

[[Page H5551]]

year 2024 Financial Services and General Government appropriations 
bill.
  Before I get into details, I would like to recognize the hard work of 
Chairwoman Granger on this bill, and the entire appropriations process.
  We are one step closer to passing the last remaining few 
appropriations bills. I also want to thank my good friend, Ranking 
Member Steny Hoyer, for his input on this bill. We have had many 
conversations. Steny is a dear friend of mine, somebody that I worked 
very closely with, not only with this bill, but other matters of 
importance to our country. I consider him a very, very dear friend, and 
it is an honor to have him at my side as the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, look at these people right here. This is my team. I 
know I am a bit prejudiced. Steny would probably say the same thing 
about his team. These are the best that we have. We have Lauren Flynn 
and her team and my personal staff. The work they have put into this 
process is truly remarkable.
  I want the American people to know how dedicated these folks are in 
trying to deal with the challenges that face our country on an everyday 
basis, in this case, the funding of our government.

                              {time}  0915

  I could not do what I do, nor could any Member of this House of 
Representatives, no Member can do what they do without the dedication 
of these people. It is not lost on me, and I want to publicly recognize 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4664 provides $25.279 billion in nondefense 
discretionary spending across a number of critical agencies. The swath 
that we cover is incredible.
  It also includes $45 million in defense spending. It rejects over $6 
billion in discretionary funding increases within the President's 
budget request.
  The bill represents an adequate level of funding, given our fiscal 
constraints. It is 7 percent below the fiscal year `23 enacted level 
and 2 percent below the fiscal year `22 enacted level.
  The bill provides the resources necessary to combat threats and 
protect the integrity of our financial and judicial system.
  We claw back over $10 billion of unused and unobligated Inflation 
Reduction Act IRS funding preventing the creation of a super army of 
IRS agents poised to target individuals and small business owners. This 
rescission does not touch taxpayer services or the modernization of 
business systems which means taxpayers will still be able to get the 
assistance they need to file their taxes, and the IRS can continue to 
modernize their systems and better protect taxpayer data from 
cyberattacks.
  We also rescind IRA money from the General Services Administration 
targeted to make Federal buildings greener. Instead of leading by 
example in the construction of sustainable buildings, GSA should lead 
by example by bringing their employees back to the office like the 
private sector.
  I am proud this bill requires Federal agencies to return to the 
office at prepandemic telework levels. We must hold the Federal 
workforce accountable for the quality of their work and the service 
they provide to the American people. The administration has been 
unwilling to make any real progress on this front, and we cannot afford 
to have vacant Federal buildings in the District and across our 
country.
  The bill demands that agencies concentrate on their core mission. Mr. 
Chair, let me say that again. It is important that our agencies that we 
fund stick to their core mission. The pursuit of job-killing, 
burdensome, and unnecessary regulations only serve to further bloat a 
Federal bureaucracy that has become, in my strong opinion, too big, too 
intrusive, and counterintuitive to limited government.
  Specifically, we turn off rulemaking in the Securities and Exchange 
Commission that lack proper cost-benefit analysis and aggregate income 
analysis. Further, we prohibit agencies like the SEC and the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau from collecting and storing personal data 
that is unconstitutional and serves no regulatory purpose.
  To be clear, the agencies under our jurisdiction perform important 
functions; however, many have strayed from their purpose, and the 
results have been a true disservice to the American people. This bill 
responsibly returns them to their core mission.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is a strong bill with funding reductions and 
policy wins, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I echo the remarks of the 
chairman of this committee. The American public, I think, would be 
pleased and say: Look, this is how it ought to work.
  Mr. Womack and I have great respect for one another. We are great 
friends and have been long before we were chair and ranking member on 
this subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee. He is a person of 
great integrity, great insight, and a great work ethic. He is somebody 
who the House can be proud of. He is somebody whom I hold, as he said 
of me, as a dear friend.
  I also want to echo his comments about the staff. The public doesn't 
see the staff for the most part as, frankly, they don't see the 
overwhelming majority of Federal employees who are not known to the 
general public. There is a tendency to talk about bureaucracy. 
Bureaucracy is used as a pejorative term and not as a descriptive term, 
and that is unfortunate because the overwhelming--overwhelming--
majority of Federal employees carry out their duties with great 
fidelity to their responsibilities and to the American people. So this 
bill is not the bill that, for the most part, most people focus on.
  Nevertheless, it is one of the most important bills that we consider 
because all 11 other appropriation bills are reliant on the collections 
made through this bill, and that is why I think it is so critical.
  Mr. Chairman, every Member of this House ought to make it their goal 
to preserve America's fiscal health.
  Sharing that common goal, President Biden, Speaker McCarthy and 149 
Republicans, and 165 Democrats--314 people, which is 75 percent 
essentially of this House--agreed on a plan of going forward.
  The first thing you do on a plan, Mr. Chair, is to decide how much 
are we going to spend?
  The President had a higher level, and some in this House and the 
Senate had a lower level. Speaker McCarthy and President Biden came 
together, and they agreed on a spending level. That is what we call, if 
we had done it through the regular order, a 302(a) allocation. In other 
words, it is what we are going to spend on the discretionary side of 
the ledger, which, by the way, is smaller than the mandatory side.
  We did that. We adopted that bill, as I said, with over 300 votes. 
Unfortunately, a week later that agreement was broken by the Republican 
side of the aisle in saying: No, we are not going to do that. We are 
not going to follow that agreement. We are going to fund at a much 
lesser level.
  Now, the problem with that is Republican and Democratic Members of 
the Senate pursued under that agreement, and so they are literally 
billions of dollars different than we will be when these 12 bills, 
assuming we pass these 12 bills, are sent over to the Senate.

  There are some in this House who have a theory that, well, that gives 
us the opportunity to negotiate for more numbers. The problem with 
negotiating for more numbers is that nobody believes they are real.
  That is not true. Some do. Some do. Some few in this body believe 
this is real and that they are going to somehow leverage these numbers 
and force the Senate and the President to do what they want them to do. 
The President of the United States and his administration have issued a 
veto threat on this bill if it were to be adopted. They are not going 
to have to exercise that veto because this bill is not going to be 
adopted.
  Nevertheless, I will tell you, Mr. Chair, if Mr. Womack and I were 
left to our own devices--and he has a different perspective than I do, 
and that is what makes this body work--then we would come to an 
agreement that we think would pass the Senate and be signed by the 
President.
  Why?
  It is because we would do what in a democracy you have to do, Mr. 
Chair. We would come together and compromise, realizing full well that 
we

[[Page H5552]]

have a Democratic President, a Democratic-controlled Senate, and a 
Republican almost majority. It is an absolute majority. I understand 
that politically. Nonetheless, it is not a majority that can always 
hold together, and; therefore, it can't always effect the policies that 
it knows are reasonable and can be adopted.
  Now, I said at the beginning that we ought to preserve America's 
fiscal health, and I believe that sincerely. The deal that we made, 67 
percent of House Republicans voted for it. That bill that we have 
before us does not honor that agreement. As I said, it does not 
establish a foundation, really, for negotiation. It does nothing to 
avert the shutdown looming just a few days from today.
  Crucially, it will increase the deficit over time, and I will explain 
why. In fact, this legislation severely undermines the government's 
ability to lower the deficit and to uphold the law of the land. It 
defunds crucial agencies that enforce laws, regulations, and rules 
established to protect the American people, American families, and 
America's children.
  Those cuts include the FTC, the SEC, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Election 
Assistance Commission, and the FCC. This is essentially saying to 
Americans: You are on your own. We are going to reduce oversight.
  This bill defends justice, if you will. It dramatically cuts funding 
for the Federal public defender program which helps ensure every 
American can exercise their constitutional right to an attorney.
  Other law enforcement agencies face dire cuts under this legislation. 
Among them, Mr. Chair, is the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. We 
hear a lot about fentanyl, we hear a lot about money laundering, and we 
hear a lot about the drug cartels making a lot of money.
  Mr. Chair, we created the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 
otherwise known as FinCEN, for the specific purpose of following the 
money. That is how Willie Sutton, obviously, got caught: tax evasion. 
Follow the money. We have undermined that premise in this bill.
  We then decrease the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
  Terrorism is one of the great challenges of our time, and what do we 
do?
  We decrease the agencies that are charged with overseeing that, among 
other agencies.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy, now you would think, Mr. 
Chair, given the expression that all of us have and concern we have 
about fentanyl, drug abuse, and drug deaths in this country, that we 
would beef up that office to make sure that we can, in fact, confront 
this scourge on our people and our country. No. We cut it.
  The emergency planning and security costs in this city, the Capital 
City, to which millions of our constituents come, are reduced.
  In total, this bill cuts $345 million, or 6.2 percent, below the 
enacted for crucial law enforcement agencies. It provides $1.32 
billion, or 20.2 percent, less for law enforcement than what President 
Biden requested in his Office.
  Mr. Chair, in that context, I would ask: Who is defunding the police?
  Yet, Republicans have the nerve, frankly--not my chairman--some 
Republicans have the nerve to accuse Democrats of trying to defund law 
enforcement.
  Paring back enforcement has dire consequences for the deficit, as 
well, Mr. Chair. This legislation is the latest salvo in some 
Republicans' long campaign to defund the Internal Revenue Service. The 
number of annual tax returns, Mr. Chair, increased from 140.1 million 
in 1979 to 269 million in 2021. That is a 92 percent increase in 
workload.
  So what is our response?
  It is over the years to reduce from 85,000 people in 1979 trying to 
handle this extraordinary workload to in 2021 78,661. This is an 8 
percent decrease while a 92 percent workload increase occurred. That 
means refunds get delayed, returns aren't audited, owed taxes go 
uncollected, tax cheats and lawbreakers are not held accountable, and 
our debt grows even bigger.
  Mr. Chair, if you are a business trying to get the revenue you are 
owed, frankly, you don't fire the collection department. If you had bad 
debts, you would go after them. This bill does just that. It cuts the 
collection department.
  Contrary to Republican claims, this issue isn't about raising taxes 
on anyone. My friend, the majority leader, opined on this floor that 
these agents were going to raise people's taxes. Those agents can't 
raise anybody's taxes. The only people who can raise or lower taxes are 
the people who sit in this body and across the Hall and the President 
of the United States. No agent can do that.

                              {time}  0930

  All the agents can do is collect what is owed under the laws that we 
passed. Those agents instead ensure that we each pay the share we 
legally owe, and they go after the cheats and lawbreakers who don't.
  If you are for law and order, that is what you are for. If people 
cheat, if people break the law, you hold them accountable. If you are 
going to hold them accountable, you need the personnel to do so because 
some of them have scads of lawyers and accountants and very complicated 
returns of thousands of pages.
  Too often, those lawbreakers are Americans with a lot of wealth and 
complex tax files. I am not talking about the overwhelming majority of 
Americans whose taxes are withheld on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly 
basis. I am talking about the select few who use passthroughs, shell 
companies, and offshore accounts to shield their vast wealth from 
taxation. I don't want them to pay any more than is owed, and I don't 
have any beef against anybody who is wealthy. What I have beef against 
is people who cheat and cheat their country.
  Harvard and Treasury experts found that there is a 12-to-1 return on 
investment for IRS enforcement of the top 10 percent of earners. If you 
spend $1, you get $12 back. That is a pretty good deal, and it makes a 
real difference.
  Years of budget and staffing cuts have limited the IRS' ability to 
conduct these complex audits because they are extraordinarily time 
consuming and complex.
  Millionaires were 88 percent less likely to face an audit in fiscal 
year 2022 than they were in fiscal year 2010. That is an almost 100 
percent reduction, from essentially $9-plus to $1. The result is a 
backdoor tax cut, but only for those with the means and guile to 
exploit accounting tricks to hide profits, income, and, in the end, tax 
obligation. They have a duty to support their country, the national 
security, and the healthcare investments we make in Medicare and Social 
Security.
  This bill includes a 22.2 percent cut below the request for IRS 
enforcement. My chairman will correctly observe that the other items he 
will point out have been held relatively harmless. It is only the 
collection department that was cut.
  By the way, a recent article from just last month pointed out that 
the IRS now estimates that there is $688 billion in unpaid taxes. Let's 
think of what that would do to the deficit over time if you collected 
the money that was due, not that you are increasing, but that was due. 
That is a disservice to hardworking Americans who patriotically and 
conscientiously pay their taxes.
  This bill defunds those agencies of government that keep us safe, 
with a cut below the enacted of $9.6 million for the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy, which I talked about; $24.2 million for FinCEN, 
the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; and $9.2 million for the 
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence that confronts terrorism 
everywhere you find it.
  It disrupts the agencies that ensure the products we buy and the 
markets we invest in aren't overrun with fraud by undermining the 
independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  By cutting the Consumer Products Safety Commission, it makes it very 
hard for consumers, Mr. Chair, to make the determination of: Is this 
product safe? Has it been tested? They rely on us to make sure that, 
yes, it has been tested and that, yes, it is safe so it won't hurt or 
kill their children.
  They are cutting the SEC by $149 million, which disrupts the markets 
if people don't trust them. You didn't have an overseer in 1920. Now, 
you have an overseer, and people have much more trust because of that 
overseer.

[[Page H5553]]

  It hampers the agencies that make those who try to get one over on 
the rest of us think twice and that hold these people accountable with 
a cut of $7 million to the FEC, $53 million to the Federal Trade 
Commission, and $8 million to the Federal Communications Commission, 
which, by the way, in part is responsible for making sure we don't get 
all those junk calls all the time that annoy the living daylights out 
of all of us.
  These are just some of the cuts. If Republicans want to be the party 
of fiscal responsibility, if they want to be the party of law 
enforcement, they need to shelve this bill.
  They know this legislation will never become law. They have loaded it 
with partisan poison pills, which I have not spoken of but that I am 
sure will be spoken of during the course of this, such as undermining a 
woman's right to choose.
  I am sure that everybody saw what happened in Ohio yesterday. Ohio, 
for the most part, has been a red State, but it overwhelmingly said a 
woman's right to choose needs to be protected. They believed in that so 
much that they are going to put it in the Ohio Constitution.
  This bill has been loaded with partisan poison pills designed to 
varnish American history. We don't want to talk about slavery. We don't 
want to make anybody feel bad about what their country did to people 
because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. This 
bill undermines diversity, equity, and inclusion and exacerbates the 
climate crisis.
  Mr. Chair, we will talk about a lot of this bill for the next few 
hours. I hope it is a few hours, not more than that. I think the chair 
and I will try to achieve that objective.
  We ought to stop this nonsense. We are going to have a lot of 
amendments to reduce salaries to $1. That is not a serious Congress. It 
is not a serious Rules Committee to have 55 amendments reducing 
salaries to $1.
  The only ones that have been approved have been approved by a voice 
vote. Every other one has been defeated, yet we keep dealing with these 
silly amendments while we undermine America's ability to collect the 
revenues it needs to protect the American people, play our role 
throughout the international community, and make America a safer and 
greater country.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

  Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, Steny and I are really good friends, 
and this goes all the way back to when I first got here. He had already 
been here for a long time. I won't say how much time, but quite a 
while, so I learn from people like that.
  That being said, we have a different view in many cases, sometimes 
about the role of the government or why we need to fund the government 
at levels that they would prefer. I am going to pick one issue. There 
are many we could talk about, but he mentioned fentanyl.
  Nobody in this country would argue that we don't have a fentanyl 
problem. Mr. Chairman, 100,000 people a year are dying as a result of 
this synthetic, illegal substance that is making its way across our 
borders.
  Mr. Chairman, what this side of the aisle believes is that instead of 
fighting the issue on the inside of the country--and let me remind you 
that on the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, we fund 
HIDTA at a level higher than the President of the United States 
requested. It is a little bit less than last year but higher than the 
President's request.
  I reject out of hand the notion that we are endangering the lives of 
Americans because all of a sudden we don't think that fentanyl is a 
problem. No, we believe fentanyl is a problem, but we believe the 
problem should be addressed at the border of this country, at our 
southern border, where a lot of this product is making its way across 
without any real effort to stop it.
  It is making its way into the households of America, from sea to 
shining sea. Then all of a sudden we get accused of wanting to cut 
budgets for agencies that target that illegal substance. For some 
reason, we are the bad guys.
  We think that if we had better border security, which is something 
that both sides of the aisle have argued about for decades, maybe we 
wouldn't need as much money to fight these problems interior to our 
country.
  I use that as an example, and there are others, but let's just agree 
on this: With the better part of a $2 trillion deficit this year, we 
have to address the root cause of what is causing such a difficult spot 
for this Nation, and that is the fiscal health of the country.
  Mr. Chairman, $2 trillion deficits, as far as the eye can see, are 
not a sustainable outcome. We are over $33 trillion in debt right now, 
and I guess the debt service of our country--I don't know what the 
current numbers are, but it is approaching a trillion dollars a year.
  We should think for just a moment what we could do if, instead of 
paying our creditors, we are able to use that trillion dollars for 
programs that benefit all Americans. That is a subject for a different 
day.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. 
Hinson), my dear friend who is a very valued member of this 
subcommittee and a bright, shining star in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  Mrs. HINSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for 
yielding me the time to speak on this very important piece of 
legislation today and for his leadership on this bill. It is tough to 
craft a bill that funds the priorities of the American people in a way 
that is targeted and respects taxpayers, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's approach to do that in a very meaningful way.
  Mr. Chair, it is why I am supporting this bill here today, the fiscal 
year 2024 Financial Services and General Government appropriations 
bill.
  This bill delivers on the promises that we have made to the American 
people. We are reining in out-of-control spending and regulation. We 
are restoring accountability for taxpayers. We are deweaponizing the 
Federal Government.
  Additionally, as the chairman mentioned, we are prioritizing national 
security against our foreign adversaries, both in dealing with the 
border and also in dealing with adversaries like China.
  This bill promotes a Federal Government that works for the American 
people. We are ensuring that bureaucrats who have been abusing the 
COVID-19 telework policies and are still working from home actually go 
back to work and get back in the office like America is. They need to 
start putting in 100 percent effort for the taxpayers that pay their 
salary.
  I am not sure how many of my colleagues here in the Chamber, Mr. 
Chair, are aware of the GAO report that came out over the summer, but 
it flagged that 17 of 24 Federal agencies here in Washington, D.C., 
were only using, on average, about 25 percent of their office space.
  Taxpayers fund the bill for these offices. It is $7 billion a year. 
The lights were on, but no one was home. We need to make sure that they 
are putting 100 percent effort in for the taxpayers that pay their 
salary.
  I am sure all of our offices are getting the same calls mine are 
about reductions in government services, and we need to make sure they 
are giving 100 percent.
  This bill also restores accountability by reining in rogue 
overreaching agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
that will now be subject to congressional oversight and will answer to 
the American taxpayer rather than being able to pursue a partisan 
agenda that hurts our small businesses.
  This bill also protects American families and small businesses by 
rescinding funding for President Biden's proposals to supercharge an 
army of IRS agents, while maintaining those very important taxpayer 
service operations. We don't want to see a reduction in services for 
our taxpayers, and when they are calling, they should not be getting a 
dial tone.
  Our bill also protects Iowa farmers from onerous regulations like the 
SEC's climate disclosure rule and the expansive Scope 3 emissions 
disclosure requirement. This would be disastrous for producers not only 
in my district but around the country. It would bury our hardworking 
farmers, who feed and fuel the world, in paperwork and compliance 
costs.

[[Page H5554]]

  


                              {time}  0945

  We are also taking strong steps to ensure that we are bolstering 
national security against threats from our adversaries, like the 
Chinese Communist Party. I also serve on the Select Committee on the 
Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese 
Communist Party. I think this is of utmost importance, Mr. Chair. We 
need to protect taxpayer resources from supporting the Wuhan Institute 
of Virology or any other laboratory operated by the CCP.
  Finally, this includes my language to require the GSA to investigate 
the status of Chinese surveillance equipment on Federal property. It 
supports efforts to remove that telecom equipment from U.S. networks.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Iowa.
  Mrs. HINSON. Mr. Chair, I think this really hits the mark in 
investing in the priorities I continue to hear about from my 
constituents. It is why I am proud to support it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished former chair and current 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Womack, Ranking Member 
Hoyer, and the subcommittee staff, especially Matt Smith and Philip 
Tizzani, for all the work they do.
  This Financial Services and General Government bill put forth by the 
majority is unacceptable. The Republicans propose cutting critical 
agencies the American people depend on for a stable, secure, safe, and 
fair economy by a staggering 58 percent.
  My colleagues across the aisle often claim to support things like law 
and order, economic competition, and protecting children. Yet, their 
actions demonstrated by this bill suggest otherwise.
  Cuts to the Small Business Administration would cut off assistance 
and resources that help small businesses start, grow, and compete.
  Cuts to the Securities and Exchange Commission would benefit market 
manipulators and inside traders over families saving for retirement.
  Cuts to the Federal Trade Commission would levy higher prices on 
Americans and make seniors more prone to be victimized by scammers.
  Cuts to the Consumer Product Safety Commission would enable dangerous 
products to hit store shelves and enter our homes, potentially harming 
our children.
  Finally, cuts to the Internal Revenue Service would protect cheats 
over honest, hardworking families. We know an underfunded, 
understaffed, and overwhelmed IRS means the wealthiest billionaires and 
corporations avoid paying taxes. According to Secretary Yellen, ``In 
2019, the top 1 percent of Americans was estimated to owe over one-
fifth of unpaid taxes, leaving ordinary Americans to shoulder the 
burden.''
  Furthermore, in 2021, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 
found that at least 55 of the largest corporations in America--in a 
year they saw over $40 billion in pretax income--had paid no Federal 
corporate income taxes. Corporations like Nike, Hewlett-Packard, and 
Dish Network paid zero Federal income taxes.
  Treasury recently announced that thanks to the resources provided in 
the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS is pursuing back taxes owed from 
about 1,600 taxpayers with incomes over $1 million. They have so far 
closed 100 of those cases, collecting $122 million since September. 
That is not a tax increase. That is collecting revenue legally owed.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle frame the debt as a 
problem of our investments in the American people. We have a revenue 
problem, and they refuse to let the IRS collect legally owed taxes from 
their billionaire and corporate friends to address this problem.
  We cannot stand for the disadvantaging of small businesses, making 
seniors susceptible to scammers, exposing children to dangerous 
products, and rigging the stock market for the well-connected and 
wealthiest.
  Earlier this year, I met with SBA Administrator Guzman. The 
Administration is extraordinarily concerned with how they would provide 
the resources America's entrepreneurs rely on to help start their 
businesses and grow if these cuts are enacted. Small businesses are an 
essential part of the American economy and really are the core to the 
financial security of our middle class. They define Main Street in 
neighborhoods across the country.
  This bill not only slashes funding for the IRS by $1.1 billion, but 
it takes back more than $10 billion in funding provided in the 
Inflation Reduction Act. This is on top of cuts to the IRS that the 
majority is pursuing as a condition for providing aid to Israel, and in 
addition to the $57 billion in cuts to the IRS' Inflation Reduction Act 
funding in the other 11 appropriations bills.
  These cuts would rob the Treasury of $130 billion and hand it 
directly to billionaires, the biggest corporations, fraudsters, and tax 
cheats. That is not according to me. That is according to the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about 
wanting to be tough on China, and yet this bill includes no funding for 
the Administration's efforts to restrict outbound investment in 
countries like China that threaten our national security. The majority 
is giving a green light to the potential offshoring of critical United 
States' supply chains to foreign adversaries like China and Russia.
  Of course, the majority doesn't stop there. They have included dozens 
of problematic, pointless riders, including prohibitions on the SEC's 
climate disclosure rule, prohibitions on healthcare and abortion, 
micromanaging the District of Columbia's traffic laws at a level that 
is petty and deserves derision.
  The Financial Services and General Government bill is central to 
effectively running the Federal Government and providing services to 
the American people. The majority's bill instead focuses on protecting 
the tax dollars and priorities of billionaires and big corporations.

  For all these reasons, I cannot support this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I recognize my dear friends, 
Chairman Womack and Ranking Member Hoyer, and I do mean that in the 
truest sense of the word, for their work on this bill, which does 
contain several of my priorities.
  I do want to respond quickly to the chairman's comments about the 
border really being the problem with fentanyl coming across into the 
United States and that it is not necessary to fund the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy.
  When you focus on safety, making sure that you can keep people safe 
from harm that they can't avoid on their own, we need layers of 
protection. So it is a fool's errand to cut an office like the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy because we aren't doing enough, in your 
mind, to handle drug entries into the country from the border. It is 
``both/and'' when it comes to safety, not ``either/or.''
  Unfortunately, this bill, although it does contain several of my 
priorities, has so many misguided, toxic, and extreme provisions that 
it will make us all less safe and careens our government once again 
toward a shutdown.
  This is a bill that is rather unsung. I always try to come and talk 
about this bill. It does have a whole lot of acronym agencies that have 
far reach into Americans' protection, security, and safety. It is so 
important that we make sure we shine a little bit of a spotlight on it 
as a result.
  This bill does prioritize reducing pool and spa deaths by providing 
$2.5 million for programs authorized under my Virginia Graeme Baker 
Pool and Spa Safety Act, for which I appreciate the chairman's help. As 
the leading cause of unintentional death for children under 5 in the 
United States, drowning is clearly a public health threat that we must 
confront.
  However, sadly, overall this bill makes all of our constituents less 
safe. This bill handcuffs consumer watchdogs, leaving hardworking 
families more vulnerable to fraud or dangerous deadly products. It guts 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission's already paltry budget, 
slashing resources at an agency that has a major focus on protecting 
children and families. We need

[[Page H5555]]

to keep families safe, not make them nervous to choose products when 
they walk down the aisles of a store.
  On top of protecting scammers and cheats, this bill hurts public 
servants and threatens our national security.
  How does it do that? The same Republicans who claim to support our 
national defense and Armed Forces would cut the National Security 
Council in this bill and the Office of Terrorism and Financial 
Intelligence.
  The same Republicans who boast how tough they are on heroin and 
fentanyl actually cut the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 
this bill.
  Don't believe Republicans who claim to be the party of law and order, 
either. This bill actually underfunds multiple levels of our Federal 
courts and the public defenders. This bill basically waves white-collar 
criminals right on through to do their sketchy business by cutting the 
SEC and the FTC.
  If you want to empower scammers and cheats or get more robocallers 
bothering you at home by ringing your phone off the hook, vote for this 
bill, but if you want to protect families, vote against it.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) for the purpose of engaging in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Womack, chairman of the Financial 
Services and General Government Subcommittee, not only for his 
leadership but his rabid support of the Razorbacks. Kentucky and 
Arkansas have a big rivalry in basketball, but in this case we are on 
the same page because the chairman has rightly included in this year's 
FSGG appropriations bill my legislation, H.R. 1382, the Taking Account 
of Bureaucrats' Spending Act, or the TABS Act, which would separate the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the Federal Reserve System, 
make it an independent agency and subject it, importantly, to the 
congressional appropriations process.
  The TABS Act would remedy the serious constitutional defect in the 
structure of the CFPB as established by the Dodd-Frank Act under which 
the CFPB draws its funding uniquely from the Federal Reserve instead of 
from Congress, like most other executive branch agencies. Specifically, 
Dodd-Frank delegates to the Director of the CFPB the unilateral power 
to decide in perpetuity how much money he wants for the agency to carry 
out its broad and potent regulatory and enforcement powers.
  The Director then requests such amount from the Fed, which is itself 
exempt from the congressional appropriations process, making it double 
insulated from accountability. The Fed is then required to provide such 
amount to the Bureau, no questions asked. This is a constitutional 
aberration, and it is a violation of the separation of powers.
  Although the total amount the Director can request is capped in the 
law, the cap is so high that it effectively grants the CFPB Director 
unfettered discretion over the Bureau's amount of funding and how it is 
spent. No other Federal agency in the entire Federal bureaucracy is 
funded in this manner. Indeed, there is no analogue for the CFPB 
anywhere in the history of the U.S. executive branch.
  Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique. It is a 
perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure that goes a 
significant step further than that enjoyed by any other agency, again, 
in the history of our Republic.
  The TABS Act would fix this. It would bring much-needed 
accountability to the CFPB and uphold the Constitution's separation of 
powers and the exclusive grants of the appropriations power to 
Congress.
  I want to make a couple of points about the TABS Act. First, the 
purpose of this bill is not to repeal or undermine consumer protection 
laws. Rather, the purpose is to address the constitutional defect in 
the CFPB's funding structure. No one is objecting to the utility of 
some Federal consumer protections, but we should also agree that the 
Constitution reserves to Congress the sole authority to set funding 
limits for the CFPB and other executive branch agencies.

  I note that the FY24 FSGG bill would fund the CFPB at near current 
levels. I also note that H.R. 2798, the CFPB Transparency and 
Accountability Reform Act, which was marked up out of the Financial 
Services Committee on April 26, included the TABS Act, and authorized 
to be appropriated from unobligated amounts contained in the Consumer 
Financial Civil Penalty Fund $650 million for FY24--again, at levels 
comparable to what the CFPB received from the Fed this year.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle can't make the argument 
that we are trying to defund the agency, that we are trying to gut 
consumer protection laws because we are manifestly proving we are not 
doing that. We are funding the agency the way it should be. This 
clearly demonstrates that the TABS Act is not about eliminating 
consumer protections or the CFPB, but it is about upholding the 
Constitution. It is about defending the Congress, this institution.
  If this bill is enacted into law, the Bureau would continue to 
operate. The only difference would be that the Congress would oversee 
their spending in the same way it does for all other consumer 
protection agencies in most of the rest of the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1000

  As you know, the Supreme Court recently heard the case of Community 
Financial Services Association of America v. CFPB in which the agency's 
funding structure was challenged as violating the Constitution's 
separation of powers and the appropriations clause, which provides 
that: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence 
of Appropriations made by law . . . ''
  If the Supreme Court strikes down the CFPB's funding structure, as it 
should in this case, this bill will ensure that the agency continues to 
operate.
  Following such a decision by the Court, chaos would not ensue, as 
some have suggested, nor would there be great uncertainty in the 
marketplace about the status of consumer protection laws and 
regulations.
  On the contrary, this legislation demonstrates that Congress is 
prepared to assert its appropriations power to stabilize preexisting 
consumer laws and make sure that the CFPB is funded with better and 
more meaningful oversight in the event that the Supreme Court strikes 
down the funding mechanism.
  The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the legislative 
branch--the people's elected Representatives in Congress--make the key 
decisions about our government, especially how tax dollars are spent.
  As Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 58: ``This power over the 
purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual 
weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate 
representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every 
grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary 
measure.''
  This is a sound principle, which in the context of the CFPB or any 
other executive branch agency, every member of Congress, Republican and 
Democrat, should defend.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is about defending this 
institution and our power of the purse. I ask my friends on the other 
side of the aisle: If Congress passed legislation funding the 
Department of Defense or the CIA in the same manner as the CFPB is 
currently funded, would that be acceptable? Would we want those 
agencies to be completely unaccountable to our oversight?
  The appropriations process is the primary means by which Congress, on 
a bipartisan basis, oversees those agencies, as well as all consumer 
protection agencies.
  Now, some will say that Congress can change the CFPB's funding 
structure at any time so there is really no problem with the structure. 
Well, this is ridiculous. This is absurd.
  Our Constitution does not permit elected Representatives in Congress 
to delegate away our authority, which is textually reserved to the 
Congress, to some other branch of government or an executive branch 
official. It requires that the key decisions remain in the hands of the 
elected Representatives of the people.
  Congress cannot delegate away its responsibilities without 
undermining the separation of powers, even if it could pass legislation 
to retake such responsibilities in the future.
  Instead, it is the Supreme Court's duty to strike down laws that 
violate

[[Page H5556]]

the Constitution, even if Congress could remedy those violations. For 
example, the Supreme Court strikes down laws that violate the First 
Amendment or the Commerce Clause, even though Congress could remedy 
those violations. There is no reason why the same should not be true of 
laws that violate the appropriations clause.
  Moreover, in Seila Law, the Court struck down the infringement of the 
President's removal power over the director of the CFPB. I hope now it 
protects Congress' power as it did the President's power in Seila Law.
  After all, the Supreme Court's role is not just to prevent the 
erosion of presidential powers but also Congress' power. The reason the 
CFPB's funding structure is so problematic is that when Congress 
delegates its core responsibilities away to administrative agencies, 
the value of each American's vote is diminished.
  As Congress has delegated more responsibilities and more authorities 
to administrative agencies, Americans have come to increasingly believe 
that their votes do not matter. They see that changes in Congress don't 
change policies set by agencies.
  Lack of congressional control over the CFPB creates the opportunity 
for special interests to capture the CFPB who run the agency according 
to their own ideological vision, not according to the will of the 
American people. Changing the CFPB's funding structure would be an 
important and commonsense step in restoring faith in our democracy.
  It is important to recognize that the structure of the CFPB is an 
aberration in our government. No other agency is funded by the Federal 
Reserve at the level set by the director of the other agency.
  Now, I know a lot of people have raised concerns that striking down 
the funding structure of the bureau would open up the question of 
constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and a few other agencies that 
are funded through assessments or other funding streams that they incur 
in their operations.
  The funding structure of the CFPB is unique. Unlike other agencies 
that may be funded by a specific source of funding that they raise in 
the course of their operations--seigniorage in the case of the Federal 
Reserve; fees on banks in the case of the Comptroller of the Currency; 
deposit insurance premiums in the case of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation; tariff revenue in the case of the Customs Service--the 
CFPB is different. There is no analog. It determines its own funding by 
taking funds from the Federal Reserve. No other agency obtains its 
funding by taking funds in this way. Further, there is no nexus between 
its statutory responsibilities, consumer protection, and its funding 
source, the Federal Reserve.
  In conclusion, while there has been much debate about where to draw 
the constitutional line on how agencies can be funded consistent with 
the appropriations clause, the funding structure of the CFPB is one 
we should all agree goes too far.

  As with the Supreme Court determination in the Free Enterprise Fund 
case that double insulation on removal was too far with respect to 
limits on the presidential removal authority, the same should apply 
here.
  The funding structure of the CFPB goes too far without having to 
answer or raise questions about other agencies. Granting Federal 
agencies the authority to derive their funding from the Federal Reserve 
outside of the appropriations process is a dangerous precedent and is 
fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution's separation of 
powers.
  The Federal Reserve seigniorage for money creation is not a piggy 
bank. Forcing the Federal Reserve to pay for other government 
operations risks compromising the Fed's monetary policy independence.
  For these reasons, I urge the Supreme Court of the United States to 
do the right thing: to vindicate the separation of powers and to uphold 
Congress' appropriations authority over Federal executive branch 
agencies.
  I urge my colleagues to remedy this constitutional defect, pass the 
Womack appropriations bill, pass the TABS Act, and restore 
congressional appropriations authority.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank Mr. Barr for his kind remarks and for his hard work in 
drafting the TABS Act. We are pleased to include it in this year's 
Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill.
  Let me add that I fully agree with your assessment of the importance 
of making the CFPB part of the annual appropriations process.
  As you noted, most agencies are funded by Congress, including all the 
traditional consumer protection agencies, as you have articulated.
  I also agree with you that the purpose of this legislation is to 
uphold the Constitution. I mean, that is our oath. That is what we 
swear to on January 3 every other year. This is a principled action. It 
is not an effort to kill the CFPB. That is why this bill funds the CFPB 
at the level it receives now.
  We merely want to create an accountable funding structure for the 
CFPB that is like all other consumer protection agencies. That is why I 
will not support the amendment to eliminate the funding. That is why 
this is about constitutional principles, not the CFPB's existence.
  Finally, let me say the Appropriations Committee has a critical 
constitutional responsibility to oversee how the Federal Government 
spends taxpayer dollars.
  The annual process is the mechanism whereby our democracy ensures 
that the people's priorities are reflected in how taxpayer dollars are 
allocated and spent. It is my hope the Supreme Court recognizes this 
fact and strikes down the funding structure of the CFPB.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me say I am sympathetic to the issue that the 
appropriations committee needs to conduct oversight, but I will tell 
everybody in this Chamber and those who are watching, this matter was a 
subject of very serious debate and resolution, and the resolution was 
we wanted to keep this agency independent and free of any political 
pressure.
  It was adopted on that basis by the House and the Senate and signed 
by the President of the United States. It is now the subject of a 
Supreme Court hearing.
  This is authorizing in the extreme an appropriation bill which, but 
for the waiver that was issued by the Rules Committee, a point of order 
would be applicable and would not be considered.
  I suggest that this is an authorizing matter. It is a matter that the 
Financial Services Committee needs to be seized of and report the 
gentleman's legislation out to the floor and that ought to be 
considered in the regular order.
  This is not the regular order for a major authorizing change, which 
was very controversial at the time it was raised, and it was passed to 
make sure that consumers are, in fact, protected and insulated from 
political pressure.
  Therefore, at such time, I will support an amendment to take this 
from the bill.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), my 
friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address our country's urgent need for a 
Supreme Court code of ethics. Over the past year, we have seen 
troubling reports of Justices receiving lavish gifts from political 
donors with connections to cases before the Supreme Court and who stand 
to benefit from rulings.
  This is unacceptable and unethical, and it has undermined public 
trust in the institution. It is time for the Supreme Court to adopt and 
abide by a judicial code of ethics.
  Currently, all Federal judges must abide by a code of ethics except 
for Supreme Court Justices. That must change.
  I introduced an amendment to the Financial Services and General 
Government appropriations bill that would withhold $10 million in 
funding from the Supreme Court until the Justices adopt a code of 
ethics.
  This amendment, which I introduced with Congressman Hank Johnson, 
would have restored public confidence in this institution.
  It would have helped to solve one of the many problems our voters 
sent us to Washington, D.C., to fix--the corrupt power of money and 
politics in our judicial system.

[[Page H5557]]

  Sadly, Republicans on the Rules Committee would not even consider my 
amendment in order. We must do better.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in response to my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland, who makes the arguments that the authors of 
the Dodd-Frank law made, which was that we designed this to be 
independent. Well, that is fine. That is what they wanted, but they 
can't do it unconstitutionally.

  As the Fifth Circuit said very, very well, while the defenders of the 
structure of the agency, of the CFPB, contend that there is no 
constitutional infirmity because the funding scheme was actually 
enacted by Congress in the Dodd-Frank law, and, therefore, it is 
constitutional.
  In essence, the bureau contends that because Congress spun the 
agency's funding mechanism into motion when it passed the act, voila, 
the appropriations clause is satisfied.
  That is not the way the Constitution works, Mr. Chair. This body 
cannot unconstitutionally delegate away our most fundamental power, 
which is the power of the purse.
  Vote for the Womack appropriations bill. Restore the power of the 
purse. Defend this institution.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the chair if he has any more 
speakers?
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Number one on this issue--it is pending before the Supreme Court. The 
Supreme Court can decide whether it is constitutional or not. We can't 
decide whether something is constitutional or not. Ultimately the 
Supreme Court decides that.
  We pass laws, and we certainly hope and expect them to be 
constitutional. I would, again, reiterate my opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say this bill underfunds the most 
important aspect of the Federal Government, and that is collecting the 
revenues to run it in a balanced way. It undermines that effort. I urge 
opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As I stated in my opening, I have great respect for my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and his team over there. They do 
their work in accordance with what they feel are the emerging issues 
facing our country. We do the same on our side.
  Suffice it to say, though, what we need right now is a bill on this 
floor that we can use as a basis to go negotiate with our Senate 
counterparts at the other end of this Capitol and, hopefully, come up 
with a conference report that we can all live with.
  We know that the clock is running. America knows that, on November 
17, we are going to have a continuing resolution of some form to be 
able to continue the work of this appropriations process. A lot of work 
has gone into it. We can have our differences. Those are well stated, 
as evidenced by the debate this morning, but we need to finish our 
work.
  We will have a big amendment process going on throughout the day 
today, tonight, and into tomorrow, but we need right now to finish our 
work on this bill, get it across the finish line, make it a basis for 
negotiation in the Senate, get a conference report, and finish at least 
this portion of the 12-bill appropriations work. That is what we are 
responsible for doing here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rouzer). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment in part A of House Report 118-269 shall be considered 
as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4664

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building 
     and Freedman's Bank Building; hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; maintenance, repairs, and improvements of, and 
     purchase of commercial insurance policies for, real 
     properties leased or owned overseas, when necessary for the 
     performance of official business; executive direction program 
     activities; international affairs and economic policy 
     activities; domestic finance and tax policy activities, 
     including technical assistance to State, local, and 
     territorial entities; and Treasury-wide management policies 
     and programs activities, $248,109,000, of which not less than 
     $9,000,000 shall be available for the administration of 
     financial assistance, in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available for such purposes:  Provided, That none of the 
     funds under this heading may be used to support the 
     activities of the Federal Insurance Office:  Provided 
     further, That of the amount appropriated under this heading--
       (1) not to exceed $350,000 is for official reception and 
     representation expenses;
       (2) not to exceed $258,000 is for unforeseen emergencies of 
     a confidential nature to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and to be 
     accounted for solely on the Secretary's certificate; and
       (3) not to exceed $34,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2025, for--
       (A) the Treasury-wide Financial Statement Audit and 
     Internal Control Program;
       (B) information technology modernization requirements;
       (C) the audit, oversight, and administration of the Gulf 
     Coast Restoration Trust Fund;
       (D) the development and implementation of programs within 
     the Office of Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure 
     Protection, including entering into cooperative agreements;
       (E) operations and maintenance of facilities; and
       (F) international operations.

       committee on foreign investment in the united states fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Committee on Foreign 
     Investment in the United States, $21,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That the chairperson of 
     the Committee may transfer such amounts to any department or 
     agency represented on the Committee (including the Department 
     of the Treasury) subject to advance notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate:  Provided further, That amounts so 
     transferred shall remain available until expended for 
     expenses of implementing section 721 of the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565), and 
     shall be available in addition to any other funds available 
     to any department or agency:  Provided further, That fees 
     authorized by section 721(p) of such Act shall be credited to 
     this appropriation as offsetting collections:  Provided 
     further, That the total amount appropriated under this 
     heading from the general fund shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2024, 
     so as to result in a total appropriation from the general 
     fund estimated at not more than $0.

             office of terrorism and financial intelligence

                         salaries and expenses

       For the necessary expenses of the Office of Terrorism and 
     Financial Intelligence to safeguard the financial system 
     against illicit use and to combat rogue nations, terrorist 
     facilitators, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, 
     human rights abusers, money launderers, drug kingpins, and 
     other national security threats, $206,842,000, of which not 
     less than $3,000,000 shall be available for addressing human 
     rights violations and corruption, including activities 
     authorized by the Global Magnitsky Human Rights 
     Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 2656 note):  Provided, That of 
     the amounts appropriated under this heading, up to 
     $16,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2025.

                   cybersecurity enhancement account

       For salaries and expenses for enhanced cybersecurity for 
     systems operated by the Department of the Treasury, 
     $150,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2026:  
     Provided, That such funds shall supplement and not supplant 
     any other amounts made available to the Treasury offices and 
     bureaus for cybersecurity:  Provided further, That of the 
     total amount made available under this heading, $7,000,000 
     shall be available for administrative expenses for the 
     Treasury Chief Information Officer to provide oversight of 
     the investments made under this heading:  Provided further, 
     That such funds shall supplement and not supplant any other 
     amounts made available to the Treasury Chief Information 
     Officer.

[[Page H5558]]

  


        department-wide systems and capital investments programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services and for repairs 
     and renovations to buildings owned by the Department of the 
     Treasury, $14,600,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2026:  Provided, That these funds shall be transferred to 
     accounts and in amounts as necessary to satisfy the 
     requirements of the Department's offices, bureaus, and other 
     organizations:  Provided further, That this transfer 
     authority shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided in this Act:  Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be used to 
     support or supplement ``Internal Revenue Service, Operations 
     Support'' or ``Internal Revenue Service, Business Systems 
     Modernization''.

                      office of inspector general

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of chapter 4 of title 5, 
     United States Code, $43,000,000, including hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be 
     available for unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
     nature, to be allocated and expended under the direction of 
     the Inspector General of the Treasury; of which up to 
     $2,800,000 to remain available until September 30, 2025, 
     shall be for audits and investigations conducted pursuant to 
     section 1608 of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, 
     Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf 
     Coast States Act of 2012 (33 U.S.C. 1321 note); and of which 
     not to exceed $1,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

           treasury inspector general for tax administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, as amended, including purchase and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Inspector General for Tax Administration; 
     $170,250,000, of which $5,000,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2025; of which not to exceed $6,000,000 
     shall be available for official travel expenses; of which not 
     to exceed $500,000 shall be available for unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential nature, to be allocated and 
     expended under the direction of the Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration; and of which not to exceed $1,500 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel 
     and training expenses of non-Federal and foreign government 
     personnel to attend meetings and training concerned with 
     domestic and foreign financial intelligence activities, law 
     enforcement, and financial regulation; services authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; not to exceed $25,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and for assistance to Federal 
     law enforcement agencies, with or without reimbursement, 
     $166,000,000, of which not to exceed $55,000,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2026.

                      Bureau of the Fiscal Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of operations of the Bureau of the 
     Fiscal Service, $368,155,000; of which not to exceed 
     $8,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2026, is 
     for information systems modernization initiatives; and of 
     which $5,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.
       In addition, $225,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund to reimburse administrative and 
     personnel expenses for financial management of the Fund, as 
     authorized by section 1012 of Public Law 101-380.

                Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of carrying out section 1111 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002, including hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, $135,038,000; of which not to exceed $6,000 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and of which not to exceed $50,000 shall be 
     available for cooperative research and development programs 
     for laboratory services; and provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local agencies with or without 
     reimbursement:  Provided, That of the amount appropriated 
     under this heading, $5,000,000 shall be for the costs of 
     accelerating the processing of formula and label 
     applications:  Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading, $5,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2025, shall be for the costs 
     associated with enforcement of and education regarding the 
     trade practice provisions of the Federal Alcohol 
     Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).

                           United States Mint

               united states mint public enterprise fund

       Pursuant to section 5136 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the United States Mint is provided funding through the United 
     States Mint Public Enterprise Fund for costs associated with 
     the production of circulating coins, numismatic coins, and 
     protective services, including both operating expenses and 
     capital investments:  Provided, That the aggregate amount of 
     new liabilities and obligations incurred during fiscal year 
     2024 under such section 5136 for circulating coinage and 
     protective service capital investments of the United States 
     Mint shall not exceed $50,000,000.

   Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account

       To carry out the Riegle Community Development and 
     Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (subtitle A of title I of 
     Public Law 103-325), including services authorized by section 
     3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     rate for EX-III, $278,617,000. Of the amount appropriated 
     under this heading--
       (1) not less than $170,000,000, notwithstanding section 
     108(e) of Public Law 103-325 (12 U.S.C. 4707(e)) with regard 
     to Small and/or Emerging Community Development Financial 
     Institutions Assistance awards, is available until September 
     30, 2025, for financial assistance and technical assistance 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 108(a)(1), 
     respectively, of Public Law 103-325 (12 U.S.C. 4707(a)(1)(A) 
     and (B)), of which up to $1,600,000 may be available for 
     training and outreach under section 109 of Public Law 103-325 
     (12 U.S.C. 4708), of which up to $3,153,750 may be used for 
     the cost of direct loans, and of which up to $10,000,000, 
     notwithstanding subsection (d) of section 108 of Public Law 
     103-325 (12 U.S.C. 4707(d)), may be available to provide 
     financial assistance, technical assistance, training, and 
     outreach to community development financial institutions to 
     expand investments that benefit individuals with 
     disabilities:  Provided, That the cost of direct and 
     guaranteed loans, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974:  Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $25,000,000:  Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided under this paragraph, 
     excluding those made to community development financial 
     institutions to expand investments that benefit individuals 
     with disabilities and those made to community development 
     financial institutions that serve populations living in 
     persistent poverty counties, the Community Development 
     Financial Institutions Fund shall prioritize Financial 
     Assistance awards to organizations that invest and lend in 
     high-poverty areas:  Provided further, That for purposes of 
     this section, the term ``high-poverty area'' means any census 
     tract with a poverty rate of at least 20 percent as measured 
     by the 2016-2020 5-year data series available from the 
     American Community Survey of the Bureau of the Census for all 
     States and Puerto Rico or with a poverty rate of at least 20 
     percent as measured by the 2010 Island areas Decennial Census 
     data for any territory or possession of the United States;
       (2) not less than $30,000,000, notwithstanding section 
     108(e) of Public Law 103-325 (12 U.S.C. 4707(e)), is 
     available until September 30, 2025, for financial assistance, 
     technical assistance, training, and outreach programs 
     designed to benefit Native American, Native Hawaiian, and 
     Alaska Native communities and provided primarily through 
     qualified community development lender organizations with 
     experience and expertise in community development banking and 
     lending in Indian country, Native American organizations, 
     Tribes and Tribal organizations, and other suitable 
     providers;
       (3) not less than $35,000,000 is available until September 
     30, 2025, for the Bank Enterprise Award program;
       (4) not less than $5,000,000, notwithstanding subsections 
     (d) and (e) of section 108 of Public Law 103-325 (12 U.S.C. 
     4707(d) and (e)), is available until September 30, 2025, for 
     a Healthy Food Financing Initiative to provide financial 
     assistance, technical assistance, training, and outreach to 
     community development financial institutions for the purpose 
     of offering affordable financing and technical assistance to 
     expand the availability of healthy food options in distressed 
     communities;
       (5) not less than $5,000,000 is available until September 
     30, 2025, to provide grants for loan loss reserve funds and 
     to provide technical assistance for small dollar loan 
     programs under section 122 of Public Law 103-325 (12 U.S.C. 
     4719): Provided, That sections 108(d) and 122(b)(2) of such 
     Public Law shall not apply to the provision of such grants 
     and technical assistance;
       (6) up to $33,617,000 is available for administrative 
     expenses, including administration of Community Development 
     Financial Institutions Fund programs and the New Markets Tax 
     Credit Program, of which not less than $1,000,000 is for the 
     development of tools to better assess and inform Community 
     Development Financial Institutions investment performance and 
     Community Development Financial Institutions program impacts, 
     and up to $300,000 is for administrative expenses to carry 
     out the direct loan program; and
       (7) during fiscal year 2024, none of the funds available 
     under this heading are available for the cost, as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of 
     commitments to guarantee bonds and notes under section 114A 
     of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory 
     Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4713a):  Provided, That 
     commitments to guarantee bonds and notes

[[Page H5559]]

     under such section 114A shall not exceed $500,000,000:  
     Provided further, That such section 114A shall remain in 
     effect until December 31, 2024:  Provided further, That of 
     the funds awarded under this heading, not less than 10 
     percent shall be used for awards that support investments 
     that serve populations living in persistent poverty counties: 
      Provided further, That for the purposes of this paragraph 
     and paragraph (1), the term ``persistent poverty counties'' 
     means any county, including county equivalent areas in Puerto 
     Rico, that has had 20 percent or more of its population 
     living in poverty over the past 30 years, as measured by the 
     1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and the 2016-2020 five-year 
     data series available from the American Community Survey of 
     the Bureau of the Census or any other territory or possession 
     of the United States that has had 20 percent or more of its 
     population living in poverty over the past 30 years, as 
     measured by the 1990, 2000 and 2010 Island Areas Decennial 
     Censuses, or equivalent data, of the Bureau of the Census.

                        Internal Revenue Service

                           taxpayer services

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service to 
     provide taxpayer services, including pre-filing assistance 
     and education, filing and account services, taxpayer advocacy 
     services, and other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $2,780,606,000, of which not to exceed $100,000,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2025, of which not less 
     than $12,000,000 shall be for the Tax Counseling for the 
     Elderly Program, of which not less than $28,000,000 shall be 
     available for low-income taxpayer clinic grants, including 
     grants to individual clinics of up to $200,000, of which not 
     less than $40,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2025, shall be available for the Community Volunteer 
     Income Tax Assistance Matching Grants Program for tax return 
     preparation assistance, and of which not less than 
     $271,200,000 shall be available for operating expenses of the 
     Taxpayer Advocate Service:  Provided, That of the amounts 
     made available for the Taxpayer Advocate Service, not less 
     than $7,000,000 shall be for identity theft and refund fraud 
     casework.

                              enforcement

       For necessary expenses for tax enforcement activities of 
     the Internal Revenue Service to determine and collect owed 
     taxes, to provide legal and litigation support, to conduct 
     criminal investigations, to enforce criminal statutes related 
     to violations of internal revenue laws and other financial 
     crimes, to purchase and hire passenger motor vehicles (31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b)), and to provide other services as authorized 
     by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be determined by the 
     Commissioner, $4,206,180,000; of which not to exceed 
     $250,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2025; 
     of which not less than $60,257,000 shall be for the 
     Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program; and of which 
     not to exceed $25,000,000 shall be for investigative 
     technology for the Criminal Investigation Division:  
     Provided, That the amount made available for investigative 
     technology for the Criminal Investigation Division shall be 
     in addition to amounts made available for the Criminal 
     Investigation Division under the ``Operations Support'' 
     heading.

                           operations support

       For necessary expenses to operate the Internal Revenue 
     Service to support taxpayer services and enforcement 
     programs, including rent payments; facilities services; 
     printing; postage; physical security; headquarters and other 
     IRS-wide administration activities; research and statistics 
     of income; telecommunications; information technology 
     development, enhancement, operations, maintenance and 
     security; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343(b)); the operations of the Internal Revenue Service 
     Oversight Board; and other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner; 
     $4,100,826,000, of which not to exceed $275,000,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2025; of which not to 
     exceed $10,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     acquisition of equipment and construction, repair and 
     renovation of facilities; of which not to exceed $1,000,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2026, for 
     research; and of which not to exceed $20,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses:  Provided, 
     That not later than 30 days after the end of each quarter, 
     the Internal Revenue Service shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate and the Comptroller General of the United 
     States detailing major information technology investments in 
     the Internal Revenue Service Integrated Modernization 
     Business Plan portfolio, including detailed, plain language 
     summaries on the status of plans, costs, and results; prior 
     results and actual expenditures of the prior quarter; 
     upcoming deliverables and costs for the fiscal year; risks 
     and mitigation strategies associated with ongoing work; 
     reasons for any cost or schedule variances; and total 
     expenditures by fiscal year:  Provided further, That the 
     Internal Revenue Service shall include, in its budget 
     justification for fiscal year 2025, a summary of cost and 
     schedule performance information for its major information 
     technology systems.

                     business systems modernization

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service's 
     business systems modernization program, $150,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2026, and shall be for 
     the capital asset acquisition of information technology 
     systems, including management and related contractual costs 
     of said acquisitions, including related Internal Revenue 
     Service labor costs, and contractual costs associated with 
     operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109:  Provided, That not 
     later than 30 days after the end of each quarter, the 
     Internal Revenue Service shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate and the Comptroller General of the United 
     States detailing major information technology investments in 
     the Internal Revenue Service Integrated Modernization 
     Business Plan portfolio, including detailed, plain language 
     summaries on the status of plans, costs, and results; prior 
     results and actual expenditures of the prior quarter; 
     upcoming deliverables and costs for the fiscal year; risks 
     and mitigation strategies associated with ongoing work; 
     reasons for any cost or schedule variances; and total 
     expenditures by fiscal year.

          administrative provisions--internal revenue service

       Sec. 101.  The Internal Revenue Service shall maintain an 
     employee training program, which shall include the following 
     topics: taxpayers' rights, dealing courteously with 
     taxpayers, cross-cultural relations, ethics, and the 
     impartial application of tax law.
       Sec. 102.  The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and 
     enforce policies and procedures that will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information and protect taxpayers 
     against identity theft.
       Sec. 103.  Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Internal Revenue Service shall be available for improved 
     facilities and increased staffing to provide sufficient and 
     effective 1-800 help line service for taxpayers. The 
     Commissioner shall continue to make improvements to the 
     Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line service a priority 
     and allocate resources necessary to enhance the response time 
     to taxpayer communications, particularly with regard to 
     victims of tax-related crimes.
       Sec. 104.  The Internal Revenue Service shall issue a 
     notice of confirmation of any address change relating to an 
     employer making employment tax payments, and such notice 
     shall be sent to both the employer's former and new address 
     and an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service 
     shall give special consideration to an offer-in-compromise 
     from a taxpayer who has been the victim of fraud by a third 
     party payroll tax preparer.
       Sec. 105.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used by the Internal Revenue Service to target 
     citizens of the United States for exercising any right 
     guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States.
       Sec. 106.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Internal Revenue Service to target groups for 
     regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs.
       Sec. 107.  None of funds made available by this Act to the 
     Internal Revenue Service shall be obligated or expended on 
     conferences that do not adhere to the procedures, 
     verification processes, documentation requirements, and 
     policies issued by the Chief Financial Officer, Human Capital 
     Office, and Agency-Wide Shared Services as a result of the 
     recommendations in the report published on May 31, 2013, by 
     the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 
     entitled ``Review of the August 2010 Small Business/Self-
     Employed Division's Conference in Anaheim, California'' 
     (Reference Number 2013-10-037).
       Sec. 108.  None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Internal Revenue Service may be obligated or expended--
       (1) to make a payment to any employee under a bonus, award, 
     or recognition program; or
       (2) under any hiring or personnel selection process with 
     respect to re-hiring a former employee;
     unless such program or process takes into account the conduct 
     and Federal tax compliance of such employee or former 
     employee.
       Sec. 109.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 6103 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to confidentiality and 
     disclosure of returns and return information).
       Sec. 110.  The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) may use the funds made available in 
     this Act, subject to such policies as the Secretary (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) may establish, to utilize direct hire 
     authority to recruit and appoint qualified applicants, 
     without regard to any notice or preference requirements, 
     directly to positions in the competitive service to process 
     backlogged tax returns and return information.
       Sec. 111.  Notwithstanding section 1344 of title 31, United 
     States Code, funds appropriated to the Internal Revenue 
     Service in this Act may be used to provide passenger carrier 
     transportation and protection between the Commissioner of 
     Internal Revenue's residence and place of employment.
       Sec. 112.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to develop or provide taxpayers a free, 
     public electronic return-filing service option, without the 
     prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House and the Senate, House Ways and Means Committee, and 
     Senate Finance Committee.

[[Page H5560]]

       Sec. 113.  None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase firearms or ammunition for the Internal Revenue 
     Service above the levels in the possession of the Internal 
     Revenue Service on July 13, 2023.

         Administrative Provisions--Department of the Treasury

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 114.  Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury 
     in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including 
     maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for 
     official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; 
     purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used 
     overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts 
     with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and 
     medical services to employees and their dependents serving in 
     foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 115.  Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this title made available under the headings ``Departmental 
     Offices--Salaries and Expenses'', ``Office of Inspector 
     General'', ``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network'', ``Bureau 
     of the Fiscal Service'', and ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
     Trade Bureau'' may be transferred between such appropriations 
     upon the advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate:  Provided, 
     That no transfer under this section may increase or decrease 
     any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 116.  Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriation 
     made available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service 
     may be transferred to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration's appropriation upon the advance approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate:  Provided, That no transfer 
     may increase or decrease any such appropriation by more than 
     2 percent.
       Sec. 117.  None of the funds appropriated in this Act or 
     otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the 
     Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the 
     $1 Federal Reserve note.
       Sec. 118.  The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer funds 
     from the ``Bureau of the Fiscal Service--Salaries and 
     Expenses'' to the Debt Collection Fund as necessary to cover 
     the costs of debt collection:  Provided, That such amounts 
     shall be reimbursed to such salaries and expenses account 
     from debt collections received in the Debt Collection Fund.
       Sec. 119.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used by the United 
     States Mint to construct or operate any museum without the 
     explicit approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, the House Committee 
     on Financial Services, and the Senate Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       Sec. 120.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act or source to the 
     Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Engraving and 
     Printing, and the United States Mint, individually or 
     collectively, may be used to consolidate any or all functions 
     of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States 
     Mint without the explicit approval of the House Committee on 
     Financial Services; the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs; and the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate.
       Sec. 121.  Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for the 
     Department of the Treasury's intelligence or intelligence 
     related activities are deemed to be specifically authorized 
     by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2024 
     until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2024.
       Sec. 122.  Not to exceed $5,000 shall be made available 
     from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's Industrial 
     Revolving Fund for necessary official reception and 
     representation expenses.
       Sec. 123.  The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a 
     Capital Investment Plan to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 
     30 days following the submission of the annual budget 
     submitted by the President:  Provided, That such Capital 
     Investment Plan shall include capital investment spending 
     from all accounts within the Department of the Treasury, 
     including but not limited to the Department-wide Systems and 
     Capital Investment Programs account, Treasury Franchise Fund 
     account, and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund account:  Provided 
     further, That such Capital Investment Plan shall include 
     expenditures occurring in previous fiscal years for each 
     capital investment project that has not been fully completed.
       Sec. 124.  During fiscal year 2024--
       (1) none of the funds made available in this or any other 
     Act may be used by the Department of the Treasury, including 
     the Internal Revenue Service, to issue, revise, or finalize 
     any regulation, revenue ruling, or other guidance not limited 
     to a particular taxpayer relating to the standard which is 
     used to determine whether an organization is operated 
     exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes 
     of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (including the proposed regulations published at 78 Fed. Reg. 
     71535 (November 29, 2013)); and
       (2) the standard and definitions as in effect on January 1, 
     2010, which are used to make such determinations shall apply 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act for purposes of 
     determining status under section 501(c)(4) of such Code of 
     organizations created on, before, or after such date.
       Sec. 125.  Within 45 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an 
     itemized report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate on the amount of 
     total funds charged to each office by the Franchise Fund 
     including the amount charged for each service provided by the 
     Franchise Fund to each office, a detailed description of the 
     services, a detailed explanation of how each charge for each 
     service is calculated, and a description of the role 
     customers have in governing in the Franchise Fund.
       Sec. 126. (a) Not later than 60 days after the end of each 
     quarter, the Office of Financial Stability and the Office of 
     Financial Research shall submit reports on their activities 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives, and the Senate 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       (b) The reports required under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) the obligations made during the previous quarter by 
     object class, office, and activity;
       (2) the estimated obligations for the remainder of the 
     fiscal year by object class, office, and activity;
       (3) the number of full-time equivalents within each office 
     during the previous quarter;
       (4) the estimated number of full-time equivalents within 
     each office for the remainder of the fiscal year; and
       (5) actions taken to achieve the goals, objectives, and 
     performance measures of each office.
       (c) At the request of any such Committees specified in 
     subsection (a), the Office of Financial Stability and the 
     Office of Financial Research shall make officials available 
     to testify on the contents of the reports required under 
     subsection (a).
       Sec. 127.  In addition to amounts otherwise available, 
     there is appropriated to the Special Inspector General for 
     Pandemic Recovery, $12,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for necessary expenses in carrying out section 4018 
     of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act 
     (Public Law 116-136).
       Sec. 128.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to provide bonuses, raises, or 
     promotions to any employee of the Department of Treasury 
     until the Secretary produces a COVID-19 National Emergency 
     expenditure report as required by section 401(c) of Public 
     Law 94-412 .
       Sec. 129.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve, license, facilitate, authorize, or 
     otherwise allow, whether by general or specific license, 
     travel-related or other transactions incident to non-
     educational exchanges described in section 515.565(b) of 
     title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 130.  (a) The Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a joint report 
     not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act 
     regarding travel pursuant to sections 515.565(b), 
     515.560(a)(1), 515.560(c)(4)(i), and 515.561 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 131.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of the Treasury to establish a 
     United States Central Bank Digital Currency or discontinue 
     circulation or use of paper currency as legal tender in the 
     United States.
       Sec. 132.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to 
     implement or promulgate beneficial ownership reporting rules 
     pursuant to Division F of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 
     Public Law 116-283, January 1, 2021, that do not reflect 
     Congressional intent.
       Sec. 133.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the single-family mortgage credit fee 
     pricing framework of the enterprises announced by the Federal 
     Housing Finance Agency on January 19, 2023.
       Sec. 134.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement an outbound investment review, 
     prohibition, or notification program until the Assistant 
     Secretary of Treasury for Investment Security and equivalents 
     from CFIUS member agencies provide a report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations and Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations and 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate that 
     contains the following--
       (1) A comprehensive list of Chinese technologies covered by 
     the program that have been developed as a result of United 
     States investments, including a description of the 
     technologies' specifications.
       (2) The value of United States private equity and venture 
     capital investments in any specific Chinese technologies that 
     would be subject to prohibitions under the program, in 
     absolute and relative terms with respect to non-United States 
     investment.
       (3) A detailed description of know-how or other essential 
     information that has been

[[Page H5561]]

     transferred by United States investors in support of Chinese 
     technologies covered by the program, including an assessment 
     of whether the information was available to non-United States 
     persons or eligible for potential control under the Export 
     Control Reform Act.
       (4) An analysis of any estimated delay to China's 
     development of program-related technologies as a direct 
     result of the program's implementation.
       (5) Any legislative or regulatory proposals to impose 
     secondary sanctions involving investments by foreign persons 
     in Chinese technologies covered by the program.
       (6) A detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of 
     investment restrictions administered by the Department of the 
     Treasury with respect to Chinese Military Industrial-Complex 
     Companies.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of the Treasury 
     Appropriations Act, 2024''.

                                TITLE II

    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE 
                               PRESIDENT

                            The White House

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by 
     law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence 
     expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be 
     expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, and travel (not to exceed 
     $100,000 to be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 
     U.S.C. 103); and not to exceed $19,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses, to be available for allocation 
     within the Executive Office of the President; and for 
     necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, $55,000,000.

                 Executive Residence at the White House

                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Executive Residence at the 
     White House, $14,050,000, to be expended and accounted for as 
     provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114.

                         reimbursable expenses

       For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House, such sums as may be necessary:  Provided, 
     That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of 
     this paragraph:  Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable 
     operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the 
     Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive 
     offsetting collections, for such expenses:  Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall require each person 
     sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance 
     an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all 
     such advance payments shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended:  Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall require the national committee of 
     the political party of the President to maintain on deposit 
     $25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for 
     expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored 
     by such committee during such fiscal year:  Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written 
     notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating 
     expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing 
     such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred, 
     and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the 
     submission of such notice:  Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess 
     penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not 
     reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the 
     interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding 
     debt on a United States Government claim under 31 U.S.C. 
     3717:  Provided further, That each such amount that is 
     reimbursed, and any accompanying interest and charges, shall 
     be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts:  
     Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall prepare 
     and submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, by not later than 90 days 
     after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Act, a 
     report setting forth the reimbursable operating expenses of 
     the Executive Residence during the preceding fiscal year, 
     including the total amount of such expenses, the amount of 
     such total that consists of reimbursable official and 
     ceremonial events, the amount of such total that consists of 
     reimbursable political events, and the portion of each such 
     amount that has been reimbursed as of the date of the report: 
      Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall 
     maintain a system for the tracking of expenses related to 
     reimbursable events within the Executive Residence that 
     includes a standard for the classification of any such 
     expense as political or nonpolitical:  Provided further, That 
     no provision of this paragraph may be construed to exempt the 
     Executive Residence from any other applicable requirement of 
     subchapter I or II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States 
     Code.

                   White House Repair and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the 
     Executive Residence at the White House pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 
     105(d), $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     required maintenance, resolution of safety and health issues, 
     and continued preventative maintenance.

                      Council of Economic Advisers

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers 
     in carrying out its functions under the Employment Act of 
     1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.), $4,120,000.

        National Security Council and Homeland Security Council

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Security Council and 
     the Homeland Security Council, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $12,500,000, of which not to 
     exceed $10,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                        Office of Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $106,500,000, of which not to exceed $12,800,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for continued modernization of 
     information resources within the Executive Office of the 
     President:  Provided, That of the amounts provided under this 
     heading, up to $7,000,000 shall be available for a program to 
     provide payments (such as stipends, subsistence allowances, 
     cost reimbursements, or awards) to students, recent 
     graduates, and veterans recently discharged from active duty 
     who are performing voluntary services in the Executive Office 
     of the President under section 3111(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, or comparable authority and shall be in addition 
     to amounts otherwise available to pay or compensate such 
     individuals:  Provided further, That such payments shall not 
     be considered compensation for purposes of such section 
     3111(b) and may be paid in advance.

                    Office of Management and Budget

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, and 
     to prepare and submit the budget of the United States 
     Government, in accordance with section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, $116,000,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be available for official representation 
     expenses:  Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in 
     this Act for the Office of Management and Budget may be used 
     for the purpose of reviewing any agricultural marketing 
     orders or any activities or regulations under the provisions 
     of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 
     601 et seq.):  Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available for the Office of Management and Budget by this Act 
     may be expended for the altering of the transcript of actual 
     testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, before the Committees of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate on Appropriations 
     or their subcommittees:  Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available for the Office of Management and Budget 
     by this Act may be expended for the altering of the annual 
     work plan developed by the Corps of Engineers for submission 
     to the Committees on Appropriations:  Provided further, That 
     none of the funds provided in this or prior Acts shall be 
     used, directly or indirectly, by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, for evaluating or determining if water resource 
     project or study reports submitted by the Chief of Engineers 
     acting through the Secretary of the Army are in compliance 
     with all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements 
     relevant to the Civil Works water resource planning process:  
     Provided further, That the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall have not more than 60 days in which to perform 
     budgetary policy reviews of water resource matters on which 
     the Chief of Engineers has reported:  Provided further, That 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     notify the appropriate authorizing and appropriating 
     committees when the 60-day review is initiated:  Provided 
     further, That if water resource reports have not been 
     transmitted to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating 
     committees within 15 days after the end of the Office of 
     Management and Budget review period based on the notification 
     from the Director, Congress shall assume Office of Management 
     and Budget concurrence with the report and act accordingly:  
     Provided further, That no later than 14 days after the 
     submission of the budget of the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2025, the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall make publicly available on a website a 
     tabular list for each agency that submits budget 
     justification materials (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006) 
     that shall include, at minimum, the name of the agency, the 
     date on which the budget justification materials of the 
     agency were submitted to Congress, and a uniform resource 
     locator where the budget justification materials are 
     published on the website of the agency:  Provided further, 
     That amounts appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available for the liquidation of valid obligations incurred 
     for fiscal year 2017, as authorized by law, in excess of 
     amounts that were available for obligation during such fiscal 
     year.

[[Page H5562]]

  


             Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Intellectual 
     Property Enforcement Coordinator, as authorized by title III 
     of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for 
     Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-403), 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,838,000.

                 Office of the National Cyber Director

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the National Cyber 
     Director, as authorized by section 1752 of the William M. 
     (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283), $21,000,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998, as amended; not to exceed $10,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; and for participation 
     in joint projects or in the provision of services on matters 
     of mutual interest with nonprofit, research, or public 
     organizations or agencies, with or without reimbursement, 
     $18,952,000:  Provided, That the Office is authorized to 
     accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and 
     personal, public and private, without fiscal year limitation, 
     for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the 
     Office.

                     federal drug control programs

             high intensity drug trafficking areas program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
     Program, $296,600,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2025, for drug control activities consistent with the 
     approved strategy for each of the designated High Intensity 
     Drug Trafficking Areas (``HIDTAs''), of which not less than 
     $280,741,415 shall be provided to the HIDTAs designated as of 
     September 30, 2023:  Provided,  That each such designated 
     HIDTAs shall receive an equal amount of funds from the total 
     amount provided for such designated HIDTA:  Provided further, 
     That no less than 51 percent shall be transferred to State 
     and local entities for drug control activities and shall be 
     obligated not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act:  Provided further, That up to 49 percent may be 
     transferred to Federal agencies and departments in amounts 
     determined by the Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy, of which up to $4,000,000 may be used for 
     auditing services and associated activities and $1,500,000 
     shall be for the Grants Management System for use by the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy:  Provided further, 
     That any unexpended funds obligated prior to fiscal year 2022 
     may be used for any other approved activities of that HIDTA, 
     subject to reprogramming requirements:  Provided further, 
     That each HIDTA designated as of September 30, 2023, shall be 
     funded at not less than the fiscal year 2023 base level, 
     unless the Director submits to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     justification for changes to those levels based on clearly 
     articulated priorities and published Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy performance measures of effectiveness:  
     Provided further, That the Director shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the initial allocation of 
     fiscal year 2024 funding among HIDTAs not later than 45 days 
     after enactment of this Act, and shall notify the Committees 
     of planned uses of discretionary HIDTA funding, as determined 
     in consultation with the HIDTA Directors, not later than 90 
     days after enactment of this Act:  Provided further, That 
     upon a determination that all or part of the funds so 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein and upon notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation.

                  other federal drug control programs

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For other drug control activities authorized by the Anti-
     Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, as amended, 
     $135,450,000, to remain available until expended, which shall 
     be available as follows: $109,000,000 for the Drug-Free 
     Communities Program, of which not more than $12,780,000 is 
     for administrative expenses, and of which $2,500,000 shall be 
     made available as directed by section 4 of Public Law 107-82, 
     as amended by section 8204 of Public Law 115-271; $3,000,000 
     for drug court training and technical assistance; $14,000,000 
     for anti-doping activities; up to $3,000,000 for the United 
     States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping Agency; 
     $1,250,000 for the Model Acts Program; and $5,200,000 for 
     activities authorized by section 103 of Public Law 114-198:  
     Provided, That amounts made available under this heading may 
     be transferred to other Federal departments and agencies to 
     carry out such activities:  Provided further, That the 
     Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall, 
     not fewer than 30 days prior to obligating funds under this 
     heading for United States membership dues to the World Anti-
     Doping Agency, submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate a spending plan 
     and explanation of the proposed uses of these funds.

                          Unanticipated Needs

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet 
     unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest, 
     security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during 
     the current fiscal year, as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 108, 
     $1,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2025.

              Information Technology Oversight and Reform

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the furtherance of integrated, 
     efficient, secure, and effective uses of information 
     technology in the Federal Government, $8,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget may transfer these funds to 
     one or more other agencies to carry out projects to meet 
     these purposes.

                  Special Assistance to the President

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to 
     provide assistance to the President in connection with 
     specially assigned functions; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses 
     as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which shall be expended and 
     accounted for as provided in that section; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $4,839,000.

                Official Residence of the Vice President

                           operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement, and to 
     the extent not otherwise provided for, heating and lighting, 
     including electric power and fixtures, of the official 
     residence of the Vice President; the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; and not to exceed $90,000 pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 
     106(b)(2), $311,000:  Provided, That advances, repayments, or 
     transfers from this appropriation may be made to any 
     department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
     activities.

Administrative Provisions--Executive Office of the President and Funds 
                     Appropriated to the President

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201.  From funds made available in this Act under the 
     headings ``The White House'', ``Executive Residence at the 
     White House'', ``White House Repair and Restoration'', 
     ``Council of Economic Advisers'', ``National Security Council 
     and Homeland Security Council'', ``Office of 
     Administration'', ``Special Assistance to the President'', 
     and ``Official Residence of the Vice President'', the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget (or such 
     other officer as the President may designate in writing), 
     may, with advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, transfer not to exceed 10 percent of any such 
     appropriation to any other such appropriation, to be merged 
     with and available for the same time and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred:  
     Provided, That the amount of an appropriation shall not be 
     increased by more than 50 percent by such transfers:  
     Provided further, That no amount shall be transferred from 
     ``Special Assistance to the President'' or ``Official 
     Residence of the Vice President'' without the approval of the 
     Vice President.
       Sec. 202. (a) During fiscal year 2024, any Executive order 
     or Presidential memorandum issued or revoked by the President 
     shall be accompanied by a written statement from the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget on the budgetary 
     impact, including costs, benefits, and revenues, of such 
     order or memorandum.
       (b) Any such statement shall include--
       (1) a narrative summary of the budgetary impact of such 
     order or memorandum on the Federal Government;
       (2) the impact on mandatory and discretionary obligations 
     and outlays as the result of such order or memorandum, listed 
     by Federal agency, for each year in the 5-fiscal-year period 
     beginning in fiscal year 2024; and
       (3) the impact on revenues of the Federal Government as the 
     result of such order or memorandum over the 5-fiscal-year 
     period beginning in fiscal year 2024.
       (c) If an Executive order or Presidential memorandum is 
     issued during fiscal year 2024 due to a national emergency, 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may issue 
     the statement required by subsection (a) not later than 15 
     days after the date that such order or memorandum is issued.
       (d) The requirement for cost estimates for Presidential 
     memoranda shall only apply for Presidential memoranda 
     estimated to have a regulatory cost in excess of 
     $100,000,000.
       Sec. 203.  Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall issue a memorandum to all Federal 
     departments, agencies, and corporations directing compliance 
     with the provisions in title VII of this Act.
       Sec. 204.  In fiscal year 2024 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter--
       (1) the Office of Management and Budget shall operate and 
     maintain the automated system required to be implemented by 
     section 204 of the Financial Services and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 2022 (division E of Public Law 117-103) 
     and shall

[[Page H5563]]

     continue to post each document apportioning an appropriation, 
     pursuant to section 1513(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
     including any associated footnotes, in a format that 
     qualifies each such document as an open Government data asset 
     (as that term is defined in section 3502 of title 44, United 
     States Code); and
       (2) the requirements specified in subsection (c), the first 
     and second provisos of subsection (d)(1), and subsection 
     (d)(2) of such section 204 shall continue to apply.
       Sec. 205.  Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall conduct an audit of 
     appropriations and issue a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     listing the unobligated amounts that remain available under 
     the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-123), the Families 
     First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the 
     Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public 
     Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care 
     Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), Divisions M and N of 
     the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
     260), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 
     117-2).
       Sec. 206.  If, during fiscal year 2024 and each year 
     thereafter, the President fails to submit to Congress the 
     annual budget request to Congress on or before the first 
     Monday in February as required by section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code, the total amount available for 
     obligation under the heading `Executive Office of the 
     President and Funds Appropriated to the President' during the 
     fiscal year in which the President failed to make such 
     submission shall be reduced by $52,000,000 until the budget 
     is submitted.
       Sec. 207.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     under the heading ``Office of Management and Budget'' may be 
     used to issue any waiver or otherwise carry out section 265 
     of the Administrative Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023 (title III of 
     Public Law 118-5).
       This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office of the 
     President Appropriations Act, 2024''.

                               TITLE III

                             THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme 
     Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and 
     grounds, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice 
     may approve, $124,201,000, of which $1,500,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.
       In addition, there are appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary under current law for the salaries of the chief 
     justice and associate justices of the court.

                    care of the building and grounds

       For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the 
     Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon 
     the Architect by 40 U.S.C. 6111 and 6112 under the direction 
     of the Chief Justice, $20,420,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

         United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of officers and employees, and for necessary 
     expenses of the court, as authorized by law, $38,991,000.
       In addition, there are appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary under current law for the salaries of the chief 
     judge and judges of the court.

               United States Court of International Trade

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of officers and employees of the court, 
     services, and necessary expenses of the court, as authorized 
     by law, $22,103,000.
       In addition, there are appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary under current law for the salaries of the chief 
     judge and judges of the court.

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services

                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries of judges of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims, magistrate judges, and all other officers and 
     employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise specifically 
     provided for, necessary expenses of the courts, and the 
     purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for 
     Probation and Pretrial Services Office staff, as authorized 
     by law, $6,050,974,000 (including the purchase of firearms 
     and ammunition); of which not to exceed $27,817,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for space alteration projects 
     and for furniture and furnishings related to new space 
     alteration and construction projects.
       In addition, there are appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary under current law for the salaries of circuit and 
     district judges (including judges of the territorial courts 
     of the United States), bankruptcy judges, and justices and 
     judges retired from office or from regular active service.
       In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the 
     National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
     660), not to exceed $9,975,000, to be appropriated from the 
     Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.

                           defender services

       For the operation of Federal Defender organizations; the 
     compensation and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys 
     appointed to represent persons under 18 U.S.C. 3006A and 
     3599, and for the compensation and reimbursement of expenses 
     of persons furnishing investigative, expert, and other 
     services for such representations as authorized by law; the 
     compensation (in accordance with the maximums under 18 U.S.C. 
     3006A) and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed 
     to assist the court in criminal cases where the defendant has 
     waived representation by counsel; the compensation and 
     reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to represent 
     jurors in civil actions for the protection of their 
     employment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1875(d)(1); the 
     compensation and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys 
     appointed under 18 U.S.C. 983(b)(1) in connection with 
     certain judicial civil forfeiture proceedings; the 
     compensation and reimbursement of travel expenses of 
     guardians ad litem appointed under 18 U.S.C. 4100(b); and for 
     necessary training and general administrative expenses, 
     $1,411,116,000, to remain available until expended.

                    fees of jurors and commissioners

       For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of 
     commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to 
     rule 71.1(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 
     U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71.1(h)), $59,902,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That the compensation of 
     land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the highest rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5332.

                             court security

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     incident to the provision of protective guard services for 
     United States courthouses and other facilities housing 
     Federal court or Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts operations, the procurement, installation, and 
     maintenance of security systems and equipment for United 
     States courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court 
     or Administrative Office of the United States Courts 
     operations, building ingress-egress control, inspection of 
     mail and packages, directed security patrols, perimeter 
     security, basic security services provided by the Federal 
     Protective Service, and other similar activities as 
     authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and 
     Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702), $782,727,000, of 
     which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended, to be expended directly or transferred to the 
     United States Marshals Service, which shall be responsible 
     for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program 
     consistent with standards or guidelines agreed to by the 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts and the Attorney General:  Provided, That funds made 
     available under this heading may be used for managing a 
     Judiciary-wide program to facilitate security and emergency 
     management services among the Judiciary, United States 
     Marshals Service, Federal Protective Service, General 
     Services Administration, other Federal agencies, state and 
     local governments and the public; and for purposes authorized 
     by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 
     2022 (Public Law 117-263, Division C, Title LIX, subtitle D) 
     and 28 U.S.C. 604(a)(24).

           Administrative Office of the United States Courts

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor 
     vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and 
     rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $107,295,000, 
     of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Judicial Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as 
     authorized by Public Law 90-219, $34,174,000; of which 
     $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2025, 
     to provide education and training to Federal court personnel; 
     and of which not to exceed $1,500 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                  United States Sentencing Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code, 
     $22,503,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                Administrative Provisions--the Judiciary

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 301.  Appropriations and authorizations made in this 
     title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be 
     available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 302.  Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary 
     in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations,

[[Page H5564]]

     but no such appropriation, except ``Courts of Appeals, 
     District Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender 
     Services'' and ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and 
     Other Judicial Services, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners'', 
     shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any such 
     transfers:  Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this 
     section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under 
     sections 604 and 608 of this Act and shall not be available 
     for obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in section 608.
       Sec. 303.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for ``Courts of Appeals, 
     District Courts, and Other Judicial Services'' shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses 
     of the Judicial Conference of the United States:  Provided, 
     That such available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall 
     be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of 
     the Judicial Conference.
       Sec. 304.  Section 3315(a) of title 40, United States Code, 
     shall be applied by substituting ``Federal'' for 
     ``executive'' each place it appears.
       Sec. 305.  In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 561-569, and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States 
     Marshals Service shall provide, for such courthouses as its 
     Director may designate in consultation with the Director of 
     the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for 
     purposes of a pilot program, the security services that 40 
     U.S.C. 1315 authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to 
     provide, except for the services specified in 40 U.S.C. 
     1315(b)(2)(E). For building-specific security services at 
     these courthouses, the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts shall reimburse the United States 
     Marshals Service rather than the Department of Homeland 
     Security.
       Sec. 306.  Section 3006A(d)(1) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or the attorney's 
     law firm,'' after ``appointed pursuant to this section'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, or the attorney's 
     law firm,'' after ``paid to an attorney'' each place it 
     appears;
       (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, or the attorney's 
     law firm'' after ``paid to the attorney''; and
       (2) in subsection (f), by inserting ``, or the attorney's 
     law firm'' after ``paid to the appointed attorney''.
       Sec. 307. (a) Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements 
     Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), is 
     amended in the matter following paragraph 12-
       (1) in the second sentence (relating to the District of 
     Kansas), by striking ``32 years and 6 months'' and inserting 
     ``33 years and 6 months''; and
       (2) in the sixth sentence (relating to the District of 
     Hawaii), by striking ``29 years and 6 months'' and inserting 
     ``30 years and 6 months''.
       (b) Section 406 of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing 
     and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of 
     Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109- 115; 119 Stat. 2470; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is 
     amended in the second sentence (relating to the eastern 
     District of Missouri) by striking ``30 years and 6 months'' 
     and inserting ``31 years and 6 months''.
       (c) Section 312(c)(2) of the 21st Century Department of 
     Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Public Law 107-273; 
     28 U.S.C. 133 note), is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``21 years'' and 
     inserting ``22 years'';
       (2) in the second sentence (relating to the central 
     District of California), by striking ``20 years and 6 
     months'' and inserting ``21 years and 6 months''; and
       (3) in the third sentence (relating to the western district 
     of North Carolina), by striking ``19 years'' and inserting 
     ``20 years''.
       This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations 
     Act, 2024''.

                                TITLE IV

                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                             Federal Funds

              federal payment for resident tuition support

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia, to be 
     deposited into a dedicated account, for a nationwide program 
     to be administered by the Mayor, for District of Columbia 
     resident tuition support, $40,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended:  Provided, That such funds, including any 
     interest accrued thereon, may be used on behalf of eligible 
     District of Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon 
     the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at 
     public institutions of higher education, or to pay up to 
     $2,500 each year at eligible private institutions of higher 
     education:  Provided further, That the awarding of such funds 
     may be prioritized on the basis of a resident's academic 
     merit, the income and need of eligible students and such 
     other factors as may be authorized:  Provided further, That 
     the District of Columbia government shall maintain a 
     dedicated account for the Resident Tuition Support Program 
     that shall consist of the Federal funds appropriated to the 
     Program in this Act and any subsequent appropriations, any 
     unobligated balances from prior fiscal years, and any 
     interest earned in this or any fiscal year:  Provided 
     further, That the account shall be under the control of the 
     District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer, who shall use 
     those funds solely for the purposes of carrying out the 
     Resident Tuition Support Program:  Provided further, That the 
     Office of the Chief Financial Officer shall provide a 
     quarterly financial report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     for these funds showing, by object class, the expenditures 
     made and the purpose therefor.

   federal payment for emergency planning and security costs in the 
                          district of columbia

       For a Federal payment of necessary expenses, as determined 
     by the Mayor of the District of Columbia in written 
     consultation with the elected county or city officials of 
     surrounding jurisdictions, $28,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the costs of providing public safety at 
     events related to the presence of the National Capital in the 
     District of Columbia, including support requested by the 
     Director of the United States Secret Service in carrying out 
     protective duties under the direction of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, and for the costs of providing support to 
     respond to immediate and specific terrorist threats or 
     attacks in the District of Columbia or surrounding 
     jurisdictions.

           federal payment to the district of columbia courts

       For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia 
     Courts, including the transfer and hire of motor vehicles, 
     $301,210,000 to be allocated as follows: for the District of 
     Columbia Court of Appeals, $15,655,000, of which not to 
     exceed $2,500 is for official reception and representation 
     expenses; for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 
     $144,035,000, of which not to exceed $2,500 is for official 
     reception and representation expenses; for the District of 
     Columbia Court System, $90,210,000, of which not to exceed 
     $2,500 is for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and $51,310,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2025, for capital improvements for District of Columbia 
     courthouse facilities:  Provided, That funds made available 
     for capital improvements shall be expended consistent with 
     the District of Columbia Courts master plan study and 
     facilities condition assessment:  Provided further, That, in 
     addition to the amounts appropriated herein, fees received by 
     the District of Columbia Courts for administering bar 
     examinations and processing District of Columbia bar 
     admissions may be retained and credited to this 
     appropriation, to remain available until expended, for 
     salaries and expenses associated with such activities, 
     notwithstanding section 450 of the District of Columbia Home 
     Rule Act (D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.50):  Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all 
     amounts under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by 
     the Office of Management and Budget and obligated and 
     expended in the same manner as funds appropriated for 
     salaries and expenses of other Federal agencies:  Provided 
     further, That 30 days after providing written notice to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, the District of Columbia Courts may 
     reallocate not more than $9,000,000 of the funds provided 
     under this heading among the items and entities funded under 
     this heading:  Provided further, That the Joint Committee on 
     Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia may, by 
     regulation, establish a program substantially similar to the 
     program set forth in subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for employees of the District of Columbia 
     Courts.

  federal payment for defender services in district of columbia courts

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section 
     11-2605, D.C. Official Code (relating to representation 
     provided under the District of Columbia Criminal Justice 
     Act), payments for counsel appointed in proceedings in the 
     Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia under chapter 23 of title 16, D.C. Official Code, or 
     pursuant to contractual agreements to provide guardian ad 
     litem representation, training, technical assistance, and 
     such other services as are necessary to improve the quality 
     of guardian ad litem representation, payments for counsel 
     appointed in adoption proceedings under chapter 3 of title 
     16, D.C. Official Code, and payments authorized under section 
     21-2060, D.C. Official Code (relating to services provided 
     under the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective 
     Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986), 
     $46,005,000, to remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That funds provided under this heading shall be administered 
     by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the 
     District of Columbia:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, this 
     appropriation shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same 
     manner as funds appropriated for expenses of other Federal 
     agencies:  Provided further, That of the unobligated balances 
     from prior year appropriations made available under this 
     heading, $25,000,000, are hereby rescinded not later than 
     September 30, 2024.

 federal payment to the court services and offender supervision agency 
                      for the district of columbia

       For salaries and expenses, including the transfer and hire 
     of motor vehicles, of the

[[Page H5565]]

     Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the 
     District of Columbia, as authorized by the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, 
     $287,271,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 is for official 
     reception and representation expenses related to Community 
     Supervision and Pretrial Services Agency programs, and of 
     which not to exceed $25,000 is for dues and assessments 
     relating to the implementation of the Court Services and 
     Offender Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 
     2002:  Provided, That, of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $202,289,000 shall be for necessary expenses of 
     Community Supervision and Sex Offender Registration, to 
     include expenses relating to the supervision of adults 
     subject to protection orders or the provision of services for 
     or related to such persons, of which $4,253,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2026, for costs associated with 
     the relocation under replacement leases for headquarters 
     offices, field offices, and related facilities:  Provided 
     further, That, of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     $84,982,000 shall be available to the Pretrial Services 
     Agency, of which $2,503,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2026, for costs associated with relocation 
     under a replacement lease for headquarters offices, field 
     offices, and related facilities:  Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts under 
     this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same 
     manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of 
     other Federal agencies:  Provided further, That amounts under 
     this heading may be used for programmatic incentives for 
     defendants to successfully complete their terms of 
     supervision.

  federal payment to the district of columbia public defender service

       For salaries and expenses, including the transfer and hire 
     of motor vehicles, of the District of Columbia Public 
     Defender Service, as authorized by the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, 
     $57,329,000, of which $3,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2026, for costs associated with relocation 
     under a replacement lease for headquarters offices, field 
     offices, and related facilities:  Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts under 
     this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same 
     manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of 
     Federal agencies:  Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia Public Defender Service may establish for employees 
     of the District of Columbia Public Defender Service a program 
     substantially similar to the program set forth in subchapter 
     II of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, except that 
     the maximum amount of the payment made under the program to 
     any individual may not exceed the amount referred to in 
     section 3523(b)(3)(B) of title 5, United States Code:  
     Provided further, That for the purposes of engaging with, and 
     receiving services from, Federal Franchise Fund Programs 
     established in accordance with section 403 of the Government 
     Management Reform Act of 1994, as amended, the District of 
     Columbia Public Defender Service shall be considered an 
     agency of the United States Government:  Provided further, 
     That the District of Columbia Public Defender Service may 
     enter into contracts for the procurement of severable 
     services and multiyear contracts for the acquisition of 
     property and services to the same extent and under the same 
     conditions as an executive agency under sections 3902 and 
     3903 of title 41, United States Code.

      federal payment to the criminal justice coordinating council

       For a Federal payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating 
     Council, $2,150,000, to remain available until expended, to 
     support initiatives related to the coordination of Federal 
     and local criminal justice resources in the District of 
     Columbia.

                federal payment for judicial commissions

       For a Federal payment, to remain available until September 
     30, 2025, to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and 
     Tenure, $330,000, and for the Judicial Nomination Commission, 
     $300,000.

                 federal payment for school improvement

       For a Federal payment for a school improvement program in 
     the District of Columbia, $52,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for payments authorized under the 
     Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (division C of 
     Public Law 112-10):  Provided, That, to the extent that funds 
     are available for opportunity scholarships and following the 
     priorities included in section 3006 of such Act, the 
     Secretary of Education shall make scholarships available to 
     students eligible under section 3013(3) of such Act (Public 
     Law 112-10; 125 Stat. 211) including students who were not 
     offered a scholarship during any previous school year:  
     Provided further, That within funds provided for opportunity 
     scholarships, up to $1,750,000 shall be for the activities 
     specified in sections 3007(b) through 3007(d) of the Act and 
     up to $500,000 shall be for the activities specified in 
     section 3009 of the Act.

      federal payment for the district of columbia national guard

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia National 
     Guard, $600,000, to remain available until expended for the 
     Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. District of Columbia 
     National Guard Retention and College Access Program.

         federal payment for testing and treatment of hiv/aids

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for the 
     testing of individuals for, and the treatment of individuals 
     with, human immunodeficiency virus and acquired 
     immunodeficiency syndrome in the District of Columbia, 
     $4,000,000.

 federal payment to the district of columbia water and sewer authority

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia Water and 
     Sewer Authority, $8,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to continue implementation of the Combined Sewer 
     Overflow Long-Term Plan:  Provided, That the District of 
     Columbia Water and Sewer Authority provides a 100 percent 
     match for this payment.

                       district of columbia funds

       Local funds are appropriated for the District of Columbia 
     for the current fiscal year out of the General Fund of the 
     District of Columbia (``General Fund'') for programs and 
     activities set forth under the heading ``District of Columbia 
     Budget for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2024'' and at 
     the rate set forth under such heading, as included in the 
     Fiscal Year 2024 Local Budget Act of 2023 submitted to 
     Congress by the District of Columbia, as amended as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, except as provided in section 
     450A of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (section 1-
     204.50a, D.C. Official Code), sections 816 and 817 of the 
     Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 
     2009 (secs. 47-369.01 and 47-369.02, D.C. Official Code), and 
     provisions of this Act, the total amount appropriated in this 
     Act for operating expenses for the District of Columbia for 
     fiscal year 2024 under this heading shall not exceed the 
     estimates included in the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request Act 
     of 2023 submitted to Congress by the District of Columbia, as 
     amended as of the date of enactment of this Act or the sum of 
     the total revenues of the District of Columbia for such 
     fiscal year: Provided further, That the amount appropriated 
     may be increased by proceeds of one-time transactions, which 
     are expended for emergency or unanticipated operating or 
     capital needs: Provided further, That such increases shall be 
     approved by enactment of local District law and shall comply 
     with all reserve requirements contained in the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act: Provided further, That the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall take such 
     steps as are necessary to assure that the District of 
     Columbia meets these requirements, including the apportioning 
     by the Chief Financial Officer of the appropriations and 
     funds made available to the District during fiscal year 2024, 
     except that the Chief Financial Officer may not reprogram for 
     operating expenses any funds derived from bonds, notes, or 
     other obligations issued for capital projects.
       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 2024''.

                                TITLE V

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

             Administrative Conference of the United States

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 591 et seq., 
     $3,523,000, to remain available until September 30, 2025, of 
     which not to exceed $1,000 is for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the authorities of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, $635,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended.

    administrative provisions--consumer financial protection bureau

       Sec. 501.  Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by amending the heading of such subsection to read as 
     follows: ``BUDGET, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, AND AUDIT.--'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (D) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) of paragraph (1), 
     as so redesignated;
       (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (b) and (c), respectively; and
       (4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting 
     the following: --
       ``(1) AUTHORIZATION of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Bureau $650,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2024 to carry out the authorities of the Bureau.''; and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
       Sec. 502. (a) In General.--The Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 1011---
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``in the Federal Reserve System,''; and
       (ii) by striking ``independent bureau'' and inserting 
     ``independent agency'';

[[Page H5566]]

       (B) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d);
       (C) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (j);
       (D) in subsection (j), as so redesignated, by striking ``, 
     including in cities in which the Federal reserve banks, or 
     branches of such banks, are located,''; and
       (E) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS.--The commission 
     of the Bureau may prescribe such regulations and issue such 
     orders in accordance with this title as the Bureau may 
     determine to be necessary for carrying out this title and all 
     other laws within the Bureau's jurisdiction and shall 
     exercise any authorities granted under this title and all 
     other laws within the Bureau's jurisdiction.
       ``(c) COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION.--
       ``(1) IN GENERAL.--The management of the Bureau shall be 
     vested in a commission, which shall be composed of 5 members 
     who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, and at least 2 of whom 
     shall have private sector experience in the provision of 
     consumer financial products and services.
       ``(2)  STAGGERING.--The members of the commission shall 
     serve staggered terms, which initially shall be established 
     by the President for terms of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, 
     respectively.
       ``(3) TERMS.--
       ``(A) IN general.--Except with respect to the initial 
     staggered terms described under paragraph (2), each member of 
     the commission, including the Chair, shall serve for a term 
     of 5 years.
       ``(B) REMOVAL.--The President may remove any member of the 
     commission for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance 
     in office.
       ``(C) VACANCIES.--Any member of the commission appointed to 
     fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term to 
     which that member's predecessor was appointed (including the 
     Chair) shall be appointed only for the remainder of the term.
       ``(D) CONTINUATION of service.--Each member of the 
     commission may continue to serve after the expiration of the 
     term of office to which that member was appointed until a 
     successor has been appointed by the President and confirmed 
     by the Senate, except that a member may not continue to serve 
     more than 1 year after the date on which the term of that 
     member would otherwise expire.
       ``(E) OTHER employment prohibited.--No member of the 
     commission shall engage in any other business, vocation, or 
     employment.
       ``(d) AFFILIATION.--Not more than three members of the 
     commission shall be members of any one political party.
       ``(e) CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION.--
       ``(1) INITIAL CHAIR.--The first member and Chair of the 
     commission shall be the individual serving as Director of the 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection on the day before the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection. Such individual 
     shall serve until the President has appointed all 5 members 
     of the commission in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(2) SUBSEQUENT CHAIR.--Of the 5 members appointed in 
     accordance with subsection (c), the President shall appoint 1 
     member to serve as the subsequent Chair of the commission.
       ``(3) AUTHORITY.--The Chair shall be the principal 
     executive officer of the commission, and shall exercise all 
     of the executive and administrative functions of the 
     commission, including with respect to--
       ``(A) the appointment and supervision of personnel employed 
     under the commission (other than personnel employed regularly 
     and full time in the immediate offices of members of the 
     commission other than the Chair);
       ``(B) the distribution of business among personnel 
     appointed and supervised by the Chair and among 
     administrative units of the commission; and
       ``(C) the use and expenditure of funds.
       ``(4) LIMITATION.--In carrying out any of the Chair's 
     functions under the provisions of this subsection, the Chair 
     shall be governed by general policies of the commission and 
     by such regulatory decisions, findings, and determinations as 
     the commission may by law be authorized to make.
       ``(5) REQUESTS OR ESTIMATES RELATED TO APPROPRIATIONS.--
     Requests or estimates for regular, supplemental, or 
     deficiency appropriations on behalf of the commission may not 
     be submitted by the Chair without the prior approval of the 
     commission.
       ``(6) DESIGNATION.--The Chair shall be known as both the 
     `Chair of the commission' of the Bureau and the `Chair of the 
     Bureau'.
       ``(f) INITIAL QUORUM ESTABLISHED.--For the 6 month period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
     first member and Chair of the commission described under 
     subsection (e)(1) shall constitute a quorum for the 
     transaction of business until the President has appointed all 
     5 members of the commission in accordance with subsection 
     (c). Following such appointment of 5 members, the quorum 
     requirements of subsection (g) shall apply.
       ``(g) NO IMPAIRMENT BY REASON OF VACANCIES.--No vacancy in 
     the members of the commission after the establishment of an 
     initial quorum under subsection (f) shall impair the right of 
     the remaining members of the commission to exercise all the 
     powers of the commission. Three members of the commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, 
     except that if there are only 3 members serving on the 
     commission because of vacancies in the commission, 2 members 
     of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the 
     transaction of business. If there are only 2 members serving 
     on the commission because of vacancies in the commission, 2 
     members shall constitute a quorum for the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the vacancy which caused the number 
     of commission members to decline to 2.
       ``(h) SEAL.--The Bureau shall have an official seal.
       ``(i) COMPENSATION.--
       ``(1) CHAIR.--The Chair shall receive compensation at the 
     rate prescribed for level I of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5313 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.--The 4 other members 
     of the commission shall each receive compensation at the rate 
     prescribed for level II of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.'';
       (2) in section 1012(c)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``AUTONOMY OF THE BUREAU'' 
     and inserting ``COORDINATION WITH THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS'';
       (B) by striking ``(1) COORDINATION WITH THE BOARD OF 
     GOVERNORS.--''; and
       (C) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5); and
       (3) in section 1014(b), by striking ``Not fewer than 6 
     members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the 
     regional Federal Reserve Bank Presidents, on a rotating 
     basis.'' and inserting ``Not fewer than half of all members 
     shall have private sector experience in the provision of 
     consumer financial products and services.''.
       (b) DEEMING OF NAME.--Any reference in a law, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 
     except in subsection (e)(1) of section 1011 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5491), as added 
     by this Act, shall be deemed a reference to the commission 
     leading and governing the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection, as described under section 1011 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010.
       (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--
       (1) CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2010.--
       (A) IN general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B), 
     the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``Director of the Bureau'' each place such 
     term appears, other than where such term is used to refer to 
     a Director other than the Director of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection, and inserting ``Bureau'';
       (ii) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau'', other than where such term is used 
     to refer to a Director other than the Director of the Bureau 
     of Consumer Financial Protection; and
       (iii) in section 1002, by striking paragraph (10).
       (B) EXCEPTIONS.--
       (i) IN general.--The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.) is amended--
       (I) in section 1013(c)(3)--

       (aa) by striking ``Assistant Director of the Bureau for'' 
     and inserting ``Head of the Office of''; and
       (bb) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Assistant 
     Director'' and inserting ``Head of the Office'';

       (II) in section 1013(g)(2)--

       (aa) by striking ``ASSISTANT DIRECTOR'' and inserting 
     ``HEAD OF THE OFFICE''; and
       (bb) by striking ``an assistant director'' and inserting 
     ``a Head of the Office of Financial Protection for Older 
     Americans'';

       (III) in section 1016(a), by striking ``Director of the 
     Bureau'' and inserting ``Chair of the Bureau''; and
       (IV) by striking section 1066.
       (ii) CLERICAL amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 1066.
       (2) DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 
     ACT.--The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 111(b)(1)(D), by striking ``Director'' and 
     inserting ``Chair''; and
       (B) in section 1447, by striking ``Director of the Bureau'' 
     each place such term appears and inserting ``Chair of the 
     Bureau''.
       (3) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER ACT.--Section 921(a)(4)(C) of 
     the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693o-
     2(a)(4)(C)), as added by section 1075(a)(2) of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by striking 
     ``Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' 
     and inserting ``Chair of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection''.
       (4) EXPEDITED FUNDS AVAILABILITY ACT.--The Expedited Funds 
     Availability Act (12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) is amended by 
     striking ``Director of the Bureau'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``Bureau''.
       (5) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT.--Section 2 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1812) is amended by 
     striking ``Director of the Consumer Financial Protection 
     Bureau'' each place such term appears and inserting ``Chair 
     of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection''.
       (6) FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL ACT 
     OF 1978.--

[[Page H5567]]

     Section 1004(a)(4) of the Federal Financial Institutions 
     Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3303(a)(4)) is 
     amended by striking ``Director of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau'' and inserting ``Chair of the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection''.
       (7) FINANCIAL LITERACY AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT.--
     Section 513 of the Financial Literacy and Education 
     Improvement Act (20 U.S.C. 9702) is amended by striking 
     ``Director'' each place such term appears and inserting 
     ``Chair''.
       (8) HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1975.--Section 307 of 
     the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2806 et 
     seq) is amended by striking ``Director of the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection''.
       (9) INTERSTATE LAND SALES FULL DISCLOSURE ACT.--The 
     Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq) is amended--
       (A) in section 1402--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (11), respectively;
       (B) in section 1403(c)--
       (i) by striking ``him'' and inserting ``the Bureau''; and
       (ii) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the Bureau'';
       (C) in section 1407--
       (i) in subsection (c), by striking ``he'' and inserting 
     ``the Bureau''; and
       (ii) in subsection (e), by striking ``Director or anyone 
     designated by him'' and inserting ``Bureau'';
       (D) in section 1411(a)--
       (i) by striking ``his findings'' and inserting ``the 
     findings of the Bureau''; and
       (ii) by striking ``his recommendation'' and inserting ``the 
     recommendation of the Bureau'';
       (E) in section 1415--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``he may, in his 
     discretion,'' and inserting ``the Bureau may, in the 
     discretion of the Bureau,'';
       (ii) in subsection (b)--
       (I) ) by striking ``in his discretion'' each place such 
     term appears and inserting ``in the discretion of the 
     Bureau'';
       (II) by striking ``he deems'' and inserting ``the Bureau 
     determines''; and
       (III) by striking ``he may deem'' and inserting ``the 
     Bureau may determine''; and
       (iii) in subsection (c), by striking ``the Director, or any 
     officer designated by him,'' and inserting ``the Bureau'';
       (F) in section 1416(a)--
       (i) by striking ``Director of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection who may delegate any of his'' and 
     inserting ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which 
     may delegate any'';
       (ii) by striking ``his administrative'' and inserting 
     ``administrative''; and
       (iii) by striking ``himself'' and inserting ``the 
     commission of the Bureau'';
       (G) in section 1418a(b)(4), by striking ``Secretary's 
     determination'' and inserting ``determination of the 
     Bureau''; and
       (H) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau''.
       (10) REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT OF 1974.--
     Section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 
     1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``The Director of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection (hereafter in this section referred to 
     as the `Director')'' and inserting ``The Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection (hereafter in this section referred to 
     as the `Bureau')''; and
       (B) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau''.
       (11) S.A.F.E. MORTGAGE LICENSING ACT OF 2008.--The S.A.F.E. 
     Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     in headings and text and inserting ``Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection''; and
       (B) in section 1503, by striking paragraph (10).
       (12) TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE.--Section 3513(c) of 
     title 44, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Director of the''.
       Sec. 503.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
     Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376, purchase of nominal 
     awards to recognize non-Federal officials' contributions to 
     Commission activities, and not to exceed $4,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $139,050,000, of which 
     $2,500,000 shall remain available until expended, to carry 
     out the program, including administrative costs, required by 
     section 1405 of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety 
     Act (Public Law 110-140; 15 U.S.C. 8004), and of which 
     $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended, to carry 
     out the program, including administrative costs, required by 
     section 204 of the Nicholas and Zachary Burt Memorial Carbon 
     Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2022 (title II of 
     division Q of Public Law 117-103).

     administrative provisions--consumer product safety commission

       Sec. 510.  During fiscal year 2024, none of the amounts 
     made available by this Act may be used to finalize or 
     implement the Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway 
     Vehicles published by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     in the Federal Register on November 19, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 
     68964) until after--
       (1) the National Academy of Sciences, in consultation with 
     the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the 
     Department of Defense, completes a study to determine--
       (A) the technical validity of the lateral stability and 
     vehicle handling requirements proposed by such standard for 
     purposes of reducing the risk of Recreational Off-Highway 
     Vehicle (referred to in this section as ``ROV'') rollovers in 
     the off-road environment, including the repeatability and 
     reproducibility of testing for compliance with such 
     requirements;
       (B) the number of ROV rollovers that would be prevented if 
     the proposed requirements were adopted;
       (C) whether there is a technical basis for the proposal to 
     provide information on a point-of-sale hangtag about a ROV's 
     rollover resistance on a progressive scale; and
       (D) the effect on the utility of ROVs used by the United 
     States military if the proposed requirements were adopted; 
     and
       (2) a report containing the results of the study completed 
     under paragraph (1) is delivered to--
       (A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (D) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       Sec. 511.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to prohibit 
     the use of or sale of gas-powered stoves, cooktops, ranges, 
     or ovens in the United States.

                     Election Assistance Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Help America Vote 
     Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-252), $20,000,000, of which 
     $1,500,000 shall be made available to the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology for election reform activities 
     authorized under the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

                   Federal Communications Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications 
     Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not 
     to exceed $4,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; purchase and hire of motor vehicles; special 
     counsel fees; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $381,950,000, to remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That $381,950,000 of offsetting collections shall be assessed 
     and collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, shall be retained and used for 
     necessary expenses and shall remain available until expended: 
      Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2024 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2024 
     appropriation estimated at $0:  Provided further, That any 
     offsetting collections received in excess of $381,950,000 in 
     fiscal year 2024 shall not be available for obligation:  
     Provided further, That remaining offsetting collections from 
     prior years collected in excess of the amount specified for 
     collection in each such year and otherwise be coming 
     available on October 1, 2023, shall not be available for 
     obligation:  Provided further, That, notwithstanding 47 
     U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(B), proceeds from the use of a competitive 
     bidding system that may be retained and made available for 
     obligation shall not exceed $136,167,000 for fiscal year 
     2024:  Provided further, That, of the amount appropriated 
     under this heading, not less than $12,686,000 shall be for 
     the salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General.

      administrative provisions--federal communications commission

       Sec. 520.  Section 302 of the Universal Service 
     Antideficiency Temporary Suspension Act is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2023'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2024''.
       Sec. 521.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Communications Commission to modify, 
     amend, or change its rules or regulations for universal 
     service support payments to implement the February 27, 2004, 
     recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
     Service regarding single connection or primary line 
     restrictions on universal service support payments.
       Sec. 522.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Communications Commission or the 
     Universal Service Administrative Company to update the 
     currently applicable minimum service standards for fixed or 
     mobile broadband Internet access services pursuant to 47 
     C.F.R. Sec. 54.408 without further consideration through 
     notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the impact these 
     minimum standards have on affordability and consumer choice 
     and to reduce the support level pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 54.403(a)(2):  Provided

[[Page H5568]]

     further, That, the FCC shall consider through notice and 
     comment rulemaking procedures the impact that the support 
     level for voice service as set forth in 47 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 54.403(a)(2) has on low-income consumers' access to 
     public safety.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                    office of the inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $46,500,000, to be derived from the Deposit 
     Insurance Fund or, only when appropriate, the FSLIC 
     Resolution Fund.

                      Federal Election Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, $74,500,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for reception and 
     representation expenses.

                   Federal Labor Relations Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the 
     Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization 
     Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 
     1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and 
     including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, and including official reception and 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $1,500) and rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     $28,000,000:  Provided, That public members of the Federal 
     Service Impasses Panel may be paid travel expenses and per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5703) for persons employed intermittently in the Government 
     service, and compensation as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109:  
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds 
     received from fees charged to non-Federal participants at 
     labor-management relations conferences shall be credited to 
     and merged with this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation for the costs of carrying out these 
     conferences.

            Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council

                 environmental review improvement fund

       For necessary expenses of the Environmental Review 
     Improvement Fund established pursuant to section 41009(d) of 
     Public Law 114-94, $9,775,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        Federal Trade Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $376,530,000, to remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for use to 
     contract with a person or persons for collection services in 
     accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718:  Provided 
     further, That, not more than $165,000,000 shall be for the 
     Bureau of Competition:  Provided further, That, none of the 
     funds made available to the Federal Trade Commission and used 
     by the Bureau of Consumer Protection shall be reprogrammed to 
     the Bureau of Competition:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $278,000,000 of offsetting collections derived from fees 
     collected for premerger notification filings under the Hart-
     Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 
     18a), regardless of the year of collection, shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation:  
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, not to exceed $14,000,000 in offsetting collections 
     derived from fees to implement and enforce the Telemarketing 
     Sales Rule, promulgated under the Telemarketing and Consumer 
     Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), 
     shall be credited to this account, and be retained and used 
     for necessary expenses in this appropriation:  Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated from the general 
     fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections are 
     received during fiscal year 2024 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2024 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at no more than $84,530,000:  Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available to the Federal Trade 
     Commission may be used to implement subsection (e)(2)(B) of 
     section 43 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1831t).

          administrative provisions--federal trade commission

       Sec. 530.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement or enforce the rulemaking 
     entitled ``Motor Vehicle Dealers Trade Regulation Rule'' (87 
     Fed. Reg. 42012 (July 13, 2022)).
       Sec. 531.  None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     finalize or enforce the ``Trade Regulation on the Use of 
     Earnings Claims'' or the ``Review of the Business Opportunity 
     Rule'' rulemakings without a clear statement of need or 
     unless overlapping rulemaking and improvements in self-
     regulation and consumer protection of industries that would 
     be impacted is considered.
       Sec. 532.  None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     implement, administer, or enforce the July 9, 2021 Statement 
     of the Commission on the Withdrawal of the Statement of 
     Enforcement Principles Regarding "Unfair Methods of 
     Competition" under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act.
       Sec. 533.  None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     implement, administer, or enforce the October 25, 2021, 
     Statement of the Commission on Use of Prior Approval 
     Provisions in Merger Orders.

                    General Services Administration

                        real property activities

                         federal buildings fund

                 limitations on availability of revenue

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Amounts in the Fund, including revenues and collections 
     deposited into the Fund, shall be available for necessary 
     expenses of real property management and related activities 
     not otherwise provided for, including operation, maintenance, 
     and protection of Federally owned and leased buildings; 
     rental of buildings in the District of Columbia; restoration 
     of leased premises; moving governmental agencies (including 
     space adjustments and telecommunications relocation expenses) 
     in connection with the assignment, allocation, and transfer 
     of space; contractual services incident to cleaning or 
     servicing buildings, and moving; repair and alteration of 
     Federally owned buildings, including grounds, approaches, and 
     appurtenances; care and safeguarding of sites; maintenance, 
     preservation, demolition, and equipment; acquisition of 
     buildings and sites by purchase, condemnation, or as 
     otherwise authorized by law; acquisition of options to 
     purchase buildings and sites; conversion and extension of 
     Federally owned buildings; preliminary planning and design of 
     projects by contract or otherwise; construction of new 
     buildings (including equipment for such buildings); and 
     payment of principal, interest, and any other obligations for 
     public buildings acquired by installment purchase and 
     purchase contract; in the aggregate amount of $9,297,817,000, 
     of which--
       (1) $28,290,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     construction and acquisition (including funds for sites and 
     expenses, and associated design and construction services), 
     in addition to amounts otherwise provided for such purposes, 
     the San Juan, Clemente Ruiz-Nazario U.S. Courthouse and 
     Federico Degetau Federal Building in Puerto Rico:
       
       Provided, That each of the foregoing limits of costs on 
     construction and acquisition projects may be exceeded to the 
     extent that savings are effected in other such projects, but 
     not to exceed 20 percent of the amounts included in a 
     transmitted prospectus, if required, unless advance approval 
     is obtained from the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate of a greater amount;
       (2) $568,848,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     repairs and alterations, including associated design and 
     construction services, in addition to amounts otherwise 
     provided for such purposes, of which--
       (A) $106,405,000 is for Major Repairs and Alterations as 
     follows:
       Kentucky:
       Paducah, Federal Building and U.S. courthouse, $40,479,000;
       Oklahoma:
       Oklahoma City, William J. Holloway, Jr. U.S. Courthouse and 
     Post Office, $65,926,000;
       
       (B) $388,710,000 is for Basic Repairs and Alterations; and
       (C) $73,733,000 is for Special Emphasis Programs:
       
       Provided, That funds made available in this or any previous 
     Act in the Federal Buildings Fund for Repairs and Alterations 
     shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to the amount 
     identified for each project, except each project in this or 
     any previous Act may be increased by an amount not to exceed 
     20 percent unless advance approval is obtained from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate of a greater amount:  Provided further, That 
     additional projects for which prospectuses have been fully 
     approved may be funded under this category only if advance 
     approval is obtained from the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate:  Provided 
     further, That the amounts provided in this or any prior Act 
     for ``Repairs and Alterations'' may be used to fund costs 
     associated with implementing security improvements to 
     buildings necessary to meet the minimum standards for 
     security in accordance with current law and in compliance 
     with the reprogramming guidelines of the appropriate 
     Committees of the House and Senate:  Provided further, That 
     the difference between the funds appropriated and expended on 
     any projects in this or any prior Act, under the heading 
     ``Repairs and Alterations'', may be transferred to ``Basic 
     Repairs and Alterations'' or used to fund authorized 
     increases in prospectus projects:  Provided further, That the 
     amount provided in this or any prior Act for ``Basic Repairs 
     and Alterations'' may be used to pay claims against the 
     Government arising from any projects under the heading 
     ``Repairs and Alterations'' or used to fund authorized 
     increases in prospectus projects;
       (3) $5,719,298,000 for rental of space to remain available 
     until expended; and
       (4) $2,981,381,000 for building operations to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That the total amount of 
     funds made available from this Fund to the General Services 
     Administration shall not be available for expenses of any 
     construction, repair, alteration and acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus, if required by 40 U.S.C. 3307(a), has not 
     been approved, except that necessary

[[Page H5569]]

     funds may be expended for each project for required expenses 
     for the development of a proposed prospectus:  Provided 
     further, That funds available in the Federal Buildings Fund 
     may be expended for emergency repairs when advance approval 
     is obtained from the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate:  Provided further, 
     That amounts necessary to provide reimbursable special 
     services to other agencies under 40 U.S.C. 592(b)(2) and 
     amounts to provide such reimbursable fencing, lighting, guard 
     booths, and other facilities on private or other property not 
     in Government ownership or control as may be appropriate to 
     enable the United States Secret Service to perform its 
     protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056, shall be 
     available from such revenues and collections:  Provided 
     further, That revenues and collections and any other sums 
     accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2024, excluding 
     reimbursements under 40 U.S.C. 592(b)(2), in excess of the 
     aggregate new obligational authority authorized for Real 
     Property Activities of the Federal Buildings Fund in this Act 
     shall remain in the Fund and shall not be available for 
     expenditure except as authorized in appropriations Acts.

                           general activities

                         government-wide policy

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for Government-wide policy associated with the management of 
     real and personal property assets and certain administrative 
     services; Government-wide policy support responsibilities 
     relating to acquisition, travel, motor vehicles, information 
     technology management, and related technology activities; and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and evaluation 
     activities as authorized by statute; $68,720,000.

                           operating expenses

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for Government-wide activities associated with utilization 
     and donation of surplus personal property; disposal of real 
     property; agency-wide policy direction and management; and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $50,955,000, of 
     which not to exceed $7,500 is for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                   civilian board of contract appeals

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for the activities associated with the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals, $9,580,000, of which $2,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $69,000,000:  
     Provided, That not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be available 
     for information technology enhancements related to providing 
     modern technology case management solutions:  Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for 
     payment for information and detection of fraud against the 
     Government, including payment for recovery of stolen 
     Government property:  Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other 
     Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of 
     efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of 
     Inspector General effectiveness.

           allowances and office staff for former presidents

       For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25, 
     1958 (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138, $5,500,000.

                     federal citizen services fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses authorized by 40 U.S.C. 323 and 44 U.S.C. 
     3604; and for expenses authorized by law, not otherwise 
     provided for, in support of interagency projects that enable 
     the Federal Government to enhance its ability to conduct 
     activities electronically, through the development and 
     implementation of innovative uses of information technology; 
     $55,000,000, to be deposited into the Federal Citizen 
     Services Fund:  Provided, That the previous amount may be 
     transferred to Federal agencies to carry out the purpose of 
     the Federal Citizen Services Fund:  Provided further, That 
     the appropriations, revenues, reimbursements, and collections 
     deposited into the Fund shall be available until expended for 
     necessary expenses of Federal Citizen Services and other 
     activities that enable the Federal Government to enhance its 
     ability to conduct activities electronically in the aggregate 
     amount not to exceed $150,000,000:  Provided further, That 
     appropriations, revenues, reimbursements, and collections 
     accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2024 in excess of 
     such amount shall remain in the Fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts:  Provided further, That, of the total 
     amount appropriated, up to $5,000,000 shall be available for 
     support functions and full-time hires to support activities 
     related to the Administration's requirements under title II 
     of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 
     2018 (Public Law 115-435):  Provided further, That the 
     transfer authorities provided herein shall be in addition to 
     any other transfer authority provided in this Act.

                  pre-election presidential transition

       For activities authorized by the Presidential Transition 
     Act of 1963, as amended, not to exceed $10,413,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2025: Provided, That such 
     amounts may be transferred to ``Acquisition Services Fund'' 
     or ``Federal Buildings Fund'' to reimburse obligations 
     incurred for the purposes provided herein in fiscal years 
     2023 and 2024: Provided further, That amounts made available 
     under this heading shall be in addition to any other amounts 
     available for such purposes.

                asset proceeds and space management fund

       For carrying out section 16(b) of the Federal Assets Sale 
     and Transfer Act of 2016 (40 U.S.C. 1303 note), $4,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                          working capital fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Working Capital Fund of the General Services 
     Administration, $4,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for necessary costs incurred by the Administrator 
     to modernize rulemaking systems and to provide support 
     services for Federal rulemaking agencies.

       administrative provisions--general services administration

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 540.  Funds available to the General Services 
     Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 541.  Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made 
     available for fiscal year 2024 for Federal Buildings Fund 
     activities may be transferred between such activities only to 
     the extent necessary to meet program requirements:  Provided, 
     That any proposed transfers shall be approved in advance by 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.
       Sec. 542.  Except as otherwise provided in this title, 
     funds made available by this Act shall be used to transmit a 
     fiscal year 2025 request for United States Courthouse 
     construction only if the request: (1) meets the design guide 
     standards for construction as established and approved by the 
     General Services Administration, the Judicial Conference of 
     the United States, and the Office of Management and Budget; 
     (2) reflects the priorities of the Judicial Conference of the 
     United States as set out in its approved Courthouse Project 
     Priorities plan; and (3) includes a standardized courtroom 
     utilization study of each facility to be constructed, 
     replaced, or expanded.
       Sec. 543.  None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to increase the amount of occupiable square feet, 
     provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any 
     other service usually provided through the Federal Buildings 
     Fund, to any agency that does not pay the rate per square 
     foot assessment for space and services as determined by the 
     General Services Administration in consideration of the 
     Public Buildings Amendments Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-313).
       Sec. 544.  From funds made available under the heading 
     ``Federal Buildings Fund, Limitations on Availability of 
     Revenue'', claims against the Government of less than 
     $250,000 arising from direct construction projects and 
     acquisition of buildings may be liquidated from savings 
     effected in other construction projects with prior 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate.
       Sec. 545.  In any case in which the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate adopt a resolution granting lease 
     authority pursuant to a prospectus transmitted to Congress by 
     the Administrator of the General Services Administration 
     under 40 U.S.C. 3307, the Administrator shall ensure that the 
     delineated area of procurement is identical to the delineated 
     area included in the prospectus for all lease agreements, 
     except that, if the Administrator determines that the 
     delineated area of the procurement should not be identical to 
     the delineated area included in the prospectus, the 
     Administrator shall provide an explanatory statement to each 
     of such committees and the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate prior to 
     exercising any lease authority provided in the resolution.
       Sec. 546.  With respect to projects funded under the 
     heading ``Federal Citizen Services Fund'', the Administrator 
     of General Services shall submit a spending plan and 
     explanation for each project to be undertaken to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 547. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     for the General Services Administration or any other Federal 
     agency may be obligated or expended for the leasing of 
     facilities for temporary or permanent use by the United 
     States Space Command for headquarters operations until the 
     report required under subsection (b) is submitted.
       (b) The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air 
     Force, shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on all 
     leased facilities associated with the United States Space 
     Command headquarters.

                 Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation

                         salaries and expenses

       For payment to the Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation 
     Trust Fund, established by section 10 of Public Law 93-642, 
     $2,500,000, to remain available until expended.

[[Page H5570]]

  


                     Merit Systems Protection Board

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and 
     the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5509 
     note), including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and 
     elsewhere, hire of passenger motor vehicles, direct 
     procurement of survey printing, and not to exceed $2,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $47,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2025, and in addition 
     not to exceed $2,345,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2025, for administrative expenses to adjudicate 
     retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board.

            Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation

            morris k. udall and stewart l. udall trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payment to the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall 
     Foundation, pursuant to the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. 
     Udall Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), $1,800,000, to 
     remain available for direct expenditure until expended, of 
     which, notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of such Act, up to 
     $1,000,000 shall be available to carry out the activities 
     authorized by section 6(7) of Public Law 102-259 and section 
     817(a) of Public Law 106-568 (20 U.S.C. 5604(7)):  Provided, 
     That all current and previous amounts transferred to the 
     Office of Inspector General of the Department of the Interior 
     will remain available until expended for audits and 
     investigations of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall 
     Foundation, consistent with the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, and for annual independent financial audits 
     of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation 
     pursuant to the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-289):  Provided further, That previous 
     amounts transferred to the Office of Inspector General of the 
     Department of the Interior may be transferred to the Morris 
     K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation for annual 
     independent financial audits pursuant to the Accountability 
     of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-289).

                 environmental dispute resolution fund

       For payment to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to 
     carry out activities authorized in the Environmental Policy 
     and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998, $3,296,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

              National Archives and Records Administration

                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in connection with the 
     administration of the National Archives and Records 
     Administration and archived Federal records and related 
     activities, as provided by law, and for expenses necessary 
     for the review and declassification of documents, the 
     activities of the Public Interest Declassification Board, the 
     operations and maintenance of the electronic records 
     archives, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, and for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901), including maintenance, repairs, and cleaning, 
     $427,250,000, of which $30,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for expenses necessary to enhance the Federal 
     Government's ability to electronically preserve, manage, and 
     store Government records.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General 
     Reform Act of 2008, Public Law 110-409, 122 Stat. 4302-16 
     (2008), and the Inspector General Act of 1978, and for the 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, $6,400,000.

                        repairs and restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
     facilities, and museum exhibits, related equipment for public 
     spaces, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, 
     $8,000,000, to remain available until expended.

        national historical publications and records commission

                             grants program

       For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for 
     historical publications and records as authorized by 44 
     U.S.C. 2504, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                  National Credit Union Administration

               community development revolving loan fund

       For the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund program 
     as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 9812, 9822, and 9910, $3,500,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2024, for technical 
     assistance to low-income designated credit unions.

                      Office of Government Ethics

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Government Ethics pursuant to the chapter 131 of tile 5, 
     United States Code, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and the 
     Representative Louise McIntosh Slaughter Stop Trading on 
     Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia and elsewhere, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $22,377,000.

                     Office of Personnel Management

                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfers of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Personnel Management (OPM) pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; medical 
     examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on 
     a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not 
     to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and payment of per diem and/or subsistence 
     allowances to employees where Voting Rights Act activities 
     require an employee to remain overnight at his or her post of 
     duty, $164,934,000:  Provided, That of the total amount made 
     available under this heading, $1,167,805 may be made 
     available for strengthening the capacity and capabilities of 
     the acquisition workforce (as defined by the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 4001 et 
     seq.)), including the recruitment, hiring, training, and 
     retention of such workforce and information technology in 
     support of acquisition workforce effectiveness or for 
     management solutions to improve acquisition management; and 
     in addition $174,714,000 for administrative expenses, to be 
     transferred from the appropriate trust funds of OPM without 
     regard to other statutes, including direct procurement of 
     printed materials, for the retirement and insurance programs: 
      Provided further, That the provisions of this appropriation 
     shall not affect the authority to use applicable trust funds 
     as provided by sections 8348(a)(1)(B), 8958(f)(2)(A), 
     8988(f)(2)(A), and 9004(f)(2)(A) of title 5, United States 
     Code:  Provided further, That no part of this appropriation 
     shall be available for salaries and expenses of the Legal 
     Examining Unit of OPM established pursuant to Executive Order 
     No. 9358 of July 1, 1943, or any successor unit of like 
     purpose:  Provided further, That the President's Commission 
     on White House Fellows, established by Executive Order No. 
     11183 of October 3, 1964, may, during fiscal year 2024, 
     accept donations of money, property, and personal services:  
     Provided further, That such donations, including those from 
     prior years, may be used for the development of publicity 
     materials to provide information about the White House 
     Fellows, except that no such donations shall be accepted for 
     travel or reimbursement of travel expenses, or for the 
     salaries of employees of such Commission:  Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 5 percent of amounts made available under 
     this heading may be transferred to an information technology 
     working capital fund established for purposes authorized by 
     subtitle G of title X of division A of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91; 40 
     U.S.C. 11301 note):  Provided further, That the OPM Director 
     shall notify, and receive approval from, the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     at least 15 days in advance of any transfer under the 
     preceding proviso:  Provided further, That amounts 
     transferred to such a fund under such transfer authority from 
     any organizational category of OPM shall not exceed 5 percent 
     of each such organizational category's budget as identified 
     in the report required by section 608 of this Act:  Provided 
     further, That amounts transferred to such a fund shall remain 
     available for obligation through September 30, 2027.

                      office of inspector general

                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, $5,150,000, and in 
     addition, not to exceed $28,083,000 for administrative 
     expenses to audit, investigate, and provide other oversight 
     of the Office of Personnel Management's retirement and 
     insurance programs, to be transferred from the appropriate 
     trust funds of the Office of Personnel Management, as 
     determined by the Inspector General:  Provided, That the 
     Inspector General is authorized to rent conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia and elsewhere.

                       Office of Special Counsel

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Special Counsel, including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, payment of fees and expenses for witnesses, 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and 
     elsewhere, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $31,904,000.

              Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
     Oversight Board, as authorized by section 1061 of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000ee), $13,700,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2025.

                     Public Buildings Reform Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Public Buildings Reform 
     Board in carrying out the

[[Page H5571]]

     Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-
     287), $3,605,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $1,999,663,000, to remain available until expended; of which 
     not less than $20,050,000 shall be for the Office of 
     Inspector General; of which not to exceed $275,000 shall be 
     available for a permanent secretariat for the International 
     Organization of Securities Commissions; and of which not to 
     exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for 
     consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with 
     foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members 
     of their delegations and staffs to exchange views concerning 
     securities matters, such expenses to include necessary 
     logistic and administrative expenses and the expenses of 
     Commission staff and foreign invitees in attendance 
     including: (1) incidental expenses such as meals; (2) travel 
     and transportation; and (3) related lodging or subsistence; 
     and of which not more than $644,719,000 shall be for the 
     Division of Enforcement.
       In addition to the foregoing appropriation, for move, 
     replication, and related costs associated with a replacement 
     lease for the Commission's District of Columbia headquarters 
     facilities, not to exceed $25,243,000, to remain available 
     until expended; and for move, replication, and related costs 
     associated with a replacement lease for the Commission's 
     Atlanta Office facilities, not to exceed $14,415,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For purposes of calculating the fee rate under section 
     31(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78ee(j)) for fiscal year 2024, all amounts appropriated under 
     this heading shall be deemed to be the regular appropriation 
     to the Commission for fiscal year 2024:  Provided, That fees 
     and charges authorized by section 31 of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ee) shall be credited to 
     this account as offsetting collections:  Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $1,999,663,000 of such offsetting 
     collections shall be available until expended for necessary 
     expenses of this account; not to exceed $25,243,000 of such 
     offsetting collections shall be available until expended for 
     move, replication, and related costs under this heading 
     associated with a replacement lease for the Commission's 
     District of Columbia headquarters facilities; and not to 
     exceed $14,415,000 of such offsetting collections shall be 
     available until expended for move, replication, and related 
     costs under this heading associated with a replacement lease 
     for the Commission's Atlanta Office facilities:  Provided 
     further, That the total amount appropriated under this 
     heading from the general fund for fiscal year 2024 shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting fees are received so as to result 
     in a final total fiscal year 2024 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $0:  Provided 
     further, That if any amount of the appropriation for move, 
     replication, and related costs associated with a replacement 
     lease for the Commission's District of Columbia headquarters 
     facilities or if any amount of the appropriation for move, 
     replication, and related costs associated with a replacement 
     lease for the Commission's Atlanta Regional Office facilities 
     is subsequently de-obligated by the Commission, such amount 
     that was derived from the general fund shall be returned to 
     the general fund, and such amounts that were derived from 
     fees or assessments collected for such purpose shall be paid 
     to each national securities exchange and national securities 
     association, respectively, in proportion to any fees or 
     assessments paid by such national securities exchange or 
     national securities association under section 31 of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ee) in fiscal 
     year 2024.

     administrative provisions--securities and exchange commission

       Sec. 550.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule 
     entitled ``The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-
     Related Disclosures for Investors'' (87 Fed. Reg. 21334 
     (April 11, 2022)) or any substantially similar rule.
       Sec. 551.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the rulemaking 
     entitled ``Open-End Fund Liquidity Risk Management Programs 
     and Swing Pricing; Form N-PORT Reporting'' (87 Fed. Reg. 
     77172 (December 16, 2022)).
       Sec. 552.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the rulemaking 
     entitled ``Regulation Best Execution'', ``Order Competition 
     Rule'', and ``Regulation NMS: Minimum Pricing Increments, 
     Access Fees, and Transparency of Better Priced Order''.
       Sec. 553.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Commission to compel a private company to make 
     a public offering under the Securities Act of 1933 by 
     amending the ``held of record'' definition under section 
     12(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
       Sec. 554.  None of the funds made available by Act may be 
     used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize, 
     implement, or enforce the rulemaking entitled ``Safeguarding 
     Advisory Client Assets'' (88 Fed. Reg. 14672 (March 9, 
     2023)).
       Sec. 555. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used, during the 270-day period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, to collect, or implement any 
     program that would collect, retail investor personally 
     identifiable information (in this section referred to as 
     ``PII'') by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 
     Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Consolidated 
     Audit Trail, LLC, Customer Account Information System, or any 
     other legal entity under Securities and Exchange Committee 
     Rule 613.
       (b) The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit a report to Congress, not later than 270 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, on analysis of--
       (1) the privacy concerns, the constitutionality, and the 
     current law in the Federal judicial circuits and the Supreme 
     Court regarding the legality of the collection of retail 
     investor PII by a regulator without any evidence of 
     wrongdoing; and
       (2) whether Congress has given the SEC the implicit or 
     explicit statutory authority to create a national database 
     that collects the PII of retail investors.
       Sec. 556.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the rulemaking 
     entitled ``Amendments Regarding the Definition of 
     ``Exchange'' and Alternative Trading Systems (ATSs) That 
     Trade U.S. Treasury and Agency Securities, National Market 
     System (NMS) Stocks, and Other Securities''.

                        Selective Service System

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System, 
     including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
     for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
     System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian 
     employees; hire of passenger motor vehicles; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $1,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; $31,300,000:  
     Provided, That during the current fiscal year, the President 
     may exempt this appropriation from the provisions of 31 
     U.S.C. 1341, whenever the President deems such action to be 
     necessary in the interest of national defense:  Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be expended for or in connection with the induction of any 
     person into the Armed Forces of the United States.

                     Small Business Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration, including hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by sections 1343 and 1344 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and not to exceed $3,500 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $278,378,000, 
     of which not less than $15,000,000 shall be available for 
     examinations, reviews, and other lender oversight activities: 
      Provided, That the Administrator is authorized to charge 
     fees to cover the cost of publications developed by the Small 
     Business Administration, and certain loan program activities, 
     including fees authorized by section 5(b) of the Small 
     Business Act:  Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, revenues received from all such activities shall 
     be credited to this account, to remain available until 
     expended, for carrying out these purposes without further 
     appropriations:  Provided further, That the Small Business 
     Administration may accept gifts in an amount not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 and may co-sponsor activities, each in accordance 
     with section 132(a) of division K of Public Law 108-447, 
     during fiscal year 2024:  Provided further, That $6,100,000 
     shall be available for the Loan Modernization and Accounting 
     System, to be available until September 30, 2024:  Provided 
     further, That $20,500,000 shall be available for costs 
     associated with the certification of small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by veterans or service-disabled veterans 
     under sections 36A and 36 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 657f-1; 657f), respectively, and section 862 of Public 
     Law 116-283, to be available until September 30, 2024.

                  entrepreneurial development programs

       For necessary expenses of programs supporting 
     entrepreneurial and small business development, $299,250,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2024:  Provided, That 
     $140,000,000 shall be available to fund grants for 
     performance in fiscal year 2024 or fiscal year 2025 as 
     authorized by section 21 of the Small Business Act:  Provided 
     further, That $41,000,000 shall be for marketing, management, 
     and technical assistance under section 7(m) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(4)) by intermediaries that 
     make microloans under the microloan program:  Provided 
     further, That $20,000,000 shall be available for grants to 
     States to carry out export programs that assist small 
     business concerns authorized under section 22(l) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649(l)).

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $32,020,000.

                           office of advocacy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Advocacy in 
     carrying out the provisions of title II of Public Law 94-305 
     (15 U.S.C. 634a et seq.) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
     of 1980 (5

[[Page H5572]]

     U.S.C. 601 et seq.), $9,466,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                     business loans program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $6,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974:  Provided further, That subject to section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, during fiscal year 2024 
     commitments to guarantee loans under section 503 of the Small 
     Business Investment Act of 1958 and commitments for loans 
     authorized under subparagraph (C) of section 502(7) of the 
     Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(7)) 
     shall not exceed, in the aggregate, $12,500,000,000:  
     Provided further, That during fiscal year 2024 commitments 
     for general business loans authorized under paragraphs (1) 
     through (35) of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act shall 
     not exceed $32,500,000,000 for a combination of amortizing 
     term loans and the aggregated maximum line of credit provided 
     by revolving loans:  Provided further, That during fiscal 
     year 2024 commitments to guarantee loans for debentures under 
     section 303(b) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 
     shall not exceed $5,000,000,000:  Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 2024, guarantees of trust certificates 
     authorized by section 5(g) of the Small Business Act shall 
     not exceed a principal amount of $15,000,000,000. In 
     addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the direct 
     and guaranteed loan programs, $163,000,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.

                     disaster loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, 
     $178,000,000, to be available until expended, of which 
     $1,600,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of the 
     Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of 
     disaster loans and the disaster loan programs and shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriations for the 
     Office of Inspector General; of which $168,000,000 is for 
     direct administrative expenses of loan making and servicing 
     to carry out the direct loan program, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses; and of which $8,400,000 is for 
     indirect administrative expenses for the direct loan program, 
     which may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriations for Salaries and Expenses:  Provided, That, of 
     the funds provided under this heading, $143,000,000 shall be 
     for major disasters declared pursuant to the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122(2)):  Provided further, That the amount for major 
     disasters under this heading is designated by the Congress as 
     being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.

        administrative provisions--small business administration

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 560.  Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Small 
     Business Administration in this Act may be transferred 
     between such appropriations, but no such appropriation shall 
     be increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfers:  
     Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall 
     be treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 608 of 
     this Act and shall not be available for obligation or 
     expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set 
     forth in that section.
       Sec. 561.  Not to exceed 3 percent of any appropriation 
     made available in this Act for the Small Business 
     Administration under the headings ``Salaries and Expenses'' 
     and ``Business Loans Program Account'' may be transferred to 
     the Administration's information technology system 
     modernization and working capital fund (IT WCF), as 
     authorized by section 1077(b)(1) of title X of division A of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, 
     for the purposes specified in section 1077(b)(3) of such Act, 
     upon the advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate:  Provided, 
     That amounts transferred to the IT WCF under this section 
     shall remain available for obligation through September 30, 
     2027.
       Sec. 562.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out an enforcement action against a 
     recipient of Federal assistance for a major disaster or 
     emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in any case 
     in which such recipient--
       (1) is unable to make monthly repayments for a duplication 
     of benefits under section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5155); and
       (2) has not yet received Community Development Block Grant 
     funds for which such recipient is eligible.
       Sec. 563.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Small Business Administration to further fund 
     or transfer funds to the Community Navigator Pilot Program 
     established under section 5004 of the American Rescue Plan 
     Act of 2021 (15 U.S.C. 9013).
       Sec. 564.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Small Business Administration to fund climate 
     change initiatives.

                      United States Postal Service

                   payment to the postal service fund

       For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone 
     on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code, 
     $35,424,000:  Provided, That mail for overseas voting and 
     mail for the blind shall continue to be free:  Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available to the Postal 
     Service by this Act shall be used to implement any rule, 
     regulation, or policy of charging any officer or employee of 
     any State or local child support enforcement agency, or any 
     individual participating in a State or local program of child 
     support enforcement, a fee for information requested or 
     provided concerning an address of a postal customer:  
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act 
     shall be used to consolidate or close small rural and other 
     small post offices:  Provided further, That the Postal 
     Service may not destroy, and shall continue to offer for 
     sale, any copies of the Multinational Species Conservation 
     Funds Semipostal Stamp, as authorized under the Multinational 
     Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-241).

                      office of inspector general

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $274,467,000, to be derived by transfer from the 
     Postal Service Fund and expended as authorized by section 
     603(b)(3) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 
     (Public Law 109-435).

                        United States Tax Court

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and 
     other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to 
     exceed $3,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $46,375,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That the amount made 
     available under 26 U.S.C. 7475 shall be transferred and added 
     to any amounts available under 26 U.S.C. 7473, to remain 
     available until expended, for the operation and maintenance 
     of the United States Tax Court:  Provided further, That 
     travel expenses of the judges shall be paid upon the written 
     certificate of the judge.

                                TITLE VI

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

                     (including rescission of funds)

       Sec. 601.  None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 602.  None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     except for transfers made pursuant to the authority in 
     section 3173(d) of title 40, United States Code, unless 
     expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 603.  The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 604.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 605.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary 
     of any Government employee where funding an activity or 
     paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a 
     decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that 
     would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307).
       Sec. 606.  No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may 
     be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with chapter 
     83 of title 41, United States Code.
       Sec. 607.  No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act shall be made available to any 
     person or entity that has been convicted of violating chapter 
     83 of title 41, United States Code.
       Sec. 608.  Except as otherwise provided in this Act, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act, provided by previous 
     appropriations Acts to the agencies or entities funded in 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 2024, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury derived by the collection of fees and available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel for 
     any program, project, or activity for which funds have been 
     denied or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use

[[Page H5573]]

     funds directed for a specific activity by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of either the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate for a different purpose; (5) augments existing 
     programs, projects, or activities in excess of $5,000,000 or 
     10 percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces existing programs, 
     projects, or activities by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less; or (7) creates or reorganizes offices, 
     programs, or activities unless prior approval is received 
     from the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate:  Provided, That prior to any 
     significant reorganization, restructuring, relocation, or 
     closing of offices, programs, or activities, each agency or 
     entity funded in this Act shall consult with the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate:  Provided further, That not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, each agency funded by this 
     Act shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate to establish 
     the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 
     authorities for the current fiscal year:  Provided further, 
     That at a minimum the report shall include: (1) a table for 
     each appropriation, detailing both full-time employee 
     equivalents and budget authority, with separate columns to 
     display the prior year enacted level, the President's budget 
     request, adjustments made by Congress, adjustments due to 
     enacted rescissions, if appropriate, and the fiscal year 
     enacted level; (2) a delineation in the table for each 
     appropriation and its respective prior year enacted level by 
     object class and program, project, and activity as detailed 
     in this Act, in the accompanying report, or in the budget 
     appendix for the respective appropriation, whichever is more 
     detailed, and which shall apply to all items for which a 
     dollar amount is specified and to all programs for which new 
     budget authority is provided, as well as to discretionary 
     grants and discretionary grant allocations; and (3) an 
     identification of items of special congressional interest:  
     Provided further, That the amount appropriated or limited for 
     salaries and expenses for an agency shall be reduced by 
     $100,000 per day for each day after the required date that 
     the report has not been submitted to the Congress.
       Sec. 609.  Except as otherwise specifically provided by 
     law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances 
     remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2024 from 
     appropriations made available for salaries and expenses for 
     fiscal year 2024 in this Act, shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2025, for each such account for the purposes 
     authorized:  Provided, That a request shall be submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate for approval prior to the 
     expenditure of such funds:  Provided further, That these 
     requests shall be made in compliance with reprogramming 
     guidelines.
       Sec. 610. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used by the Executive Office of the President to 
     request--
       (1) any official background investigation report on any 
     individual from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
       (2) a determination with respect to the treatment of an 
     organization as described in section 501(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code from the Department of the Treasury or 
     the Internal Revenue Service.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply--
       (1) in the case of an official background investigation 
     report, if such individual has given express written consent 
     for such request not more than 6 months prior to the date of 
     such request and during the same presidential administration; 
     or
       (2) if such request is required due to extraordinary 
     circumstances involving national security.
       Sec. 611.  The cost accounting standards promulgated under 
     chapter 15 of title 41, United States Code shall not apply 
     with respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 612.  For the purpose of resolving litigation and 
     implementing any settlement agreements regarding the 
     nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance program, the Office 
     of Personnel Management may accept and utilize (without 
     regard to any restriction on unanticipated travel expenses 
     imposed in an appropriations Act) funds made available to the 
     Office of Personnel Management pursuant to court approval.
       Sec. 613.  No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefits program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.
       Sec. 614.  The provision of section 613 shall not apply 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
     were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.
       Sec. 615.  In order to promote Government access to 
     commercial information technology, the restriction on 
     purchasing nondomestic articles, materials, and supplies set 
     forth in chapter 83 of title 41, United States Code 
     (popularly known as the Buy American Act), shall not apply to 
     the acquisition by the Federal Government of information 
     technology (as defined in section 11101 of title 40, United 
     States Code), that is a commercial item (as defined in 
     section 103 of title 41, United States Code).
       Sec. 616.  Notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31, United 
     States Code, no officer or employee of any regulatory agency 
     or commission funded by this Act may accept on behalf of that 
     agency, nor may such agency or commission accept, payment or 
     reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel, 
     subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling 
     an officer or employee to attend and participate in any 
     meeting or similar function relating to the official duties 
     of the officer or employee when the entity offering payment 
     or reimbursement is a person or entity subject to regulation 
     by such agency or commission, or represents a person or 
     entity subject to regulation by such agency or commission, 
     unless the person or entity is an organization described in 
     section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.
       Sec. 617. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an Executive agency covered by this Act otherwise 
     authorized to enter into contracts for either leases or the 
     construction or alteration of real property for office, 
     meeting, storage, or other space must consult with the 
     General Services Administration before issuing a solicitation 
     for offers of new leases or construction contracts, and in 
     the case of succeeding leases, before entering into 
     negotiations with the current lessor.
       (2) Any such agency with authority to enter into an 
     emergency lease may do so during any period declared by the 
     President to require emergency leasing authority with respect 
     to such agency.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``Executive 
     agency covered by this Act'' means any Executive agency 
     provided funds by this Act, but does not include the General 
     Services Administration or the United States Postal Service.
       Sec. 618. (a) There are appropriated for the following 
     activities the amounts required under current law:
       (1) Compensation of the President (3 U.S.C. 102).
       (2) Payments to--
       (A) the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. 
     377(o));
       (B) the Judicial Survivors' Annuities Fund (28 U.S.C. 
     376(c)); and
       (C) the United States Court of Federal Claims Judges' 
     Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. 178(l)).
       (3) Payment of Government contributions--
       (A) with respect to the health benefits of retired 
     employees, as authorized by chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and the Retired Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849); and
       (B) with respect to the life insurance benefits for 
     employees retiring after December 31, 1989 (5 U.S.C. ch. 87).
       (4) Payment to finance the unfunded liability of new and 
     increased annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund (5 U.S.C. 8348).
       (5) Payment of annuities authorized to be paid from the 
     Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund by statutory 
     provisions other than subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 
     84 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Nothing in this section may be construed to exempt any 
     amount appropriated by this section from any otherwise 
     applicable limitation on the use of funds contained in this 
     Act.
       Sec. 619.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Trade Commission to complete the draft 
     report entitled ``Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed 
     to Children: Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to 
     Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts'' unless the 
     Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children 
     complies with Executive Order No. 13563.
       Sec. 620. (a) The head of each executive branch agency 
     funded by this Act shall ensure that the Chief Information 
     Officer of the agency has the authority to participate in 
     decisions regarding the budget planning process related to 
     information technology.
       (b) Amounts appropriated for any executive branch agency 
     funded by this Act that are available for information 
     technology shall be allocated within the agency, consistent 
     with the provisions of appropriations Acts and budget 
     guidelines and recommendations from the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, in such manner as specified 
     by, or approved by, the Chief Information Officer of the 
     agency in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer of 
     the agency and budget officials.
       Sec. 621.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of chapter 29, 31, or 33 of title 
     44, United States Code.
       Sec. 622.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by a governmental entity to require the disclosure by 
     a provider of electronic communication service to the public 
     or remote computing service of the contents of a wire or 
     electronic communication that is in electronic storage with 
     the provider (as such terms are defined in sections 2510 and 
     2711 of title 18, United States Code) in a manner that 
     violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States.
       Sec. 623.  No funds provided in this Act shall be used to 
     deny an Inspector General funded under this Act timely access 
     to any records, documents, or other materials available to 
     the department or agency over which that Inspector General 
     has responsibilities under chapter 4 of title 5, United 
     States Code, or to prevent or impede that Inspector General's 
     access to such records, documents, or other materials, under 
     any provision of law, except a provision of law that 
     expressly

[[Page H5574]]

     refers to the Inspector General and expressly limits the 
     Inspector General's right of access. A department or agency 
     covered by this section shall provide its Inspector General 
     with access to all such records, documents, and other 
     materials in a timely manner. Each Inspector General shall 
     ensure compliance with statutory limitations on disclosure 
     relevant to the information provided by the establishment 
     over which that Inspector General has responsibilities under 
     the chapter 4 of title 5, United States Code. Each Inspector 
     General covered by this section shall report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate within five calendar days any failures to 
     comply with this requirement.
       Sec. 624.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Communications Commission to modify, 
     amend, or change the rules or regulations of the Commission 
     for universal service high-cost support for competitive 
     eligible telecommunications carriers in a way that is 
     inconsistent with paragraph (e)(5) or (e)(6) of section 
     54.307 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect 
     on July 15, 2015:  Provided, That this section shall not 
     prohibit the Commission from considering, developing, or 
     adopting other support mechanisms as an alternative to 
     Mobility Fund Phase II:  Provided further, That any such 
     alternative mechanism shall maintain existing high-cost 
     support to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers 
     until support under such mechanism commences.
       Sec. 625. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to maintain or establish a computer network 
     unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and 
     exchanging of pornography.
       (b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds 
     necessary for any Federal, State, Tribal, or local law 
     enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal 
     investigations, prosecution, adjudication activities, or 
     other law enforcement- or victim assistance-related activity.
       Sec. 626.  None of the funds appropriated or other-wise 
     made available by this Act may be used to pay award or 
     incentive fees for contractors whose performance has been 
     judged to be below satisfactory, behind schedule, over 
     budget, or has failed to meet the basic requirements of a 
     contract, unless the Agency determines that any such 
     deviations are due to unforeseeable events, government-driven 
     scope changes, or are not significant within the overall 
     scope of the project and/or program and unless such awards or 
     incentive fees are consistent with section 16.401(e)(2) of 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       Sec. 627. (a) None of the funds made available under this 
     Act may be used to pay for travel and conference activities 
     that result in a total cost to an Executive branch 
     department, agency, board, or commission funded by this Act 
     of more than $500,000 at any single conference unless the 
     agency or entity determines that such attendance is in the 
     national interest and advance notice is transmitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate that includes the basis of that determination.
       (b) None of the funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to pay for the travel to or attendance of more than 50 
     employees, who are stationed in the United States, at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States unless 
     the agency or entity determines that such attendance is in 
     the national interest and advance notice is transmitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that includes the basis of 
     that determination.
       Sec. 628.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for first-class or business-class travel by the 
     employees of executive branch agencies funded by this Act in 
     contravention of sections 301-10.122 through 301-10.125 of 
     title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 629.  In addition to any amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for expenses related to enhancements 
     to www.oversight.gov, $850,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be provided for an additional amount for such 
     purpose to the Inspectors General Council Fund established 
     pursuant to section 11(c)(3)(B) of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978:  Provided, That these amounts shall be in addition 
     to any amounts or any authority available to the Council of 
     the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency under 
     section 424 of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 630.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated on contracts in excess of $5,000 for public 
     relations, as that term is defined in Office and Management 
     and Budget Circular A-87 (revised May 10, 2004), unless 
     advance notice of such an obligation is transmitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.
       Sec. 631.  Federal agencies funded under this Act shall 
     clearly state within the text, audio, or video used for 
     advertising or educational purposes, including emails or 
     Internet postings, that the communication is printed, 
     published, or produced and disseminated at U.S. taxpayer 
     expense. The funds used by a Federal agency to carry out this 
     requirement shall be derived from amounts made available to 
     the agency for advertising or other communications regarding 
     the programs and activities of the agency.
       Sec. 632.  When issuing statements, press releases, 
     requests for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents 
     describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part 
     with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds 
     included in this Act, shall clearly state--
       (1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or 
     project which will be financed with Federal money;
       (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or 
     program; and
       (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the 
     project or program that will be financed by non-governmental 
     sources.
       Sec. 633.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to 
     finalize, issue, or implement any rule, regulation, or order 
     regarding the disclosure of political contributions, 
     contributions to tax exempt organizations, or dues paid to 
     trade associations.
       Sec. 634.  Not later than 45 days after the last day of 
     each quarter, each agency funded in this Act shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a quarterly budget report that 
     includes total obligations of the Agency for that quarter for 
     each appropriation, by the source year of the appropriation.
       Sec. 635.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to procure electric vehicles, electric vehicle 
     batteries, electric vehicle charging stations or 
     infrastructure.
       Sec. 636.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 205 of Executive Order No. 14008 
     (relating to tackling climate crisis at home and abroad) 
     until a stable supply of domestic-mined critical minerals can 
     be achieved.
       Sec. 637.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out any program, project, or activity that 
     promotes or advances Critical Race Theory or any concept 
     associated with Critical Race Theory.
       Sec. 638.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available to implement, 
     administer, apply, enforce, or carry out the Equity Action 
     Plans of the Department of Treasury, the Federal 
     Communications Commission, the General Services 
     Administration, the Office of Personnel Management or any 
     other Federal agency diversity, equity, or inclusion 
     initiative, as well as Executive Order No. 13985 of January 
     20, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 7009, relating to advancing racial 
     equity and support for underserved communities through the 
     Federal Government), Executive Order No. 14035 of June 21, 
     2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 34596, relating to diversity, equity, 
     inclusion, and accessibility in the Federal workforce), or 
     Executive Order No. 14091 of February 16, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 
     10825, relating to further advancing racial equity and 
     support for underserved communities through the Federal 
     Government).
       Sec. 639.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be made available to support, directly or indirectly, the 
     Wuhan Institute of Virology, or any laboratory owned or 
     controlled by the governments of the People's Republic of 
     China, the Republic of Cuba, the Islamic Republic of Iran, 
     the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Russian 
     Federation, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the 
     regime of Nicolas Maduro Moros, or any other country 
     determined by the Secretary of State to be a foreign 
     adversary.




       Sec. 640. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the requirements in section 316(b)(4)(D) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 
     30118(b)(4)(D)) that the solicitation of contributions from 
     member corporations stockholders and executive or 
     administrative personnel, and the families of such 
     stockholders or personnel, by trade associations must be 
     separately and specifically approved by the member 
     corporation involved prior to such solicitation, and that 
     such member corporation does not approve any such 
     solicitation by more than one such trade association in any 
     calendar year.
       Sec. 641. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 7 of 
     title 1, United States Code, section 1738C of title 28, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law, none of 
     the funds provided by this Act or any other Act shall be used 
     in whole or in part to take any discriminatory action against 
     a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person 
     speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held 
     religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or 
     should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.
       (b) Discriminatory Action Defined.--As used in subsection 
     (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the 
     Federal Government to--
       (1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause 
     any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, 
     delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 
     501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person 
     referred to in subsection (a);
       (2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any 
     charitable contribution made to or by such person;
       (3) withhold, reduce the amount or funding for, exclude, 
     terminate, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, any Federal 
     grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, 
     guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, 
     accreditation, employment, or other similar position or 
     status from or to such person;

[[Page H5575]]

       (4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise make 
     unavailable or deny, any entitlement or benefit under a 
     Federal benefit program, including admission to, equal 
     treatment in, or eligibility for a degree from an educational 
     program, from or to such person; or
       (c) Accreditation; Licensure; Certification.--The Federal 
     Government shall consider accredited, licensed, or certified 
     for purposes of Federal law any person that would be 
     accredited, licensed, or certified, respectively, for such 
     purposes but for a determination against such person wholly 
     or partially on the basis that the person speaks, or acts, in 
     accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral 
     conviction described in subsection (a).
       Sec. 642.  Of the unobligated balances available in Public 
     Law 117-169, $6,065,000,000 available under section 
     10301(1)(A)(ii); $4,101,000,000 available under section 
     10301(1)(A)(iii); and $3,210,000,000 available under sections 
     60502, 60503, and 60504 as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act are rescinded.

                               TITLE VII

                  GENERAL PROVISIONS--GOVERNMENT-WIDE

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 701.  No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2024 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession, 
     or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) by the officers 
     and employees of such department, agency, or instrumentality.
       Sec. 702.  Unless otherwise specifically provided, the 
     maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in 
     accordance with section 1343(c) of title 31, United States 
     Code, for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle 
     (exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement vehicles, 
     protective vehicles, and undercover surveillance vehicles), 
     is hereby fixed at $30,126 except station wagons for which 
     the maximum shall be $31,266:  Provided, That these limits 
     may be exceeded by not to exceed $7,775 for police-type 
     vehicles:  Provided further, That the limits set forth in 
     this section may not be exceeded by more than 5 percent for 
     electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for demonstration under 
     the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, 
     Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976:  Provided 
     further, That the limits set forth in this section may be 
     exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative fuels 
     vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over the 
     cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles:  Provided 
     further, That the limits set forth in this section shall not 
     apply to any vehicle that is a commercial item and which 
     operates on alternative fuel, including but not limited to 
     electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and hydrogen fuel cell 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 703.  Appropriations of the executive departments and 
     independent establishments for the current fiscal year 
     available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the 
     activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters 
     allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.
       Sec. 704.  Unless otherwise specified in law during the 
     current fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained 
     in this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     compensation of any officer or employee of the Government of 
     the United States (including any agency the majority of the 
     stock of which is owned by the Government of the United 
     States) whose post of duty is in the continental United 
     States unless such person: (1) is a citizen of the United 
     States; (2) is a person who is lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence and is seeking citizenship as outlined in 
     8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)(B); (3) is a person who is admitted as a 
     refugee under 8 U.S.C. 1157 or is granted asylum under 8 
     U.S.C. 1158 and has filed a declaration of intention to 
     become a lawful permanent resident and then a citizen when 
     eligible; or (4) is a person who owes allegiance to the 
     United States:  Provided, That for purposes of this section, 
     affidavits signed by any such person shall be considered 
     prima facie evidence that the requirements of this section 
     with respect to his or her status are being complied with:  
     Provided further, That for purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     such affidavits shall be submitted prior to employment and 
     updated thereafter as necessary:  Provided further, That any 
     person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
     and upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both:  Provided 
     further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
     and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
     law:  Provided further, That any payment made to any officer 
     or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall 
     be recoverable in action by the Federal Government:  Provided 
     further, That this section shall not apply to any person who 
     is an officer or employee of the Government of the United 
     States on the date of enactment of this Act, or to 
     international broadcasters employed by the Broadcasting Board 
     of Governors, or to temporary employment of translators, or 
     to temporary employment in the field service (not to exceed 
     60 days) as a result of emergencies:  Provided further, That 
     this section does not apply to the employment as Wildland 
     firefighters for not more than 120 days of nonresident aliens 
     employed by the Department of the Interior or the USDA Forest 
     Service pursuant to an agreement with another country.
       Sec. 705.  Appropriations available to any department or 
     agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses, 
     including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be 
     available for payment to the General Services Administration 
     for charges for space and services and those expenses of 
     renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which 
     constitute public improvements performed in accordance with 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 479), the Public 
     Buildings Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 216), or other 
     applicable law.
       Sec. 706.  In addition to funds provided in this or any 
     other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and 
     use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including 
     Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule 
     recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs. 
     Such funds shall be available until expended for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and 
     recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 14057 
     (December 8, 2021), including any such programs adopted prior 
     to the effective date of the Executive Order.
       (2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs, 
     including, but not limited to, the development and 
     implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution 
     prevention programs.
       (3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as 
     deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.
       Sec. 707.  Funds made available by this or any other Act 
     for administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the 
     corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31, 
     United States Code, shall be available, in addition to 
     objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for 
     rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all 
     the provisions of which shall be applicable to the 
     expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the 
     Act by which they are made available:  Provided, That in the 
     event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are 
     subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the 
     limitations on administrative expenses shall be 
     correspondingly reduced.
       Sec. 708.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be available for interagency financing 
     of boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions, 
     councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they 
     are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and 
     specific statutory approval to receive financial support from 
     more than one agency or instrumentality.
       Sec. 709.  None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
     provisions of this or any other Act shall be used to 
     implement, administer, or enforce any regulation which has 
     been disapproved pursuant to a joint resolution duly adopted 
     in accordance with the applicable law of the United States.
       Sec. 710.  During the period in which the head of any 
     department or agency, or any other officer or civilian 
     employee of the Federal Government appointed by the President 
     of the United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated 
     or expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the 
     office of such department head, agency head, officer, or 
     employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for 
     any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or 
     redecoration is transmitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate. For the purposes of this section, the term ``office'' 
     shall include the entire suite of offices assigned to the 
     individual, as well as any other space used primarily by the 
     individual or the use of which is directly controlled by the 
     individual.
       Sec. 711.  Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346, or section 708 
     of this Act, funds made available for the current fiscal year 
     by this or any other Act shall be available for the 
     interagency funding of national security and emergency 
     preparedness telecommunications initiatives which benefit 
     multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities, as 
     provided by Executive Order No. 13618 (July 6, 2012).
       Sec. 712. (a) None of the funds made available by this or 
     any other Act may be obligated or expended by any department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of the Federal Government to 
     pay the salaries or expenses of any individual appointed to a 
     position of a confidential or policy-determining character 
     that is excepted from the competitive service under section 
     3302 of title 5, United States Code, (pursuant to schedule C 
     of subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations) unless the head of the applicable department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality employing such schedule C 
     individual certifies to the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management that the schedule C position occupied by 
     the individual was not created solely or primarily in order 
     to detail the individual to the White House.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed forces detailed to 
     or from an element of the intelligence community (as that

[[Page H5576]]

     term is defined under section 3(4) of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4))).
       Sec. 713.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be available for the payment of the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter 
     pertaining to the employment of such other officer or 
     employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such 
     other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether 
     such communication or contact is at the initiative of such 
     other officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee;
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance or 
     efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
     transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
     employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
     condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit 
     any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other 
     officer or employee, by reason of any communication or 
     contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, 
     committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) unjustifiably refuses to comply with a duly issued and 
     valid congressional subpoena.
       Sec. 714. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee 
     training that--
       (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, 
     and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of 
     official duties;
       (2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of 
     emotional response or psychological stress in some 
     participants;
       (3) does not require prior employee notification of the 
     content and methods to be used in the training and written 
     end of course evaluation;
       (4) contains any methods or content associated with 
     religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age'' 
     belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
       (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' 
     personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or 
     otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 715.  No part of any funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, 
     other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television, or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
       Sec. 716.  None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used by an agency to provide a Federal 
     employee's home address to any labor organization except when 
     the employee has authorized such disclosure or when such 
     disclosure has been ordered by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction.
       Sec. 717.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to provide any non-public information 
     such as mailing, telephone, or electronic mailing lists to 
     any person or any organization outside of the Federal 
     Government without the approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       Sec. 718.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be used directly or indirectly, 
     including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized 
     by Congress.
       Sec. 719. (a) In this section, the term ``agency''--
       (1) means an Executive agency, as defined under 5 U.S.C. 
     105;
       (2) includes a military department, as defined under 
     section 102 of such title; and
       (3) includes the United States Postal Service.
       (b) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations 
     to use such time for other purposes, an employee of an agency 
     shall use official time in an honest effort to perform 
     official duties. An employee not under a leave system, 
     including a Presidential appointee exempted under 5 U.S.C. 
     6301(2), has an obligation to expend an honest effort and a 
     reasonable proportion of such employee's time in the 
     performance of official duties.
       Sec. 720.  Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 708 
     of this Act, funds made available for the current fiscal year 
     by this or any other Act to any department or agency, which 
     is a member of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory 
     Board (FASAB), shall be available to finance an appropriate 
     share of FASAB administrative costs.
       Sec. 721.  Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 708 
     of this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency 
     is hereby authorized to transfer to or reimburse ``General 
     Services Administration, Government-wide Policy'' with the 
     approval of the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, funds made available for the current fiscal year by 
     this or any other Act, including rebates from charge card and 
     other contracts:  Provided, That these funds shall be 
     administered by the Administrator of General Services to 
     support Government-wide and other multi-agency financial, 
     information technology, procurement, and other management 
     innovations, initiatives, and activities, including improving 
     coordination and reducing duplication, as approved by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the appropriate interagency and multi-
     agency groups designated by the Director (including the 
     President's Management Council for overall management 
     improvement initiatives, the Chief Financial Officers Council 
     for financial management initiatives, the Chief Information 
     Officers Council for information technology initiatives, the 
     Chief Human Capital Officers Council for human capital 
     initiatives, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council for 
     procurement initiatives, and the Performance Improvement 
     Council for performance improvement initiatives):  Provided 
     further, That the total funds transferred or reimbursed shall 
     not exceed $15,000,000 to improve coordination, reduce 
     duplication, and for other activities related to Federal 
     Government Priority Goals established by 31 U.S.C. 1120, and 
     not to exceed $17,000,000 for Government-wide innovations, 
     initiatives, and activities:  Provided further, That the 
     funds transferred to or for reimbursement of ``General 
     Services Administration, Government-Wide Policy'' during 
     fiscal year 2024 shall remain available for obligation 
     through September 30, 2025:  Provided further, That not later 
     than 90 days after enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of General Services, shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Oversight and Accountability of the House of Representatives 
     a detailed spend plan for the funds to be transferred or 
     reimbursed:  Provided further, That the spend plan shall, at 
     a minimum, include: (I) the amounts currently in the funds 
     authorized under this section and the estimate of amounts to 
     be transferred or reimbursed in fiscal year 2024; (ii) a 
     detailed breakdown of the purposes for all funds estimated to 
     be transferred or reimbursed pursuant to this section 
     (including total number of personnel and costs for all staff 
     whose salaries are provided for by this section); (iii) where 
     applicable, a description of the funds intended for use by or 
     for the benefit of each executive council; and (iv) where 
     applicable, a description of the funds intended for use by or 
     for the implementation of specific laws passed by Congress:  
     Provided further, That no transfers or reimbursements may be 
     made pursuant to this section until 15 days following 
     notification of the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate by the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget.
       Sec. 722.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal 
     building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child 
     are otherwise authorized to be present at the location.
       Sec. 723.  Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346, or section 708 
     of this Act, funds made available for the current fiscal year 
     by this or any other Act shall be available for the 
     interagency funding of specific projects, workshops, studies, 
     and similar efforts to carry out the purposes of the National 
     Science and Technology Council (authorized by Executive Order 
     No. 12881), which benefit multiple Federal departments, 
     agencies, or entities:  Provided, That the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall provide a report describing the 
     budget of and resources connected with the National Science 
     and Technology Council to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and 
     the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     90 days after enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 724.  Any request for proposals, solicitation, grant 
     application, form, notification, press release, or other 
     publications involving the distribution of Federal funds 
     shall comply with any relevant requirements in part 200 of 
     title 2, Code of Federal Regulations:  Provided, That this 
     section shall apply to direct payments, formula funds, and 
     grants received by a State receiving Federal funds.
       Sec. 725. (a) Prohibition of Federal Agency Monitoring of 
     Individuals' Internet Use.--None of the funds made available 
     in this or any other Act may be used by any Federal agency--
       (1) to collect, review, or create any aggregation of data, 
     derived from any means, that includes any personally 
     identifiable information relating to an individual's access 
     to or use of any Federal Government Internet site of the 
     agency; or
       (2) to enter into any agreement with a third party 
     (including another government agency) to collect, review, or 
     obtain any aggregation of data, derived from any means, that 
     includes any personally identifiable information relating to 
     an individual's access to or use of any nongovernmental 
     Internet site.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitations established in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to--

[[Page H5577]]

       (1) any record of aggregate data that does not identify 
     particular persons;
       (2) any voluntary submission of personally identifiable 
     information;
       (3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or 
     supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law; or
       (4) any action described in subsection (a)(1) that is a 
     system security action taken by the operator of an Internet 
     site and is necessarily incident to providing the Internet 
     site services or to protecting the rights or property of the 
     provider of the Internet site.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``regulatory'' means agency actions to 
     implement, interpret or enforce authorities provided in law.
       (2) The term ``supervisory'' means examinations of the 
     agency's supervised institutions, including assessing safety 
     and soundness, overall financial condition, management 
     practices and policies and compliance with applicable 
     standards as provided in law.
       Sec. 726. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes 
     a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except 
     where the contract also includes a provision for 
     contraceptive coverage.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract 
     with--
       (1) any of the following religious plans:
       (A) Personal Care's HMO; and
       (B) OSF HealthPlans, Inc.; and
       (2) any existing or future plan, if the carrier for the 
     plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious 
     beliefs.
       (c) In implementing this section, any plan that enters into 
     or renews a contract under this section may not subject any 
     individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual 
     refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives 
     because such activities would be contrary to the individual's 
     religious beliefs or moral convictions.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
       Sec. 727.  The United States is committed to ensuring the 
     health of its Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic athletes, 
     and supports the strict adherence to anti-doping in sport 
     through testing, adjudication, education, and research as 
     performed by nationally recognized oversight authorities.
       Sec. 728.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated for official travel to Federal departments 
     and agencies may be used by such departments and agencies, if 
     consistent with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     126 regarding official travel for Government personnel, to 
     participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot 
     program.
       Sec. 729.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or made available under this or any 
     other appropriations Act may be used to implement or enforce 
     restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard Congressional 
     Fellowship Program, or to implement the proposed regulations 
     of the Office of Personnel Management to add sections 300.311 
     through 300.316 to part 300 of title 5 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations, published in the Federal Register, volume 68, 
     number 174, on September 9, 2003 (relating to the detail of 
     executive branch employees to the legislative branch).
       Sec. 730.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, or lease 
     any additional facilities, except within or contiguous to 
     existing locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting 
     Federal law enforcement training without the advance approval 
     of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, except that the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Centers is authorized to obtain the 
     temporary use of additional facilities by lease, contract, or 
     other agreement for training which cannot be accommodated in 
     existing Centers facilities.
       Sec. 731.  Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, 
     none of the funds provided in this or any other Act may be 
     used by an executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged 
     news story intended for broadcast or distribution in the 
     United States, unless the story includes a clear notification 
     within the text or audio of the prepackaged news story that 
     the prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that 
     executive branch agency.
       Sec. 732.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code (popularly known as the Privacy Act), and 
     regulations implementing that section.
       Sec. 733. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be 
     used for any Federal Government contract with any foreign 
     incorporated entity which is treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation under section 835(b) of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 395(b)) or any subsidiary of such an 
     entity.
       (b) Waivers.--
       (1) In general.--Any Secretary shall waive subsection (a) 
     with respect to any Federal Government contract under the 
     authority of such Secretary if the Secretary determines that 
     the waiver is required in the interest of national security.
       (2) Report to congress.--Any Secretary issuing a waiver 
     under paragraph (1) shall report such issuance to Congress.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any Federal 
     Government contract entered into before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, or to any task order issued pursuant 
     to such contract.
       Sec. 734.  During fiscal year 2024, for each employee who--
       (1) retires under section 8336(d)(2) or 8414(b)(1)(B) of 
     title 5, United States Code; or
       (2) retires under any other provision of subchapter III of 
     chapter 83 or chapter 84 of such title 5 and receives a 
     payment as an incentive to separate, the separating agency 
     shall remit to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
     Fund an amount equal to the Office of Personnel Management's 
     average unit cost of processing a retirement claim for the 
     preceding fiscal year. Such amounts shall be available until 
     expended to the Office of Personnel Management and shall be 
     deemed to be an administrative expense under section 
     8348(a)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 735. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act may be used to recommend or require any entity 
     submitting an offer for a Federal contract to disclose any of 
     the following information as a condition of submitting the 
     offer:
       (1) Any payment consisting of a contribution, expenditure, 
     independent expenditure, or disbursement for an 
     electioneering communication that is made by the entity, its 
     officers or directors, or any of its affiliates or 
     subsidiaries to a candidate for election for Federal office 
     or to a political committee, or that is otherwise made with 
     respect to any election for Federal office.
       (2) Any disbursement of funds (other than a payment 
     described in paragraph (1)) made by the entity, its officers 
     or directors, or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries to any 
     person with the intent or the reasonable expectation that the 
     person will use the funds to make a payment described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) In this section, each of the terms ``contribution'', 
     ``expenditure'', ``independent expenditure'', 
     ``electioneering communication'', ``candidate'', 
     ``election'', and ``Federal office'' has the meaning given 
     such term in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 
     U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
       Sec. 736.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to pay for the painting of a portrait 
     of an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     including the President, the Vice President, a Member of 
     Congress (including a Delegate or a Resident Commissioner to 
     Congress), the head of an executive branch agency (as defined 
     in section 133 of title 41, United States Code), or the head 
     of an office of the legislative branch.
       Sec. 737. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, and except as otherwise provided in this section, no 
     part of any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2024, 
     by this or any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing 
     rate employee described in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code--
       (A) during the period from the date of expiration of the 
     limitation imposed by the comparable section for the previous 
     fiscal years until the normal effective date of the 
     applicable wage survey adjustment that is to take effect in 
     fiscal year 2024, in an amount that exceeds the rate payable 
     for the applicable grade and step of the applicable wage 
     schedule in accordance with such section; and
       (B) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 2024, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage 
     survey adjustment, the rate payable under subparagraph (A) by 
     more than the sum of--
       (i) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year 
     2024 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
       (ii) the difference between the overall average percentage 
     of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in 
     fiscal year 2024 under section 5304 of such title (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage 
     of such payments which was effective in the previous fiscal 
     year under such section.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which paragraph (1) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     paragraph (1) were paragraph (1) applicable to such employee.
       (3) For the purposes of this subsection, the rates payable 
     to an employee who is covered by this subsection and who is 
     paid from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 2023, 
     shall be determined under regulations prescribed by the 
     Office of Personnel Management.
       (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this subsection may not 
     be changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 2023, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this 
     subsection.
       (5) This subsection shall apply with respect to pay for 
     service performed after September 30, 2023.
       (6) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, 
     retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit) 
     that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes 
     any requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of 
     salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable 
     after the application of this subsection shall be treated as 
     the rate of salary or basic pay.

[[Page H5578]]

       (7) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to 
     permit or require the payment to any employee covered by this 
     subsection at a rate in excess of the rate that would be 
     payable were this subsection not in effect.
       (8) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this subsection if 
     the Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
       (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the adjustment in rates 
     of basic pay for the statutory pay systems that take place in 
     fiscal year 2024 under sections 5344 and 5348 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be--
       (1) not less than the percentage received by employees in 
     the same location whose rates of basic pay are adjusted 
     pursuant to the statutory pay systems under sections 5303 and 
     5304 of title 5, United States Code:  Provided, That 
     prevailing rate employees at locations where there are no 
     employees whose pay is increased pursuant to sections 5303 
     and 5304 of title 5, United States Code, and prevailing rate 
     employees described in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall be considered to be located in the pay 
     locality designated as ``Rest of United States'' pursuant to 
     section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     this subsection; and
       (2) effective as of the first day of the first applicable 
     pay period beginning after September 30, 2023.
       Sec. 738. (a) The head of any Executive branch department, 
     agency, board, commission, or office funded by this or any 
     other appropriations Act shall submit annual reports to the 
     Inspector General or senior ethics official for any entity 
     without an Inspector General, regarding the costs and 
     contracting procedures related to each conference held by any 
     such department, agency, board, commission, or office during 
     fiscal year 2024 for which the cost to the United States 
     Government was more than $100,000.
       (b) Each report submitted shall include, for each 
     conference described in subsection (a) held during the 
     applicable period--
       (1) a description of its purpose;
       (2) the number of participants attending;
       (3) a detailed statement of the costs to the United States 
     Government, including--
       (A) the cost of any food or beverages;
       (B) the cost of any audio-visual services;
       (C) the cost of employee or contractor travel to and from 
     the conference; and
       (D) a discussion of the methodology used to determine which 
     costs relate to the conference; and
       (4) a description of the contracting procedures used 
     including--
       (A) whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis; 
     and
       (B) a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the 
     departmental component or office in evaluating potential 
     contractors for the conference.
       (c) Within 15 days after the end of a quarter, the head of 
     any such department, agency, board, commission, or office 
     shall notify the Inspector General or senior ethics official 
     for any entity without an Inspector General, of the date, 
     location, and number of employees attending a conference held 
     by any Executive branch department, agency, board, 
     commission, or office funded by this or any other 
     appropriations Act during fiscal year 2024 for which the cost 
     to the United States Government was more than $20,000.
       (d) A grant or contract funded by amounts appropriated by 
     this or any other appropriations Act may not be used for the 
     purpose of defraying the costs of a conference described in 
     subsection (c) that is not directly and programmatically 
     related to the purpose for which the grant or contract was 
     awarded, such as a conference held in connection with 
     planning, training, assessment, review, or other routine 
     purposes related to a project funded by the grant or 
     contract.
       (e) None of the funds made available in this or any other 
     appropriations Act may be used for travel and conference 
     activities that are not in compliance with Office of 
     Management and Budget Memorandum M-12-12 dated May 11, 2012 
     or any subsequent revisions to that memorandum.
       Sec. 739.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other appropriations Act may be used to increase, eliminate, 
     or reduce funding for a program, project, or activity as 
     proposed in the President's budget request for a fiscal year 
     until such proposed change is subsequently enacted in an 
     appropriation Act, or unless such change is made pursuant to 
     the reprogramming or transfer provisions of this or any other 
     appropriations Act.
       Sec. 740.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to implement, administer, enforce, or 
     apply the rule entitled ``Competitive Area'' published by the 
     Office of Personnel Management in the Federal Register on 
     April 15, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 20180 et seq.).
       Sec. 741.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to begin or 
     announce a study or public-private competition regarding the 
     conversion to contractor performance of any function 
     performed by Federal employees pursuant to Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other 
     administrative regulation, directive, or policy.
       Sec. 742. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this or any other Act may be available for 
     a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with an entity 
     that requires employees or contractors of such entity seeking 
     to report fraud, waste, or abuse to sign internal 
     confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or 
     otherwise restricting such employees or contractors from 
     lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a 
     designated investigative or law enforcement representative of 
     a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such 
     information.
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not contravene 
     requirements applicable to Standard Form 312, Form 4414, or 
     any other form issued by a Federal department or agency 
     governing the nondisclosure of classified information.
       Sec. 743. (a) No funds appropriated in this or any other 
     Act may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in 
     Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other 
     nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, 
     form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions: 
     ``These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, 
     conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, 
     rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or 
     Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) 
     communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector 
     General or the Office of Special Counsel of a violation of 
     any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste 
     of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and 
     specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other 
     whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, 
     obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by 
     controlling Executive Orders and statutory provisions are 
     incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.'':  
     Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding provision of 
     this section, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that 
     is to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of 
     an intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than 
     an employee or officer of the United States Government, may 
     contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for 
     which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement 
     shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not 
     disclose any classified information received in the course of 
     such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the 
     United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also 
     make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress, 
     or to an authorized official of an executive agency or the 
     Department of Justice, that are essential to reporting a 
     substantial violation of law.
       (b) A nondisclosure agreement may continue to be 
     implemented and enforced notwithstanding subsection (a) if it 
     complies with the requirements for such agreement that were 
     in effect when the agreement was entered into.
       (c) No funds appropriated in this or any other Act may be 
     used to implement or enforce any agreement entered into 
     during fiscal year 2024 which does not contain substantially 
     similar language to that required in subsection (a).
       Sec. 744.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 
     assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies 
     have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being 
     paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the 
     authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where 
     the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, 
     unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or 
     debarment of the corporation and has made a determination 
     that this further action is not necessary to protect the 
     interests of the Government.
       Sec. 745.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any 
     Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the 
     awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless a Federal 
     agency has considered suspension or debarment of the 
     corporation and has made a determination that this further 
     action is not necessary to protect the interests of the 
     Government.
       Sec. 746. (a) Notwithstanding any official rate adjusted 
     under section 104 of title 3, United States Code, the rate 
     payable to the Vice President during calendar year 2024 shall 
     be the rate payable to the Vice President on December 31, 
     2023, by operation of section 747 of division E of Public Law 
     117-328.
       (b) Notwithstanding any official rate adjusted under 
     section 5318 of title 5, United States Code, or any other 
     provision of law, the payable rate during calendar year 2024 
     for an employee serving in an Executive Schedule position, or 
     in a position for which the rate of pay is fixed by statute 
     at an Executive Schedule rate, shall be the rate payable for 
     the applicable Executive Schedule level on December 31, 2023, 
     by operation of section 747 of division E of Public Law 117-
     328. Such an employee may not receive a rate increase during 
     calendar year 2024, except as provided in subsection (i).
       (c) Notwithstanding section 401 of the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980 (Public Law 96-465) or any other provision of law, a 
     chief of mission or ambassador at large is subject to 
     subsection (b) in the same manner as other employees who are 
     paid at an Executive Schedule rate.

[[Page H5579]]

       (d)(1) This subsection applies to--
       (A) a noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
     paid a rate of basic pay at or above the official rate for 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule; or
       (B) a limited term appointee or limited emergency appointee 
     in the Senior Executive Service serving under a political 
     appointment and paid a rate of basic pay at or above the 
     official rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule.
       (2) Notwithstanding sections 5382 and 5383 of title 5, 
     United States Code, an employee described in paragraph (1) 
     may not receive a pay rate increase during calendar year 
     2024, except as provided in subsection (i).
       (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     employee paid a rate of basic pay (including any locality 
     based payments under section 5304 of title 5, United States 
     Code, or similar authority) at or above the official rate for 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule who serves under a 
     political appointment may not receive a pay rate increase 
     during calendar year 2024, except as provided in subsection 
     (i). This subsection does not apply to employees in the 
     General Schedule pay system or the Foreign Service pay 
     system, to employees appointed under section 3161 of title 5, 
     United States Code, or to employees in another pay system 
     whose position would be classified at GS-15 or below if 
     chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, applied to them.
       (f) Nothing in subsections (b) through (e) shall prevent 
     employees who do not serve under a political appointment from 
     receiving pay increases as otherwise provided under 
     applicable law.
       (g) This section does not apply to an individual who makes 
     an election to retain Senior Executive Service basic pay 
     under section 3392(c) of title 5, United States Code, for 
     such time as that election is in effect.
       (h) This section does not apply to an individual who makes 
     an election to retain Senior Foreign Service pay entitlements 
     under section 302(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 
     (Public Law 96-465) for such time as that election is in 
     effect.
       (i) Notwithstanding subsections (b) through (e), an 
     employee in a covered position may receive a pay rate 
     increase upon an authorized movement to a different covered 
     position only if that new position has higher-level duties 
     and a pre-established level or range of pay higher than the 
     level or range for the position held immediately before the 
     movement. Any such increase must be based on the rates of pay 
     and applicable limitations on payable rates of pay in effect 
     on December 31, 2023, by operation of section 747 of division 
     E of Public Law 117-328.
       (j) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for an 
     individual who is newly appointed to a covered position 
     during the period of time subject to this section, the 
     initial pay rate shall be based on the rates of pay and 
     applicable limitations on payable rates of pay in effect on 
     December 31, 2023, by operation of section 747 of division E 
     of Public Law 117-328.
       (k) If an employee affected by this section is subject to a 
     biweekly pay period that begins in calendar year 2024 but 
     ends in calendar year 2025, the bar on the employee's receipt 
     of pay rate increases shall apply through the end of that pay 
     period.
       (l) For the purpose of this section, the term ``covered 
     position'' means a position occupied by an employee whose pay 
     is restricted under this section.
       (m) This section takes effect on the first day of the first 
     applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2024.
       Sec. 747.  In the event of a violation of the Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974, the President or the head of the 
     relevant department or agency, as the case may be, shall 
     report immediately to the Congress all relevant facts and a 
     statement of actions taken:  Provided, That a copy of each 
     report shall also be transmitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     and the Comptroller General on the same date the report is 
     transmitted to the Congress.
       Sec. 748. (a) Each department or agency of the executive 
     branch of the United States Government shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations and the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate and any other appropriate 
     congressional committees if--
       (1) an apportionment is not made in the required time 
     period provided in section 1513(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code;
       (2) an approved apportionment received by the department or 
     agency conditions the availability of an appropriation on 
     further action; or
       (3) an approved apportionment received by the department or 
     agency may hinder the prudent obligation of such 
     appropriation or the execution of a program, project, or 
     activity by such department or agency.
       (b) Any notification submitted to a congressional committee 
     pursuant to this section shall contain information 
     identifying the bureau, account name, appropriation name, and 
     Treasury Appropriation Fund Symbol or fund account.
       Sec. 749.  Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 708 of this Act, funds made available 
     by this or any other Act to any Federal agency may be used by 
     that Federal agency for interagency funding for coordination 
     with, participation in, or recommendations involving, 
     activities of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development 
     Command, the Congressionally Directed Medical Research 
     Programs and the National Institutes of Health research 
     programs.
       Sec. 750. (a)(1) Not later than 100 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Director''), in coordination with the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the 
     Administrator of General Services (in this section referred 
     to as the ``Administrator''), shall disseminate amended or 
     updated criteria and instructions to any Federal department 
     or agency (in this section referred to as an ``agency'') 
     covered by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 794d) for the evaluation required pursuant to 
     paragraph (3)(B).
       (2) Such criteria and instructions shall--
       (A) include, at minimum, requirements that information 
     technologies and digital services must-
       (i) conform to the technical standards referenced in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) of such section 508, as determined by 
     appropriate conformance testing; and
       (ii) be accessible to and usable by individuals with 
     disabilities as determined from consultation with individuals 
     with disabilities, including those with visual, auditory, 
     tactile, and cognitive disabilities, or members of any 
     disability organization; and
       (B) provide guidance to agencies regarding the types and 
     format of data and information to be submitted to the 
     Director and the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (3), 
     including how to submit such data and information, the 
     metrics by which compliance will be assessed in the reports 
     required in subsection (b), and any other directions 
     necessary for agencies to demonstrate compliance with 
     accessibility standards for electronic and information 
     technology procured and in use within an agency, as required 
     by such section 508.
       (3) Not later than 225 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the head of each agency shall--
       (A) evaluate the extent to which the electronic and 
     information technology of the agency are accessible to and 
     usable by individuals with disabilities described in 
     subsection (a)(1) of such section 508 compared to the access 
     to and use of the technology and services by individuals 
     described in such section who are not individuals with 
     disabilities;
       (B) evaluate the electronic and information technology of 
     the agency in accordance with the criteria and instructions 
     provided in paragraph (1); and
       (C) submit a report containing the evaluations jointly to 
     the Director and the Administrator.
       (b)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Director, shall prepare and submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Oversight and Accountability of the House 
     of Representatives a report that shall include--
       (A) a comprehensive assessment (including information 
     identifying the metrics and data used) of compliance by each 
     agency, and by the Federal Government generally, with the 
     criteria and instructions disseminated under subsection 
     (a)(1);
       (B) a detailed description of the actions, activities, and 
     other efforts made by the Administrator over the year 
     preceding submission to support such compliance at agencies 
     and any planned efforts in the coming year to improve 
     compliance at agencies; and
       (C) a list of recommendations that agencies or Congress may 
     take to help support that compliance.
       (2) The Administrator shall ensure that the reports 
     required under this subsection are made available on a public 
     website and are maintained as an open Government data asset 
     (as that term is defined in section 3502 of title 44, United 
     States Code).
       Sec. 751.  Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 708 
     of this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency 
     is hereby authorized to transfer to or reimburse ``General 
     Services Administration, Federal Citizen Services Fund'' with 
     the approval of the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, funds made available for the current fiscal year by 
     this or any other Act, including rebates from charge card and 
     other contracts:  Provided, That these funds, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise available, shall be administered by the 
     Administrator of General Services to carry out the purposes 
     of the Federal Citizen Services Fund and to support 
     Government-wide and other multi-agency financial, information 
     technology, procurement, and other activities, including 
     services authorized by 44 U.S.C. 3604 and enabling Federal 
     agencies to take advantage of information technology in 
     sharing information:  Provided further, That the total funds 
     transferred or reimbursed shall not exceed $15,000,000 for 
     such purposes:  Provided further, That the funds transferred 
     to or for reimbursement of ``General Services Administration, 
     Federal Citizen Services Fund'' during fiscal year 2024 shall 
     remain available for obligation through September 30, 2025:  
     Provided further, That not later than 90 days after enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator of General Services, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate a detailed 
     spend plan for the funds to be transferred or reimbursed:  
     Provided further, That the spend plan shall,

[[Page H5580]]

     at a minimum, include: (i) the amounts currently in the funds 
     authorized under this section and the estimate of amounts to 
     be transferred or reimbursed in fiscal year 2024; (ii) a 
     detailed breakdown of the purposes for all funds estimated to 
     be transferred or reimbursed pursuant to this section 
     (including total number of personnel and costs for all staff 
     whose salaries are provided for by this section); and (iii) 
     where applicable, a description of the funds intended for use 
     by or for the implementation of specific laws passed by 
     Congress:  Provided further, That no transfers or 
     reimbursements may be made pursuant to this section until 15 
     days following notification of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       Sec. 752. (a) Any non-Federal entity receiving funds 
     provided in this or any other appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 2024 that are specified in the disclosure table 
     submitted in compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives or Rule XLIV that is 
     included in the report or explanatory statement accompanying 
     any such Act shall be deemed to be a recipient of a Federal 
     award with respect to such funds for purposes of the 
     requirements of 2 CFR 200.334, regarding records retention, 
     and 2 CFR 200.337, regarding access by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, 
     amend, supersede, or restrict in any manner any requirements 
     otherwise applicable to non-Federal entities described in 
     paragraph (1) or any existing authority of the Comptroller 
     General.
       Sec. 753.  None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any other Act may be provided to States, cities, or 
     localities that allow non-citizens to vote in Federal 
     elections.
       Sec. 754.  None of the funds made available by this Act, or 
     any other Act, may be used to make investments under the 
     Thrift Savings Plan in certain mutual funds that make 
     investment decisions based primarily on environmental, 
     social, or governance criteria.
       Sec. 755.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act or any other Act may be available to--
        (a) classify or facilitate the classification of any 
     communications by a United States person as mis-, dis-, or 
     mal-information; or
       (b) partner with or fund nonprofit or other organizations 
     that pressure or recommend private companies to censor lawful 
     and constitutionally protected speech of United States 
     persons, including recommending the censoring or removal of 
     content on social media platforms.
       Sec. 756.  None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any other Act shall be used or transferred to another Federal 
     agency, board, or commission to recruit, hire, promote, or 
     retain any person who either has been convicted of a Federal 
     or State child pornography charge, has been convicted of any 
     other Federal or State sexual assault charge or has been 
     formally disciplined for using Federal resources to access, 
     use, or sell child pornography.
       Sec. 757.  None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any other Act may be provided for insurance plans in the 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits program to cover the cost 
     of surgical procedures or puberty blockers or hormone therapy 
     for the purpose of gender affirming care.
       Sec. 758.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to implement, administer, or otherwise 
     carry out Executive Order 14019 (86 Fed. Reg. 13623; relating 
     to promoting access to voting), except for sections 7, 8, and 
     10 of such Order.
       Sec. 759.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended until each agency 
     reinstates and applies the telework policies, practices, and 
     levels of the agency as in effect on December 31, 2019, 
     within thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act. 
     In this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``telework'' has the meaning given in section 
     6501 of such title, and includes remote work.
       Sec. 760.  Except as expressly provided otherwise, any 
     reference to ``this Act'' contained in any title other than 
     title IV or VIII shall not apply to such title IV or VIII.

                               TITLE VIII

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 801.  There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making refunds and for the payment of legal settlements or 
     judgments that have been entered against the District of 
     Columbia government.
       Sec. 802.  None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes or 
     implementation of any policy including boycott designed to 
     support or defeat legislation pending before Congress or any 
     State legislature.
       Sec. 803. (a) None of the Federal funds provided under this 
     Act to the agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and 
     District government agencies, that remain available for 
     obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2024, or provided 
     from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States 
     derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies 
     funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditures for an agency through a reprogramming of funds 
     which--
       (1) creates new programs;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or responsibility 
     center;
       (3) establishes or changes allocations specifically denied, 
     limited or increased under this Act;
       (4) increases funds or personnel by any means for any 
     program, project, or responsibility center for which funds 
     have been denied or restricted;
       (5) re-establishes any program or project previously 
     deferred through reprogramming;
       (6) augments any existing program, project, or 
     responsibility center through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $3,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
       (7) increases by 20 percent or more personnel assigned to a 
     specific program, project or responsibility center, unless 
     prior approval is received from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (b) The District of Columbia government is authorized to 
     approve and execute reprogramming and transfer requests of 
     local funds under this title through November 7, 2024.
       Sec. 804.  None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of United States Senators or United States 
     Representatives under section 4(d) of the District of 
     Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 
     1979 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-123).
       Sec. 805.  Except as otherwise provided in this section, 
     none of the funds made available by this Act or by any other 
     Act may be used to provide any officer or employee of the 
     District of Columbia with an official vehicle unless the 
     officer or employee uses the vehicle only in the performance 
     of the officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes 
     of this section, the term ``official duties'' does not 
     include travel between the officer's or employee's residence 
     and workplace, except in the case of--
       (1) an officer or employee of the Metropolitan Police 
     Department who resides in the District of Columbia or is 
     otherwise designated by the Chief of the Department;
       (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief, an officer or 
     employee of the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency 
     Medical Services Department who resides in the District of 
     Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day;
       (3) at the discretion of the Director of the Department of 
     Corrections, an officer or employee of the District of 
     Columbia Department of Corrections who resides in the 
     District of Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day;
       (4) at the discretion of the Chief Medical Examiner, an 
     officer or employee of the Office of the Chief Medical 
     Examiner who resides in the District of Columbia and is on 
     call 24 hours a day;
       (5) at the discretion of the Director of the Homeland 
     Security and Emergency Management Agency, an officer or 
     employee of the Homeland Security and Emergency Management 
     Agency who resides in the District of Columbia and is on call 
     24 hours a day;
       (6) the Mayor of the District of Columbia; and
       (7) the Chairman of the Council of the District of 
     Columbia.
       Sec. 806. (a) None of the Federal funds contained in this 
     Act may be used by the District of Columbia Attorney General 
     or any other officer or entity of the District government to 
     provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action 
     which seeks to require Congress to provide for voting 
     representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
       (b) Nothing in this section bars the District of Columbia 
     Attorney General from reviewing or commenting on briefs in 
     private lawsuits, or from consulting with officials of the 
     District government regarding such lawsuits.
       Sec. 807.  None of the Federal funds contained in this Act 
     may be used to distribute any needle or syringe for the 
     purpose of preventing the spread of blood borne pathogens in 
     any location that has been determined by the local public 
     health or local law enforcement authorities to be 
     inappropriate for such distribution.
       Sec. 808.  Nothing in this Act may be construed to prevent 
     the Council or Mayor of the District of Columbia from 
     addressing the issue of the provision of contraceptive 
     coverage by health insurance plans, but it is the intent of 
     Congress that any legislation enacted on such issue should 
     include a ``conscience clause'' which provides exceptions for 
     religious beliefs and moral convictions.
       Sec. 809. (a) None of the Federal funds contained in this 
     Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or 
     regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties 
     associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any 
     schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
       (b) No funds available for obligation or expenditure by the 
     District of Columbia government under any authority may be 
     used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or 
     otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, 
     use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any 
     tetrahydrocannabinols derivative for recreational purposes.
       Sec. 810.  No funds available for obligation or expenditure 
     by the District of Columbia government under any authority 
     shall be expended for any abortion except where the life

[[Page H5581]]

     of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried 
     to term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of 
     rape or incest.
       Sec. 811. (a) No later than 30 calendar days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Chief Financial Officer for 
     the District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the Council of the 
     District of Columbia, a revised appropriated funds operating 
     budget in the format of the budget that the District of 
     Columbia government submitted pursuant to section 442 of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code, sec. 
     1-204.42), for all agencies of the District of Columbia 
     government for fiscal year 2024 that is in the total amount 
     of the approved appropriation and that realigns all budgeted 
     data for personal services and other-than-personal services, 
     respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
       (b) This section shall apply only to an agency for which 
     the Chief Financial Officer for the District of Columbia 
     certifies that a reallocation is required to address 
     unanticipated changes in program requirements.
       Sec. 812.  No later than 30 calendar days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Chief Financial Officer for 
     the District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the Council for the 
     District of Columbia, a revised appropriated funds operating 
     budget for the District of Columbia Public Schools that 
     aligns schools budgets to actual enrollment. The revised 
     appropriated funds budget shall be in the format of the 
     budget that the District of Columbia government submitted 
     pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia Home Rule 
     Act (D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.42).
       Sec. 813. (a) Amounts appropriated in this Act as operating 
     funds may be transferred to the District of Columbia's 
     enterprise and capital funds and such amounts, once 
     transferred, shall retain appropriation authority consistent 
     with the provisions of this Act.
       (b) The District of Columbia government is authorized to 
     reprogram or transfer for operating expenses any local funds 
     transferred or reprogrammed in this or the four prior fiscal 
     years from operating funds to capital funds, and such 
     amounts, once transferred or reprogrammed, shall retain 
     appropriation authority consistent with the provisions of 
     this Act.
       (c) The District of Columbia government may not transfer or 
     reprogram for operating expenses any funds derived from 
     bonds, notes, or other obligations issued for capital 
     projects.
       Sec. 814.  None of the Federal funds appropriated in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, nor may any be transferred to other 
     appropriations, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 815.  Except as otherwise specifically provided by law 
     or under this Act, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated 
     balances remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2023 
     from appropriations of Federal funds made available for 
     salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2024 in this Act, shall 
     remain available through September 30, 2025, for each such 
     account for the purposes authorized:  Provided, That a 
     request shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     for approval prior to the expenditure of such funds:  
     Provided further, That these requests shall be made in 
     compliance with reprogramming guidelines outlined in section 
     803 of this Act.
       Sec. 816. (a)(1) During fiscal year 2025, during a period 
     in which neither a District of Columbia continuing resolution 
     or a regular District of Columbia appropriation bill is in 
     effect, local funds are appropriated in the amount provided 
     for any project or activity for which local funds are 
     provided in the Act referred to in paragraph (2) (subject to 
     any modifications enacted by the District of Columbia as of 
     the beginning of the period during which this subsection is 
     in effect) at the rate set forth by such Act.
       (2) The Act referred to in this paragraph is the Act of the 
     Council of the District of Columbia pursuant to which a 
     proposed budget is approved for fiscal year 2025 which 
     (subject to the requirements of the District of Columbia Home 
     Rule Act) will constitute the local portion of the annual 
     budget for the District of Columbia government for fiscal 
     year 2025 for purposes of section 446 of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-204.46, D.C. Official Code).
       (b) Appropriations made by subsection (a) shall cease to be 
     available--
       (1) during any period in which a District of Columbia 
     continuing resolution for fiscal year 2025 is in effect; or
       (2) upon the enactment into law of the regular District of 
     Columbia appropriation bill for fiscal year 2025.
       (c) An appropriation made by subsection (a) is provided 
     under the authority and conditions as provided under this Act 
     and shall be available to the extent and in the manner that 
     would be provided by this Act.
       (d) An appropriation made by subsection (a) shall cover all 
     obligations or expenditures incurred for such project or 
     activity during the portion of fiscal year 2025 for which 
     this section applies to such project or activity.
       (e) This section shall not apply to a project or activity 
     during any period of fiscal year 2025 if any other provision 
     of law (other than an authorization of appropriations)--
       (1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or 
     grants authority for such project or activity to continue for 
     such period; or
       (2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be 
     made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall 
     be granted for such project or activity to continue for such 
     period.
       (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     obligations of the government of the District of Columbia 
     mandated by other law.
       Sec. 817. (a) Section 244 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States relating to the District of Columbia (sec. 9-
     1201.03, D.C. Official Code) does not apply with respect to 
     any railroads installed pursuant to the Long Bridge Project.
       (b) In this section, the term ``Long Bridge Project'' means 
     the project carried out by the District of Columbia and the 
     Commonwealth of Virginia to construct a new Long Bridge 
     adjacent to the existing Long Bridge over the Potomac River, 
     including related infrastructure and other related projects, 
     to expand commuter and regional passenger rail service and to 
     provide bike and pedestrian access crossings over the Potomac 
     River.
       Sec. 818.  Not later than 45 days after the last day of 
     each quarter, each Federal and District government agency 
     appropriated Federal funds in this Act shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a quarterly budget report that includes total 
     obligations of the Agency for that quarter for each Federal 
     funds appropriation provided in this Act, by the source year 
     of the appropriation.
       Sec. 819.  None of the funds available for obligation or 
     expenditure by the District of Columbia government under any 
     authority may be used to carry out the Reproductive Health 
     Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (D.C. Law 20-261) or 
     to implement any rule or regulation promulgated to carry out 
     such Act.
       Sec. 820. (a) Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act (sec. 1 206.02(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and 
     inserting ``; or ;'' and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) enact any act, resolution, rule, regulation, 
     guidance, or other law to permit any person to carry out any 
     activity, or to reduce the penalties imposed with respect to 
     any activity, to which subsection (a) of section 3 of the 
     Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 
     14402) applies (taking into consideration subsection (b) of 
     such section).''.
       (b) The Death With Dignity Act of 2016 (D.C. Law 21 182) is 
     hereby repealed.
       Sec. 821. (a) No later than 60 calendar days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act the District of Columbia shall 
     submit a report to the Committees regarding the District of 
     Columbia's enforcement of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
       (b) The report submitted shall include:
       (1) how health care providers within the District of 
     Columbia are alerted to their responsibility to comply with 
     the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act;
       (2) how the District of Columbia responds to potential 
     violations;
       (3) how many potential violations have been investigated in 
     the District of Columbia in the past five years;
       (4) whether the District of Columbia preserved each child's 
     remains for appropriate examination during the investigation;
       (5) whether the District of Columbia conducted a thorough 
     investigation of the death of each child and what each 
     investigation showed;
       (6) whether the Chief Medical Examiner was directed to 
     perform an autopsy on each child to determine the method and 
     cause of death in accordance with section 2906 of the 
     Establishment of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner Act 
     of 2000 (sec. 5-1405 of D.C. Official Code);
       (7) whether the District of Columbia directed a subsequent 
     autopsy to be completed by an independent, licensed 
     pathologist to confirm the findings of the Chief Medical 
     Examiner; and
       (8) whether the District of Columbia ensured the proper and 
     respectful burial of each child.
       Sec. 822.  No later than 30 calendar days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Committee directs the District 
     of Columbia to submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations regarding maternity care access for D.C. 
     residents. The report should be organized by ward, birth 
     rate, pregnancy-related death rate, and maternal death rate. 
     The report should also include, organized by ward, the number 
     of facilities providing prenatal care, the number of 
     facilities with maternity units, the number of facilities 
     with neonatal intensive care units, and the number of 
     facilities of each type that accept Medicaid.
       Sec. 823.  None of the funds available for obligation or 
     expenditure by the District of Columbia government under any 
     authority may be used by the District of Columbia to enact or 
     carry out any law which prohibits motorists from making right 
     turns on red, including ``Safer Streets Amendment Act of 2022 
     D.C. Law 24-0214).
       Sec. 824.  None of the funds available for obligation or 
     expenditure by the District of Columbia government under any 
     authority

[[Page H5582]]

     may be used to carry out title IX of the Fiscal Year 1997 
     Budget Support Act of 1996 (sec. 50-2209.01 et seq., D.C. 
     Official Code.
       Sec. 825. (a) Section 5 of the Corrections Oversight 
     Improvement Omnibus Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-344) 
     is repealed, and the provision of law amended by such section 
     (section 16-5505, District of Columbia Official Code) is 
     restored as if such section had not been enacted into law.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of the Corrections Oversight Improvement Omnibus 
     Amendment Act of 2022.
       Sec. 826.  None of the funds available for obligation or 
     expenditure by the District of Columbia government under any 
     authority may be used to carry out the Comprehensive Policing 
     and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-345).
       Sec. 827.  An individual who has a valid weapons carry 
     permit from any United States state or territory may possess 
     and carry a concealed handgun in the area governed by the 
     District of Columbia and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority (WMATA).
       Sec. 828.  The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act 
     (division C of Public Law 112-10) is amended in section 3014 
     (sec. 38--1853.14 D.C. Official Code)--
       (1) In subsection (a) In the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``through fiscal year 2023'' and inserting 
     ``through fiscal year 2027'';
       (2) In paragraph (1), by striking ``one-third'' and 
     inserting ``one-half'';
       (3) In paragraph (2), by striking ``one-third'' and 
     inserting ``one-sixth''; and
       (4) In paragraph (3), by striking ``one-third'' and 
     inserting ``one-third''.
       Sec. 829.  Except as expressly provided otherwise, any 
     reference to ``this Act'' contained in this title or in title 
     IV shall be treated as referring only to the provisions of 
     this title or of title IV.

                                TITLE IX

                     ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 901.  $0.
       This division may be cited as the ``Financial Services and 
     General Government Appropriations Act, 2024''.
  The Acting CHAIR. All points of order against provisions of the bill 
are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part B of House Report 118-269, 
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 847, and 
pro forma amendments described in section 4 of this resolution.
  Each further amendment printed in part B of the report shall be 
considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject 
to amendment except as provided by section 4 of House Resolution 847, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations or her designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting 
of further amendments printed in part B of the report not earlier 
disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, except as 
provided by section 4 of House Resolution 847, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking 
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.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Womack of Arkansas

  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 847, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 
10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 34, 36, 66, 67, 71, and 75 printed 
in part B of House Report 118-269, offered by Mr. Womack of Arkansas:


          amendment no. 1 offered by mr. molinaro of new york

       Page 2, line 22 after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000) (reduced by $10,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 3 offered by mr. gottheimer of new jersey

       Page 5, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 99, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 102, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $3,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 4 offered by mr. gottheimer of new jersey

       Page 5, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $90,000) (reduced by $90,000)''.


        amendment no. 5 offered by mr. gottheimer of new jersey

       Page 5, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $37,000,000)''.
       Page 99, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $37,000,000)''.
       Page 102, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $37,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 6 offered by mr. schweikert of arizona

       Page 7, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


             amendment no. 7 offered by mrs. beatty of ohio

       Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 8 offered by mr. david scott of georgia

       Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (decreased by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 10 offered by ms. waters of california

       Page 10, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $62,861,000) (increased by $62,861,000)''.


         amendment no. 13 offered by mr. schweikert of arizona

       Page 16, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)(increased by $1,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 14 offered by mr. hudson of north carolina

       Page 16, line 12 after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 17 offered by mrs. ramirez of illinois

       Page 41, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $27,200,000)''.
       Page 41, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $27,200,000)''.


         amendment no. 20 offered by mr. david scott of georgia

       Page 73, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000) (decreased by $2,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 22 offered by ms. williams of georgia

       Page 91, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)(increased by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 23 offered by mr. molinaro of new york

       Page 95, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000) (reduced by $50,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 29 offered by mr. lucas of oklahoma

       Page 119, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000,000) (increased by 
     $1,000,000,000)''.


            amendment no. 33 offered by mr. castro of texas

       Page 132, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 34 offered by mr. gottheimer of new jersey

       Page 132, line 12, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by 
     $1,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 36 offered by mr. neguse of colorado

       Page 132, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 66 offered by ms. jayapal of washington

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the sale or transfer of the National Archives 
     facility located at 6125 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, 
     Washington, 98115.


           amendment no. 67 offered by mrs. kim of california

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act, 
     including titles IV and VIII, may be used to oppose a 
     proposal to admit Taiwan as a member of the International 
     Monetary Fund.


          amendment no. 71 offered by mr. molinaro of new york

       Page 132, line 12 after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 75 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin

       Page 133, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000) (reduced by $500,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.

[[Page H5583]]

  

  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan en 
bloc amendment that has the endorsement of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle.
  Breaking news: This en bloc has proven that Democrats and Republicans 
can work together and find common solutions--on some things anyway.
  The amendments set forth in this en bloc highlight the priorities in 
the Financial Services and General Government bill that address 
critical policies to strengthen our economy and bolster our workforce, 
and I look forward to incorporating these amendments into my bill.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague and good friend Ranking Member Hoyer 
for his consultation and all Members who have worked with me on this 
bill.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Molinaro).
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, let me highlight three amendments within 
the en bloc that are particular to communities in districts like mine.
  First, financial literacy is critically important, particularly in 
rural communities like the ones I represent in upstate New York. The 
best path forward for someone to achieve independence is obviously hard 
work and good financial decisionmaking.
  Amendment No. 1 encourages the Department of the Treasury to continue 
to invest in financial literacy initiatives for students and, in 
particular, reach young people in rural communities like those in 
upstate New York.
  I was shocked, Mr. Chairman, upon becoming a Member of Congress, that 
there are constituents within many districts across the country, in 
particular in upstate New York, who were not receiving actual mail 
delivery. I know this is perhaps not unique to my district. However, 
with thousands of individuals who have moved into upstate New York, the 
Catskill region communities, the post office has yet to acknowledge 
their very existence, whether it is simply offering them a physical 
mailing address or delivering their mail.
  Amendment No. 71 that I have submitted would address this glaring 
oversight and, quite frankly, incompetence within Sullivan County in 
upstate New York in my district, where the United States Postal Service 
has completely ignored these constituents and where thousands of them 
are not yet able to receive mail.
  Therefore, this amendment highlights the need that the American 
taxpayer should be entitled to the constitutionally recognized delivery 
of mail service.
  Lastly, amendment No. 23 addresses for senior citizens spam calls and 
targeted fraud cases. The FTC data shows that consumers lost an 
estimated $8.8 billion to scams in 2022. My amendment encourages the 
FTC to coordinate with other agencies like the DOJ and the FCC to 
ensure our data is protected and seniors are not victims.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, which 
highlights the importance of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 
FinCEN, to protect our financial system from illicit activities, combat 
money laundering, and promote the United States' national security.
  As we speak, oligarchs, kleptocrats, and other criminals are using 
anonymous shell companies to engage in money laundering, terrorist 
financing, tax fraud, corruption, bribery, and other illicit 
activities.
  FinCEN is working tirelessly to implement the Corporate Transparency 
Act's beneficial ownership rule to increase transparency and, yes, to 
follow the money to pursue bad actors, from Russian oligarchs to drug 
traffickers and, more recently, terrorist groups.
  Particularly in the wake of the recent Hamas attack, it is evident 
how vital the bureau's work is to direct and deter financial streams 
for terrorist groups, so I ask that we support this amendment.
  Unfortunately, House Republican's Financial Services and General 
Government Appropriations Act cuts FinCEN's funding by more than 12 
percent and would necessitate significant personnel layoffs.
  My colleagues across the aisle claim to prioritize national security 
while simultaneously undermining the very offices at the Treasury 
tasked with safeguarding our financial system. This office is already 
stretched thin, working hard to fulfill its mandate with the limited 
resources it has. Let's not further hamstring the bureau's national 
security efforts with a 12-percent budget cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am proud to have introduced a 
bipartisan amendment to the Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations bill to highlight the importance of protecting election 
workers with my friends, Congressmen Mike Levin, Juan Ciscomani, Sean 
Casten, and Chris DeLuzio.
  From the failed former President doxxing Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss 
to the Fulton County election director, registration chief, and their 
staff getting death threats and being called every racial slur 
imaginable, my state has become ground zero for harassment and attacks 
on election workers. Y'all, when I say Georgia is the center of the 
political universe, this is not what I usually have in mind.
  The Federal government needs to step up to protect election workers: 
the foot soldiers of our democracy. They ensure our constituents' 
voices are heard at the ballot box smoothly and efficiently, and ensure 
we all get election results quickly and reliably. But because of the 
constant attacks and harassment they face, election workers are leaving 
their jobs at a terrifying rate, depriving our constituents of their 
right to a well-functioning democratic system. That's why I'm so 
grateful for this bipartisan group of Members who have come together to 
advocate for anti-doxxing protections and data and physical security 
resources for election workers, so that we support them the way they 
support our democracy.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  The amendments en bloc was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Molinaro

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $21,000,000) (reduced by $21,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Molinaro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chair, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the 
United States, CFIUS, is the chief body responsible for monitoring 
foreign financial influence in our Nation and the national security 
risk it poses.
  My amendment would direct CFIUS to evaluate the rising threat of U.S. 
agricultural operations owned by adversarial nations.
  Food security is national security, and recent reports have indicated 
a disturbing trend of increased ownership of farm operations by 
entities with ties to the Chinese and Russian Governments, which is 
alarming and dangerous.
  Whether it is actual farmland or advanced agribusinesses, adversarial 
control over these entities provides adversaries the opportunity to spy 
on our military assets, steal revolutionary ag technology and research, 
and undermine the United States food system.
  This issue has garnered bipartisan support on the Agriculture 
Committee because it is essential for the protection of American 
agriculture and for the protection of our family farms.
  CFIUS could be a critical tool in better evaluating this risk and 
improving our response to this threat.

[[Page H5584]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, this amendment, of course, is an add and 
subtract and will have no fiscal impact, and the policies do bear 
problems on this side of the aisle as to the implications they may 
have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, sending a powerful message to our 
adversaries that America's food security is our national security is 
important and critical.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Grothman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In title I, strike the item relating to ``Community 
     development financial institutions fund program account''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates funding for the 
Department of the Treasury's Community Development Financial 
Institutions Fund.
  This amendment, if passed, would save $280 million in fiscal year 
2024.
  Let me emphasize one more time that in putting together all these 
appropriations bills, the goal of all Members should be to reduce the 
level of spending.
  In the year that has just wrapped up, we are borrowing 22 percent of 
every dollar spent. If you are borrowing 22 percent of every dollar 
spent, you have a big problem. Even if we stick to the numbers that we 
agreed to in raising the debt limit bill, next year, the amount we are 
borrowing will be equal to 23 percent of every dollar spent.
  Mr. Chair, we have a real crisis here. Things are getting worse and 
worse as we go through these appropriations bills, so we should be 
looking for fewer ways to spend money and return it to the Treasury.
  The CDFI Fund provides grants to community development financial 
institutions, community development entities, and other private 
financial institutions. As a result of that, this amendment not only 
saves money but saves money by taking away money from a fund that 
frequently results in public-private partnerships.

                              {time}  1030

  I think there is nothing worse than public-private partnerships, 
because it means what you are doing is you wind up enriching already 
wealthy people at the expense of the taxpayer and allowing people in 
the community to become wealthier, not by necessarily doing something 
that is better for the community or successful in the free market. You 
become wealthier by schmoozing with the local elected officials.
  I think it is corporate welfare. I don't like corporate welfare. I 
think over time, more and more people are getting wealthy, not by 
providing something that would be winnable in the free market, but they 
do something by taking advantage of grants and credits offered by the 
government.
  I will quote The Heritage Foundation: ``The only rigorous empirical 
assessment of the NMTC to date found the program to be largely 
ineffective at meeting its goals of increasing community investment and 
development. The study found that most CDE investments were relocated 
investments rather than new net investments''--in other words, 
transferring one business to another area--``suggesting that `all NMTC 
investments do not likely represent new funds to low-income 
communities.' ''
  President Trump tried to eliminate this in his 2021 budget, showing 
that President Trump was sometimes a President who was pushing for less 
spending. In his budget, they noted that the CDFI fund was created to 
jump-start an industry at a time when CDFIs had limited access to 
private capital. The CDFI industry now has ready access to capital 
needed to extend credit and offer financial services to underserved 
communities, eliminating the need for such grants.
  In the interest of ending cronyism, saving some tax dollars, stopping 
government waste, and getting rid of a program that I think too 
frequently makes wealthy development types still wealthier, I urge a 
``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, Community Development Financial Institutions 
stimulate economic growth and create and sustain employment 
opportunities in rural and low-income areas, like a lot of America.
  The CDFI fund ensures CDFIs are able to provide these underserved 
communities access to capital by awarding certified CDFIs with tax 
credits and monetary support.
  I am proud that my own State greatly benefits from the CDFI fund and 
have seen the far-reaching impact it has had on the community. 
Defunding the program would only serve to harm the most vulnerable 
communities in America.
  So it is under that pretense, Mr. Chairman, that I oppose the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I will just make one more point here. 
Assuming some of this money benefits Americans, not just the wealthy 
wheeler-dealers, we right now--at least if Wisconsin is any 
indication--have huge surpluses in our State coffers. If it is a good 
idea, it should be handled by the States, not by the Federal Government 
that is broke out of its mind.
  One of the reasons we are so broke is too many of my colleagues don't 
look at the Constitution and realize that some things are supposed to 
be handled by the State and local government and other things are 
supposed to be handled by the Federal Government. By the time you drip 
the money down from the Federal Government, there is a huge amount of 
waste there.
  In any event, in the interest of trying to keep our dollar the strong 
currency it has been throughout our lifetime, I urge adoption of this 
amendment and send these programs back to the States.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, for the reasons stated previously, I urge 
rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.

[[Page H5585]]

  

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

         Page 133, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, a couple years ago, we dove into post 
offices, particularly those that did not appear to be financially 
vibrant and surviving. We realized much of the data we were working on 
had holes in it. We couldn't get certain lease costs or were they real 
estate owned.
  All I am trying to do here is just get updated data, because at some 
point we are going to go back through. You have all been watching the 
accounts. We are going to go back through that discussion again of how 
we shore up the finances of the U.S. postal system. It would be nice if 
we go into that having actually high-quality information and the 
optionality that information would provide us. That is as complicated 
as this one is.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I recognize my friend and thank him once again 
for his courtesy on the floor. I reluctantly oppose his amendment.
  The United States Postal Service is a service. Every one of us knows 
that there are some of the facilities that serve rural areas, in 
particular, that on a cost basis would not be there if it were not a 
service and we did not deem the rural areas needing service. Therefore, 
it is across the enterprise itself that we are looking at their 
finances.
  Therefore, to put the United States Post Office to the pretty 
extensive analytical chore of determining each post office, 
particularly in rural areas--now, I represent some rural and some 
suburban, but I think this would be a burden and add paperwork without 
giving us a result.
  When I say not giving us a result, Mr. Chair, let us say that post 
office A, B, and C were making a profit and D, E, and F, if you look at 
the unit, that is the single post office, were not making a profit, but 
nevertheless that neighborhood needs to be served. It is the overall 
profit or loss of the postal department providing the service to all 
Americans that I think is the criteria that we ought to be looking at.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, what the ranking member is saying is fair. 
The goal here is to have much better information, because the reality 
is we are going to go back through that uncomfortable exercise again. 
It is probably a year or 2, maybe 3 years out. The world has changed. 
This is one of the great difficulties we have around here, and it is 
sometimes hard to accept.
  In a weird way, we are sort of a protection racket. We protect 
incumbent models of business, incumbent processes, incumbent 
bureaucracies, but how many of us are now paying our bills on this 
thing? How many of us are communicating on this thing and not licking 
an envelope with the risk of a paper cut? Come on, that was funny.
  The world is different. I know we have a certain sensitivity to the 
history and to the communities, but we are going to have to deal with 
the financial realities that is modern America. That is all I am trying 
to do. If we are going to deal with those, let's have quality 
information so we understand.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Bice

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mrs. BICE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 16, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000) (increased by $5,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.
  Mrs. BICE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment. My 
amendment directs the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to 
provide Congress with the quantity and types of weapons, weapons 
systems, ammunition, explosive devices, armored vehicles, drones, UAVs, 
and chemical weapons, such as tear gas, in their possession.
  Since taking office, the Biden administration has repeatedly 
attempted to supercharge an already weaponized IRS.
  According to the watchdog organization Open The Books, the IRS has 
spent over $35 million since 2006 to stockpile weapons, ammunition, and 
gear. Nearly one-third of this $35 million, or roughly $10 million, has 
been spent in the last 3 years alone. The report also mentions the 
purchase of tactical lighting, optical sights, ballistic helmets, and 
similar items.
  This is not a new issue, and it is not new to Oklahomans. The late 
Dr. Tom Coburn, the godfather of oversight and a great Oklahoman, 
previously raised similar questions and never received adequate 
responses from the IRS.
  In July, I sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel requesting 
information on this issue, including:
  Details on the accounts that the IRS had used to purchase such 
weapons, gear, and ammunition.
  Data on the quantity and types of items used in the possession of the 
IRS.
  Information on the specific types of modifications to IRS-issued 
weapons that had been approved, and the number of these requests that 
have been approved.
  This is vital information, because part 9 of the Internal Revenue 
Manual, titled Criminal Investigation, outlines modifications that can 
be made to weapons and the process for exceptions. Proper oversight 
dictates that we understand the process and the practice.
  The IRS still has not replied to my letter. They must be reminded 
that Congress controls the power of the purse and has oversight 
authority. Americans are rightly concerned by the IRS's lack of 
accountability, and they are frustrated that agencies continue to abuse 
their power.
  Mr. Chair, it comes down to transparency. I fully recognize the 
historical significance of the IRS and their ability to take down 
criminal entities. However, the IRS needs to tell the American people 
exactly what capabilities they have.
  When the IRS audits an American business or individual, they first 
and foremost ask for an asset inventory list. If you don't have one, it 
is a serious problem. Why does the same agency refuse to provide their 
own asset list? What are the materials stockpiled?
  This is increasingly concerning as we look at recent funding 
increases due to the so-called Inflation Reduction Act in which the 
Biden administration provided millions of dollars to hire tens of 
thousands of new agents.
  I will remind my colleagues of the strict rules and processes that 
are in place on our military as it relates to firearms and munitions. 
Every military commander must keep a detailed and precise record of 
munitions, both spent and otherwise. They are expected to measure to 
the ounce and can receive significant punishment if those numbers do 
not match up. The IRS should be no different.
  Today, the number of armed Federal agents is rapidly approaching the 
size of the United State Marine Corps. The lines have been blurred 
between the IRS's role as a regulatory tax agency and a law enforcement 
agency.
  The American taxpayers are providing the funding for these assets. 
The least they deserve is an accounting of their purchases. My 
amendment provides much-needed transparency on this issue.

[[Page H5586]]

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, this is a continuation of the majority party's 
contention that there are these thousands of agents that are going to 
be at your door armed to the teeth and ready to intimidate you.

                              {time}  1045

  That is not true. It is a good political scenario, but it is again 
the demonizing of people who are trying to catch tax cheats, tax 
dodgers, criminals, drug dealers, and others; many of whom are very 
dangerous people and who are very heavily armed themselves.
  This is a defund the police argument that the Republicans are making. 
Why?
  Because they want to somehow intimidate.
  Frankly, I don't care much about getting this information. I think 
this information is certainly worthwhile having. It is not worthwhile 
in terms of its intent to continue ad nauseam and contend something 
that is not true.
  Most of the agents that are going to be hired and have been hired are 
accountants, tax attorneys, and investigators to go through these 
voluminous tax returns that are filed by corporations and individuals.
  We could have included this in the report language. This is an add-in 
and then add-out language. It has no fiscal impact. It is unnecessary.
  Here we are some 10 days from the close-down of government. We are 
spending time on a number of these amendments, some of which votes have 
been asked for, while we twiddle our thumbs until February 17, without 
having resolved that issue.
  I think it is unfortunate that we continue to misrepresent to the 
American public that we are trying to make sure that people who do not 
pay their taxes do not put a greater burden on patriotic Americans--
small, medium, and large--who do pay their taxes, and to somehow give 
this misnomer or mischaracterization or misinformation that somehow, as 
they have said over and over again, these armed 87,000 agents--
absolutely untrue--are going to be at somebody's door trying to collect 
their taxes.
  We are trying to collect taxes from some pretty bad people. The 
agents we asked to do that work are doing it for their country and 
putting themselves in harm's way.
  Some assertion that somehow the IRS has become an army of agents 
showing up at doors with machine guns is absolutely wrong. I hear it 
all the time.
  Apparently, it makes good politics. Apparently, some don't believe 
that people ought to pay their fair share of taxes, that drug dealers 
who try to hide their money ought to not have somebody come to their 
door or come to their place of illegal business and say: You are a 
lawbreaker. You are a criminal. You owe us and the American people 
money, legally. You are doing it illegally and avoiding your taxes.
  I hope that this aspersion that somehow the IRS has become this armed 
army that is assaulting the American people is retracted by those who, 
for political purposes, continue to spew this argument. It is not fair 
to those people we ask to conduct the law enforcement business of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BICE. Mr. Chairman, they could prove that they are not hiding 
anything and not stockpiling weapons by providing the report that I 
requested.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, let me correct the record on one thing my 
friend said. He referred to the continuing resolution that expires not 
February 17, but this month, November 17. I just didn't want him to 
give the American people the appearance that we had a lot more time 
because we don't.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I can assure my friend, I understood the 
proximity of the date being this month on November 17.
  Mr. WOMACK. Exactly.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, if I said February, I thank the gentleman for 
correcting me.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  In full committee we had a robust discussion. I think the information 
we are working on right now is back in 2018 from the GAO. It is time 
for the IRS Commissioner to give us this information.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman for the Bedlam battle 
victory that they had this past week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Harshbarger

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 23, beginning on line 12, strike ``above the levels in 
     the possession of the Internal Revenue Service on July 13, 
     2023''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to address the Biden administration's reckless 
decision to use taxpayer dollars to purchase weapons and ammunition for 
the IRS, which is a tax collection agency.
  Last year, the American people were shocked to learn that the Biden 
administration was providing billions of dollars to the IRS to hire 
80,000 new agents, whose job it will be to go after hardworking, 
middle-class Americans.
  The IRS should be focused on assisting our constituents with tax 
compliance and ensuring Americans receive their entitled refund, not 
focusing on arming its agents with the aim of further extorting the 
American taxpayer.
  The majority of Americans don't trust the government to be good 
stewards of their tax dollars. Arming the IRS certainly will not 
inspire new hope in our system.
  Let me make one thing clear. Washington does not have a tax 
collection problem. It has a spending problem.
  By disarming our tax collectors, this amendment offers us an 
opportunity to refocus the image of the IRS and restore faith in our 
government. After all, under President Biden, our agencies have been 
weaponized enough.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned before in the previous debate, 
we had a robust debate in full committee and adopted an amendment which 
capped IRS firearms and ammunition levels as of July 13, 2023. I think 
that is reasonable.
  This amendment would remove that cap. I understand that some of my 
colleagues have concerns about Federal agencies holding vast amounts of 
firepower. We need to be careful not to deprive our agencies of the 
ability to purchase firearms to carry out their lawful duties.
  Mr. Speaker, it is under that circumstance that I oppose the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I understand why the IRS criminal 
investigation agents carry weapons. I am looking at a 2019 report where 
it was reported that by the end of 2017 the IRS already had 4,487 guns 
and over 5 million rounds of ammunition. I don't know what they need 
that for.
  When we have more agents carrying weapons than we do marines carrying 
weapons, that is a problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5587]]

  

  Mr. WOMACK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I adopt not only his premise that we have 
language in the bill that was fully debated in committee that will 
achieve the knowledge that we need.
  In addition, I would reiterate, we need to respect law enforcement--
whether it is called IRS agents--because people are breaking the law. 
For whatever reasons, people who are tax cheats or drug dealers 
laundering money or some ilk like that, any dangerous group of people, 
particularly when they have got criminal gains, are not paying any 
taxes, although, it is clearly owed.
  It is unfortunate that we continue to, A, defund those folks and 
limit them. I think the chairman is absolutely right in his objection 
to this. It demeans the officers who are risking their lives to do the 
duty that we have given them and they have a sworn responsibility to 
do.
  If they were called the Rolling Heights Police Department, and you 
said we are going to cap their weapons and do this, I think people on 
your side of the aisle, with all due respect, would be standing up and 
saying they are defunding the Rolling Hills Police Department. Isn't 
that awful?
  Because they are called IRS agents who enforce the law, they confront 
crimes, that somehow they are lesser law enforcement officers and are 
at lesser risk, I think that is not the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman in opposition.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I would say, notwithstanding the fact that 
these Federal agencies engage in law enforcement activities, whether it 
is IRS or FBI, it doesn't make any difference. They are engaged in some 
very dangerous activities. Notwithstanding the fact that they are 
engaged in activities, we should all remember that part of their 
mission is also to train for these dangerous circumstances.
  There are training events and weapons qualifications and all kinds of 
thing that require the expense of ammunition, maybe not for a nefarious 
target down range, but in order to be able to make them better at their 
trade should that circumstance present itself.
  Mr. Chairman, it is under those conditions that I reluctantly oppose 
the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chairman, the last thing I heard is that we 
have a couple people who haven't paid taxes. Hunter Biden is one, and 
more than likely so is President Biden. The IRS should not be the 
agency that goes after criminals. That is an agency called the FBI.
  If they want to enforce the border with guns, then go after the 8 
million plus illegals that are coming across the border and also the 
known terrorists that we have in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Crawford). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Davidson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of the Treasury to design or 
     develop a Central Bank Digital Currency, or establish a 
     United States Central Bank Digital Currency as legal tender.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment expands upon the base tax.
  The base tax says that none of these funds may be used to establish a 
central bank digital currency. A central bank digital currency 
shouldn't be established. Establishing could mean that it has already 
been created and waiting in the wings just in case we need it.
  For ``Star Wars'' fans, imagine if we let the empire build the Death 
Star, as long as they promise not to turn it on. Let's not do that.
  Let's not build this thing in the first place. We shouldn't design it 
or develop it. It shouldn't exist. That is the point of this amendment. 
Stop wasting your time on something that the American people don't want 
and Congress hasn't authorized. I think the base tax sort of gets at 
that, but I wanted to expand upon that to be clear. We don't even want 
it to exist.
  Why is this important?
  On March 9 of 2022, the Biden administration released an executive 
order outlining the administration's approach to the risks stemming 
from digital assets and blockchain technology. This included a 
directive to explore a United States central bank digital currency.

                              {time}  1100

  On March 1, 2023, the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Nellie 
Lang gave a speech focusing on the administration's efforts thus far to 
design and develop a central bank digital currency: `` . . . a CBDC 
would involve both a new form of central bank money and, potentially, a 
new set of payment rails. Both real time payment systems and CBDCs 
present opportunities to build a more efficient, competitive, and 
inclusive U.S. payment system.''
  She announced the creation of the Treasury-led CBDC Working Group to 
complement the Fed's work on the U.S. CBDC.
  These are excerpts from her speech.
  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has made substantial steps toward 
developing a central bank digital currency, as well. They have done 
numerous research on projects on the design, but the San Francisco Fed 
is actually recruiting and hiring for a senior crypto architect of a 
central bank digital currency to develop a U.S. central bank digital 
currency.
  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is clear. The authority for 
creating money rests with this body, and we clearly aren't authorizing 
that.
  In testimony the chairman of the Federal Reserve has made it clear 
that they couldn't actually establish it without congressional 
authorization.
  We want them to stop building it.
  What is a central bank digital currency?
  It is a corruption of the concept of money from its proper use as a 
store of value and a means of exchange into a tool for coercion and 
control.
  The version that is being studied is the same version that the 
Chinese Communist Party is implementing in China, which is a centrally 
managed, centrally controlled database.
  Now, I am not saying the United States would automatically do the 
same things China is doing with it, but it would have the same features 
where the central government actually sees every single transaction. 
There is no intermediary. In fact, the central government becomes the 
intermediary between the person and their own property. It would have a 
claim on it, but their claim would rest with the Federal Government.
  We do not need that kind of money in the United States. We don't want 
that kind of money in the United States. It is Orwellian, and it is 
dystopian. Every dystopian future has some version of corrupted money 
where the money itself is used as a tool for coercion and control.
  In fact, the Book of Revelation, what I consider Scripture, talks 
about this, and in our time we are seeing the technology that could do 
it. In over 100 countries this kind of design and development work is 
underway. The United States should not partake in it. It is always 
depicted as evil, and we should have no part in it.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment. To be very clear, not 
only do we not want it established, we do not want it to exist.

[[Page H5588]]

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I have a credit card in my pocket. It is a 
piece of plastic, and I am sure that 150 years ago or 100 years ago 
somebody said: Well, that plastic is not money.
  Nonetheless, very frankly, most of us no longer carry significant 
sums of money because we use our credit cards.
  Now, I am not an expert on this. This is an authorizing issue. The 
authorizers on the Financial Services Committee and the experts who 
deal with this should be deciding whether we ought to even look at it, 
and that is what this amendment would preclude, looking at an option.
  Now, I am sure it is much more complicated than my simple analogy of 
a credit card, but I guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, if people 100 years 
ago were told that you can spend this plastic, they would have said: 
Are you crazy?
  Now, I don't know whether or not Treasury or the Federal Reserve will 
see something that makes it more efficient and effective to transfer 
money from one place to another, which is what we do with a credit 
card. We transfer from our bank not by going to the bank and doing a 
withdrawal slip, we do it by giving somebody plastic, and they then put 
it in the system and the system puts my money from my account into the 
seller's account.
  Now, I don't know that that is so simplistic as to be inaccurate, but 
I do say, Mr. Chairman, that it is putting your head in the sand in a 
very technological age in which we live in which things may be made 
more effective, more accurate, and more user-friendly. I don't know the 
answer to that.
  Nevertheless, I certainly don't believe that we ought to say: Don't 
look at the options.
  So I would oppose this amendment. I am sure it is well-meaning, and I 
certainly believe the gentleman is concerned about what China does, and 
I don't know exactly what they do. I heard his brief explanation, but 
the fact of the matter is looking at an option--and the gentleman is 
correct, we would have to approve that option. We, the Congress of 
United States, the Representatives of the American people, and the 
Senate, would have to approve that option, and we would have authority 
over that because, as he said, that is what the Constitution says.
  Nonetheless, not looking at options I don't think is a good policy 
for this country, for any business, or for any family. Look at your 
options.
  Mr. Chair, I urge us to reject this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's argument is not against 
the language of this text. The gentleman's argument is about studying 
something or researching it, and the clear language does not prohibit 
research or study. It does prevent designing or developing it. We don't 
want them to create it.
  Research all you like, Mr. Chairman, understand how evil it is. I 
assure the gentleman I am actually an expert on this field, and I am on 
the authorizing committee. We have as a committee passed language that 
prohibits the use of a central bank digital currency by the United 
States of America.
  So the appropriation is aligning with the work of our authorizing 
committee. This is not legislating or it wouldn't have been made in 
order. It is a simple prohibition of the use of funds to do certain 
activities.
  We don't want them to create this. They can research, they can come 
and say: We have studied this, and we think there are some really 
interesting ideas, and here is a proposal for something that might 
exist someday.
  Mr. Chairman, we simply don't want them to create it, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Is the gentleman opposed to the working group that now 
exists?
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. The working group I think is within the purview of 
study and research. We just want to make sure that they don't cross the 
line into designing and developing, and it looks like they are starting 
to do that. We don't want them to create something and say: See, it 
already exists.
  We didn't appropriate money for them to do that. We didn't tell them 
to create it. We just want to be more clear on what we want you to do. 
By all means, research.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. First, the gentleman is an expert and 
knows much more than I do about this. I take that as a given.
  Secondly, he is on the authorizing committee. That committee has full 
authority to do that. He says it wouldn't be in order. It is not 
authorizing, but it says none of the funds, which means that whatever 
is going on can't use any funds to do this.
  He says it is about creating and not studying. I hear him, but this 
is an authorizing issue, and it ought to be in the hands and the 
consideration of the committee of jurisdiction. Apparently, it hasn't 
moved, which is why the gentleman is now trying to get it through by a 
backdoor, in effect, of saying none of the funds can be used for the 
purposes that are ongoing.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, I urge its rejection, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 73, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $635,000,000)''.
       Page 217, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $635,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, ever since its ill-advised inception and 
inclusion in the Dodd-Frank Act, Republicans have been largely unified 
about many, many issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Its unconstitutional, unaccountable leadership structure has been 
litigated before the Supreme Court. Its unaccountable funding 
structure--chiefly, the fact that its funding comes from the Federal 
Reserve and not the duly elected Members of Congress--will likely be 
addressed during the Court's October session.
  None of us know, nor should we presume to know, what the Court will 
decide on the latter issue. Nevertheless, as written, the underlying 
bill addresses concerns with the funding structure by funding the CFPB 
through the regular appropriations process.
  This amendment retains that provision at a level of zero.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  The CFPB is vital in safeguarding the interests of American 
consumers.
  You are on your own. That is the ongoing message that Americans hear 
from our Republican colleagues. You are on your own, and we are not 
going to protect you.
  The CFPB serves as an independent agency dedicated to ensuring that 
financial products and services are fair, transparent, and free from 
deceptive practices.
  Very frankly, we are dealing with trillion-dollar financial 
institutions. There is no consumer except the most expert who can, on 
their own, make sure they are getting a fair shake and who can, on 
their own, make sure they are not getting rolled and make sure that 
they are not being ripped off.
  That is what this agency is supposed to do.
  By holding financial institutions accountable, the CFPB protects 
consumers from predatory lending, fraud, and other forms of financial 
exploitation.
  That is the little guy. That is the little guy who can't do it for 
himself or

[[Page H5589]]

herself and is counting on us to make sure that what is represented to 
them is, in fact, fair and not, as I said, ripping them off.
  The CFPB promotes fair and transparent financial markets by enforcing 
regulations and consumer protection laws. This oversight helps maintain 
the integrity of the financial system, fostering trust and confidence 
among consumers and businesses alike.
  If we don't have it, if we zero fund it, then guess what, Mr. 
Chairman?
  Confidence is going to go away.
  Guess what, Mr. Chairman?
  Financial institutions--some very small, some medium size, the large, 
maybe they will get away with it, they will be able to sustain 
themselves--but the financial system will lack confidence, and we know 
that confidence is critical to the financial community and our economy 
operating effectively.
  The CFPB conducts investigations, issues fines, and enforces 
compliance to deter companies from engaging in harmful or fraudulent 
activities, ultimately reducing the risk of financial crises and market 
instability.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
oppose this amendment.
  Very frankly, as I have said in the past, in the twenties, we didn't 
have these--the 1920s, not the 2020s. In the 1920s we didn't have any 
of these protection agencies. The reason they were created in the 
thirties was to try to stabilize the markets. Very frankly, we have had 
an extraordinary market for the most part.
  Now, I have been here when we have had some real downturns, and 
confidence was lost. Nevertheless, if we eliminate CFPB and other like 
agencies or, frankly, reduce the resources that some agencies like the 
SEC have to make sure that our markets are safe, secure, and 
transparent, then our economy is not going to be the kind of economy, 
frankly, that we want. Very frankly, our economy is not going to be the 
kind that we have now in terms of a pretty vital, vibrant market 
creating some 13 million, 14 million jobs over the last 24 months.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is not about politics. This is about our 
economy, its stability, and the confidence that people have in it. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me somehow this country 
made it a couple hundred years without the CFPB, and now we can't wake 
up in the morning without it.
  The CFPB operates off a fundamentally flawed assumption that our 
fellow Americans, the little guy, is a rube and they lack the agency 
and the intelligence to choose products and services that fit their 
needs and, instead, must be infantalized while further empowering a 
government that does not have their best interests at heart.
  Their vilification of mundane services provided by banks and credit 
unions leaves our constituents with fewer and more expensive options.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Chair, we should be in support of this amendment for 
one very important reason: The CFPB is unconstitutional.
  It is an agency that was given legislative powers through Dodd-Frank, 
one of the worst pieces of financial regulatory legislation ever to 
come through this Chamber, and it has no accountability and no 
oversight from Members of Congress.
  They go to the Federal Reserve to get their money. They go out to the 
public, and they actually are writing regulations that Congress has not 
even contemplated and putting out oversight that Congress has never 
actually voted for. They are doing it with no oversight from the 
people's body.
  Just yesterday, the CFPB went to Apple, Google, and the payment firms 
and came up with new proposed rules on digital wallets when this 
Chamber has not even come out with legislation around digital wallets 
or digital assets. We have not done that work in the people's House, so 
to allow an agency like this to continue to operate with no oversight, 
to go in and out of any company they choose to based upon the whims of 
Mr. Chopra, is not constitutional. Furthermore, it is not befitting for 
an agency under the government of, by, and for the people.
  Let me also add that the bill presented by Mr. Barr from Kentucky is 
a good step in the right direction because it would at least give 
Congress Article I oversight powers over the CFPB and allow us to do 
the thing that Mr. Perry is arguing for, which is zeroing out this 
agency and eliminating it altogether.
  Let's speak to the consumer protections that the gentleman from 
Maryland has talked about.
  Before CFPB, consumer protections actually were within the purview of 
all the other Federal agencies that are under the oversight guise of 
Congress. CFPB was created so that they wouldn't have to come here for 
oversight.
  I have no problem with making sure that consumers are protected, but 
not by a rogue, unconstitutional agency that should not exist.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, we had this discussion a little earlier on Mr. 
Barr's legislation.
  This is before the Supreme Court. You are making a representation 
that this is unconstitutional. You are going to find out the answer to 
that probably by early summer of next year. We will be in session. We 
can respond to that.
  This is a matter that ought to be considered out of the Financial 
Services Committee and reported to the floor, and we ought to consider 
it.
  This was not adopted without thought. You may disagree with the 
conclusion that was arrived at, but it had a lot of discussion. By the 
way, for those of you who have not been here a long time, it had a 
conference. You may not know what a conference is, but what a 
conference is, is we pass legislation, the Senate passes legislation, 
and they go meet.
  We hardly do that anymore, unfortunately. That is sad, in my view. I 
have been here for a long time, and conferences are good. That is the 
way the process ought to work, as opposed to just putting something 
here and zero funding an agency that was created.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the 
Chair rather than to other Members.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I remind everybody that the CFPB was an all-
Democrat conference. There were no Republicans.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I fully support Chairman Perry's amendment.
  This agency is a rogue agency. Let me give an example to my friend to 
my left. The CFPB is irresponsible and reckless. In February 2023, a 
CFPB employee made an unauthorized transfer of records to a personal 
email account containing personal information of 256,000 customers. It 
affected over 45 institutions.
  We sat with Mr. Chopra during a hearing. He is unregulated. I don't 
know if you have ever been on a bank board, but they are the most 
regulated group.
  Do you know who pays the price, the fines, that they come up with 
through vague, in today's world, climate change? All these customers up 
here that are trying to borrow money.
  It never should have existed. To keep it funded and to keep it as it 
exists with the personnel, we are going backward.
  Mr. Chair, I fully support this amendment.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, and I 
compliment and applaud him for introducing a very legitimate amendment 
to address the unconstitutional structure of the agency and the fact 
that they are a rogue agency.
  There is no greater critic of the CFPB than me. Ask Mr. Chopra about 
that. However, I reluctantly rise in opposition, which may surprise my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to the amendment. It is not 
because the agency doesn't deserve a check the way Mr. Perry wants but 
because it is important for this institution that we assert, in the 
long run, the appropriations power of this body. That is why I support 
the Womack bill, which funds the agency and deprives the Court of the 
excuse to uphold the agency.

[[Page H5590]]

  

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mrs. Ramirez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 73, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $635,000,000) (reduced by $635,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Chair, the bottom line is this: Undermining the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau harms Americans' financial 
security.
  That is why today I am offering my amendment supporting the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, and its independence, which is 
essential in protecting Americans from predatory practices.
  I offer this amendment at the urging of the Illinois Coalition For 
Immigrant and Refugee Rights, an invaluable organization in my 
district.
  Established after the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB protects 
Americans from predatory financial practices and lenders while fighting 
discrimination in the financial sector. In its first 12 years, the CFPB 
has been able to return or restore over $17.5 billion to American 
consumers in compensation, canceled debts, and other relief. It has 
filed over 4 million complaints against companies on behalf of 
consumers.
  My amendment affirms that Congress should not meddle in an 
independent agency and acknowledges the importance of the Bureau in 
protecting consumers from exploitative practices, including when it 
comes to questionable, crushing medical debt. The CFPB's work is 
incredibly important, especially as medical debt continues to burden 
communities in my State of Illinois and disproportionately impacts 
Black and Brown people.
  Across the country, 41 percent of U.S. adults currently have unpaid 
medical or dental bills. I know many of them, and many of them are in 
my own family.
  During my time serving as executive director of an organization that 
worked to advance economic opportunity, I have seen medical debt 
destroy individual's and families' financial security and rob them of 
their financial futures.
  Medical debt puts people in impossible positions. They have to choose 
between seeking necessary healthcare and paying for their basic needs 
like food, housing, and heat when it is 20 degrees in Chicago.
  While we could solve the challenge of crushing medical debt through 
universal healthcare and Medicare for All, medical debt continues to 
plague the American people.
  We have to protect our communities from abusive and deceitful 
practices that compound the challenges that everyday Americans face 
when navigating medical emergencies. One of those deceitful practices 
is deferred interest medical credit cards. Research from CFPB is 
exposing the exploitive practices around these medical credit cards, 
which have average interest rates 10 times higher than our average 
credit cards.
  Let's think about that. Our credit cards already have extremely high 
interest rates. These are 10 times higher. Patients seeking medical 
help who are given this option are almost always unaware of the 
exploitative charges and costs if the full balance is not paid by their 
deadline.
  The CFPB's vital role also includes cracking down on debt collectors 
who try to trick and coerce patients into paying medical debt that 
unlawfully exceeds cost caps.
  CFPB has been working to remove medical debt from credit reports as 
medical debt should never be an indicator of someone's worth and should 
never limit a person's opportunity for a prosperous and thriving life, 
including access to safe, stable housing and employment opportunities.
  That is why, Mr. Chair, it is critical for the CFPB to maintain its 
independence from congressional meddling so that it can continue to 
address practices that are harming consumers, especially predatory 
lending that leads to medical debt, and to hold bad actors accountable.
  As someone who is deeply concerned with housing access and 
affordability, CFPB's work to remove medical debt from credit reports 
would literally change the outcome for thousands of working families. 
It would improve the credit scores of millions of Americans, opening up 
access to rental housing, insurance, the purchase of their first home, 
and even employment for many who experience barriers due to their low 
credit scores.
  We know that CFPB has reported that debt collectors use inaccurate or 
outdated information about their medical debt. It is clear that the 
CFPB serves an essential function in protecting hardworking, everyday 
Americans from predatory practices and financial exploitation.
  Let me say this loud and clear: An attack on the CFPB is an attack on 
everyday Americans and working families. We must protect the 
independent funding of the CFPB, and we have to reject every assault on 
its funding structure.
  We have to allow CFPB to move forward with its number one job of 
protecting the American consumer.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 88, line 25, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $13,050,000)''.
       Page 217, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $13,050,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment reduces funding for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to fiscal year 2019 levels, something 
that Republicans have made a central piece of any spending arrangements 
in this Congress.
  Under the Democrats' fiscal year 2023 omnibus, which every Republican 
last year voted against, Congress appropriated over $152 million. The 
fiscal year 2019 appropriation for CPSC was $127 million, which, when 
measured against the proposed appropriation in this bill, represents a 
relatively modest $12 million cut.
  No one opposes the good intentions behind the CPSC. In fact, this 
amendment doesn't gut the agency at all. Everyone here wants to make 
sure that our fellow citizens are safe. However, it is fair to say that 
the CPSC has certainly gone well beyond basic consumer protection.
  Earlier this year, the CPSC indicated that they planned to take 
action on banning gas stoves. Obviously, that effort failed, but the 
fact that the CPSC even considered taking action on gas stoves--heaven 
forbid that the American people feed themselves--is an indication of 
just how far this agency has gone off the rails. If an agency can 
regulate indoor air, what can't they regulate?
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5591]]

  

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, helping the consumer does not seem to be the 
objective of the amendments that are made to this bill.
  My colleagues have heard numerous statements by Ranking Member 
Wasserman Schultz and others about how the consumer is confronted with 
extraordinarily complicated and big agencies, and relying on the fact 
that what is being sold to them or given to them--sold to them, for the 
most part--is safe to use.
  They don't have labs to analyze whether that is the case. They don't 
have researchers able to understand that. It is not that they are dumb. 
Somebody said that I thought that they were rubes. That is baloney. I 
think they are smart, bright people.

                              {time}  1130

  They don't have the capacity to really know what is in that product. 
They can't analyze it. They don't know what toxins may or may not be in 
it. That is what this agency is about.
  This would reduce the Consumer Product Safety Commission's funding 
below the fiscal year 2019 levels. Well, that was now 5 years ago. We 
are doing the fiscal year 2024 budget now. It clearly would harm 
individual consumers who rely on their work, period. It would harm the 
Commission's ability to halt dangerous imports from China, investigate 
deaths associated with consumer products, and research emerging 
hazards.
  This cut of $13 million would bring the CPSC's funding level down 
from its fiscal year 2023 funding level of $153 million to its fiscal 
year 2019 level of $127 million, a 20 percent reduction.
  Well, consumer, you are on your own. That is what the mantra is: 
Consumer, you are on your own. I hope that the committee chair would 
oppose this. As you know, these levels are significantly below the 
President's budget.
  Last year, 32 million people sought medical attention for an injury 
related to a consumer product. Mr. Chair, 32 million people sought 
redress for an injury related to consumer products. There were an 
estimated 57,000 deaths in 2021 related to consumer products.
  Under this amendment, imports of consumer goods would be 
significantly slowed. Companies seeking help with recalls would face 
significant delays, and CPSC's efforts to address the online sale of 
dangerous recalled products would be greatly harmed.
  Consumer, you are on your own. That is unfortunate because the 
consumer--our constituents, our fellow Americans--needs to have 
confidence. They need to have confidence in the banking. They need to 
have confidence in products that are sold to them, so they have the 
confidence to buy them, to let their children use them, to have them 
present in their homes and in their businesses, and, yes, even in their 
cars.
  Mr. Chair, I urge us, as protectors of consumers--not Republicans and 
Democrats, but as people who want to protect consumers--to reject this 
amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I think we all can agree that 
we want to keep consumers safe, but this is a modest $12 million cut to 
an agency that has gone beyond its purview.
  I live in a rural community. I live back in a valley on top of a 
hill, and on occasion we have ice storms, so having a gas stove is 
important to me and my family. In rural America, having gas stoves, 
propane, is important to America, and yet this agency tried to ban gas 
stoves.
  Why? Because they are driven by a political agenda far beyond their 
mission statement of keeping Americans safe.
  This is why we need a modest cut to a rogue agency, to send them a 
message to get back on track to do their job and quit pushing the woke 
Biden administration's agenda. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me address the gas stoves. 
That was a sidebar comment. It wasn't anything about taking gas stoves 
out of people's homes or out of their yard or anything of that nature. 
It was a political gem that has been seized on by the majority party to 
pretend somehow that there was an active effort to take away their 
Weber from their yard.
  It is absolutely untrue. It was a sidebar comment by one commissioner 
about we need to look at gas stoves. It is like defunding the police or 
the IRS being an army.
  Furthermore, this is not a minor cut. This is a 20 percent cut. Not 
this amendment, but when you add it to that which was reduced in the 
bill itself, it is a 20 percent cut in protecting consumers. I think 
that is a pretty big cut. I urge its rejection, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I guess that is Common Core math because 
attempting to block an increase isn't a cut. We are talking about $12 
million off the current appropriations. That is a modest cut.
  By the way, the gas stoves, that was attempted through rulemaking. So 
my colleague, who I greatly respect, must assume that the American 
people are stupid because they attempted to regulate and ban gas 
stoves. That is a fact. It can't be disputed. I am appalled that that 
was even mentioned, even in passing.
  That being said, it should be noted that two Democrat Presidents 
reduced the size of this agency's budget--both Carter and Clinton--at a 
time when bipartisan support was there for fiscal restraint. That is 
what we are asking for. That is what we should do. We should send them 
a message that enough is enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. We are in a crisis in 
this country. Our southern border is overrun, spending is out of 
control, and agencies have gone woke. This President has failed us. It 
is time we get our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a pro forma amendment at the desk. I 
rise as the designee of the ranking member.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I think my friend has left the floor. Maybe he 
hasn't left the floor, but let me read this message. They are going to 
reject it out of hand because it comes from the CPSC. The message says:

       For what it is worth, we never proposed a gas stove ban, 
     period. Total nonsense. We had one commissioner say something 
     in an interview, and then the chair shot it down, but there 
     is no staff working on anything like this, no proposal to do 
     anything like this. Same as saying that Congress is doing 
     something because one Member of Congress is introducing the 
     bill.

  Defund the police. An army of thousands from the IRS. They ought to 
stop scaring the American people and giving them misinformation.
  That gas stove story is baloney that the gentleman talked about. But 
it is a really great political talking point they think because the guy 
with the Weber stove in their yard is going to think the Feds are out 
to get my Weber. Baloney. However, it is a good talking point because 
if someone keeps saying a lie over and over and over again, maybe 
somebody will believe it.
  I try to tell the truth when I am on the floor. The Bible tells me 
the truth shall set you free. Be honest with America.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 95, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $66,830,000)''.
       Page 217, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $66,830,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5592]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the amount available 
for salaries and expenses of the Federal Trade Commission to FY19 
levels at just over $306 million.
  It should come as no surprise that I disagree with the Biden 
administration's weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission.
  Much like other Biden administration approaches to financial services 
regulation, the FTC policies under Chair Lina Khan threaten to disrupt 
entire sectors of the American economy by moving away from the consumer 
welfare standard toward arbitrary metrics that aim to break up 
companies--or stop them from merging--simply because they are too big.
  I mean, we can't even be bothered, as my friend on the other side of 
the aisle says, with the consumer not having the capacity to determine 
what is in their best interests, which is affronting enough. I mean, 
all us dumb rubes out here in America, we don't know what the heck we 
are going to do without the government to tell us what to do. We can't 
even do that now. We just have to come up with arbitrary things that we 
don't like and then weigh in.
  The FTC has targeted the following standard businesses and business 
practices, citing several concerns, including, the charging of 
advertising and other fees to sellers that sell on Amazon or advertise 
using online platforms.
  Mr. Chairman, when you want to buy something, it is going to cost you 
something. Somebody has to pay for that. That is how business is done.
  Other FTC concerns include the use of noncompete clauses in 
contracts, and the idea that mergers themselves--rather than downstream 
effects on consumers--negatively impact consumers.
  Unfortunately, this government seems focused on killing successful 
American business instead of staying out of its way.
  Most, if not all, of these practices are agreed upon in contracts 
between two willing parties. If you don't like what is in the contract 
provisions, whether it is a noncompete clause or you have to pay for 
your advertising, there is a simple remedy not involving the 
government: Just don't sign the contract. It is pretty easy.
  In the last couple years, the level of FTC salaries and expenses has 
increased from just over $300 million to $430 million in FY23. That is 
$130 million in extra salaries and expenses. I don't need to tell 
everybody here, I hope, but we are $33.7 trillion in debt--the last 
time I checked the debt clock, 2 days ago--and there ain't no end in 
sight.
  As my young daughter told me when she looked at the debt clock for 
the first time, she said, Well, it doesn't stop. Yeah, no kidding. It 
doesn't stop, because this place just keeps spending like there is no 
tomorrow. If we keep going, there might not be a tomorrow for this 
country.
  I appreciate that the bill's author wrote it at a lower level than 
FY24. It shouldn't be too tall a request to lower that number even 
further to prepandemic levels when, oh, by the way, just a couple years 
ago, the government was still too big and was spending more money than 
it took in then, especially given the questionable tactics of this 
administration's FTC.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, You are on your own, consumer. You are on your 
own, Mom. You are on your own, Dad. That is what they said in the 
1920s. I keep repeating it: You are on your own. The markets went wild, 
and they crashed, and millions and millions and millions of people 
suffered badly.
  This bill already cuts FTC, and this amendment brings salaries and 
expenses down to its fiscal year 2019 levels, that is to say that it 
cuts in half the complement of employees at the FTC. That is not a 
nick. That is a you are on your own.
  Boy, the pleaders for doing things that are not legitimate, Mr. 
Chairman, must be a long line. We don't want to be regulated. Now, I am 
not calling anybody a rube, but I will tell you, maybe you can.
  When I go to the gas station and I put the pump on, and the gas goes 
in, there is not a single way that I can tell whether that product is 
what they say it is.
  Do you know what I rely on, Mr. Chairman? I rely on--both at the 
State and Federal level--that somebody is checking on that gas to make 
sure it is not going to blow up my car. I can't do that. I rely on the 
government to do it, to make sure that I am safe, to make sure my car 
is not damaged when I pull that pump and some liquid goes into it.

                              {time}  1145

  Why do I presume that? Not because the gasoline company says it is, 
because the gasoline company may have some incentive to, hey, maybe 
shortchange a little bit of this and shortchange a little bit of that.
  If somebody is checking, that incentive is eliminated. Just like when 
people are checking on making sure you are paying your taxes or doing 
the speed limit on the road. They think somebody's checking, so they 
are more likely to do that. They are more likely to pay their taxes.
  To the extent that the other side continues to try to nip away at the 
protections for the consumers and the investors and the purchasers of 
food and drugs and other items of consumer products, to the extent that 
we erode that, we are going to erode this economy, and we are going to 
diminish the quality of life for people and their security.
  This agency was reduced significantly by this committee, and this is 
not just a nick at it. It is a cut of the muscle and the ability to do 
the job consumers and constituents, we call them, expect it to do for 
them, their families, and their children. I oppose this amendment and 
urge its rejection.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, the good gentleman from the State of 
Maryland says, well, you are on your own. You are on your own. I don't 
know.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Perry says that. I don't say that.
  Mr. PERRY. Well, the gentleman said it over and over again--you are 
on your own, implying that we are saying you are on your own.
  In 2019, we were on our own somehow, I guess, because that is what 
this goes back to. Somehow, we made it to 2023, by the grace of God, I 
guess, because the good gentleman also refers to the twenties, so I 
imagine it is the 1920s.
  Well, it is the 2020s, and things have changed a little bit. I know 
that my good friend from the other side of the aisle and I are a little 
bit older, but neither of us were around in 1920. Things have changed a 
little bit.
  Now, as a young man, I pumped gas for a living. I do know the 
difference between gasoline and diesel and kerosene because I have a 
nose, and I can read.
  Sure. Do mistakes happen? Do people put gasoline in diesel and diesel 
in gasoline? They changed the size of the nozzle, by the way, in case 
you can't figure that out. If you can read, and most people in America 
can read, they can figure it out.
  The point is, we are not a bunch of rubes, and we don't need the 
government to figure out all this stuff for us.
  We don't need the government wiping our rear end every time we go to 
the bathroom, but that is what you would have us believe, that that is 
what we need, that Americans are so dumb, they can't do it without the 
Federal Government.
  Somehow this country survived a couple hundred years, and not only 
survived, became the greatest country on the planet, and it wasn't 
because the Federal Government was wiping our rear end the whole way.
  I urge adoption, and I yield the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I am going to dignify that 
with an extensive response. I think the American public are very 
bright, but they don't have assets.
  You may smell the gasoline. You may be an expert on gasoline. I know 
what gasoline smells like. I put it in my lawn mower. I put it in my 
chain saw. I put it in my car. I have no idea beyond the smell what is 
in there.

[[Page H5593]]

  That is my point. My point is they expect us to be making sure that 
when that big gas tanker rolls in that gas station and puts that liquid 
in there that it is something they can use in their car and it won't 
hurt their car and it won't hurt them. That is my point.
  Don't misrepresent my position as saying Americans are dumb. They are 
not dumb. They are smart. They are smart enough to know that they need 
somebody checking up on the quality of that gas before they put it in 
their car.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 25 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Brecheen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 99, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,735,000)''.
       Page 102, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,735,000)''.
       Page 217, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $12,735,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to return funding 
for the General Services Administration, GSA, real property activities 
of the Federal buildings fund back to fiscal year 2019 levels. It is a 
modest cut of $12.7 million.
  For context, this amendment would cut 0.5 percent of the entire bill. 
I will repeat that: 0.5 percent is what this amendment proposes. This 
is one-half of one percent.
  This amendment returns spending for this specific funding back to 
pre-COVID discretionary spending levels. To my colleagues, 
discretionary outlays by our Federal Government totaled $1.7 trillion 
last year, and last year's deficit was $1.7 trillion.
  That means 100 percent of discretionary spending is borrowed from our 
kids and our grandkids. That means 100 percent of all that we are 
discussing these last many weeks is borrowed money. We have to start 
cutting significantly.
  Can we not go back to fiscal year 2019 as a start? Is that not enough 
government that we experienced in 2019?
  This amendment cuts a modest $12.7 million from a $5.7 billion 
allotted amount for rental space that is not even being fully utilized 
by our Federal agencies.
  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report titled 
Federal Real Property Preliminary Results that show Federal buildings 
remain underutilized due to longstanding challenges and increased 
telework.
  This report assessed 24 different Federal agencies' and departments' 
use of building space. The review was conducted between January and 
March of this year, long after the COVID-19 pandemic ended.
  Mr. Chairman, 17 of those 24 agencies the GAO identified and listed 
utilized only 25 percent or less of their headquarter building 
capacity. Even on the higher range, these agencies only used between 39 
to 49 percent of their headquarters on average.
  For one agency the GAO did not name, GAO calculated that even if all 
of its agency staff were physically present in its headquarters, only 
67 percent of the facilities would be occupied.
  The same report detailed that underutilized office space cost 24 
agencies mentioned in the report $2 billion a year--$2 billion a year--
lost due to wasted office space, and that was only for maintenance and 
operation costs. These agencies spend over an additional $5 billion on 
leasing space.
  At a January 2023 meeting between the Federal Real Property Council, 
more than half of the participating agencies acknowledged that their 
headquarter buildings had excess space even prior to the pandemic. 
These are the headquarter offices. Not much less do we need to talk 
about the satellite offices.
  The GAO report also mentioned that all 24 agencies have reduced their 
in-office work and have not returned to prepandemic levels because of 
remote work.
  Even before the pandemic, Federal agencies struggled to determine how 
much space they needed to fulfill their missions.
  Retaining excess and underutilized space is one of the main reasons 
Federal real property management has remained on the GAO high-risk list 
since 2003. For 20 years, GAO lists this problem among its high-risk 
list. It is a 20-year problem.
  The GAO high-risk list seems to identify and help resolve serious 
weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources.
  More than half of GSA's leases, which account for 83 million square 
feet, are set to expire between 2023 and 2027. Therefore, the time to 
reduce this inefficiency must be now. This amendment can help achieve 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this bill urges every Federal 
agency to return people to the offices, and then where are you? Well, 
we don't need the offices now, so we can save money.
  You can't have it both ways. If you want people to return, you are 
going to need office space for them, and you are going to need to 
maintain it.
  By the way, operational costs are going to go up and capital costs 
are certainly going up when you purchase Federal space. Existing 
Federal space may not be in the right place, and maybe you need to go 
rent something, as well.
  Here, rental space is already cut by $158 million. It is not a 
nickel-and-dime there. It is a significant decrease. This amendment 
brings that total down to fiscal year, as has been said, 2019 levels.
  I don't know. I haven't read the amendment, so I don't know whether 
it keeps rental costs down to 2019 levels or construction costs down to 
2019 levels or other expenses attributable to the maintenance and 
acquisition of property. I think it doesn't and, obviously, 
constitutionally it couldn't do that.
  Reducing the revenues without reducing the costs is going to cause, 
obviously, a very substantial imbalance in the ability of GSA to 
operate effectively.
  This cut would bring the GSA's rental of space funding level down 
from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2019 $5.4 billion, a 3 percent 
reduction. It is six times higher than a 0.5 reduction, but, 
nevertheless, not insignificant.
  GSA plays a critical role, as all of us know, in managing Federal 
real estate procurement and tech services, by the way, including our 
own offices.
  Reduced funding may lead to delays, inefficiencies, and increased 
costs in government activities. The chairman is not here, but I know 
that he believed, because that is what he proposed and that is what was 
adopted, that the appropriate reduction was $158 million.
  Now, in addition to that, of course, we had an agreement at 2023 
levels, and 149 Republicans voted for that agreement. I don't know 
whether the gentleman who offered this amendment, Mr. Chairman, was one 
of them. It doesn't really matter. A large number of us voted for 
that--314 Members in total.

  Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of the Congress voted for a level of 
funding, which the Senate is doing because they believe that is the 
appropriate level.
  In light of the fact that it has already been reduced very 
substantially,

[[Page H5594]]

I would strongly oppose this amendment and urge the Congress to reject 
it and the House to reject it.
  Remember, they have office space, and they are worried about their 
own office space either as rented in the private sector or in public 
buildings. They pay an offset in the public buildings.
  Each Member should think of what has happened to their costs and act 
accordingly and don't expect others in the Federal Government to do 
what we are not doing ourselves.
  I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and stay with the 
reduction that has been made which I, frankly, think is excessive 
myself, but, nevertheless, a very substantial reduction already.
  Going to fiscal year 2019 levels was not contemplated by anybody that 
voted just a short while ago on the agreed funding levels in this bill.
  Now, I want to be fair. The agreed funding levels were not by item. 
It was an overall cap. Contemplating a cut of this nature is going to 
severely undermine the ability to operate in an efficient, effective 
way. GSA, I think, does that and needs the resources to do it on behalf 
of all Americans.
  Getting those people back in offices is a good optic, but reducing 
the ability to maintain those at the same time is not good business.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that, this last year, 
GAO said 17 of the 24 agencies that they surveyed used only 25 percent 
of their headquarters office space. That means 75 percent of office 
space in the headquarters of the largest agencies is vacant.
  This is just returning back to 2019 levels. We are talking about $12 
million in cuts for what the GAO says is a $7 billion problem.
  For 20 years, they have been talking about this, so much so that it 
has been on their high-risk list for years.
  If we are going to account for a $1.7 trillion deficit, can we start 
by cutting millions out of billion-dollar problems?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Burlison

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 115, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000) (increased by $20,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Burlison) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, 
which would increase/decrease funding to express that the Office of 
Personnel Management should renew the security clearance of David 
Grusch.
  Mr. Grusch formerly served as a National Reconnaissance Office 
representative to the UAP Task Force, from 2019 to 2021. He recently 
testified before Congress, claiming that partial fragments and even 
intact vehicles have been found for decades by the Federal Government, 
our allies, and defense contractors. According to Mr. Grusch, objects 
and vehicles retrieved are of ``exotic origin . . . based on the 
vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of 
unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures.''
  Mr. Grusch also told us that the U.S. is in possession of ``nonhuman 
spacecraft'' and dead pilots.
  Finally, Mr. Grusch told us that he has spoken with intelligence 
officials whom the U.S. military had briefed about football field-sized 
aircraft, that the U.S. Government transferred some crashed UAPS to a 
defense contractor, and that intelligence officials were also briefed 
on malevolent activity from extraterrestrial beings.
  Now, of course, all of this was very interesting to me and a number 
of my colleagues on the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. My 
first question for Mr. Grusch, when I had the opportunity, was to say 
that those were pretty incredible claims, but I am from the Show-Me 
State, so he would have to show me. I requested specific information 
that could not be conveyed in that hearing but in a secure setting. 
Unfortunately, he is unable to provide us with any supporting evidence 
to back up his claims because his security clearance has lapsed.
  My understanding is that Mr. Grusch did go through the proper 
channels by turning over classified information to the IC inspector 
general. He ultimately filed a complaint to the IC inspector general, 
alleging that the information he presented to the IC has been illegally 
withheld from Congress.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to know more about these claims, and so would 
a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  I am certainly pleased that the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability is working hard to bring in the relevant inspector 
general so we can cut through all the roadblocks that have been 
presented since Mr. Grusch stepped forward. We need to cover all 
possible angles here, and if we can get Mr. Grusch in a SCIF with an 
active security clearance, that would go a long way.
  This amendment simply expresses support for the Office of Personnel 
Management to renew the security clearance of David Grusch so that he 
can show us his work.
  As a freshman Member, I have seen a lot of these increase/decrease 
amendments. While on its face they appear to not do anything, it is my 
understanding that the agencies generally pay attention to the 
legislative history and intent, which is why I am offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment number 28 will 
not be offered.


               Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 127, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Arizona and the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, we remember the EIDL loans from during the pandemic. We 
have some documents that say there may be as much as $62 billion in 
impairment. Understand that there is a difference between impairment 
and delinquency behind those.
  We actually have an intense concern on some of the articles and other 
things that have come to our attention that the collection--look, this 
is never a happy conversation when you are talking about going out and 
collecting loans, but this is money that is owed to the hardworking 
taxpayers. It is only fair. We made a deal.
  We actually believe if we take the mean of some of the reports we 
have been best able to get, there is about $33 billion that is ready 
for, functionally, some type of hard collection. They are substantially 
delinquent.
  We are here fighting over dollars. We are fighting over pennies 
sometimes. If there are billions of dollars out there that are owed 
back to the Small Business Administration and those things, we have the 
legal obligation to go collect. That is the deal.
  The amendment is trying to move away from an article in The 
Washington Post that was basically saying the Small Business 
Administration had either slowed down or stopped pursuing

[[Page H5595]]

collections. Let's go collect the money. As we are lifting every seat 
cushion around here trying to find resources, there is a stack of 
resources here.
  The other thing it would also help us understand is how much fraud 
ultimately there was in the program, but without the collection 
efforts, you actually cannot truly document those numbers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would make an observation. I understand 
what the gentleman is saying. The IRS says there are $688 billion. That 
is not chump change, not behind the sofa cushion, $688 billion. They 
say that if they have the resources, they can collect a large sum of 
that, which is really what the gentleman is looking to do in this 
amendment with this agency.
  Mr. Chair, this bill provides for a 23-percent cut in enforcement on 
moneys that are due and owing under the current law to the Government 
of the United States. The gentleman and previous speakers have said how 
concerned they are with the deficit. I would think that--again, I will 
use the collection department of a corporation as the example--you 
would want to collect that money.
  If the principle that the gentleman espouses is a good one, and I 
frankly think it is, then we ought to apply that to that $688 billion, 
which would have a substantial impact on collections.
  Let's say we just collected a third of that. That would be more money 
than all of these cuts combined and perhaps all of these bills. I find 
it confusing and contradictory that the gentleman would want to collect 
these debts--of course, the agency says it would cost more to collect 
than would be collected. That is their position. Whether that is true 
or not, I am not arguing that, but that is their position, as I 
understand it.
  In the case of the $688 billion, it is, essentially, if you are at 
the upper end, $1 of expenditure for $12 of revenue. Frankly, at the 
lower end, it is much less, $1 to maybe $1.67 or $1.87. That is a 
relatively small return on the investment but a big return on the 
bigger taxpayers, whether they are corporate or individual.
  Mr. Chair, I think the principle the gentleman enunciates is a good 
one. I hope he would pursue it in talking about the IRS' ability to 
oversee very complicated and lengthy returns that have resources that 
are not very transparent and are from sources that aren't withdrawn 
because that might in fact help us get to where he wants to get in 
reducing that debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, let me say to the gentleman from Maryland 
that he will be happy to know that he actually accepted, en bloc, two 
of my amendments.
  Mr. Chair, I am blessed to chair the Oversight Subcommittee of the 
Ways and Means Committee, and within there is the use of technology. We 
have actually had to deal with the reality, if you are actually reading 
some of the reports that are coming from the IRS, that they can't seem 
to hire the people to do the audits. Apparently, there is a shortage of 
people with accounting and that type of talent.

  We actually brought two amendments--both made it into the en bloc, so 
I appreciate that--to actually go and use AI and technology to talk 
about exactly what the gentleman from Maryland said.
  I actually believe in many ways that is more ethical and moral 
because I can audit an algorithm. I can't audit someone's heart or 
their personal politics. We actually have demonstrations also on the 
customer service side with the use of chat AI and those things, but 
that is IRS. We are here talking about the Small Business 
Administration.
  I am trying to be intellectually consistent. We did our amendments 
there to pursue a rational use of technology. If it is true that there 
may be, according to this article, an estimated $62 billion in past due 
pandemic loans, if it costs more than $62 billion for the Small 
Business Administration to go collect $62 billion, the world has come 
to an end. I mean, let's be intellectually consistent here.
  This agency has the legal obligation to collect these loans. My fear 
is there may have been so much fraud that there is almost this 
discomfort of peeling back the onion and saying one-third of the book 
or 20 percent of book, whatever it is, will never be performing loans.
  Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Maryland, this is actually just 
moving some money around so the Small Business Administration does what 
they are actually supposed to be doing and what is actually already 
part of the loan. We are actually moving some resources so it can be 
accomplished.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 printed in part B of 
House Report 118-269.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 35 will not be offered.


                  Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Barr

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available to implement or 
     enforce General License No. 8H, issued by the Office of 
     Foreign Assets Control on October 25, 2023.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Treasury 
Department from issuing General License No. 8H, which was issued by the 
Office of Foreign Asset Control on October 25.
  It represents a fundamental policy shift in our approach to Russia 
and ending its aggression against Ukraine. This amendment is a 
recognition that the Biden Treasury Department's Russian oil price cap 
policy has failed. It is not curbing Moscow's war spending because the 
cap has proven unenforceable, especially outside of the G7.
  Russian oil is trading well above the cap, funneling billions of 
dollars and, in fact, trillions of rubles into Putin's war machine.

                              {time}  1215

  It is also a recognition that President Biden and Climate Czar John 
Kerry's climate agenda and war on American energy has come in direct 
conflict with our national security and our efforts to counter Russian 
aggression. Their climate policies have limited the tools available to 
them and pushed our country into pursuing a woefully ineffective price 
cap strategy in lieu of closing the huge loophole they created for 
energy-related transactions in their sanctions on Russian banks.
  That is right. For the Americans watching on television who have been 
given the impression that President Biden is being tough on Moscow, the 
truth is, they are allowing oil sales to finance the war. That is the 
Biden policy, to create a huge loophole for energy-related transactions 
that allows Putin to finance this war.
  License number 8H is an extension of authorizations by this 
administration going back to the very start of the war in Ukraine. It 
permits U.S. persons to engage in any transaction with sanctioned 
Russian financial institutions if the transaction involves Russian 
energy. This is the Biden administration's weak policy toward Russia.
  It includes not only Russian energy sales but even production, 
refinement,

[[Page H5596]]

and transport. Despite sanctions, again, on Russia's leading banks, 
including restrictions on the Central Bank, OFAC licensing has exempted 
dealings that support the most vital source of export earnings for 
Moscow.
  Why this administration punishes American energy but rewards Putin's 
energy is beyond comprehension. This is simply perverse. On the one 
hand, the Biden administration is greenlighting Russia's efforts to 
earn hard currency for its war machine even as it asks Congress for 
billions of dollars to defend and reconstruct Ukraine. The left hand 
destroys while the right hand rebuilds, but somehow the administration 
is stumped that this war grinds on without end.
  Had Biden continued the Trump administration's energy dominance 
strategy, he would not be as constrained as he is today, and global 
energy markets would be far less dependent on Russian oil and gas, 
making a full embargo or sanctions without a general license far less 
painful for us and our allies.
  My amendment says enough is enough. If we really want to help the 
Ukrainian freedom fighters, we have to end Russia's ability to wage 
war. That means cutting off every avenue available for it to fund its 
hostilities.
  As The Wall Street Journal reported just this week, Russian tax 
revenues for oil and gas surpassed $17 billion last month, an increase 
of 25 percent from the previous year. These revenues are bolstering 
Moscow's abilities to threaten Ukraine with the government planning to 
increase military spending by 70 percent next year.
  Under my amendment, the United States will not be complicit in these 
energy sales. It will ensure that sanctioned Russian banks are, in 
fact, sanctioned. The loopholes that Russia has enjoyed for over a 
year, thanks to President Biden, will be closed, and we will send a 
signal to the world that turning a blind eye to Russian exports is 
over.
  At the same time, passage of this amendment must be viewed in the 
broader context of the administration's multilateral efforts to ensure 
the continued supply of Russian energy.
  Even if we close off the U.S. and its financial system from these 
transactions, the Treasury Department has convinced our European allies 
to roll back EU sanctions under a price cap scheme for oil. Treasury's 
own data has shown that the price cap still allows Russia to earn 
billions of dollars each month in oil sales. Moreover, with Urals crude 
prices rising, the World Bank recently concluded that the price cap 
``appears increasingly unenforceable.''
  The only way to counteract this trend will be to acknowledge once and 
for all that the war in Ukraine will not end until Russian energy dries 
up. That means enforcing sanctions, not rolling them back. The first 
place to start is here at home with OFAC licensing.
  My amendment is an important step toward this goal. If you want to 
get tough on Putin, stop his energy exports.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and bring 
energy dominance back to the United States.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has 
expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, if you want to get tough on Putin, don't elect 
one of his friends President of the United States.
  This legislation that has been offered, as I understand it, wants to 
see a full sanction and prohibition on dealing with Russian oil. That 
may be a worthy objective, but I think the way to do it is to do it. We 
can pass legislation on that.
  As I understand it, 8H is one of the principle ways in which we 
implement sanctions that we urge. To do away with that ability without 
replacing it--and I may be wrong in what I am saying, so the gentleman 
can correct me--does not seem to be a worthwhile objective. In other 
words, if you need more, let's legislate more sanctions. We can do 
that. Don't take away sanctions that currently exist, even though, as 
the gentleman hypothesizes, they are not as effective as they ought to 
be.
  I hear what he is saying. I very much want to help Ukraine. I hope 
your Speaker brings Ukraine to the floor pretty soon. That is really 
going to help Ukraine. We need to do it sooner rather than later. We 
have 300 votes on average to help Ukraine on his side and my side of 
the aisle, Mr. Chairman.
  It seems to me that is the way we ought to go about it, rather than 
trying to do it through what is a relatively clumsy, in one sense, way 
of accomplishing an objective with which I may agree. I don't know all 
the ramifications of that, and I don't have the information from 
Treasury as to what adverse impact they think it will have. It seems to 
me the way to do it is to do it and do it through the legislative 
process and have that debate and know the consequences of the action 
that the gentleman proposes.

  For that reason, I am opposing the amendment and urge its rejection.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the sentiment, and I am with Mr. 
Hoyer on providing support for Ukraine, but the 8H license is actually 
the loophole. It is the exception to the sanctions.
  I give President Biden credit and Secretary Yellen credit and Wally 
Adeyemo credit for the sanctions on Russian banks and the Central Bank. 
The problem is the huge loophole they have created with the general 
license.
  What my amendment proposes to do--and I just came from a meeting with 
Deputy Treasury Secretary Adeyemo, a great patriot--but what we are 
trying to say is the price cap is not working; close the loophole, 
sanction Russian energy exports. I offer that as a bipartisan 
amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time.
  Let me ask something. As I understand it--again, not having the 
information that he has available to him--one of the reasons those 
exemptions are given is because of the fear that there will be a 
substantial price hike if that oil is not on the market and that price 
hike will then go to what a lot of his colleagues have been talking 
about, these awful prices at the pump.
  Am I correct?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, to answer the question, that is a very good 
question. That is the key question.
  To the administration's credit, they are trying to solve this 
difficult question: How do we impose sanctions on Russia and Putin 
without hurting our allies?
  Mr. HOYER. And our consumers.
  Mr. BARR. And us, because unfortunately our allies are overdependent 
on Russian sources of energy.
  The problem is because of this price cap scheme that they have 
concocted, Russian oil is trading above the cap, so it is not exactly 
affecting anything.
  The truth is, there are two solutions. Number one is to decrease our 
and our allies' dependence on Russian gas by increasing our own 
production. This is where the administration's climate agenda is in 
conflict with our national security.
  Secondly, the general license is the problem. If they repealed the 
general license and did what Treasury does all the time on sanctions 
and to help our allies in case-by-case scenarios with a special 
license--let's say, for Germany in a particular case, okay, that is 
fine; they retain that authority, Treasury would--but a general license 
that says Putin can sell all of his energy with no ramifications 
whatsoever through a general license is not tough on Russia.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has 
expired.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Barr

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H5597]]


  

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order 
     14008 titled ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 
     Abroad'' (January 27, 2021) or any rule or regulation to 
     implement such Order.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds from being used to 
implement the Biden administration's January 2021 executive order 
titled ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.''
  The Biden administration issued this executive order under the guise 
of protecting United States' national security and foreign policy, yet 
Republicans see right through this.
  This executive order is yet another example of the Biden 
administration's effort to circumvent the people's House and advance 
their radical anti-American energy agenda by depriving the energy 
industry of the financing it needs from our capital markets.
  Perhaps if we want to work in our national security interests, Mr. 
Chair, we should bring energy independence and dominance back to the 
United States by promoting, not working to prevent, the financing of 
the very capital-intensive energy sector.
  We should block misguided ESG initiatives where the ultimate goal is 
to politicize the allocation of capital and steer investments into the 
Democrats' desired climate transition. To protect national security 
interests, we should pass H.R. 1 and unleash American energy not just 
for our economy but for our national security.
  Instead, unsurprisingly, the Biden administration releases this 
executive order that calls for the U.S. to rejoin the Paris Agreement, 
creates a National Climate Task Force consisting of members from 
multiple Federal agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury and 
the Secretary of Defense, which will result in agencies taking their 
eye off the ball of real systemic risks in our financial system and 
global stability to focus on political initiatives and calls for a 
government-wide approach to the climate crisis.
  What might be the most egregious is the executive order's call to 
tamper with financial flows to align with a pathway toward low 
greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. The Biden 
administration is calling for the government to put its thumb on the 
scale of free-flowing capital, pick winners and losers, and pursue an 
agenda to starve energy companies of the financing that they need and 
redirect capital into speculative green energy technologies that, 
frankly, are unproven and will not actually fix the climate.
  This is in direct contradiction with our national security interests, 
increases our energy dependence on our adversaries, and is once again 
showing us Democrats are exploiting the most envied capital system in 
the world to pursue their most radical and detrimental agendas. My 
amendment will put a stop to this.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, for the interest of our economy but 
also for the interests of national security, to support this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, first of all, our economy is doing better than 
almost any economy in the world. I have had numerous debates, Mr. 
Chair, or discussions with the majority leader in the last Congress. He 
kept talking to me about American energy. I kept pointing out to him, 
almost every time he raised it, we were producing more energy than we 
had under the previous President, and yet they kept wringing their 
hands about how we were undermining the energy industry.
  Now, at the same time we are not undermining the energy industry, we 
are also trying to deal with an extraordinary crisis that confronts the 
global community, and that is climate change. This amendment blocks any 
whole-of-government strategy led by the White House to build a 
resilience both at home and abroad against the impacts of climate 
change.
  Nationwide, communities are already facing severe impacts that will 
continue to intensify. In 2022, there were 18 separate billion-dollar 
weather and climate disasters that impacted the United States: 
hurricanes, floods, wildfires, droughts, among other events.

                              {time}  1230

  We had a very substantial investment we made in alternative energy. 
Now, I happen to be a huge supporter of alternative energy, 
particularly in nuclear. I have been a supporter of nuclear energy for 
a very long period of time. I have a big nuclear plant in my district. 
It is an alternative clean energy option. I want to see that further 
expanded. Right now it is somewhat cost prohibitive in terms of getting 
loans.
  Mr. Chairman, at the time of tremendous need and challenge, this 
amendment will make us less prepared to prevent and withstand the 
severe impacts of climate change that our country already faces on a 
regular basis, as does the world.
  Industries have recognized that need and are pursuing that need--not 
as vigorously as they were perhaps last year or the year before that--
but pursuing it vigorously. I visited a number of the energy companies 
themselves who were involved in the fossil fuel industry, also looking 
at alternative energy because they see that as the future.
  This amendment undermines both the focus and the process of moving 
toward that, which the White House is trying to do. Why?
  Because they have a responsibility for all Americans. They have a 
responsibility to look at more than 24-month cycles.
  We, in Congress, are sort of hidebound by 24-month cycles. We need to 
look long term. That is what President Biden is trying to do; look long 
term and be prepared. Be prepared for a time when we are smothering our 
little globe and heating it up and melting the ice of the world. We are 
making agriculture unattainable in certain areas. We are making life 
difficult in certain areas.
  It is necessary that we look long term. It is necessary that we have 
a longer vision. It is necessary that we have an administration that 
has the ability and inclination to do just that. That is what they are 
doing.
  I think this amendment certainly speaks to one segment of the energy 
that we have in this country, and that is fossil fuel. We are going to 
be using fossil fuel for some years to come, maybe some decades to 
come. We need to look long term at more efficient and effective energy 
sources that do not cause a danger to humanity.
  Mr. Chair, I urge that we not pursue this, we allow the 
administration to continue its efforts, and we admit that climate 
change is a crisis happening now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Bean of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the Community 
     Advantage Small Business Lending Companies program in the 
     final rule of the Small Business Administration entitled 
     ``Small Business Lending Company (SBLC) Moratorium Rescission 
     and Removal of the Requirement for a Loan Authorization'', 
     issued on April 12, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 21890).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman

[[Page H5598]]

from Florida (Mr. Bean) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of my 
amendment No. 39 to H.R. 4664.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Williams and my colleagues on the 
Committee on Small Business for their support. This May, the Small 
Business Administration implemented a rule which disregards Congress' 
authority and makes its Community Advantage Pilot Program permanent.
  This program was created in 2011 and had been continuously 
reauthorized on a short-term basis by Congress. In fact, it is already 
authorized to continue operating through September 2024. Not so fast.
  The SBA got tired of relying on Congress and taking our directions 
and decided to make the program permanent by creating an entire new 
class of lending entities. These new entities are called Community 
Advantage SBLCs. Now the SBA no longer has to come to Congress to make 
sure the program continues to operate.
  We all know this is not how agencies are supposed to work. If the 
Community Advantage program was successful, then it is the duty of 
Congress to evaluate it to make sure it should be permanent. 
Unfortunately, the SBA does not want to operate in this fashion and 
removed the elected Members of this body from the equation.
  This amendment reasserts congressional authority over the process by 
prohibiting any funds from implementing and administrating any licenses 
for the new Community Advantage SBLC's licenses.
  Not only does this amendment ensure that Congress' authority is not 
ignored, but it sends a strong message to all Federal agencies that 
they cannot act outside of their jurisdiction without consulting 
Congress.
  This is an important step to holding the Federal Government 
accountable to the American people, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this program has been a very successful 
program. It has been a successful program for the little guy--the small 
business. The pilot program has proved to be very successful and has 
been operating over three Presidential administrations.
  The program expands access to small business financing for 
underserved communities, including women, minorities, veterans, and 
people in low-income areas. Obviously, the lending community believes 
this is a program that works. The permanent program includes all 112 of 
the pilot's lenders who wanted to continue SBA lending, along with 31 
new mission-driven lenders that were recently approved.
  Mr. Chairman, by blocking the SBA from continuing this program, the 
amendment would deny economic opportunities for communities and small 
businesses that need them the most.
  I have talked about, you are on your own. This is an area where small 
businesses need help. This is an area where apparently three 
administrations thought it was working. Now we are extending it. We 
hear that it is in the Congress' ambit. Of course it is. We could 
prohibit this, but the administration has made a judgment that it 
works. The lending community has made a judgment--apparently they are 
not losing money on it--that it works.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment, which would prohibit the Small Business Administration from 
implementing the Community Advantage SBLC program. This amendment is an 
attack on veterans, rural, and low-income entrepreneurs, and it should 
be rejected resoundingly.
  One of small businesses' greatest challenges is obtaining access to 
financial capital. For over a decade now, the Community Advantage 
program has been helping close this funding gap. Community Advantage 
lenders are required to make at least 60 percent of their loans to 
underserved markets defined as veteran-owned businesses, rural 
businesses, new businesses, businesses located in HUBZones, empowerment 
zones, and other low-income communities.
  These are the types of businesses that too often find themselves on 
the margins. Their owners lack the ability to qualify for more 
traditional loans because they may lack a credit history or preexisting 
relationship with a bank.
  What is unique about Community Advantage lenders is that they are 
mission-based, primarily nonprofits focused on economic and community 
development. They go beyond just providing loans. They provide 
technical assistance to the businesses they serve. As a result, 
Community Advantage has been far more successful than the traditional 
Small Business Administration 7(a) loan program at reaching underserved 
groups like veterans.
  Community Advantage was operating as a pilot up until the SBA, just 
this past month, established the Community Advantage SBLC program to 
provide more permanency for the program and lenders.
  Congress needs to build on these efforts by providing statutory 
permanency for Community Advantage so veteran, rural, and low-income 
small business owners can continue to be served. This amendment would 
do the exact opposite, eradicating this proven program and undoing all 
our progress.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's veterans, 
rural, and low-income entrepreneurs by rejecting this amendment.
  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really irrelevant whether or 
not the program is doing good or not. They do not have the authority to 
make up their own rules and own programs without Congress.
  It is as if they have left the band and the SBA is starting a solo 
career on their own. We are a team. We work together. The way it works 
is Congress is the one that enacts new programs to work with them.

  Whether or not it is a good program is irrelevant. They do not have 
the authority.
  Why have a Congress if all Federal agencies are just going to go out 
and do what they want?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Williams), who just happens to be the chairman of the Small 
Business Committee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of 
Congressman Bean's amendment to H.R. 4664. Mr. Bean's approach is 
noncontroversial in ensuring government agencies do not overstep their 
authority.
  Serving on both the Committee on Small Business and Education and the 
Workforce, Congressman Bean is a passionate voice for our job-creators 
in Congress. I am grateful to serve with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand you say it is irrelevant 
whether it works or not. On my side I think we probably think it is 
relevant.
  As the gentlewoman from California said, we think it is working. We 
think it is advantageous for small businesses. We think it is 
advantageous for minorities. We think it is advantageous for veterans. 
In that context, we think it is very relevant that it seems to work.
  The gentleman who is the chair of the committee didn't say it didn't 
work, he just said they hadn't come to Congress. Now, if they don't 
have the authority to do that, then we ought to raise that issue. I am 
not sure that is the issue you are raising. I think that is the issue 
you were raising.
  The fact of the matter is, fine, then let's have a hearing on it and 
begin. Let's have the authorizing committee that is responsible for 
this say this is not working or we think it is working and we ought to 
continue it. Absent a vote on continuing it, then one could draw the 
conclusion that Congress withdraws its approval of it.
  I think by simply doing this, Members are going to be voting, in 
effect, blind on a program that we on this side think is working for 
the people that it needs to help.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we reject this amendment.

[[Page H5599]]

  

  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for his interest. The issue is one thing. The issue is: Does 
this agency or any agency have the ability to go out on their own on a 
solo career and not have congressional oversight? I say no. I say no.
  We can talk about the program in the cloakroom or in the fireplace 
room and talk about how great it is. Hopefully, we will see eye-to-eye 
that Federal agencies that don't have the authority to go in a 
particular direction shouldn't go in that particular direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my point is we have the right to oversight. 
The gentleman has the right to call them to come and testify and call 
others to testify on whether this program works or doesn't. We haven't 
given up that authority of oversight, as the gentleman refers to. I 
think we ought to exercise that.

                              {time}  1245

  What I don't think we ought to do is eliminate a program that 
apparently works on behalf of people I think all of us want to help.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 40 Offered by Ms. Boebert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my straightforward 
amendment that prohibits funds within this act from being used in 
violation of Federal immigration law for sanctuary city policies.
  The concept of sanctuary city policies directly violate the rule of 
law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution 
gives Congress clear jurisdiction on immigration matters. A nation of 
laws must enforce established laws and not seek ways to circumvent 
them. These sanctuary cities are disregarding Federal statutes by 
harboring thousands of illegal immigrants and providing a safe haven 
for violent criminals.
  My amendment prohibits the use of funds that are appropriated by this 
act from being used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
  This Federal law prohibits sanctuary policies that obstruct law 
enforcement officials from sharing information regarding a person's 
immigration status within the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  More than 200 State and municipal jurisdictions across the country 
have established policies that directly violate the law and shield 
criminal illegal aliens from enforcement.
  There is a complete and total invasion taking place at our southern 
border due to the Biden administration and the left's radical open 
border agenda.
  Since Biden has taken office, Border Patrol has encountered more than 
6.3 million illegal aliens who have illegally entered America, released 
nearly 2.9 illegal aliens into our communities, and let more than 1.7 
million known got-aways evade Border Patrol and enter the country with 
no record or knowledge of who these people are.
  The number of illegal aliens who have entered the interior of the 
United States under the Biden administration now is greater than the 
population of at least 22 States, as well as Washington, D.C.
  It is not just illegal immigrants coming across the southern border, 
but enough fentanyl to kill every American 15 times over. This drug, 
mostly imported from China and continuously smuggled through our 
southern border, is killing children and destroying families throughout 
the country.
  Equally concerning is that in the last fiscal year alone, the FBI 
stopped more than 172 illegals on the terrorist watch list. Our porous 
southern border is literally a major national security risk.
  These open borders and sanctuary city policies are destroying 
America. Cities like Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, and New 
York have continued to beg the Federal Government for more money to 
handle the unprecedented influx of illegal aliens rather than changing 
their illegal alien policies that have exacerbated the problem.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and the committee for their work on 
this bill. I respectfully ask that my colleagues join me in support of 
the rule of law by voting in favor of my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in perplexion which I presume is 
objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I ask the gentlewoman to yield for a question.
  Ms. BOEBERT. It is not my time.
  Mr. HOYER. I ask you to yield.
  Ms. BOEBERT. I have reserved. You are free to speak.
  Mr. HOYER. I am asking if you will yield for a question.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Sure. Ask your question.
  Mr. HOYER. What funds in this bill are used for the purposes you are 
opposed to?
  Ms. BOEBERT. I am sorry. I couldn't hear the gentleman. I was getting 
clarification.
  This is precautionary.
  Mr. HOYER. Precautionary for what?
  I am asking--
  Ms. BOEBERT. There are sanctuary city policies that are in place that 
are allowing the refuge of illegal aliens into these cities, and there 
is an influx in crime and drugs into these cities.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that.
  Ms. BOEBERT. There is no way for these folks to even report what is 
taking place because they are protected under this fake policy that has 
been created that is subduing the actual rule of law that we have in 
the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that, but what you have said is that none of 
the funds in this bill can be spent for that objective.
  Ms. BOEBERT. That is precautionary.
  Mr. HOYER. What funds are in this bill to be spent for that 
objective?
  Ms. BOEBERT. I have seen this administration use all sorts of funds 
to protect illegal aliens, and this is precautionary to ensure that it 
will not be used.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Ms. Boebert. There are no funds in 
this bill to do that, so this is just an opportunity for you to stand 
and perhaps speak about an important subject. I understand that. 
Nevertheless, there are no funds in this bill to accomplish that 
objective.
  You don't believe the chairman would put funds in to accomplish that 
objective, do you?
  I yield.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. I do not trust this administration with any of the 
taxpayer funding that they are handling. They are mishandling our 
taxpayer funds.
  If the gentleman says that there are no funds and agrees that this is 
precautionary, then I would urge that you support this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Do you understand if we do this amendment, then any 
subject that anybody has an interest in would be subject to such an 
amendment?

  Now, the Rules Committee has waived points of order contrary to

[[Page H5600]]

what they said they wanted done when we were in charge because then 
they didn't want points of order so they could raise them.
  There are no funds in this bill, Mr. Chair, for the objective that 
the gentlewoman wants to prevent.
  I guarantee you Chairman Womack would not have included any funds to 
protect such activity.
  I know him, and I know he feels strongly about this.
  This amendment has no place in this bill because there is no money in 
this bill. You can argue about sanctuary cities, you can argue about 
the border, and you can do all of that, but this is not the bill to do 
it on.
  This raises, therefore, a suspicion that somehow there is money in 
this bill that Mr. Womack would have put in or that I would have 
sanctioned to accomplish that objective.
  That is simply not true, Mr. Chairman, and this has no place in this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to direct all 
remarks to the Chair, and to formally yield and reclaim time when under 
recognition.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to state one more time that the 
White House has had a reputation of spending funds to protect illegal 
aliens who have broken our Nation's laws to illegally enter our 
country. I want to make very clear in this financial services bill that 
these funds cannot be allocated in that way.
  If we don't put the cuffs on this administration somewhere, they will 
continue to go rogue and waste the taxpayer dollars that are being 
brought in by the hardworking Americans to fund these services for 
illegal aliens and to protect them in these sanctuary cities.
  I am putting the handcuffs on the Biden administration with this 
commonsense amendment. If the gentleman, as I said, agrees that there 
are no funds, then there should be no problem to say we cannot allocate 
funds to protect these sanctuary cities and these illegal aliens.
  Mr. Chair, I have spoken my piece on this amendment. I am prepared to 
close, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman has said that I have said that 
there are no funds. There are no funds. Nevertheless, she said that 
because of this amendment, she is going to handcuff the administration.
  You can't handcuff the administration prohibiting funds that don't 
exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 41 Offered by Ms. Boebert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay a performance award under section 5384 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to any employee of the Internal 
     Revenue Service.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment to the 
Financial Services and General Government Appropriation Act for fiscal 
year 2024 to prohibit performance awards or bonuses for Senior 
Executive Service employees at the IRS.
  Joe Biden has weaponized the Internal Revenue Service against the 
American people. He started off with a Big Brother proposal directing 
the IRS to snoop on the American people's bank accounts to monitor 
transactions of $600 or more. He then spent $80 billion to build an 
army of 87,000 armed IRS agents to target middle- and low-income 
families and small businesses with a flood of audits and draconian 
enforcement activities.
  It is clear the IRS has long lost its touch with its mission, which 
is to serve taxpayers. American families don't need more audits and red 
tape. My amendment helps return the IRS to its original mission and 
ensure hardworking taxpayers receive satisfactory customer service 
without having to fear a supercharged IRS.
  We need to protect the taxpayers, rein in an unaccountable Federal 
agency, and reverse course from this dangerous path of growing 
bureaucracy and heavy-handed Federal Government.
  I have a message to all of my colleagues here today: If you 
disapprove of the IRS leaking tax information about the President's 
political opponents, then support my amendment.
  If you disapprove of the IRS targeting conservative groups for their 
political beliefs, then support my amendment.
  If you disapprove of the IRS ignoring congressional subpoenas, then 
support my amendment.
  If you disapprove of this agency stonewalling Congress, destroying 
evidence, and lying to the American people, then support my amendment.
  Finally, if you disapprove of IRS senior executives receiving bonuses 
for their work, then support my amendment.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued 
work on the committee.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bost). The gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, it is so sad to hear on this floor 
assumptions made that have little or no basis in truth. It is so sad to 
hear a debate that if you are for or against something that is awful, 
then you are going to be against giving people who perform their 
services in extraordinary ways recognition of that as the private 
sector does all the time.
  It is so sad to hear representation that we are eliminating gas 
stoves that we heard during the course of this debate on this bill, not 
in this instant debate, because it is totally untrue, and it is 
defaming.
  Now, luckily, for Members of Congress, we are essentially 
constitutionally protected from defaming people. We can do that in the 
course of our business on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Nonetheless, it is sad that some of us do it. It is sad that some of 
us demean people who are performing an outstanding and absolutely 
essential service for the United States Government, for the people of 
this country, and to carry out the duties that we give them.
  This assertion of this army of 87,000 people, armed guards at 
everybody's door, has been repeated, I think, probably one million 
times over the last 2 years or year and a half.

                              {time}  1300

  It is not true, and they know it is not true, but they don't care 
whether it is true. They believe that the constant assertion through 
social media and other means becomes fact for people who do not know 
the facts. How sad that we have come to this point.
  I say we have come to the point, but we have been at that point for 
probably a long period of time, where people assert things that are not 
true but do it over and over again. We had a President of the United 
States who did that, and because he did assert it, they believed it.
  Then along comes their chief of staff, and says: We know it wasn't 
true, but we kept telling the American people until they believed it. 
They believed it so much that they perpetrated an insurrection and 
tried to overthrow the legitimate course and duty of the Congress of 
the United States.
  This amendment ought to be rejected because it is irrational to say 
that, in our enterprise, if you do outstanding work, do what we ask you 
to do, and do it effectively, we are not going to recognize the fact 
that you did outstanding service because you are an IRS agent or an IRS 
executive.
  The IRS is the biggest agency in this Treasury Department and in this 
bill, and it is the basis of which all other agencies and departments 
operate because that is where the revenue comes from. The revenue comes 
from that as

[[Page H5601]]

well to pay the debt when we don't have enough dollars to do what we 
have asked them to do.
  I hope that we would not continue to defame and demote--maybe my hope 
is misplaced--as we reduce Federal employees one after another over and 
over to $1 in salary because we don't like what they do and don't like 
the policies they pursue for the administration.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have never been more thrilled to be a part 
of the Republican Party. I would much rather stand with the American 
people than stand in this Chamber and defend 87,000 armed IRS agents.
  I have seen the recruiting requirements that say you must carry a 
firearm and be prepared to use deadly force. This amendment is 
straightforward, saying we don't want to give more money to IRS agents. 
We do not want to give bonuses to IRS agents who target conservative 
groups, who release tax information about the President's political 
opponents, or who ignore congressional subpoenas.
  We have had IRS whistleblowers before the Oversight Committee who 
said that they were told that they must protect Joe Biden's son. That 
is why they became whistleblowers. They said enough is enough. We are 
here for justice. We want what is fair. We are not supporting a 
particular party. They saw the rot within the IRS and came forward.
  I am proud to stand with the American people and say that we should 
not issue bonuses to IRS agents.
  Taxation is theft, and arming 87,000 IRS agents to go after the 
hardworking middle class is just flatout armed robbery.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Burchett

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The salary of Gary Gensler, Chairman of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, shall be reduced to $1.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is very simple. It deals with 
a man named Gary Gensler, who is the head of the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. He has been implementing woke policies and abusing 
the rulemaking process.
  One of the Security and Exchange Commission's primary 
responsibilities is to protect investors. However, rather than 
implementing rules to protect and grow investments, which he is 
supposed to do, Mr. Chair, Gensler is focusing on catering to the 
leftwing mob. He is forcing companies to prioritize Green New Deal-
style climate initiatives and diversity quotas over the interests of 
investors.
  Additionally, Mr. Chair, Chairman Gensler abuses the rulemaking 
process, for which he has been called on the carpet by both parties. He 
continues to put forward many highly controversial rules with little 
time for public comments. During the last Congress, Republicans and 
Democrats both expressed their concerns, as I mentioned, regarding 
Gensler's habit of proposing rules without allowing adequate time for 
public comment.
  Biden's Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed nearly twice 
as many rules as the Trump administration had proposed in the same 
timeframe. This drastic increase under Gensler's leadership 
demonstrates where his real priorities lie, Mr. Chair. He is more 
committed to pushing political agendas on publicly traded companies, 
which he has no business doing, than performing his official duties as 
Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Chairman Gensler's insistence on corrupting the rulemaking process to 
further the Biden administration's radical agenda at the expense of 
investors contradicts his duties as Chairman of the SEC.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment in the 
Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill that 
reduces Chairman Gensler's salary to $1.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, there have been over 55 of these amendments. 
There have been some passed on voice vote. Every one put on the roll 
has lost, and this one will lose.
  It is a nonserious amendment and not offered as a serious effort to 
legislate as so many requested be done, which is why they wanted so 
many amendments.
  These are not serious amendments, and I oppose them.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my friend and mentor.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
  To be clear, I have a record throughout this entire appropriations 
process that will demonstrate that I am not a supporter writ large of 
the Holman rule. I personally think it has been overused, and the 
record can reflect that I don't think I am on the record voting for any 
of the Holman rules to date. I wanted to make that disclosure up front, 
but that is just a personal opinion. That is what I believe.
  The Holman rule is a serious tool in Congress, and I think we have to 
be careful when we are establishing precedents on the use of it, but I 
do think there are times when the Holman rule is justified. 
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
under Chairman Gary Gensler is an example of a time when I think the 
Holman rule can be used as a messenger to the SEC Chairman.
  The health and vibrancy of our markets and our economy at large can 
be tested by an aggressive and overzealous rulemaking agenda. Over the 
last 3 years, that has defined the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Let me be clear: This is not just about how the regulatory process is 
conducted. The weight of the issues and topics under review by Chairman 
Gensler must be considered thoughtfully and comprehensively. 
Unfortunately, they have not been.
  Reckless rulemaking requires climate disclosures from not only public 
companies that the SEC claims but also the private suppliers far 
downstream from these public companies.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, in the interest of time, this list goes on and 
on, to the tune of about 50 proposed and finalized rules by Chairman 
Gensler, a breakneck speed of rulemaking given that he has been 
Chairman for 3 years.
  To me, it is unacceptable, and we have had that dialogue in hearings. 
Speed and volume should not be defining characteristics of the 
rulemaking process.
  Mr. Chair, I stand with the gentleman from Tennessee and the 
gentleman from South Carolina, the authors of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I support the Holman rule in this particular case.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend and mentor, the gentleman 
from Arkansas, for his friendship. When I first got here, he was 
probably one of the most influential people in my life on this floor, 
so I thank him for that, and I thank him for his support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

[[Page H5602]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mrs. Cammack

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available to finalize any 
     rule or regulation that meets the definition of section 
     804(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Cammack) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which would restrict funds at Federal agencies falling under the 
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act from being 
used to finalize any rule or regulation that would have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
  The Biden administration has continually hamstrung the American 
people with agency rules that circumvent congressional oversight. 
Agencies like the SEC and CFPB do nothing to combat the hundreds of 
billions of dollars in regulatory costs that our constituents have been 
faced with since President Biden took office. In fact, they perpetuate 
them.
  Unreasonable regulations relating to climate and ESG disclosure 
requirements, as well as aggressive and abusive IRS enforcement 
measures, are examples of hurdles that our financial agencies place 
upon everyday Americans.
  My amendment seeks to prevent these types of abuses from these 
agencies before finalizing major rules or regulations, which often 
involve major policy decisions that should be decided by Congress' 
elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats.

                              {time}  1315

  By including my amendment in this bill, we restore Congress' Article 
I authority by preventing agencies from imposing rules behind closed 
doors. Instead, we commit ourselves to the way the process is 
intended--transparent, open governance in Congress, in the people's 
House.
  For example, under Chairman Gary Gensler, the SEC has bombarded the 
financial sector with more rules and regulatory proposals than any 
other predecessor since the 2008 global financial crisis. The SEC has 
put forward a total of 47 proposals that substantially affect financial 
markets since Gensler took the chair. In fact, these 47 proposals all 
have $100 million more of industry impact apiece.
  According to the Financial Times, the current SEC stands out for 
their number of proposals that are not mandated by congressional 
legislation. Just 17 percent of Gensler's SEC proposals were required 
under the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, meaning that the majority of 
the SEC's proposals may not be necessary, let alone constitutional. 
This regulatory regime is the quintessential example of executive 
overreach. As The Wall Street Journal editorial board puts it: If it 
moves, the SEC will regulate it.
  Specifically, the SEC's predictive analytics rule and climate 
disclosure rule are perfect examples of costly, misguided agency 
regulations. The predictive analytics rule seeks to prohibit certain 
technologies that investment firms and advisers use to automatically 
inform investors about financial news. Under this rule, companies who 
offer accessible, zero-commission trading would be hamstrung by 
compliance costs that favor firms with larger investment operations.
  Speaking of compliance costs, the SEC rule of climate-related 
disclosure requirements would litter public companies and financial 
disclosures and institutions with unnecessary reporting requirements. 
Banks and companies would have to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and 
conjure up plans to mitigate these climate-related risks. Like many 
other Federal agency rules, there is no clear legal basis for these 
requirements, as they are meant to ultimately advance a political 
agenda rather than the will of the people.
  It is simple, Congress should have oversight of these burdensome 
rules and regulations. We should have an open and transparent process. 
The great thing about this amendment is it is bipartisan. This same 
language was passed earlier this year on this very floor.
  Let's reassert Article I authority. Let's make Congress accountable, 
open, transparent, and take the power back from this overreach.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, this amendment will block all major rulemaking 
by the administration. That is not a policy that we ought to adopt. It 
would be challenging at best and harmful at worst to our country, our 
economy, and our people. I urge its rejection. I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I greatly respect my colleague on the other 
side of the aisle, but I am not quite sure why he is thinking that this 
would be harmful to put more power in the hands of the people's elected 
Representatives.
  In fact, this would encourage transparency. This would encourage 
Members of Congress to do the work that we are hired to do rather than 
unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in a basement somewhere in 
Washington. I think it is critically important that we reassert our 
authority as prescribed by the Constitution.
  Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I rise today in support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from 
Florida to ensure that Congress is conducting the proper oversight of 
the executive branch.
  This amendment mirrors the REINS Act, of which I am a proud original 
cosponsor. This bill passed in the House earlier this year with 
overwhelming support. It is clear that the American people believe the 
overreach by the executive branch must come to an end.
  There are over 2.1 million bureaucrats and not nearly enough 
transparency into the rulemaking process. This amendment appropriately 
defines a major rule so that more attention is put into a rule or 
regulation that has an effect on the economy.
  It is our constitutional duty to keep the executive branch 
accountable, and that is exactly what this amendment does. Checks and 
balances must be reasserted, and we must stop wasteful spending. The 
American people do not want bureaucrats making impactful decisions when 
they are struggling to afford everyday items. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the reason I am opposed to this is not because 
I am opposed to making regulations more clear, less burdensome, and 
less undermining of economic development.
  The reason I am opposed to this amendment is because it is a blanket 
amendment across the board. That I think is harmful to the 
administration of government by any administration, Republican or 
Democrat, no matter how many or how few those regulations may be if 
they make a determination that regulation is necessary.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman saying we ought to do our work. This 
Congress is not doing that very well, of course. They had trouble 
electing a Speaker, had trouble electing a second Speaker, and they are 
having trouble passing appropriations bills. Somebody has got to 
sometimes act. We are not doing a very good job of that, and we ought 
not to

[[Page H5603]]

preclude across the board an administration from doing any major 
rulemaking. I think that is a mistake, and I urge opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Collins

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the salary or expenses of any officer or employee 
     of the Office of the Vice President.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits any funding from 
being used by the Office of the Vice President for salaries and other 
expenses.
  Kamala Harris has been a failure as Vice President, from her 
inability to manage her team effectively, leading to high turnover, to 
her disastrous job as border czar, where she has failed to secure 
anything.
  Let's look at the numbers. Since the Biden-Harris administration took 
office, there have been over 6.2 million illegal crossings of our 
southern border. In September alone, there were 269,735 illegal 
immigrants encountered at the southern border. That is an increase of 
over 300 percent since September of 2020.
  Customs and Border Protection has seized over 27,000 pounds of 
fentanyl just in FY23.
  There have been 169 people whose names were on the terrorist list 
stopped while trying to cross the border.
  Cartels are making more than $13 billion a year from smuggling people 
across our border.
  The Biden-Harris far-left border policies are to blame for this 
crisis.
  What has this border czar done about it? Nothing. The only thing our 
Vice President has succeeded at is failing us.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I 
hope the chairman will also be in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, there are a lot of Vice Presidents I haven't 
agreed with. I would never have contemplated offering, Mr. Chairman, an 
amendment to strike their ability to carry out the duties to which they 
were elected by the American people any more than I would suggest a 
Member of Congress that doesn't perform very well or very efficiently 
or very effectively have their offices defunded. They were elected by 
the people. They are entitled to the resources to carry out those 
duties and responsibilities given to them by the American people.
  I hope this amendment is overwhelmingly rejected. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I think that the facts speak for 
themselves on our border czar, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the chairman of our committee.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding. 
With all due respect to my colleague, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  This bill funded the Office of the Vice President at a 20 percent cut 
from last year, so we have taken steps to send that message, that power 
of the purse message to the Office of the Vice President. This 
amendment would completely eliminate funding for the salary and 
expenses of any employee in the office.
  Now, I agree that the Biden administration is pursuing an agenda that 
is in conflict with what I believe, there is no question about that.
  However, I think it is wrong for us to take our grievances out by 
just carte blanche eliminating funding for the Office of the Vice 
President of the United States. Now, that is just a bridge too far, as 
far as I am concerned.
  We need to have these debates about whether or not border security is 
correct or, you know, pick from the menu of all of the various things 
that divide Republicans and Democrats. But to go this far, I would 
strongly encourage the House of Representatives to take a very sober 
view of an amendment like this and understand that these kinds of 
things cut both ways.
  I would caution us not to enter into the territory where because of 
an issue that we might have some disagreement on that we find it within 
our ability or the course of action to just eliminate the funding for 
the Office of the Vice President. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  I am going to tell you something. I am a businessman. The one problem 
in this country is that southern border down there is wide open. We 
have folks flooding across that place. We have hot spots all over the 
world. We have already announced how many terrorists from the watch 
list we have caught down there.
  As a businessman, I look at that and I say, who is in charge of that? 
That is Vice President Kamala Harris. If you can't change out who is in 
charge of it, then it is our duty as Representatives to make sure that 
she doesn't get paid for not doing her job. The American people should 
no longer be on the hook for Vice President Harris' failures.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Davidson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act, 
     including titles IV and VIII, may be used to support an 
     increase in the weight of the Chinese renminbi in the Special 
     Drawing Rights basket of the International Monetary Fund.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, we rightly recognize one of the chief 
rivals to the United States is China. Really, more specifically, the 
Chinese Communist Party that has a grip on power over the people of 
China, and one of the key tools for their power is their currency.
  The amendment I am offering today would limit the Treasury's ability 
to go along with an organization we helped to create, the International 
Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund is supposed to support 
financial stability in the world. Part of the way they do that is with 
something called special drawing rights.

                              {time}  1330

  This is a basket of currencies that they extend to others, and they 
added the Chinese RMB. In 2016, they officially joined the IMF's elite 
basket of currencies, which determines the value of the IMF's Special 
Drawing Rights.

[[Page H5604]]

  Special Drawing Rights are not only a reserve asset in central banks 
around the world, they also serve as a unit of account for the IMF.
  The IMF's decision was something of a coup for Beijing as the RMB now 
sits in this exclusive club with only the dollar, the euro, the pound 
sterling, and the yen.
  I believe the IMF's elevation of the RMB was premature at the time. 
China lacked rule of law, as it still does today. Nevertheless, the IMF 
thought validating Beijing anyway would somehow encourage their 
government to pursue reform and work within the international 
community.
  None of this has come to pass, of course. China went on to assault 
Hong Kong's democracy. They have increased state control of their 
economy. They threaten Taiwan actively. They act as a lifeline to 
Putin's regime in Russia, and they are actively carrying out a genocide 
against Uyghurs in their own country.
  Rather than look at these facts, the IMF chose last year to not only 
have the RMB in the Special Drawing Rights basket but to increase its 
weight from 10.92 percent to 12.28 percent, making it the third-most 
prominent currency in the basket behind the dollar and the euro.
  Even leaving aside China's aggression at home and abroad, the IMF 
undertook this move despite China's lack of an independent central bank 
and a free-floating currency, as well as China's nontransparent 
policies for their exchange rate management.
  I want to highlight this point. The CCP controls China's currency 
management and monetary policy, and the value and interest rates of the 
Special Drawing Rights are influenced by that now.
  In turn, the Special Drawing Rights interest rate helps determine the 
borrowing costs for IMF member countries, and that rate should be based 
on transparent economic governance, not black box deliberations of the 
Chinese Communist Party.
  Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. My amendment would prohibit the 
Treasury Secretary from supporting an increase in the RMB's weight in 
the Special Drawing Rights currency basket.
  A similar initiative, the Chinese Currency Accountability Act, passed 
the Financial Services Committee unanimously in February. This 
amendment aligns our appropriations with our authorizing committee.
  While I remain baffled as to why Treasury would have allowed the RMB 
to enter the Special Drawing Rights currency basket in the first place 
and certainly to increase its weight, we must prevent this bad 
situation from getting worse, and that is what this amendment does.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to articulate the 
Treasury's position.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, their response to this amendment is at 
first, it is unnecessary as the IMF executive board will not review the 
SDR basket during this U.S. fiscal year, so this will not have an 
impact on this fiscal year.
  Moreover, Treasury says while we agree with the goal of this 
amendment to limit the internationalization of the RMB, we believe that 
it is important to retain some flexibility over the composition of the 
SDR basket so that we can incentivize China to improve its behavior in 
the international monetary system, including with respect to its 
foreign exchange practices.
  Treasury then says we will continue to urge the IMF to push countries 
with SDR basket currencies to adhere to the highest levels of 
transparency and to correct deficiencies or inaccuracies in their 
reported data.
  Essentially, they believe, A, it is unnecessary at this time; and, B, 
that it will not be considered during this fiscal year. Therefore, I 
oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to receive the update that 
the administration doesn't anticipate changing it, but let's be clear.
  That doesn't prohibit them having flexibility. They can actively work 
to decrease the weight of the RMB. They simply can't work to increase 
it. Since they say that is their stated policy goal, I think it 
provides them exactly what they need.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. It 
checks the power and growth of the influence of the Chinese Communist 
Party and their currency, the RMB. It should not grow in its influence. 
That is what this amendment could help accomplish.
  I urge all our colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Emmer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to carry 
     out an enforcement action related to a crypto asset 
     transaction.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chair, regulation by enforcement is a practice all too 
common with this administration. This is particularly the case at the 
SEC and Chair Gary Gensler's approach toward our capital markets and 
financial services industry but especially with our emerging digital 
assets community.
  My amendment seeks to put an end to Chair Gensler's pattern of 
regulatory abuse--a pattern that is crushing American innovation and 
capital formation--without undermining our ability to go after 
criminals and fraudsters.
  Specifically, my amendment prohibits the SEC from using funds for 
enforcement activities related to digital asset transactions until 
Congress passes legislation that gives the SEC jurisdiction over this 
asset class. This will keep Chair Gensler--who has proven himself to be 
ineffective and incompetent--in check while Congress continues working 
to give this industry a chance to grow and develop right here in the 
United States.
  Let's just look at the facts. Under Gensler's leadership, the SEC has 
pursued dozens of enforcement actions against the digital asset 
industry, despite never finalizing a single rule or regulation for the 
industry to follow. Chair Gensler refuses to provide the marketplace 
with clear criteria for digital assets that he would consider to be a 
security. How can this industry comply if there are no rules or 
guidelines to follow?
  On top of that, Chair Gensler has developed a track record of going 
after actors like Coinbase, a publicly traded company desperately 
trying to survive and innovate right here in the United States instead 
of going offshore like so many are forced to do. Gensler has done this 
while missing the bad actors, like FTX and Terra Luna.
  At a time when clear guidance is desperately needed, Chair Gensler 
instead spends taxpayer resources praising himself for targeting 
celebrities like Kim Kardashian while Sam Bankman-Fried was running a 
Ponzi scheme right under his nose.
  What is worse is the SEC doesn't even have jurisdiction from Congress 
over this asset class to begin with. Yet, the SEC has no shame in 
trying to expand their jurisdiction to swallow and destroy the digital 
assets industry through regulation by enforcement.
  Last year, the SEC's director of enforcement admitted during a House 
Financial Services Committee hearing that the SEC pursues enforcement 
actions on entities that are actually outside of its jurisdiction. One 
of these extra-jurisdictional enforcement cases was the SEC's landmark 
crypto enforcement case against Ripple alleging that XRP is a security. 
In July, the Southern District of New York sided

[[Page H5605]]

against the SEC, asserting that XRP is not itself a security.
  In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia circuit found the SEC to be acting arbitrarily and 
capriciously in its refusal to approve Grayscale's Bitcoin spot ETF 
application. Just last month, the Government Accountability Office 
found the SEC to have created an illegal crypto accounting rule that is 
actually out of compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and 
the Congressional Review Act.
  The unique characteristics of digital assets make it hard to fit this 
asset class into any existing regulatory framework. That doesn't mean 
crypto is up for grabs by whatever Federal bureaucratic agency has the 
most taxpayer-funded enforcement resources to burn. Congress is working 
on legislation to establish a framework for how we classify specific 
digital assets, as a security or a commodity, which will dictate the 
regulator of jurisdiction.
  Importantly, while Congress works to pass this necessary legislation, 
my amendment will not prevent future bad actors like FTX from being 
pursued and punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Department 
of Justice, Treasury, and the Office of Foreign Asset Control all have 
existing and sufficient authority to prosecute criminal acts of fraud, 
abuse, tax, or sanctions evasion. Some would even argue that these 
entities have done a better job of attacking fraud and criminal 
activity in this space than Gary Gensler and the SEC.
  This amendment is designed to send an important signal not just to 
the SEC but to every regulatory entity in the Federal Government. 
Congress will hold unelected bureaucrats accountable. SEC Chair Gensler 
cannot continue to abuse the powers of his agency to fulfill a 
political agenda of driving the new and promising digital asset 
industry offshore. Congress must be allowed to finish its legislative 
work so the future of digital asset innovation is determined by 
Americans, not by unelected bureaucrats in December.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, however, that we are doing 
financial services business in this bill, and we are the Financial 
Services Committee to fund regulatory agencies.
  To that extent, I understand its relevance. I must say that it is 
going to be difficult for Members who haven't seen this process by the 
Financial Services Committee to fully understand the ramifications of 
the proposal, and I think that is unfortunate.
  Having said that, I also believe, again from a nonmember of the 
committee, that this cryptocurrency and crypto financial instruments 
certainly need to be looked at and are being looked at on both sides of 
the Congress to ensure that Bankman-Fried actions don't happen to 
defraud a lot of people.
  I really think what will happen here is when we go to conference, 
assuming we go to conference, that this is going to be looked at. We 
are going to hear from Treasury on it and also, obviously, the SEC, to 
see where we ought to land on this issue of no funds to carry out, I 
presume, any enforcement action related to crypto asset transactions.

  I understand the gentleman's comment that there are at least three 
other agencies that would have the ability to move.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the best thing to do--this amendment, 
obviously, is going to move forward, and I'm going to urge both SEC and 
Treasury and the administration to look at it as it moves through 
conference.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate our friend from Maryland and 
his comments, and I do want to point out that he is absolutely correct.
  The concerns here are bipartisan concerns. This is not a Republican 
or Democrat issue. This is an issue about the digital asset space in 
this country. The whole purpose of this amendment is to try and stop 
what we----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I urge support.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mrs. Fischbach

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for regulating or requiring the disclosure of 
     information or data with respect to scope 3 emissions (as 
     defined in the proposed rule titled ``The Enhancement and 
     Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for 
     Investors'' published by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission in the Federal Register on April 11, 2022 (87 Fed. 
     Reg. 21334)) of producers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to 
prohibit funds from being used by the SEC to regulate or require the 
disclosure of data regarding agricultural emissions.
  Mr. Chairman, the SEC under Chair Gensler has been marked by a 
radical and tyrannical enforcement agenda that stretches the bounds of 
the SEC's jurisdiction and buries hardworking men and women in 
bureaucratic busywork.
  Look no further than the SEC's climate-related disclosure rule, which 
would require public companies to disclose the emissions data of their 
supply chains. For food companies and agribusinesses that rely on 
farmers and ranchers, that means collecting emissions data at the farm 
level.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, the SEC has no authority to regulate 
farmers and ranchers. Yet, that is exactly what the Chair is attempting 
to do.
  The SEC is charged with protecting investors and facilitating 
financial market activity, not policing the tens of thousands of family 
farms in my district. Yet, the proposed rule would burden my 
constituents with mountains of paperwork and regulatory burdens if they 
want to do business with a public company.
  These are farmers that, unlike their publicly traded counterparts, do 
not have the compliance, legal, and scientific departments to satisfy 
the requirements under this rule.
  Production agriculture is already regulated by the EPA, the USDA, and 
State and local governments. As a result, farmers and ranchers are 
climate champions, not villains. The last thing they need is more 
unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who have never set foot on a 
farm telling them how to do their jobs.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment eliminates the duplicative, unnecessary, 
burdensome, and ultimately inappropriate regulatory effort and allows 
farmers in my district and throughout the country to do what they do 
best: feed and fuel the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, section 550 of the bill seems to do the same 
thing.
  Reading from the bill itself, it says: ``None of the funds made 
available in this act may be used to finalize, implement, or enforce 
the proposed rule entitled `The Enhancement and Standardization of 
Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,'' Federal reg, et cetera--
``or any substantially similar rule.''
  Is that the same effect as this amendment?
  Mr. WOMACK. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.

[[Page H5606]]

  

  Mr. WOMACK. It may be duplicative, but it is twice as nice, so we 
will proceed.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I will be half as articulate about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is no issue in being 
duplicative and very clear on what we are trying to accomplish with 
this amendment because it is important to make sure that we are 
protecting the farmers, those people, like I said before, who feed and 
fuel the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, 
and I rise in support.
  Plainly and simply, environmental policing is not within the SEC's 
scope. It is just not. I know this process that we have undergone this 
morning sounds a lot like we are ganging up on Gensler, and maybe we 
are, and for good reason.
  Scope 3 emissions are hard to quantify, requiring the shifting of 
information needed from outside partnering companies like family 
farmers. The information that would need to be reported to bigger 
companies the farmers rely on for business is overly burdensome.
  Farmers are American heroes. They don't need any more negative input 
factors on how they feed, clothe, and fuel this Nation. They already 
have enough to deal with--high inflation, markets, weather.
  Somebody has to stand up for the family farmer, and that is why I am 
proud to support my colleague from Minnesota's amendment here, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chair, the farmer needs an advocate, and that is what we are 
doing.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, from what I understand, the chairman is saying 
that standing up twice is twice as good as standing up once.
  Mr. Chair, let me say something about my friend Mr. Gensler, whom I 
have known since he was a young boy. His father was a friend of mine 
when I was in the Maryland Senate. Chair Gensler is a good man. He has 
been in at least two administrations, at this point in time, doing an 
important job. Some people may differ with him, but he is an honest, 
hardworking, extraordinarily intelligent representative chosen by the 
administration to carry out their policies.
  I would be negligent not to say that of somebody I have known so long 
and who I believe has great integrity, although he may have differences 
with people.
  Mr. Chairman, we have already said this, but we are going to say it 
again.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Chairman, let me echo some of the things that the 
chairman said regarding protecting the farmers.
  We have to protect the farmers. It is a national security issue. It 
is a food issue. It is a fuel issue.
  It is important that we make sure that we get the legislation and the 
bills right, the language right, in order to protect them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Fitzgerald

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Insurance Office to implement, 
     administer, or enforce subsection (e)(6) of section 313 of 
     title 31, United States Code. Additionally, none of the funds 
     made available by this Act may be used by the Office of 
     Financial Research to implement, administer, or enforce 
     section 5343(f) of title 12, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would repeal the 
subpoena authority of the Treasury's Federal Insurance Office. 
Additionally, it removes the subpoena authority of the Office of 
Financial Research.
  For over 150 years, State insurance regulators and the law as passed 
by those State legislatures have regulated insurance companies, and it 
has worked out very well.
  The Federal Insurance Office, FIO, created under Dodd-Frank, has 
grown increasingly aggressive in collecting data from insurance 
companies, most recently issuing a proposed data collection to assess 
``climate-related financial risk.''
  Despite working with State regulators on previous efforts, FIO 
intentionally chose not to collaborate with State regulators on this 
climate data call.
  Not only has the office been unclear with how they intend to use the 
data they collect, but the effort would be duplicative in many ways as 
many States already collect a similar but maybe not exact set of data, 
as required by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chair, any efforts by Treasury or FIO to sidestep State insurance 
regulators blatantly undermine congressional intent. That is why I 
introduced the Insurance Data Protection Act to repeal FIO's subpoena 
power. The amendment would have the same effect as the bill, and I am 
pleased many of my colleagues have supported that.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is another time when we retreat from 
oversight. We talk a lot about oversight on the Committee on 
Appropriations. We talk a lot about oversight in the authorizing 
committees, that we need to find out what the people are doing, what we 
asked them to do, that they are doing it properly, and that they are 
serving the American people as we want them to do.
  The same is true, of course, of those folks who serve in the 
regulatory agencies, Treasury and others, to make sure that the 
consumers are being treated fairly. I don't know why we keep retreating 
from that.
  If they do wrong, we ought to call them out for doing that. If they 
are doing too much, we ought to call them out for doing too much. To 
say that they can't do it undermines the consumer and undermines the 
American people who are expecting us to make sure that people are 
treating them fairly, on the up and up, and not taking advantage of 
them, not because they are not smart, because they are, but they may 
not be expert on what they are dealing with.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I once again say that State regulators 
have done a wonderful job in this area for many years, and I think they 
should continue to be the focus of any of this data collection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Fitzgerald

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

[[Page H5607]]

       Sec. 902.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any rule 
     defining or describing unfair methods of competition for 
     purposes of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et 
     seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds 
being made available to the FTC from being used to issue any rule 
defining or describing unfair methods of competition for purposes of 
the Federal Trade Commission Act.
  The FTC has issued substantive rules concerning ``unfair methods of 
competition,'' UMC, as it is referred to in financial services, 
including a near-blanket ban on noncompete agreements.
  Since Chair Khan has taken over, the FTC has become a partisan weapon 
to enact sweeping antitrust policy that expands agency power and 
discards decades of precedent. Chair Khan is basing this authority on 
tenuous legal ground that predates the major questions doctrine.
  As the Supreme Court made clear in West Virginia v. EPA, an executive 
agency needs clear authorization from Congress to issue a regulation 
that has great ``economic and political significance.''
  Unfair competition rulemaking would be a claim of quasi-legislative 
power that would distract the agency from its core mission of case-by-
case expert application of the FTC Act through administrative 
adjudication. It would also be inconsistent with the explicit grants of 
rulemaking authority that Congress has given the FTC on consumer 
protection issues.
  This is not what they are looking for on competitive grounds. 
Allowing this much authority to the FTC, which oversees nearly all 
aspects of our economy, would open the door to significantly more 
harmful rules that would empower this administration to coerce 
companies to bow to what I consider to be a radical agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me read the remarks of the Commission in 
response to this amendment. It says: The amendment would prevent the 
FTC from implementing, administering, or enforcing any rule it may 
promulgate pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed 
a ban on employers imposing noncompete restrictions on workers.
  Workers are locked in sometimes because they have no other option.

                              {time}  1400

  It then goes on to say that evidence shows that noncompete 
restrictions are reducing the competitiveness of labor markets and 
depriving businesses of a talent pool they need to enter, build, or 
expand. The FTC estimates that the proposed rule would increase 
workers' total earnings by nearly $300 billion per year, and about 30 
million Americans are bound by a noncompete clause.
  In other words, what the effect of this amendment would be is having 
30 million workers get less pay because of the noncompete because they 
have no place to go.
  We passed legislation on noncompetes, which have been used by 
businesses over time to trap their employees.
  This amendment is so broad that it may be used to implement, 
administer, or enforce any rule defining or describing unfair methods 
of competition.
  Why would we adopt an amendment that says the FTC cannot tell people 
about unfair competition? I can't conceive of any Member wanting to say 
to the American public that we are not going to let them even tell you 
that there are unfair competitive practices going on.
  That doesn't seem to me to make common sense, and it certainly 
doesn't make sense for employees.
  I hope that we will defeat this amendment as way too broad and way 
too harmful to men and women in the workplace. I don't know the figure, 
but the FTC says 30 million people, as much as $300 billion in reduced 
wages--that is 30 million people, so that is a lot of people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge that Congress, at this point in time, on this bill, 
not do this without much greater thought about the ramifications to 30 
million people.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, my short answer would be because this is 
our job, not the Commission's job. This is our job. That is the point 
of the amendment, to put the power back in the hands of Congress and 
not have these rogue agencies.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I agree that it is our job. The once measured, productive, and 
independent FTC has, in recent years, certainly under this 
administration and Chairwoman Khan, turned into an agency that has 
disposed of tested and proven operations and rulemakings.
  Gone are the days of competition based on prices, products, and 
business innovation. Today, we have an FTC that is guided by political 
whims and I guess the overall notion that big has to be bad.
  As a result, numerous rulemakings have raised serious questions for 
the American people and American businesses of all sizes, which is 
especially true for rules developed under the FTC's unfair methods of 
competition standard, which this amendment prohibits, including the 
ill-advised noncompete rulemaking.
  I stand here today in support of my friend from Wisconsin's amendment 
in order to rein in the Biden administration's FTC by prohibiting 
section 5 actions and the suspension of the early termination to 
premerger notification filings.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful amendment, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I think we all understand that the Chair of the 
FTC is a controversial figure. I get that. To draw a piece of 
legislation this broadly, I think, misserves the role that the Congress 
established the Commission to pursue.
  We can certainly step in when there are abuses. This says any rule--
good rule, bad rule, no rule. None of the funds to implement, 
administer, or enforce any rule, not the rule that is necessarily under 
consideration that we have been discussing, but any rule.
  I think that is bad policy, and I think, as I have said, it is 
dangerous to the American worker and the American purchaser of goods. I 
think that we ought to hone in on the particular and not paint with 
such a broad brush that will cause harm to the ability of the agency to 
do what we set it up to do.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I simply, once again, urge an ``aye'' 
vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Molinaro of New York.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mrs. Harshbarger of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 18 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Ogles of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 24 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 37 by Mr. Barr of Kentucky.
  Amendment No. 38 by Mr. Barr of Kentucky.
  Amendment No. 39 by Mr. Bean of Florida.
  Amendment No. 42 by Mr. Burchett of Tennessee.

[[Page H5608]]

  Amendment No. 44 by Mr. Collins of Georgia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Molinaro

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 2, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro), on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 336, 
noes 86, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 623]

                               AYES--336

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Auchincloss
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Beatty
     Bentz
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Boebert
     Bost
     Boyle (PA)
     Brecheen
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Case
     Casten
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Clyde
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Connolly
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson
     Davis (NC)
     De La Cruz
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Evans
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel, Lois
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hayes
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houchin
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Ivey
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kuster
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Landsman
     Langworthy
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Magaziner
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Manning
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClellan
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCormick
     McGarvey
     McHenry
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Moylan
     Mrvan
     Murphy
     Neguse
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Peltola
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pfluger
     Plaskett
     Porter
     Posey
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Raskin
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Santos
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Self
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spartz
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Strong
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Vasquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                                NOES--86

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Balint
     Barragan
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Brown
     Bush
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Correa
     Crockett
     Davis (IL)
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Fletcher
     Foushee
     Frost
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Gomez
     Green, Al (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (PA)
     Lieu
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McBath
     Moore (WI)
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Ramirez
     Ross
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (MS)
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Torres (NY)
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Williams (GA)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bishop (NC)
     Cammack
     Franklin, Scott
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     James
     Larsen (WA)
     McCarthy
     McGovern
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1433

  Mses. CLARKE of New York, BALINT, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, and Ms. 
PELOSI changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. TORRES of California, Mr. BERA, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Messrs. 
AUCHINCLOSS, EVANS, CONNOLLY, HOYER, Mses. HOYLE of Oregon, LOIS 
FRANKEL of Florida, Messrs. SCOTT of Virginia, SOTO, MFUME, GOLDMAN of 
New York, TONKO, Ms. SEWELL, Messrs. LEVIN, CARTER of Louisiana, BISHOP 
of Georgia, and Ms. SCANLON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, during rollcall Vote No. 623 on amendment 2 
to H.R. 4664, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should 
have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Grothman

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 9, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 306, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 624]

                               AYES--115

     Allen
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Banks
     Bean (FL)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Curtis
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Ellzey
     Estes
     Fallon
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Loudermilk
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Mann
     Massie
     McClintock
     McCormick
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Mills
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moran
     Nehls
     Norman
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Steube
     Strong
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Zinke

                               NOES--306

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Alford
     Allred
     Amodei
     Auchincloss
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Balint
     Barr

[[Page H5609]]


       
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bentz
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bice
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Ciscomani
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     De La Cruz
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duarte
     Edwards
     Emmer
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Ezell
     Feenstra
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flood
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Mike
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Gottheimer
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Khanna
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     Landsman
     Langworthy
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Letlow
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Malliotakis
     Manning
     Mast
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     McHenry
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Moylan
     Mrvan
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Pence
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Reschenthaler
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Valadao
     Van Orden
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Williams (NY)
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Yakym

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Babin
     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Jackson Lee
     James
     Larsen (WA)
     McCarthy
     Morelle
     Mullin
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1438

  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I was absent from this vote. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 624.


             Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Harshbarger.

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 15, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 238, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 625]

                               AYES--187

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Curtis
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kustoff
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bice
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crenshaw
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Mike
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     LaHood
     LaLota
     Landsman
     Larson (CT)
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Moylan
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib

[[Page H5610]]


     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     McCarthy
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Salazar
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1442

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 18, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, 
noes 286, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 626]

                               AYES--140

     Alford
     Allen
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Burchett
     Burlison
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Ellzey
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kustoff
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Mills
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Norman
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Duyne
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--286

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Auchincloss
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Balint
     Barr
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bice
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Burgess
     Bush
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Ciscomani
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emmer
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Feenstra
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flood
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Mike
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     James
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Khanna
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     LaHood
     LaLota
     Landsman
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mace
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     McHenry
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Moylan
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Reschenthaler
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Orden
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Nehls
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Scalise
     Webster (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1446

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 21, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles), on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 246, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 627]

                               AYES--183

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Moylan
     Murphy
     Nehls

[[Page H5611]]


     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--246

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Bacon
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bice
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Ciscomani
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Mike
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     James
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     LaLota
     Landsman
     Larson (CT)
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Molinaro
     Moore (WI)
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1450

  Mrs. RADEWAGEN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 24, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 257, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 628]

                               AYES--172

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Moylan
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Yakym

                               NOES--257

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Bacon
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bice
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Ciscomani
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Mike
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     James
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     LaLota
     Landsman
     Larson (CT)
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mace
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Miller (OH)
     Molinaro
     Moore (WI)
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Santos
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Steel
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Valadao
     Van Orden
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton

[[Page H5612]]


     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Williams (NY)
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1454

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Barr

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stauber). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 37, printed in part B of House 
Report 118-269 offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 174, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 629]

                               AYES--250

     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Caraveo
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Costa
     Craig
     Crane
     Crawford
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     Davis (NC)
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Golden (ME)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Houlahan
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Landsman
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Leger Fernandez
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Levin
     Lieu
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Magaziner
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Manning
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Moylan
     Mrvan
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Peters
     Pfluger
     Plaskett
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Spanberger
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Sykes
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Vasquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wild
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--174

     Adams
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gaetz
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Greene (GA)
     Grijalva
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sablan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stansbury
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bishop (NC)
     Crenshaw
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Spartz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1459

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Barr

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 38, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 210, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 630]

                               AYES--219

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney

[[Page H5613]]


     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Moylan
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--210

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1505

  Mr. FERGUSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Bean of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 39, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 220, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 631]

                               AYES--205

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moran
     Moylan
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Radewagen
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--220

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duarte
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     James
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Landsman
     Larson (CT)
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Malliotakis
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

[[Page H5614]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Miller (WV)
     Moore (UT)
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Posey
     Pressley
     Salazar
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1508

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 631, Bean of Florida amendment 39.


                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Burchett

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 42, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett), on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 252, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 632]

                               AYES--175

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia, Mike
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Norman
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym

                               NOES--252

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Auchincloss
     Bacon
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Ciscomani
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flood
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     James
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Khanna
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larson (CT)
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Moylan
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Pence
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Steel
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Griffith
     Hoyle (OR)
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1512

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Collins

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 44, printed in part B of House Report 
118-269 offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106, 
noes 322, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 633]

                               AYES--106

     Alford
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Boebert
     Bost
     Burchett
     Burlison
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Gallagher
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Jackson (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Mills
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moylan
     Nehls
     Norman
     Ogles
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Roy
     Santos
     Schweikert
     Self
     Smith (MO)
     Spartz
     Steube
     Strong
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Williams (TX)
     Wittman

                               NOES--322

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Auchincloss
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bentz
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bice
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer

[[Page H5615]]


     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brecheen
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Burgess
     Bush
     Calvert
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carey
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Ciscomani
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duarte
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Ezell
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flood
     Foster
     Foushee
     Foxx
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Mike
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gonzalez-Colon
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Issa
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     James
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Khanna
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     Landsman
     Langworthy
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawler
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luna
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Massie
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McClellan
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norton
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Owens
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Pence
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Williams (NY)
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bishop (NC)
     Gimenez
     Hoyle (OR)
     Jackson Lee
     Larsen (WA)
     Morelle
     Norcross
     Phillips
     Pressley
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1516

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Fitzgerald

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 902.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the November 10, 
     2022, ``Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair 
     Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act, Commission File No. P221202''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the FTC 
from bringing cases under Section 5 that deviate from traditional 
antitrust statutes commonly known as the Sherman Act and the Clayton 
Act.
  Since the start of the administration, the FTC has taken several 
steps that stray from traditional procedures and norms while pushing 
the limit on statutory bounds Congress had already placed in this area.
  The FTC act does not define ``unfair methods of competition.'' In 
2015, the FTC issued the statement of enforcement principles that 
clarified the priority of consumer welfare in the application of the 
antitrust laws through the FTC Act.
  In particular, it has confined its Section 5 cases to conduct that 
diminishes consumer welfare by harming competition or the competitive 
process as opposed to conduct that merely harms individual competitors 
or poses public policy concerns unrelated to competition.
  The 2015 statement was replaced by an ambiguous new statement in 
November of 2022 that causes confusion and strays from the rule of law.
  Rather than promoting competition, the FTC is imposing more costs on 
businesses, driving up prices for consumers that simply pile onto 
inflation.
  If the FTC and the unaccountable bureaucrats at other agencies such 
as the FDIC continue to stray from the rule of law, Americans will face 
higher prices, less innovation, and reductions in quality as these 
agencies seek unchecked authority to regulate and micromanage the 
American economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment would prevent the FTC from implementing its policy statement 
explaining the scope of the commission's authority over unfair methods 
of competition.
  It will create confusion and legal uncertainty in cases in which the 
FTC seeks to use this authority to stop unfair methods of competition 
that hurts consumers, honest small businesses, and workers.
  The November 2022 policy statement informs the public, business 
community, and antitrust bar how the agency interprets the law based on 
principles from prior case law and agency.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that is the issue, 
that there is more confusion now that the FTC has kind of wandered away 
from what ultimately was legal precedent.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I simply would urge an ``aye'' vote, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1530


               Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Fitzgerald

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 902.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the February 4, 
     2021, suspension of early termination to filings made under 
     section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page H5616]]

  

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds 
from being made available to the FTC to enforce the suspension of early 
terminations to merger filings made under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.
  The FTC is authorized to terminate this waiting period early upon the 
request of the parties or on their own. After determining that the 
transaction does not pose significant competitive concerns, the ruling 
will be made.
  In February 2021, the early termination process was ``temporarily'' 
suspended due to the impact of COVID, and the suspension remains in 
place nearly 3 years later. Prior to the suspension, early termination 
was granted in approximately half of all reported transactions.
  The world obviously has moved on from COVID, and it is time for the 
FTC to move on, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Current law requires that a party wishing to complete an acquisition 
must delay the transaction for at least 30 days following the 
submission of a pre-merger notification to give the FTC and DOJ an 
opportunity to review the transaction and determine whether to 
investigate it further. The statute gives the FTC and DOJ the ability 
to grant an individual case exemption from this requirement to wait 30 
days. Granting this early termination, however, consumes agency 
resources, and the delay for parties associated with suspending early 
termination is minimal.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I simply move an ``aye'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 52 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement the proposed revisions, published on 
     April 6, 2023, to OMB Circular A-4.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to prohibit 
the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, from implementing its April 
6, 2023, revisions to OMB Circular A-4.
  These revisions are an attempt to rewrite and water down the 
regulatory guardrails currently in place so that the Biden 
administration can promulgate regulations that dramatically overstate 
the benefits and underrepresent the costs.
  The Biden administration has big plans to spend your hard-earned 
money and reshape your way of life. They are working to concoct all 
manner of massively expensive regulations, including rules on climate 
change, social equity, income redistribution, and creating a ``social 
cost of carbon.''
  However, even the profligate Biden administration has realized that 
it faces checks and guardrails on its regulatory authorities as a 
result of OMB's Circular A-4, which provides objective and nonpartisan 
guidance to agencies for considering the impacts of different 
regulatory actions.
  OMB Circular A-4 came from a 1993 Clinton-era executive order 
providing agencies with a framework and guardrails for considering 
different regulatory approaches that truly maximize benefits for the 
American people and minimize costs.
  The April 6, 2023, revisions to OMB Circular A-4 are a departure from 
bipartisan and widely accepted practices and principles and are a 
thinly veiled attempt to push through the radical leftist agenda by 
stacking the deck in favor of extremely costly regulations.
  Perhaps the most egregious part of these revisions to Circular A-4 is 
that they will allow agencies to consider not only the benefits of 
regulations to Americans, who are the ones footing the bill, but 
benefits that accrue across the entire world. This would surely result 
in agencies dramatically overstating the purported benefits of 
regulations that can be seen as having global benefits, such as 
anything invoking the phrases ``climate change'' or ``social cost of 
carbon.''
  In order to enact its radical agenda, the Biden administration needs 
to rewrite OMB Circular A-4 so that the cost of its regulatory regime 
can be minimized and the benefits dramatically overstated.
  We must reject the attempt to ``stack the deck'' so the Biden 
administration can radically reshape our lives and reach even deeper 
into our pockets.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  The proposed revisions that this amendment seeks to block to OMB 
Circular A-4 include updates that consider the social cost of carbon 
and other climate-related factors in regulatory impact analyses. This 
change recognizes the urgency of addressing climate change and aligns 
Federal agencies with efforts to mitigate its impacts.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, we do not need this concoction of ``social 
cost of carbon'' visited upon us in this country that will cost us lots 
and lots of money.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, again, we need to stop the Biden 
administration from implementing its revisions to OMB Circular A-4. We 
don't need to water down the regulatory guardrails currently in place 
and dramatically overstate the benefits and underrepresent the costs of 
their rules. This needs to be stopped.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Fry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the salary or expenses of any officer or employee 
     of the Department of the Treasury Climate Hub.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce an amendment that 
prohibits the funding of the Treasury Department's wasteful Climate Hub 
initiative, which was rolled out by the Biden administration in 2021.
  My constituents sent me to Washington to restore fiscal sanity to our 
Federal Government and get back to

[[Page H5617]]

the basics. It makes zero sense to have a climate hub under the 
Treasury Department.
  This country is over $33 trillion in debt. Americans are tired of 
seeing their tax dollars used to bloat and embolden Federal agencies. 
They are tired of seeing these agencies usurping power to pursue 
extreme agendas. They are tired of this Biden administration turning a 
blind eye to address real problems that Americans face while pursuing 
an agenda that only liberal elites benefit from.
  They have loosely defined their so-called climate strategy while 
pumping billions and billions of dollars into pursuing and enforcing 
out-of-touch regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, as our country sinks deeper and deeper into debt every 
day, I see no basis for a climate hub to exist in the Department that 
should be focused on our country's finances. Instead of prioritizing 
legitimate functions within the Treasury Department, such as promoting 
economic growth in America, managing our government's finances 
effectively, and ensuring the soundness of our financial system, Mr. 
Chairman, the Treasury Department's Climate Hub is just another example 
of how Democrats and this administration want our Federal Government to 
grow in scope and power and ignore the core functions of their mission.
  Time and time again, we have seen this administration embark upon a 
rogue spending spree in the name of climate change and apply its own 
definition of fiscal responsibility to its decisionmaking. Rather than 
confronting the immediate challenges that face our country, Washington 
bureaucrats are caught up in their own climate policy echo chamber, and 
it seems to me that many of them care more about a photo op than 
enacting sound and well-thought-out policy.
  This administration has telegraphed to the American people that 
climate change is the only threat to our humanity and is more serious 
than nuclear war. Everyday Americans can see right through the 
hypocrisy of this administration. I remind everyone that Americans 
deserve better from their government.
  My amendment would put an end to the Treasury Department's wasteful 
Climate Hub. The United States Treasury has absolutely no reason to use 
taxpayer funds for this initiative.
  I am committed to standing up for fiscal responsibility, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Treasury's Climate Hub was created to leverage the Department's 
finance and financial mitigation efforts to confront the growing threat 
of climate change.
  In just over 2 years, the hub has been instrumental in the 
implementation of the tremendously successful Inflation Reduction Act. 
The hub also contributed to successful negotiations that led to a 
substantial public-private climate finance commitment with South Africa 
and Indonesia.
  This amendment would impede the Treasury's climate policy strategy as 
our Nation faces growing climate threats.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, again, I think the basis of this is that we 
must get back to the basics. The Treasury Department has no basis for 
undertaking this initiative.
  Mr. Chair, I continue to urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept that every agency can focus 
its time and resources on aspects outside of their design and control. 
If we ever hope to get our economy back on track and our country back 
on track, we can't continue to allow this administration or the 
Treasury Department to ignore its core responsibilities.
  I am proud to introduce this amendment, and I once again urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Gaetz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the acquisition of property for a new fully 
     consolidated headquarters of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, the FBI wants a massive new complex for 
their Washington, D.C., area activities. They want to spend more than 
$300 million on that complex.
  Though the FBI has an employee base that is about 2.3 percent of the 
United States military, Mr. Chairman, they are literally asking for 
something that is larger than the Pentagon for the FBI.
  My amendment would disallow any planning, spending, or distribution 
of funds for that purpose. I don't believe that the FBI deserves a 
massive new headquarters or Washington field office.
  The activities inside of Washington, the Greater Washington metro 
area, have really driven a lot of the investigative work we have done. 
It is not bad folks from the FBI out of some field office in middle 
America or elsewhere in the country. It is the Washington, D.C.-based 
activities that have pressured other field offices for no good law 
enforcement reason. It is the D.C.-based entities that have suppressed 
credible investigative leads into criminal conduct over the objections 
of other bureaus and offices, and they have initiated investigations 
into American citizens merely for engaging in constitutionally 
protected speech.
  They have attempted to entrap Members of the United States Senate by 
holding false classified briefings. That is the testimony we got from 
Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson.
  They have also worked hard to censor factual information harmful to 
their preferred political candidates, notably the Hunter-Biden laptop 
story that the FBI based in the D.C. metro area was involved in 
cajoling censorship of.
  Building a new headquarters would condone, reinforce, and enable the 
Washington field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 
nefarious behavior. We shouldn't do it, and we should adopt this 
amendment to ensure that is the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, my thanks to the minority side for giving me 
an opportunity to speak. I rise in opposition to the gentleman from 
Florida's amendment.
  We are not always going to hate the FBI. I realize there are people 
on my side of the aisle that don't like some of the activities of the 
FBI. I am not going to pick an argument on that.
  What I will argue is that it is bad policy for the Congress to be 
taking steps to deny a Federal agency that is in serious need, in my 
opinion, of an improvement to their headquarters.
  Now, notice I said improvement. I didn't say some massive, big 
expansion, necessarily. What I do know is that when I toured the FBI 
headquarters, I saw it in a state of disrepair that is going to need 
the attention of the owners of that property. That is us. To

[[Page H5618]]

deny the FBI the opportunity to be able to explore other alternatives, 
I think, is a bit shortsighted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. WOMACK. The fact is the building is crumbling, and there is going 
to be a need to do something. What that something is, I am not an 
expert on. I think it would be wrong for us to be taking this action 
today pursuant to this amendment without having at least a hearing and 
an opportunity for the people responsible for the facilities--FBI, GSA, 
any other stakeholder--to be able to help us understand what the 
situation is today and what the needs are of tomorrow. That discussion 
can take place, should take place, but I think it is a bit shortsighted 
and premature for us to be taking the action that this amendment would 
call for here today.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, it is not my grave concern that the FBI's 
building is crumbling. It is my grave concern that the civil liberties 
of Americans are crumbling. I wish we were more worried about that and 
less worried about whether or not we have new carpet and wallpaper at 
the FBI building.
  My colleague from Arkansas says that the FBI headquarters is in a 
state of disrepair. Mr. Chair, it is the FBI itself that is in a state 
of disrepair.
  While my colleague from Arkansas may be right that we may not always 
hate the FBI, how about while we are most concerned about the things 
they are doing we not go build them a new $300 million building.
  My colleague says there needs to be a hearing. Let me tell you about 
the hearing that mattered to me. Frankly, many of my Democrat 
colleagues are also worried about civil liberties. That was the hearing 
where we learned that the FBI has conducted over 278,000 illegal 
queries on the FISA system, or the hearing that said that the Inspector 
General found that 38 times an hour these people were violating FISA.
  The notion that we would stand here and defend them, frankly, is 
deeply disappointing. I think those folks deserve to sit in the rat-
infested J. Edgar Hoover Building until they get their act straight 
with America's civil liberties.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank the 
chairman for his comments.
  I understand what the gentleman, Mr. Gaetz, is saying. His ire is 
directed at people. The people will be transitory. People come and go. 
Members come and go from the Congress of the United States.
  What will not be transitory is the ability to have a critically 
important agency for us in the long-term to carry out its duty, which 
is, after all, to defend America, our Constitution, from enemies both 
foreign and domestic, and their duties have been changed to a 
significant degree since 9/11.
  What this structure that is proposed to be built is supposed to do is 
to accommodate the fact that the present building is falling down and 
is dangerous to those who work there, some of whom are clerical people 
not making any decisions with respect to policy. I would think the 
gentleman would be concerned about their safety, as am I, and as is the 
chairman, and the safety of those, frankly, who walk around the 
building. If the gentleman visited there, he is going to see netting 
around the building because the concrete is falling off the building.
  I would share, obviously, the chairman's view. I am not totally 
objective. They are going to build it somewhere in this region. I live 
in this region. I am supportive of this region.
  I think we shouldn't transfer ire against the people who are in 
positions in the FBI at this point in time.
  This building, when and if it is built, is going to be built sometime 
in the future and is absolutely essential. FBI Directors preceding the 
present FBI Director a number of times have said this is needed. 
Experts have said it is needed. The GSA says it is needed. I would hope 
that we would not, because of the temporary displeasure or ire or anger 
or stronger feeling, if you want to express it, of the present 
occupants or the actions they are taking, would not adversely reflect 
on the judgment as to whether or not a new capital facility for a 
critically important agency is necessary at this time.
  I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. I don't 
expect that to happen. If he doesn't withdraw it, I hope it is 
defeated.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, where I think Leader Hoyer is correct is that 
this effort would be incomplete in the absence of major reforms to FISA 
and the other authorities that are abused, no matter who the people 
are. The people have changed and the corruption has remained the same 
at the FBI. Under Republican and Democrat leadership, we have seen 
consistent abuses of Americans' civil liberties. To take tax money away 
from our fellow Americans, who are the victims at times of these 
abuses, and then build a new center for the FBI seems deeply unwise to 
me.

  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the 
purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I don't want any misinterpretation that I 
adopted the gentleman's premise as to the activities of the FBI. I 
disagree with that.
  Mr. GAETZ. I appreciate that clarification, and I don't think anyone 
would confuse his views with mine as it relates to the FBI.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank God for that.
  Let me say that in the concept of what we are doing, this is 
necessary, forgetting about any of the other issues.
  I understand what he is saying. I disagree with him, but I appreciate 
his position and why he is saying it. To be so, in my opinion, 
shortsighted that we delay further--this building has been delayed. The 
first request for new facilities was 2009, so we are now talking a 
decade-and-a-half essentially. That was my point, but I don't want to 
be confused that I adopt his premise on the FBI activities.
  Mr. GAETZ. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the distinction, and I am grateful that there 
are a number of Democrats, like Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Nadler, who are 
working very closely with Republicans to try to reform these 
authorities so that people's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated. 
Doing that alongside creating some new $300 million monstrosity for the 
FBI, that is, quite literally, larger than the Pentagon, sends entirely 
the wrong message, and that would support adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I stand with the bipartisan statesmen who have 
argued against this amendment. I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


            Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Good of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act, 
     including titles IV and VIII, may be used to require any 
     individual to receive a vaccine against COVID-19.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Good) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my 
amendment that would ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used to 
implement a vaccine mandate. This amendment applies across the Federal 
Government as well as to the District of Columbia since the

[[Page H5619]]

District falls under the oversight of the Congress and uses taxpayer 
dollars for its operation as the seat of the United States Government.
  We cannot forget how the COVID lockdowns were exploited by the 
government to infringe on the personal liberties of Americans. These 
tyrannical lockdowns and mandates were used to inflict unneeded 
economic damage on small towns in rural America and on businessowners 
across the country.
  The government crushed the economy during COVID with unjustified 
lockdowns, lockouts, restrictions, mandates, and more. The government 
harmed and mistreated our children during COVID by closing schools, 
requiring masks, and enforcing vaccines on those who were never truly 
at risk from the virus. The government suppressed information and 
perpetuated lies. The government prevented doctors and healthcare 
providers from doing what they believed was best for their patients to 
combat COVID.
  The government trampled on basic liberties such as the freedom of 
speech and expression, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, 
the freedom to make a living or to operate your business, the freedom 
of movement and travel, the freedom to educate your children, and much 
more.
  The government lied about the risk of the virus. The government lied 
about the effectiveness of the vaccine. The government lied about the 
need to wear a mask. The government treated everyone like those who 
were truly at risk, the elderly and those with extra comorbidity 
factors.
  The government forced the termination of frontline medical personnel, 
first responders, law enforcement, and military personnel for not 
getting a vaccine, regardless of whether or not they were at serious 
risk or had already had the virus, and therefore, had natural immunity. 
The government stripped away the right to privacy, medical freedom, and 
bodily autonomy. The government didn't follow the science.
  History will judge the government harshly for the harm done to the 
American people, especially to our children, during the pandemic.
  President Biden mercifully, finally declared the COVID-19 public 
health emergency over just on May 11 of this year. This was long past 
due.
  Unfortunately, though, vaccine mandates are still in place in some 
places across the country. In fact, nearly 100 universities across the 
country still require a COVID-19 vaccine just to attend school this 
year, for college students who were never at serious risk for the 
virus.
  It is time we protect taxpayers from unwillingly funding more 
restrictive mandates. More importantly, it is time we protect 
Americans' most basic fundamental liberties.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bost). The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. This 
amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia from using its local 
funds to require an individual to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
  How D.C. spends its local funds, which consists of local taxes and 
fees, should be a decision for D.C., not Congress. If D.C.'s local 
elected officials want to spend local funds on requiring individuals to 
receive a COVID-19 vaccine, they should have the authority to do so. If 
they do not want to spend local D.C. funds on requiring individuals to 
receive a COVID-19 vaccine, they should have the authority not to do 
so.
  D.C.'s local elected officials are accountable to D.C. residents. If 
D.C. residents do not like the decisions of their local elected 
officials, they can vote them out of office.
  D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable 
and worthy of governing themselves. If House Republicans cared about 
democratic principles or D.C. residents, they would bring my D.C. 
statehood bill which would give D.C. residents voting representation in 
Congress and full local self-government to this floor.
  Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of 
Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will.
  I say to every Member of Congress, keep your hands off D.C. If you 
want to legislate on local D.C. matters, become a D.C. resident and get 
elected Mayor or councilmember.
  Mr. Chair, I urge colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague from the 
other side that, yes, this amendment would prohibit the requirement of 
the COVID vaccine in Washington, D.C.--not just the COVID-19 vaccine, 
though. Can you believe they really still want to require the COVID-19 
vaccine now, nearly 4 years later?

                              {time}  1600

  We are talking about vaccines more generally and more broadly. We 
need to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
  Unfortunately, D.C. has demonstrated they certainly need the 
congressional oversight that is afforded to this body in the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, COVID-19 restrictions hurt millions of Americans, 
countless businesses, and many communities in our great Nation. Too 
many people were forced to make a choice between freedom--basic 
fundamental freedom--and keeping their job.
  The virus was going to do what the virus was going to do. We all got 
it. There was nothing we could do to prevent us from getting it. The 
Federal Government was the worst offender, imposing draconian measures 
and mandates to stop the spread. We all remember that.
  How many employees were fired because they made their own personal 
medical choices; not to mention our servicemembers who were 
dishonorably discharged for exercising their freedom not to get the 
vaccine.
  Taxpayer dollars should never flow to any entity that forces people 
to take an experimental shot. We must safeguard personal freedoms. 
Isn't that the fundamental responsibility of this government and 
Congress?
  We need to protect the right for all Americans to make the best 
medical decisions for themselves. We must say, in no uncertain terms, 
never again. Never again would we allow government to do what they did 
to the American people during the COVID pandemic.
  My amendment simply blocks funding from going toward any 
authoritarian vaccine mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Good

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Mr. Gooden 
of Texas, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to prohibit the voluntary disclosure policy for White 
     House visitor access records.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Good) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Biden administration promised 
us that they would be the most transparent administration in our 
Nation's history.
  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they have not followed through 
on that promise. In fact, the White House visitor log policy provides 
the American people the ability to see who is lobbying this 
administration.
  However, the Biden administration has made significant efforts to 
ensure this policy is nearly impossible to take

[[Page H5620]]

effect as intended. Despite Republicans sending correspondence to the 
administration requesting the disclosure of this information, the White 
House has not followed through and remains highly secretive. While they 
released some portions of visitor logs, the American people deserve 
full transparency.
  Here are just a few examples of the Biden administration's secrecy. 
The White House has deliberately omitted Hunter Biden's visitor logs 
from the database.
  They have made it apparent that no records of visitors to the 
Delaware residence exists. When asked to disclose the details, they 
denied any intent to publish visitor access logs at the President's 
Delaware home.
  Mind you, the President has spent well over 200 days of his 
Presidency at that location, which was also investigated when 
confidential classified documents were found.
  Their failure to disclose all visitor logs between the White House 
and the President's Delaware property have directly contradicted this 
administration's claims of being the most transparent administration.
  These failures prove the administration's commitment to restore 
integrity, transparency, and trust in government is merely lip service. 
We have seen this across all levels of the Biden administration, 
whether it is the press secretary selectively allowing only cherry-
picked questions, or the White House hiding the visitor logs to his 
retreat in Delaware where he was keeping classified documents.
  This amendment will require the White House to be transparent and 
prohibit them from failing to disclose visitor logs in a timely and 
accurate manner in any way.
  We can no longer allow the Biden administration to use a lack of 
transparency as a shield to mask their actions from public 
accountability.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, the amendment doesn't do anything. It simply 
says funds in the bill can't be used to prevent voluntary disclosures. 
The administration is already doing this.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I would help my friend across the 
aisle with the examples that I just gave. They have deliberately 
omitted Hunter Biden's visitor logs, and they certainly have omitted 
visitor logs from the President's residence in Delaware where he spent 
over 200 days.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment does nothing, and we oppose 
it. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to promulgate new rules that the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to 
     result in--
       (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more;
       (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
     agencies, or geographic regions; or
       (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
     investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
     United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
     enterprises in domestic and export markets.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, when our constituents go to 
the ballot box and they vote for their Member of Congress, they expect 
that it is going to be someone that actually represents them, 
represents their values, and represents the community.
  What we have seen in this administration is bureaucrats--people that 
are unelected and unaccountable--draft new regulations that impose 
incredible financial hardship on the American people.
  In fact, during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, there 
are estimates that show that hundreds of billions of dollars in new 
regulatory costs were heaped upon American businesses and heaped upon 
American families.
  Let me say that again. Hundreds of billions of dollars in additional 
regulatory compliance costs. Otherwise said, it is a hidden tax.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not you and I--these are not Members of 
Congress--that are approving and drafting these regulations. They are 
bureaucrats. What our amendment simply does is it says that those 
bureaucrats can continue to draft the amendments. If their regulation 
is going to cause over $100 million in compliance costs, then it must 
be submitted to the Congress to allow for their elected Representatives 
to either affirm or deny that regulation--that cost on the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple amendment. I make note that this 
amendment has been included in previous appropriations bills. I hope my 
friends on the other side agree that we need to be representing our 
constituents, not unelected bureaucrats.
  I hope that they share the concern I have that hundreds of billions 
of dollars in invisible taxes being heaped upon American businesses and 
families is inappropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment would fully block any rulemaking that the Office of 
Management and Budget's, Office of Information Regulatory Affairs 
determines to be significant. Each year that division can review 
anywhere from 300 to 700 rules.
  There is no available data to determine how many of these reviews 
result in a significant determination. However, roughly, 100 rules each 
year clear the higher economically significant threshold.
  This amendment would block any work on the roughly 100 economically 
significant rules the government promulgates annually and likely blocks 
countless others that result in a significant determination.
  This amendment would grind government to a halt and interrupt vital 
work to improve the lives of Americans across a range of policy areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
concerns, but let's go ahead and think about what his concerns are 
based upon. The gentleman raised concerns that if this amendment 
passes, it is going to prevent the Biden administration from 
unilaterally implementing regulations 100 times that each cost over 
$100 million to comply with.
  I am sure my friend shares the concern that these really need to be 
actions of the Congress. We come in and affirm congressional intent. We 
come in and affirm the interpretations of law.
  If a bureaucrat is going to impose that kind of cost on American 
businesses and, most importantly, on American families that are already 
struggling with record-high energy costs, interest rates, and 
inflationary costs that are all being imposed on these family members, 
this harms those who can least afford it the most.
  It really seems like my friend could reconsider the objection, that 
we could simply allow for Members of Congress to represent their 
constituents as opposed to unelected bureaucrats.

[[Page H5621]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I regret 
that the gentleman is opposed. Earlier this year, he voted in support 
of an administrative PAYGO provision that takes a very similar approach 
here that puts in a threshold that requires that additional scrutiny be 
applied to any regulation, or it be offset with additional costs. I 
think this is compatible with that. It takes the next step to ensure 
that American citizens are represented by their Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 
printed part B of House Report 118-269.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59 printed in part B of 
House Report 118-269.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60 printed in part B of 
House Report 118-269.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 printed in part B of 
House Report 118-269.

                              {time}  1615

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62 
printed in part B of House Report Number 118-269.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I rise to point out something that is pretty 
obvious to everybody, and that is that this process that we are going 
through right now can come across very complicated, but it is a broken 
budget process system.
  What I would like to see happen as we matriculate through the 
remainder of the Financial Services-General Government bill and as we 
move toward trying to get something done on Commerce-Justice-Science 
and Labor-Health and Human Services is that maybe we would have this 
moment of sobriety as a House and recognize that fixing this broken 
budget process is going to be essential if this Congress is going to be 
successful.
  We are sitting here today with a clock ticking and the sand is in the 
hourglass running right through to where on November 17 we could be 
facing a government shutdown. There have been many opportunities for us 
to complete our work on appropriations, move bills through the House, 
get them conferenced with the Senate, and get them signed into law. Of 
course, we are working against a deadline at the end of this year that 
will require a 1 percent sequester if we don't get all 12 bills 
through.
  So it is my fervent belief that Congress can fix this issue if 
Congress will recognize that it has an issue. I think the American 
people recognize it. We are looking right down the barrel of a 
government shutdown. If we can't find the resources to prevent a lapse 
in government funding by next weekend and then even at the end of this 
year, we are, as I said, facing that 1 percent sequester.
  So we have a lot of work to do that is going to require the 
cooperation of the left and the right to be able to come to terms, fix 
our broken budget process system, and get this regular order system 
back and working for the American people.
  I was hoping for some buy-in from my friends on the left because 
they, too, recognize this process, but I guess they look at us and say: 
You are the governing majority, and it is up to you to make this thing 
work.
  Nevertheless, it has been broken with both sides being in control, so 
it is essential, I think, that we do that.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


              Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mrs. Harshbarger

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used--
       (1) for the salary or expenses of an officer or employee of 
     the Gender Policy Council of the Executive Office of the 
     President; or
       (2) to carry out the duties and responsibilities of such 
     Council.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support my commonsense amendment which would defund and effectively 
eliminate the Biden administration's pro-abortion and pro-transgender 
policy council which is housed in the Executive Office of the 
President. The Biden administration has declared war on science, basic 
biology, and the concept of gender.
  The American taxpayer should not be funding an office in the White 
House that is dedicated to spreading this administration's woke DEI 
agenda. Americans should know what DEI really stands for: division, 
exclusion, and indoctrination.
  Through various directives such as the Department of Education, 
President Biden has made it abundantly clear that his priorities are 
not promoting the policies that benefit the majority of Americans but 
are promoting an extreme agenda.
  They are forcing our daughters to compete against biological males in 
sports, forcing young women to share locker rooms and bathrooms with 
men, and launching pressure campaigns to encourage minors to take life 
altering hormones or undergo experimental surgeries.
  One must ask: Why are we promoting these radical policies, and why is 
the taxpayer funding it?
  The White House Gender Policy Council's executive director wants to 
lecture Americans, specifically our children, about her belief that 
racism and sexism are somehow built into our health system. The White 
House Gender Policy Council exists in a White House that is incapable 
of defining what a woman is.
  This amendment is as much about curbing wasteful and unnecessary 
government spending and being good stewards of taxpayer money as it is 
about putting an end to the Biden administration's far left ideology 
being forced on Americans and their children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. To my distinguished colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Womack): 
I so appreciate your promptness that we run on your subcommittee, I was 
just giving you the promptness through this process. So that is why I 
was allowing you to use the time you had. I just want to explain that 
so you realize why I was sitting back.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 
White House Gender Policy Council is vital in advancing gender equity 
and equality. It helps ensure that all individuals, regardless of their 
gender, have equal opportunities and rights. The council takes a 
holistic approach to addressing gender issues and looking at areas such 
as economic security, healthcare, education, and violence prevention.
  This comprehensive strategy allows for a more effective response to 
gender-related challenges leading to better outcomes for individuals 
and communities.
  By establishing a dedicated council at the highest levels of 
government, the White House sends a clear message about the importance 
of gender equity and inclusion. The White House Gender Policy Council 
is important for advancing gender, equity, and equality.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, I urge a ``no'' vote, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I have a question as to why we even

[[Page H5622]]

have a gender policy council when that authority should fall under the 
Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Becerra. I 
think it is a redundancy that we do not need.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chair, I thank my distinguished colleague from the 
great State of Wisconsin for yielding time to me on this amendment and 
on the underlying bill.
  The question was just asked: Why do we have a White House Gender 
Policy Council?
  It is a pretty simple answer to that question. It is because here in 
America there are two contrasting visions as it relates to reproductive 
freedom.
  Democrats believe in a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive 
healthcare decisions. Extreme MAGA Republicans have a very different 
view. Extreme MAGA Republicans want to criminalize abortion care.
  Extreme MAGA Republicans want to impose a nationwide ban. Extreme 
MAGA Republicans want us to live in a society where women have 
government mandated pregnancies. That is the dichotomy that we confront 
right now.
  Reproductive freedom is at issue all across America, and you are 
either on the right side of that issue, Mr. Chairman, or you are on the 
wrong side. We believe that my Republican colleagues continue to march 
us toward a nationwide abortion ban.
  Mr. Chairman, just look at the underlying legislation which, by its 
very definition, restricts hundreds of thousands of people here in the 
District of Columbia as it relates to reproductive freedom.
  Why is it in this bill?
  It is because there is a real policy difference. House Democrats 
support a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive healthcare 
decisions. Period. Full stop.
  It is a choice that should be between a woman, her doctor, her faith, 
and her family, and not a bunch of extreme politicians. Nevertheless, 
that is the vision that is being offered to us by our friends on the 
other side. That is the reason why the White House has taken the step 
forward to make sure that they are protecting women all across America 
from efforts to try to criminalize abortion care.
  I wonder, Mr. Chairman, what lesson has been learned from the events 
of just this week?
  What lesson was learned in Ohio?
  What lesson was learned in Virginia?
  What lesson was learned in Kentucky, the deepest of red States?
  Why does this continue to happen?
  They jam an extreme rightwing ideology down the throats of the women 
of America. That is what we are against. That is why we oppose this 
amendment. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this underlying 
bill.
  Now, from the very beginning of this Congress, House Democrats have 
made it clear: We want to find common ground with our Republican 
colleagues on any issue whenever and wherever possible if it relates to 
making life better for everyday Americans.
  House Democrats are all about putting people over politics: fighting 
for things like lower costs, growing the middle class, and safer 
communities. These are things that will make a difference and solve 
problems in the lives of everyday Americans.
  Part of the challenge that we face is that the extreme MAGA 
Republican agenda continues to be focused on the wrong things. The 
extreme MAGA Republican agenda is focused on defaulting on America's 
debt, shutting down the government, crashing the economy, criminalizing 
reproductive freedom, cutting Social Security and Medicare, impeaching 
President Biden, and doing nothing to deal with affordability issues or 
improving the quality of life of everyday Americans.
  That is a shame.
  So, yes, we are going to continue to oppose Republican efforts to 
criminalize abortion care now, tomorrow, next month, next year, and 
forever until this effort to take away reproductive freedom is buried 
in the ground never to rise again.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chair, nowhere in my remarks did I mention the 
Hyde amendment. I am talking about a gender policy council that should 
not exist.
  For over 40 years we have had the Hyde amendment in place to where 
American taxpayer dollars didn't go to fund abortion.
  Nowhere did I say that a woman shouldn't have a right to do what she 
wanted to do, but with the Roe v. Wade reversal, that decision went 
back to the States where it rightly belonged. In my opinion, over the 
last 40 to 50 years women have been indoctrinated to think it was a 
constitutional right to abortion, and it never was.

                              {time}  1630

  I am here to set the record straight. It went back to the States 
where it belongs. All I am trying to say is that we need to get rid of 
the Gender Policy Council. If they want to put that anywhere, HHS is 
the Department that it should fall under.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, you heard from our Democratic leader. Democrats 
strongly oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Hill

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act, 
     including titles IV and VIII, may be used to support the 
     allocation of Special Drawing Rights to the Islamic Republic 
     of Iran.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that I hope 
will garner bipartisan support. I do this with my colleagues on the 
House Financial Services Committee. Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer of 
Missouri is here with me today.
  In 2021, Mr. Chair, the Treasury Department approved $650 billion in 
an allocation of Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary 
Fund. That is a bunch of technical words, but in plain English, this 
means that they were lavishing $650 billion on all the countries of the 
world with no strings attached.
  The Biden administration claims that this allocation is necessary to 
have the global adequacy of funding in reserves in each of the 
sovereign countries of the world. In other words, these reserves from 
the IMF went to healthy countries, countries that don't need the money, 
like countries in Europe or the United States. Many countries ended up 
using this IMF money just to pay short-term bills.
  Worst of all, this Special Drawing Rights allocation provided 
billions of dollars of unconditional liquidity to some of the worst 
regimes in the world: $40 billion went to China; $17 billion went to 
the Putin regime in Moscow; and Iran, the world's leading state sponsor 
of terrorism, the funder of Hamas, the killer of Israelis on October 7, 
received $5 billion to boost its reserves.
  That is completely at odds with American policy, completely at odds 
with our sanctions policy against some of the worst regimes in the 
world.
  The amendment we propose today would prohibit the Treasury Department 
from allocating any more Special Drawing Rights from the IMF to the 
ayatollahs in Tehran.

[[Page H5623]]

  Following the October 7 attack by Hamas against our friends in 
Israel, it would be unacceptable for the IMF to, once again, bolster 
the reserves of Iran. Money is fungible, and that money goes to 
Hezbollah and Hamas.
  Some of our colleagues might counter that prohibiting more SDRs for 
Iran means prohibiting them for everybody. That is simply not true.
  Mr. Chairman, the IMF has the authority to do special allocations and 
allocate these Special Drawing Rights reserves to countries of a 
particular need or concern. We don't have to give this kind of largesse 
to wealthy countries like the Netherlands or the United States or to 
rogues like China and Iran.
  Some may argue that excluding this is too dramatic and that Treasury 
itself can designate the whole country as a jurisdiction of primary 
money laundering concern, and therefore, Iran can't get it.
  This administration has already freed up money for Iran in their 
recent hostage deal. If Treasury really wants to argue that Iran, the 
world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, should receive more no-
strings-attached money, then come to Congress to make the case, but 
this is significant and should be decided by the elected officials in 
this body, not agency officials at the Treasury.
  Last month's assault on Israel was a clarifying moment for so many 
people around the world. This amendment sends a unified message: No 
more money for bad regimes around the world.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment doesn't belong in this bill. We don't deal with the IMF and 
Special Drawing Rights. That would be in the State-Foreign Operations 
bill, which we have already taken up on the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the sponsor to take up that bill in the fiscal year 
2025 bill, assuming we ever get to that.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chair, I don't consider that a very convincing argument 
on this amendment. This amendment is a good idea to counter a bad 
policy.
  Blanket money for rogue regimes through the IMF, approved by our 
Treasury Department and encouraged by the Biden administration, is bad.
  Voting for this amendment is good. It sends a message to rogue 
regimes: You don't get a free lunch from the United States of America.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, as I said, we are not debating the merits of 
the amendment. It is just not appropriate in this bill, period.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chair, let me say, in conclusion, that this is the 
Treasury bill. This is the bill that appropriates money for the 
Treasury.
  The Rules Committee made this amendment in order because it concerns 
spending money at the Treasury for bad ideas. Those on this side of the 
aisle want to counter terrorism, counter bad ideas, counter profligate 
spending by the IMF to back up rogue regimes.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage all Members who want to counter terrorism, 
counter rogue regimes, speak up for freedom in Israel, speak up for 
freedom in Ukraine, speak up for freedom on the island of Taiwan to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Huizenga

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available to authorize a 
     transaction by a United States financial institution (as 
     defined under section 561.309 of title 31, Code of Federal 
     Regulations) for a person whose property and interests in 
     property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13902, other 
     than a transaction for the sale of agricultural commodities, 
     food, medicine, or medical devices.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, this is sort of a continuation of my friend 
Mr. Hill's amendment and Mr. Barr's, and other amendments that we have 
talked about today, which is really about whether we are going to allow 
the largest state funder of terrorism to continue to have access to 
hard dollars and continue to have access to the capital that is funding 
groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestine Islamic Jihad.
  Mr. Chair, the deadly terror attacks of October 7 made one thing 
abundantly clear: The United States cannot continue to allow the 
Iranian regime access to funding that, in turn, could be used against 
our allies and even American citizens.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment today, and I hope it will 
receive bipartisan support because a very similar amendment, Mr. Chair, 
received a voice vote in 2016 right along these lines.
  Last month's barbaric attack against our friends and allies in Israel 
was a powerful reminder of the dangers posed by Hamas and others.
  By the way, Hamas, receives 93 percent of their total funding from 
Tehran. As we mentioned, Tehran and Iran, being the world's leading 
state sponsor of terrorism, must be cut off from their ability to wage 
hostilities abroad.
  As far-reaching as our Iranian sanctions are, it may surprise some of 
my colleagues that we have not actually closed all the financing 
loopholes. The administration still enjoys significant discretion to 
permit trade and financial services with these bad actors even if it 
has nothing to do with humanitarian purposes. My amendment would change 
this.
  Under Executive Order No. 13902, the Trump administration made the 
construction, mining, manufacturing, and textile sectors of the Iranian 
economy subject to U.S. sanctions, in addition to sanctions in place, 
many going back to the 2012 NDAA. The Treasury Department later added 
the financial sector to this group, blacklisting 18 Iranian banks in 
October 2020. At the same time, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset 
Control, also known as OFAC, retains broad discretion to license 
transactions with sanctioned Iranians.
  Under the Obama administration's nuclear deal, for example, Treasury 
licensed aircraft sales to Iran Air, which had previously been 
sanctioned for providing support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard 
Corps, also known as the IRGC, and to the Defense Ministry.
  An amendment to the FSGG appropriations bill to prohibit these 
licenses was adopted by the House in 2016 by voice vote.
  We must not let licenses undermine sanctions under these executive 
orders, which is why my amendment would prohibit them if they allow 
Iran to use the U.S. financial system. It is that simple.
  The attack on Israel has underscored how we cannot become complacent 
when it comes to blocking Iran from the goods, technology, and hard 
currency it needs to fund terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, 
Palestine Islamic Jihad, and many others.
  In addition to being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, 
Iran has been designated by Treasury as a jurisdiction of primary 
laundering concern.
  Mr. Hill just referenced in his amendment that Treasury does have the 
ability to put these jurisdictions on money laundering, but they have 
rescinded that, Mr. Chair. They allow these exemptions.

[[Page H5624]]

  That is why Mr. Hill's amendment, my amendment, and other amendments 
are trying to narrow that down and tighten that down. Clearly, we 
should shield our financial institutions from contact with the country 
to the fullest extent possible.
  Now, let me address potential objections. Some might ask about 
humanitarian aid under this measure.
  My amendment does nothing--let me repeat, nothing--to affect existing 
exemptions for agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical 
devices. These exemptions have long been codified into our laws, and 
this amendment does not change that. This is explicit in the text of 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, you may have heard and seen those media reports about 
phantom false billing that might be happening or black market deals 
where those goods and services are delivered and being misused and even 
sold on the black market for that cash. That is another issue, and we 
need to address that, but that is not what we are getting at here in 
this one.
  Others might ask whether this amendment could limit Treasury's 
ability to license transactions as future ransom for hostages, for 
example, or even as part of a new nuclear deal.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for my 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Treasury Department has identified significant technical concerns 
with this amendment. Specifically, the agency has concerns about how 
the amendment's construction would impact general licenses authorized 
by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
  I strongly agree with the need to enforce the sanctions included in 
Executive Order No. 13902 with respect to any person determined to 
operate in the construction, mining, manufacturing, or textile sectors 
of the Iranian economy. However, some terms like ``Islamic Republic of 
Iran'' and ``for, or on behalf of'' are vague and would create 
confusion as to how they would relate to existing authorizations.
  Treasury believes this phrasing could cause unintended consequences 
outside of the intended scope.
  Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment and recommend a 
``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act, 
     including titles IV and VIII, may be used to support a quota 
     increase for the People's Republic of China at the 
     International Monetary Fund.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer this amendment 
today with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) as a cosponsor, who 
was here a minute ago. I am confident it will garner bipartisan 
support.
  My amendment would prohibit funds from this bill from being used to 
support a shareholding increase for China at the International Monetary 
Fund, the IMF.
  The IMF is the world's lender of last resort and plays a critical 
role in ensuring multilateral cooperation on a wide array of financial 
matters.
  As the IMF's largest shareholder, the U.S. is the only member to 
wield a veto over important decisions at the Fund. This includes 
decisions that change countries' shareholding weight at the 
institution.
  Across administrations, the U.S. has advocated for the IMF to support 
fiscal responsibility among borrowers, responsible governance of 
exchange rates, and transparency in sovereign lending. These principles 
support global financial stability, but they have now been put at risk 
by China's dictatorship.
  Put simply, the emergence of China as the world's largest official 
creditor has saddled countries around the world with opaque and onerous 
debt that the IMF has been called upon to resolve. None of this lending 
complies with international rules and norms like those established by 
the Paris Club and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development.
  Although Chinese lending to developing countries has declined since 
its heyday in 2016, it still racked up $79 billion in commitments 
across the board in 2021. Much of this lending is shifting from 
infrastructure to emergency lending. In other words, China itself is 
adopting a role that the IMF has been traditionally playing.
  Moreover, China's flouting of international lending standards mirrors 
its nontransparent management of its domestic currency, the renminbi. 
It is shocking, but undeniably true, that the IMF has limited insight 
into the exchange rate regime of the world's second largest economy. 
This is why my amendment is so important.
  The IMF is finishing a review of its shareholding by the end of this 
year. China continues to argue that its shares, referred to as a quota 
at the Fund, don't accurately reflect its weight in the world economy. 
It has pushed and will continue to push for a greater say on the board 
of IMF.
  My argument boils down to this: Shareholding at these institutions is 
not about the size of a country's economy, but, rather, its commitment 
to international rules and good-faith cooperation. As long as China 
dismisses every principle of the IMF's foundation, we cannot reward it 
with a stronger voice at the Fund. It would be absurd to increase its 
shareholding weight at the IMF when it is refusing to restructure much 
of its predatory lending to the Fund's borrowers.
  The Treasury Department represents us at the Fund, and I am pleased 
that it has conveyed Congress' skepticism toward a quota increase for 
China. However, there is no formal agreement at the IMF yet. This 
amendment will help ensure that boosting China's influence is off the 
table. The amendment also sets a marker for future shareholding 
reviews, where my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and I 
will insist on real accountability from Beijing.
  China would have us believe that the U.S. threatens global 
cooperation by denying it a more prominent seat at the table, but the 
opposite is true. It is China's disregard for transparency making our 
opposition to its influence at the IMF and other multilateral 
organizations absolutely vital.
  I would add that China's abuse of human rights at home, including its 
genocide of the Uyghurs is yet another reason why legitimizing Beijing 
at an international institution is unacceptable.
  We must draw a line in the sand, which is what my amendment does. I 
urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment doesn't belong in this bill. We don't deal with the IMF and 
shareholding. That would be part of the State and Foreign Operations 
bill, which has already gone through this body.
  I urge the sponsor to take up the issue in that bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chair, I would just argue that the Treasury 
Department is in charge of various activities with regard to the 
governance of

[[Page H5625]]

these boards, whether the World Bank, IMF, et cetera. These are 
entities that we fund. We are on these boards, and these boards direct 
funds that we have put in these entities. It is our job to make sure 
that the Treasury Department does its job, which is to monitor this, be 
on the boards, behave in a responsible fashion, and also to stop the 
nonsense going on around the world with bad actors such as Iran and 
this situation where I am talking about here with China.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, as 
well.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 69 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Meuser

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule 
     of the Small Business Administration entitled ``Affiliation 
     and Lending Criteria for the SBA Business Loan Programs'', 
     issued on April 10, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 21890).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise today in support of my amendment No. 70 to H.R. 4664.
  In May of this year, the Small Business Administration implemented a 
final rule on affiliation and lending criteria that eliminated 
longstanding guardrails and prudent lending standards for its flagship 
7(a) loan program.
  Chief among these changes is the SBA's decision to eliminate the 
prescriptive lending criteria that has allowed the program to function 
with integrity for decades.
  The 7(a) lending program offers government-backed loans to businesses 
that are guaranteed by the taxpayer up to 85 percent. By removing the 
prudent underwriting standards for all lenders in the program, the SBA 
has opened up the program to increased fraud and losses. These changes 
will add risk to the SBA's loan portfolio. If enough of these loans go 
bad, Congress will have to step in and bail out the program to keep it 
operational, meaning the weak underwriting standards implemented by 
this rule could lead to a significant loss of taxpayer dollars. Mr. 
Chairman, such added risk is unacceptable when taxpayers are on the 
hook.
  This year our country experienced the largest bank failures we have 
seen since the 2008 financial crisis. The SBA should not be moving 
forward with their plan to reduce underwriting standards in the 7(a) 
lending program during these uncertain economic times.
  This important amendment would undo the troubling underwriting 
changes made by the Biden administration. This commonsense measure will 
restore guardrails on these loans and ensure the longevity of the 7(a) 
loan program.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Small Business Committee Chairman Roger Williams 
along with Representatives Luetkemeyer, Stauber, Ellzey, and Alford for 
their cosponsorship of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Molinaro). The gentleman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  For years, the Small Business Administration has rightly been 
concerned about small businesses from underserved communities accessing 
SBA loans. Through the agency's affiliation rule, the agency aims to 
combat persistent gaps in accessing capital that affects these small 
businesses.
  By modernizing the lending criteria and conditions for SBA's small 
business loan programs and reducing red tape for SBA lenders, we will 
see improved access to capital for underserved businessowners, 
including women, minorities, veterans, and rural entrepreneurs.
  Unfortunately, this amendment pulls the rug out from underneath the 
SBA's important effort to better support these businesses.
  I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will strengthen the already 
meaningful piece of legislation we are considering today, which cuts 
wasteful spending and reduces burdensome, costly regulations on small 
businesses.
  Of particular importance, the underlying legislation prohibits the 
Biden administration from implementing the SEC's climate disclosure 
rule, which prioritizes ideology over capital formation for investors.
  The legislation also rightfully brings the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau under the purview of the congressional appropriations 
process. The CFPB has lacked transparency and accountability for years 
while being funded directly by the Federal Reserve, and this bill will 
give Congress the authority to provide appropriate oversight.
  Additionally, the bill will halt the CFPB's implementation of its 
onerous 1071 small business data collection rule, which places undue 
costs and compliance burdens on America's small businesses and lenders.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4664 is a win for taxpayers, consumers, and for 
the American financial system. My amendment will help make it an even 
greater win for small businesses by protecting the soundness and 
integrity of a program that offers access to affordable and reliable 
capital for entrepreneurs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and the 
underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Mooney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the CBDC Working Group led by the Department of 
     the Treasury.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to push back against what 
could become one of the greatest government surveillance threats of our 
time, a central bank digital currency, or CBDC.
  My amendment would simply prohibit funding for the CBDC Working Group 
led by the Treasury Department. A CBDC, commonly referred to as a 
digital dollar, would be issued and easily tracked by the Federal 
Government.
  Make no mistake, a Federal digital dollar can very easily be used to 
spy on American citizens and become a social credit system. In 
Communist China, the digital yuan is being used to spy on its citizens 
and crack down on dissent. Do not think for a second that the Biden 
administration would not use a digital dollar to track your gun 
purchases.
  House Republicans have been clear that the Federal Reserve does not 
have the authority to issue a digital dollar without an act of 
Congress, and we reaffirmed that in the Financial Services

[[Page H5626]]

Committee, on which I serve. However, right now the Federal Reserve is 
contracting with the private sector to build potential digital dollars 
for the United States far beyond what could be considered traditional 
research.
  Early last year, President Biden issued an executive order directing 
government agencies to study creating a Federal digital currency, which 
led to the creation of this CBDC Working Group. This working group is 
vaguely tasked with supporting the Federal Reserve's central bank 
digital currency efforts.
  To be clear, Congress has not given the executive branch or the 
Federal Reserve any direction when it comes to Federal digital 
currencies. I am grateful that the underlying bill prohibits Federal 
funding for the establishment of a Federal digital currency, but 
Congress cannot give an inch. Regardless of your thoughts on a 
potential digital dollar in the United States, I have severe concerns 
that Congress should not surrender any authority on such a significant 
issue.
  If this White House wants to research a government surveillance tool 
that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose, that direction 
should come from Congress. That is why my amendment prohibits funding 
for the CBDC Working Group, to prevent the executive branch from 
bypassing the will of Congress.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
seems shortsighted to defund an effort to even look at an issue. The 
Central Bank Digital Currency Working Group is intended to complement 
the Fed's efforts by considering the implications of a U.S. CBDC.

                              {time}  1700

  It would be a good idea to examine whether there are economic 
benefits, including lower transaction and borrowing costs for U.S. 
households, businesses, and government.
  In addition, the U.S. uses sanctions and other financial measures to 
address national security threats and deny criminals and other illicit 
actors access to the U.S. and international financial system.
  Development of foreign CBDCs, including multi-CBDC platforms, could 
diminish the use of our dollar and the effectiveness of our tools in 
this space. I think it is at least worth letting Treasury look at the 
issue.
  I oppose this amendment, urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do want to point out that 130 countries right now, 90 percent of 
the world's central banks, are studying and doing research on digital 
currencies, and, in particular, government-backed digital currencies.
  This amendment would prevent the United States from researching an 
area that 130 countries are right now researching. It would put us very 
far back at the end of the pack.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital 
Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, I rise in strong opposition 
to H.R. 4664, the Financial Services appropriations bill and the 
misguided amendment that would essentially prevent our government from 
exploring and researching a government-issued central bank digital 
currency.
  This year witnessed the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature 
Bank, and other U.S. midsize banks holding a combined $500 billion in 
assets, an institutional banking crisis requiring decisive action by 
the FDIC, Treasury, and the Federal Reserve to protect American 
investors and the U.S. economy.
  We are also in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic demise of 
the crypto market following the abrupt implosion of FTX, Celsius, 
BlockFi, and other crypto companies.
  Just this week, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of seven 
counts of financial fraud and conspiracy after he stole up to $14 
billion from FTX customers and investors.
  Yet, in this climate that demands regulatory oversight and thorough 
understanding of this market, this appropriations bill actually guts 
funding for critical agencies that serve to protect American investors, 
including the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Moreover, to the great detriment of U.S. global economic leadership, 
the amendment under consideration would prevent the Treasury from even 
examining a government-backed central bank digital currency.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. As I said, Mr. Chairman, more than 130 countries and 90 
percent of the world's central banks are exploring their own 
government-backed digital currencies.
  We should not be suppressing innovative approaches without fully 
evaluating its benefits and the risks to the American public.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill 
and the amendment that would impede commonsense regulation and research 
and innovation.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Mooney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the rule entitled ``Private 
     Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser 
     Compliance Reviews'' (88 Fed. Reg. 63206 (September 14, 
     2023)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to push back against one of 
the Securities and Exchange Commission's or SEC's many reckless and 
irresponsible rules. My amendment simply prohibits funding for the 
costly and unnecessary private fund adviser rule. I oppose this rule 
because the overwhelming majority of private equity investments, which 
this rule would affect, go to small businesses. This rule will have a 
detrimental impact on the many small businesses across America and in 
my home State of West Virginia.
  Private funds are essentially pools of money collected from multiple 
investors that the adviser then invests primarily in small- and medium-
sized businesses. This SEC rule will reduce the ability of private fund 
advisers to continue supporting small businesses in West Virginia and 
America by placing burdensome compliance costs on these funds such as 
new quarterly statements and annual audits.
  Furthermore, the SEC has been unable to articulate how this rule will 
increase funding for small businesses. Private fund advisers who manage 
these funds are already well regulated and legally required to act in 
the best interest of the investors. Unlike the public stock market, it 
is wealthy individuals and sophisticated institutions like pension 
funds and university endowments that invest in these private funds. 
This is nothing more than regulating for the sake of regulating.
  When the SEC proposed this rule, my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle expressed concerns about the negative impacts this rule would 
have on small businesses. Just last year, Congress asked the SEC to 
conduct a full economic analysis of this rule, which the commission 
failed to do. Many of my colleagues also wrote to the SEC expressing 
concerns about the negative effects and impact of this rule on the

[[Page H5627]]

access to funds for small companies. However, the SEC has not addressed 
these concerns and has not adequately responded to letters sent by many 
Members, including Chairman Womack.
  Given high interest rates and the new capital rules that will further 
restrict bank lending to companies, now is not the time to restrict the 
ability of private funds to invest in West Virginia's thousands of 
small businesses. According to the American Investment Council, 85 
percent of equity-backed companies are small businesses, and 89 percent 
of public pensions invest in private equity funds.
  This rule would only unnecessarily restrict the efficient operation 
of private funds, and it will crowd out smaller and emerging funds and 
increase the costs to investors. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce put it 
best when she said that this rulemaking is ``ahistorical, unjustified, 
unlawful, impractical, confusing, and harmful.''
  Under Gary Gensler, instead of making the public markets more 
attractive, the SEC has focused on making the private markets less 
attractive. My amendment will refocus the SEC on its core mission of 
protecting retail investors while promoting capital formation and 
efficient markets. The private fund adviser rule needlessly imposes a 
one-size-fits-all approach and restrictions on sophisticated 
institutional investors.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support funding 
for the small businesses in their district. I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
is an admirable thing, what the gentleman from West Virginia is 
proposing, protecting investors, making sure investment money is secure 
and well protected, but this is attacking the SEC's private fund 
adviser rule, and that is something that protects investors.
  It has been designed with the intent to enhance regulatory oversight 
and transparency within the private fund industry.
  The private fund adviser rule increases investor protection by 
subjecting private fund advisers to registration and regulatory 
scrutiny by the SEC.
  When you hear the word ``regulation,'' think protection. The rule 
promotes market integrity and stability by minimizing the risk 
associated with private fund operations.
  Private funds can significantly impact financial markets due to their 
size and the extent of their investments.
  The SEC's private fund adviser rule aims to enhance investor 
protection. It improves market integrity, and it establishes a 
consistent regulatory framework for private fund advisers.
  This is exactly the kind of protection we need to instill confidence 
by investors in the market and keep capital flowing in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. Despite what my colleague on the other side says, when I 
hear regulation, I don't necessarily hear protection. Sometimes I hear 
just more red tape and more bars to success.
  The private fund adviser rulemaking is a perfect example of the 
aggressive regulatory posture Chairman Gensler has taken that has 
threatened our markets and financial systems.
  Bureaucratic overreach has been a hallmark of this administration's 
SEC. It is past time, Mr. Chairman, that these rules be stopped.
  The sweeping proposal for private fund advisers is a prime instance 
of the agency's failure to conduct thorough economic analysis, missing 
the serious potential impact of underserved business and emerging asset 
managers.
  This proposal could create additional hyper-regulatory hurdles for 
those who have overcome obstacles of their own to break into the 
market.
  Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Moore of Utah

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 74 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, finalize, or implement the proposed 
     regulation titled ``Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of 
     Projects that are Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the 
     Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act'' (88 Federal 
     Register 65350).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in 2015, the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council was created specifically to improve ``the 
transparency, predictability, and outcomes of the Federal environmental 
review and authorization process for certain large-scale critical 
infrastructure projects.''
  One of its core missions is to enhance coordination between Federal 
and State environmental reviews and provide more transparency.
  As my constituents in Utah and my colleagues here know, our 
permitting system has long been too complex. Earlier this year, the 
House passed H.R. 1, the landmark bill aimed at lowering energy costs 
and improving our permitting process.
  We also passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act this year, which 
includes important wins to expedite permitting. It was broadly 
accepted, broadly supported.
  Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle understand the 
importance of permitting reform because we cannot reduce emissions, 
lower energy prices, or address vulnerabilities in our supply chain 
without it.
  Unfortunately, in September, the Federal Permitting Improvement 
Steering Council proposed a rule to limit the scope of mining projects 
eligible for this expedited process.
  This proposed change is shortsighted and exacerbates the permitting 
delays that stifle the domestic mining industry and our efforts to 
produce cheaper, cleaner energy. This will hurt critically important 
mining projects in my home State of Utah and across our entire Nation.
  Congress established the steering council to address the delays that 
continue to be one of the most substantial risks to meeting mineral 
production goals. This proposed change will threaten U.S. national 
security and mineral production objectives.
  I urge the administration to reverse course, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just close with this: We have a shortage. We 
have to rely on foreign sources for some of our critical minerals.
  If this rule goes through, it will limit the scope of what we need. 
It will limit the scope of what we need for our Department of Defense, 
for national security, and for the environmental agencies.
  We have to be able to look at what we can do better here in America 
so we can provide cleaner technology.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1715


                 Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 76 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H5628]]


  

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule 
     entitled ``Conflicts of Interest Associated with the Use of 
     Predictive Data Analytics by Broker-Dealers and Investment 
     Advisers'' (88 Fed. Reg. 53960 (August 9, 2023)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, what my amendment does is prohibits the use of 
funds to finalize, implement, or enforce a proposed rule titled: 
``Conflicts of Interest Associated With the Use of Predictive Data 
Analytics by Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers.''
  On July 26, 2023, the SEC proposed a new rule that requires broker-
dealers and investment advisers to confront challenges posed by 
predictive data analytics and related technologies like artificial 
intelligence. They did this despite no evidence that this technology 
harms investors.
  While technological innovation has significantly enhanced the 
financial industry's capabilities in auditing, reporting, 
recordkeeping, trading, and surveillance, the SEC's proposed rule, 
despite claiming to be technology-neutral, appears to be fundamentally 
hostile to these advancements.
  This rule creates a comprehensive regulatory regime governing any 
analytical or computational tool whereby information potentially 
relevant to investments is presented to the public.
  This misguided, paternalistic rule declares it is a ``conflict of 
interest'' for a firm to communicate to customers any information 
generated using technology that so much as ``takes into consideration'' 
any interest of the firm.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this particular 
amendment.
  Again, it is about protecting investors. The SEC's rule addressing 
conflicts of interest in the use of this so-called predictive data 
analytics by broker-dealers and investment advisers places a strong 
emphasis on protecting investor interests. This rule promotes unbiased 
decisionmaking by requiring firms to proactively manage and disclose 
conflicts associated with predictive data analytics.
  By addressing conflicts of interest, the SEC's rule contributes to 
market integrity and fairness, and that is what we need for the 
constant flow of capital to where it needs to go in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, just like my good friend from Arkansas said, 
any time I hear an arm of the Federal Government say it is going to 
protect the public, that means another fine, that means another tax, 
that means another regulatory commission controlled by bureaucrats.
  This proposal is misguided and rests on the false premise that 
delivering information to customers should be presumed harmful simply 
because it is consistent with the firm's interests.
  The new rules would also impose significant operational challenges 
and expensive burdens on broker-dealers and investment advisers that 
use virtually any technology to any degree, without citing any 
compelling authority or evidence of abuse or wrongdoing.
  It is abuse at its highest. It is vague at its highest.
  The scope of the new rule also presents challenges. As SEC 
Commissioner Hester Peirce observed, the proposed definition of covered 
technology could include technologies long used by broker-dealers and 
investment advisers, such as spreadsheets, commonly used software, math 
formulas, and statistical tools.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina for 
yielding.
  Look, I am just going to be really brief. What we don't need is a 
disruption of innovation. That is what we don't need. What we do need 
in the financial industry are clear rules of the road, not confusing 
compliance standards within the analytics space.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support the gentleman from South 
Carolina's amendment.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 77 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Office of Management and Budget to consider 
     the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and 
     implementation of a budget for a Federal agency, in any 
     Federal procurement processes, or when preparing an 
     environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does is prohibit the use 
of funds by the OMB to consider the ``social cost of greenhouse 
gases.'' Try to define ``social costs.'' It will just result in another 
fine by government bureaucrats. It is used in the development and 
implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, or 
environmental reviews.
  President Biden is directing agencies to consider the flawed social 
cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of 
budgets, the Federal procurement process, and environmental reviews.
  Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gas metrics to justify 
sweeping climate policies, strict regulations, and, I might add, strict 
fines.
  This impacts everything, from purchasing goods or services to 
conducting environmental reviews for all kinds of projects and levying 
climate penalties against private businesses. This is against every 
private business that is under a lot of stress right now in this 
country. This is all this bureaucratic process does.
  The social cost of greenhouse gases is an extremely inefficient 
policymaking tool that can easily be manipulated. By boosting the 
climate cost of projects, regulators could use the social cost of 
carbon to derail everything from energy to infrastructure projects, not 
to mention the cost of complying.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The inclusion of the social cost of greenhouse gases in regulatory 
analyses ensures that the full spectrum of costs associated with 
greenhouse gas emissions is considered.
  This is about full, open, and honest accounting. It includes not only 
economic costs but also health, environmental, and societal costs, 
providing a more accurate and comprehensive assessment.
  The social costs of greenhouse gases account for the health-related 
impacts of climate change, such as heat-related illnesses, air 
pollution, and the spread of diseases from mosquitos, ticks, and fleas.
  Inclusion in regulatory analysis leads to decisions that prioritize 
the protection of public health, reducing the burden on healthcare 
systems. This leads

[[Page H5629]]

to a more comprehensive cost evaluation, encourages emissions 
reduction, preserves the environment, and promotes sustainable economic 
growth.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, this is just another attempt by this 
radical administration to put up another commission to fleece the 
American taxpayers who are struggling as it is.
  On January 21, 2021, President Biden signed the radical climate 
Executive Order No. 13990, which established an Interagency Working 
Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and directed the working 
group to publish interim estimates of the social cost of carbon, 
nitrous oxide, and methane.
  President Biden is now directing agencies to consider the SC-GHG in 
the development and implementation of their budgets, Federal 
procurement processes, and environmental reviews.
  Social cost of greenhouse gases metrics are inefficient policymaking 
tools used to justify sweeping, radical climate policies and strict 
regulations that are interpreted by lifelong bureaucrats.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, 12 States, including South Carolina, filed 
a lawsuit against the Biden administration, claiming his calculations 
and use of the social cost of greenhouse gases are arbitrary and 
capricious and would harm their local economies.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, finalize, or enforce the proposed rule 
     entitled ``Substantial Implementation, Duplication, and 
     Resubmission of Shareholder Proposals Under Exchange Act Rule 
     14a-8'' (87 Fed. Reg. 45052 (July 27, 2022)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does is prohibits funding 
for the SEC's proposed rule titled: ``Substantial Implementation, 
Duplication, and Resubmission of Shareholder Proposals Under Exchange 
Act Rule 14a-8.''
  Since its origins in the 1940s, the shareholder proposal process has 
evolved from a modest effort to give shareholders an additional tool 
for influencing corporate governance to a complex and overpoliticized 
process.
  Under the current SEC rules, even small shareholders who meet the 
$2,000 ownership requirement for at least 3 years can submit proposals 
on public company ballots. This process is overwhelmingly exploited by 
activists driven by social or political agendas and leads to hundreds 
of resolutions being filed related to environmental, social, and 
political issues rather than focusing on a company's growth and 
competitiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this particular 
amendment, which would block a rule that promotes meaningful 
shareholder engagement by requiring a higher level of shareholder 
support for resubmitted proposals.
  This rule helps streamline the shareholder proposal process by 
discouraging the repetitive submission of proposals that have failed to 
gain substantial support in the past. By requiring shareholders to 
demonstrate substantial support for their proposals, the rule 
encourages responsible activism and discourages the use of the 
shareholder proposal process for purely symbolic or nuisance proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, any time I hear the Federal government say 
they are going to streamline anything, it kind of raises my eyebrows.
  In fact, based on the SEC's own data, a single shareholder proposal 
can impose costs of more than $100,000, with many firms reporting 
significantly higher costs, which are ultimately borne by that 
company's shareholders.
  Congress never granted the SEC authority to make it mandatory for 
companies to include shareholder proposals in corporate proxy 
statements, especially after companies already rejected substantially 
similar politically charged proposals.
  Not only does this rule overstep the authority given to the SEC, but 
it also raises numerous constitutional concerns and is a clear 
violation of the First Amendment's prohibition on government-compelled 
speech.
  Political performance does not belong in the boardroom. Instead, 
companies should focus on maximizing shareholder value.
  Again, all this does is add another bureaucratic nightmare to the 
taxpayers that are already struggling.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, finalize, or enforce the proposed rule 
     entitled ``Enhanced Disclosures by Certain Investment 
     Advisers and Investment Companies About Environmental, 
     Social, and Governance Investment Practices'' (87 Fed. Reg. 
     36654 (June 17, 2022)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, this is just another long list that you have 
witnessed today and really all through this administration of 
bureaucratic overreach and fines to administer on the taxpayer.
  What my amendment does is prohibit use of funds to implement, 
finalize, or enforce a proposed rule titled: ``Enhanced Disclosures by 
Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies About 
Environmental, Social, and Government Investment Practices.''
  On May 25, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that mandate additional 
disclosures for funds incorporating or contemplating ESG factors in 
their investment strategies.
  If adopted, the rule would reflect a significant shift in the SEC's 
current disclosures regime for private fund sponsors by focusing 
disclosure on a particular targeted aspect of the investment process.
  The primary purpose of this rule is to address the risk of 
greenwashing and furnish investors with more comprehensive information 
regarding ESG strategies.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.

[[Page H5630]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, as 
well.
  Contrary to the misrepresentations made by environmental, social, and 
governance opponents, the SEC's disclosure rule on ESG investments 
takes no position on the merits of these approaches.
  The rule does not define ESG or stipulate any particular approach to 
it. Instead, this is a rule that requires, for those who make such 
investments, the disclosure of information about how ESG is defined and 
implemented in applicable investment portfolios.
  The rule will offer increased transparency for investors and protect 
them from exaggerated or unfounded claims related to ESG investments 
being made.
  Now, if it passes, my friend from South Carolina's amendment would 
leave investors in the dark and leave them vulnerable to getting misled 
or bamboozled about ESG claims.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I take issue with my good friend on the 
opposite aisle. In fact, I would note the Supreme Court's recent 
decision in West Virginia v. EPA raises concerns about the Commission's 
ability to implement both this proposal and the broader Climate 
Disclosure Rule under the major questions doctrine.
  This is overexcessive. It is excessively broad, intricate, overly 
prescriptive, and vague. Again, this is just another bureaucratic 
commission set up to fleece the taxpayers and fleece the people that 
made this country.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, for the reasons previously stated, this 
amendment is opposed, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Nunn of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I have amendment No. 80 at the desk, the 
cybersecurity incident disclosure rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the final rule of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission titled ``Cybersecurity 
     Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident 
     Disclosure'' (88 Fed. Reg. 51896; published August 4, 2023).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nunn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment, 
which I am proud to co-lead with my colleague from New York, Mr. 
Garbarino.
  This amendment prohibits funding to implement the Cybersecurity Risk 
Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure rule.
  Now, as someone who has served for more than two decades in 
cybersecurity both in the U.S. military, as well as the chief of 
counterintelligence at ODNI for cyber, the National Cyber 
Counterintelligence Officer, as well as service in the Obama 
administration's White House as part of the National Security Council, 
combating cyberattacks from foreign adversaries are important to both 
my colleagues on the left and to us here on the right.
  Irrespective of the SEC's intent to standardize these requirements, 
these new and expansive disclosure requirements have the opposite 
effect on our cybersecurity and safeguards here at home. Instead of 
working to achieve a regulatory harmonization across the Federal 
Government, this rulemaking creates duplicative, burdensome regulations 
and causes even more confusion in our public and private sectors.
  Worse yet, the SEC's cybersecurity disclosure rule compromises the 
confidentiality of each company's cybersecurity program, opening them 
up to potentially further attacks that can harm instead of protect both 
the companies and the investors that they are charged with protecting.
  This rule mandates disclosure of any material cybersecurity incident 
within 4 business days. The disclosure requires companies to disclose 
when it is the victim of a cyberattack, as well as the nature, the 
timing, the scope of an incident, and its material impact, oftentimes 
before law enforcement has even had the opportunity to fully evaluate 
this.
  Disclosure of this type of information to the public before it is 
remediated would achieve the same effect as disclosing these 
vulnerabilities before there is even a patch, leading other bad actors 
to exploit the same vulnerabilities potentially for themselves, in 
effect providing a best practices to the worst actors.
  It is clear that we must work together to be able to increase 
resiliency in cybersecurity across the board, but the SEC's rule falls 
short and fails to strike the right balance between the regulatory 
burden and improving security outcomes.
  Therefore, Mr. Chair, I am offering this amendment to ensure that we 
do not inadvertently jeopardize companies' confidentiality reporting 
strategies and publicly divulge bad information to bad actors to 
further threaten the United States.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
is an amendment that would block the SEC's rule to require companies to 
disclose material cybersecurity incidents to their investors.
  As SEC Chair Gary Gensler puts it: Whether a company loses a factory 
in a fire--or millions of files in a cybersecurity incident--it may be 
material to investors.
  Mr. Chair, many public companies already provide their investors with 
cybersecurity incident disclosures. These rules merely make such 
disclosures more consistent and comparable in a way that can be useful 
for those making investment decisions.
  Why in the world would you want to invest in a company that hides its 
cybersecurity incidents?
  Efforts like this amendment would undermine transparency and provide 
investors with less useful information regarding material cybersecurity 
events.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with both the 
premise and the impact my colleague has represented here.
  We have multiple lines of effort when it comes to protecting 
cybersecurity, particularly for Americans in our small and medium 
businesses in this area.
  First and foremost, the Department of Homeland Security has primacy 
on this issue. When there is a violation, the Department of Justice 
must be informed. When we have CISA who lays out the requirements for 
reporting standards and then we have unelected individuals at the SEC 
who weigh on top of this with new regulations that are actually in 
conflict, we find ourselves not only confusing the issue but exposing 
some of our most sensitive information to our adversaries.
  We have seen time and time again the threat imposed by foreign actors 
who look at what we are doing and disclosing as a way to attack us. 
They are using it not only as a model but as a playbook to go after us.
  Let's secure our cybersecurity and ensure that our investors and our 
cyber hygiene are protected before we rampantly put out in the public 
space information which could truly harm national security.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5631]]

  

  Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support a strong 
cybersecurity hygiene in this space, hold the SEC accountable, and 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Nunn of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to approve 
     the proposed rule of the Public Company Accounting Oversight 
     Board titled ``Proposing Release: Amendments to PCAOB 
     Auditing Standards related to a Company's Noncompliance with 
     Laws and Regulations; And Other Related Amendments'' 
     (published June 6, 2023).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nunn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I rise today, like many of my 
colleagues, to offer an amendment to push back on yet another ill-
informed and arguably reckless proposal.
  This amendment, which I am proud to co-lead with the chairwoman of 
the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Mrs. Wagner, is a straightforward 
amendment to protect businesses in States like mine in Iowa and many 
communities across America and to mitigate harm to investors at every 
level.
  This amendment would prohibit unelected bureaucrats at the SEC from 
using funds in this legislation to require a small business to be 
forced to consider unrelated external factors as they review financial 
statements.
  Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I agree that 
preventing fraud and maintaining financial reporting integrity is 
essential to U.S. capital markets. However, this proposal is 
unnecessary and extremely burdensome. If passed, it would divert 
valuable resources away from a business' principle responsibility to 
rigorously evaluate financial statements and make every auditor into 
some kind of pseudo attorney, a situation no small business can afford.
  Small businesses are already the subject of highly complex and often 
technical laws and regulations that both Federal, State, and even local 
authorities impose upon them. The vague and complex language included 
in this proposal creates ambiguity that would only lead to adverse 
outcomes for U.S. businesses, including increased legal and compliance 
costs for all that ultimately are passed on to everyday Americans.
  In fact, estimates report that this proposal could triple the annual 
costs for public companies to the tune of more than $55 billion per 
year.
  Mr. Chair, I came to Congress, like so many in this room, to be able 
to serve my constituents and to roll back the type of bureaucracy and 
bureaucratic requirements that are crushing everyday Main Street 
businesses in my hometown and towns like it across Iowa by an imposed, 
non-elected person somewhere in Washington who sits behind a desk and 
writes these regulations with no consideration of the impact to 
hometown America. We do ourselves a disservice.
  With this amendment, I believe it is a step forward to fulfilling so 
many of our commitments that we share on both the left and the right, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
is an amendment that would block the Public Company Accounting 
Oversight Board's proposal to strengthen standards for public company 
auditors to more proactively identify, evaluate, and communicate a 
company's noncompliance with laws and rules.
  Why in the world wouldn't we want to warn investors about scofflaw 
companies?
  The PCAOB's proposal will increase auditor vigilance against fraud 
and general noncompliance with laws and regulations. Steps like these 
would encourage companies to take more timely action to remediate 
issues and reduce harm to investors.
  This amendment would represent a significant setback to PCAOB's 
commonsense efforts to combat fraud. Let's protect investors. I 
strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, like the roughly 80 percent of 
businesses that commented on this proposal, I would have to 
respectfully disagree with my Democratic colleague.
  We have a folklore hero in the heartland called Will Rogers. He says: 
You should write your Member of Congress frequently, because even if 
they don't read it, they will at least know there is a problem out 
there.
  We have heard back overwhelmingly from individuals who are operators 
in this space. The feedback highlights the imperative in evaluating the 
effectiveness of any rule and striking the right balance between not 
only fraud prevention and audit quality but by preserving the essential 
financial reporting duties, something that they have been doing 
ardently for years.
  The PCAOB has failed to engage in a productive dialogue with so many 
not only in my district but across the country on this critical matter 
to take into account the detrimental impact that it is going to have to 
small businesses across America.
  While I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I would 
urge them to consider all the good work that is already being done in 
this area and ask that the PCAOB do its job and start listening to 
Americans and implementing exercises that will assist, not regulations 
that will terminate.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1745


                 Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the funds 
appropriated by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask 
mandates.
  I was fortunate enough to introduce this amendment during both the 
Energy and Water as well as the Interior appropriations, and I am happy 
to do it again today.
  That being said, we are in the post-COVID world. People are educated 
on masks and whether or not they want to use them. Instead of imposing 
this type of mandate on individuals, let's trust their judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my colleague and friend.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. 
Ogle's amendment, which will prohibit

[[Page H5632]]

the funds from being used to institute mask mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, when President Biden admitted that there is no Federal 
solution to COVID-19, he admitted that the mask and vaccine mandates 
were never about public health, they were about control.
  Placing mask mandates on the American people and dictating that they 
must comply, or else, runs contrary to our commitment to America. Let's 
not forget that throughout the entire pandemic Democrats ignored their 
own masking rules while forcing children to wear them at school, and 
even outside on extremely hot days.
  Liberal elites were spotted without their masks at hair salons, fancy 
restaurants, and more. Those same hypocritical leaders shamed others 
who did not comply with the mask mandates that they ignored.
  The American people see right through Democrats' masking political 
theater and will never forget how they played politics with our 
children by shuttering their schools and masking their faces, even as 
doctors were noting the harm those mandates were causing our children.
  As a pharmacist, I trust patients to work with medical professionals 
and their families to make healthcare decisions that work best for 
them.
  A decision to receive a vaccine or wear a mask is a personal one and 
should only be done in consultation with a trusted healthcare 
professional.
  That is why we need policies that empower workers to work, allows 
children and families to thrive, and encourages patients to foster 
relationships with their healthcare providers. One-size-fits-all 
mandates are nothing short of government overreach in its most 
tyrannical form.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Ogles for working on this 
amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and 
oppose President Biden's unconstitutional mask mandates.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that there is probably no 
Member of this House happier than I am not to have to wear a mask this 
afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is a useless 
amendment. The COVID public health emergency has ended. This is water 
over the dam. We should stop wasting the House's time on useless 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I would point out with mask mandates, that 
includes any mask that can be utilized or worn. As to N-95 masks, the 
gold standard of masking, it was pointed out in The New York Times 
opinion piece by epidemiologist, Tom Jefferson, that masks did not show 
as an effective means to blocking the virus.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of this amendment. I ask my colleagues 
and my friends from the other side to support my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the final rule of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau entitled ``Small 
     Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 
     (Regulation B)'' and published on May 31, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 
     35150).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to implement or 
enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule titled: ``Small 
Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.'' Mr. 
Chairman, that is a mouthful.
  Mr. Chairman, I would argue the CFPB is unconstitutional and should 
not exist. They should not be making this rule. The CFPB's final rule 
implementing section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires lenders to 
report data on small business loan applications, including applications 
from minority-owned, women-owned and LGBTQ-owned small businesses. This 
is information that is private to them and should have no bearing on 
creditworthiness, but rather is an intrusion into their privacy.
  There is no reason why the government should be requiring the 
collection and disclosure of this information. There is no reason why 
money should be allocated to enforce this rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
which would hinder efforts to promote transparency and accountability 
in small business lending and create hurdles for lenders and community 
organizations working to help women-owned businesses and minority-owned 
businesses access capital.
  The CFPB's rulemaking would provide small business owners, lenders, 
and the public with critical information about the $1.7 trillion small 
business financing market.
  This amendment would harm all those who stand to benefit from this 
expanded transparency and accountability.
  Small businesses are the engines of our American economy. Congress 
should not take action such as this amendment to hurt their ability to 
prosper.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I respect and appreciate my colleague's 
comments. I would point out that the CFPB, which I would argue, is an 
unconstitutional bogeyman for so many small American businesses. They 
want to force lenders to report data from women-owned businesses.
  In the committee hearing, I asked Mr. Chopra: What is a woman? He 
couldn't answer the question. He chose not to answer the question.
  I would argue, how is this information and data even reliable when 
they can't define what a woman is.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of those situations that in the name of 
transparency the government is collecting more information, information 
that they don't need in order to warrant or grant creditworthiness.
  There is a point at which you stop collecting data. There is a point 
at which you have an obligation to protect the consumer, especially 
when you look at all the data breaches that our government and banks 
have had over and over again.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments, and I 
respect his opinion.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule 
     titled

[[Page H5633]]

     ``Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System 
     Principles'' (88 Fed. Reg. 63862 (September 18, 2023)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, our Republic depends on our bureaucracies 
faithfully implementing the laws and policies set forth by our elected 
officials.
  A misguided rule proposed by the Office of Personnel Management could 
threaten a President's ability to ensure that the executive branch is 
appropriately staffed to carry out his or her policies.
  During the Trump administration, some career Federal employees were 
either unwilling to appropriately carry out President Trump's agenda 
or, maybe more often, found themselves ill-equipped to make, implement, 
or communicate policies with which they disagreed.
  All Presidents, Republican or Democrat, have this problem to some 
degree. They have a right to staff their offices.
  President Biden now, outrageously, finds himself facing resistance by 
State Department employees who disagree with his opposition to Hamas.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we allow this amendment to pass. It 
empowers a President, regardless of policy, regardless of party, to do 
their job to staff their offices.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  A nonpartisan civil service ensures Federal agencies carry out their 
missions with professionalism, safeguards the rule of law over 
partisanship, and ensures continuity between Presidential 
administrations.
  This didn't use to be a dispute in Washington, D.C. There was a 
clear, longstanding bipartisan consensus behind these principles until 
the previous administration attempted to undermine statutory merit-
based protections for Federal civil servants.
  Their effort would have moved tens of thousands of career Federal 
employees to a new job classification that would remove their 
employment protections.
  This amendment seeks to block the Office of Personnel Management's 
efforts to uphold these vital protections and works to undermine the 
integrity of a merit-based, nonpartisan civil service.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  We have civil service protections to protect career Federal employees 
from being fired or demoted just because the President or their 
supervisor disagrees with them politically. We must allow an 
administration the flexibility to decide that certain people are a bad 
fit for certain key roles and to let them transfer people so that the 
role can be filled with someone better suited for it. That is all we 
are asking. That is all this does.
  To accomplish this, the Trump administration created schedule F, 
which identified positions that had a ``confidential, policy-
determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating character,'' and 
provided that the administration could change who served in those 
specific roles to make sure that they were willing and able to advance 
the agenda the President chose to pursue.
  This would apply to Biden. This would apply to Trump. This would have 
applied to Obama--regardless of party.
  My amendment simply defunds a Biden rule that blocks Presidents from 
using a similar policy in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, which would block the Biden administration's proposed rule 
titled: ``Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System 
Principles,'' which would help prevent any future administration from 
reinstating the so-called schedule F.
  The gentleman who is the author of this amendment says all we are 
asking for is flexibility. Balderdash. We already know that the Trump 
putative Presidency in exile have plans for moving 50,000 Federal 
employees initially into this new schedule F not authorized by 
Congress.
  That is not flexibility. That is gutting civil service protection 
that has been in place since the 1880s. Congress created by statute a 
politics-free professional cadre of Federal employment to protect 
Federal employees and the public from the previous corrupt spoil system 
and political interference of President after President, irrespective 
of party.
  Going back to that system is an enormous step backward and a huge 
disservice to Federal employees and to the public they serve and we 
serve.

                              {time}  1800

  If we are going to do this, then Congress has to be consulted. No 
President should have the unilateral authority to create a new profound 
schedule for the civil service. If it was created by statute, then a 
change to it this profound must also be heard by Congress and acted on 
by statute.
  Schedule F would be a destructive instrument at the whim of any 
President. The gentleman says: Well, Obama could have had it if this 
were in place.
  So could Trump and so could Biden. That is the problem. No President 
should have this kind of breathtaking power. I think the time is ripe 
for Congress to stand up for its own prerogatives and protect the 
original legislation creating a nonpartisan political service and 
protect the Federal employees who serve our public.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I would argue that it is time that Congress 
empowers any President to be able to staff their office, and if they 
have a member of their administration who is undermining their policies 
that they are able to--and it is not that we are saying to fire these 
individuals. It is a matter of putting them in another role where they 
are better suited so the President can carry forward on their policies.
  It is my understanding that we have people within Biden's own 
administration who don't agree with him on policy. That is not their 
call. That is the President's call. That is the call of Congress. So 
this is empowering the President, the administrative office, to be able 
to run more like a business.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of this amendment. I think it is good, 
sound policy, and it puts a check and balance in place on career 
politicians who are more focused on their agenda than serving Congress 
or serving the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 85 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 86 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     proposed rule titled ``Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons 
     Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders'' published by the 
     Bureau of

[[Page H5634]]

     Consumer Financial Protection in the Federal Register on 
     January 30, 2023 (88 FR 6088).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to finalize, 
implement, administer, or enforce the CFPB's rule entitled ``Registry 
of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court 
Orders.''
  Mr. Chairman, there is a recurring theme here. That is because the 
CFPB is unconstitutional and their funding is unconstitutional. I would 
hope and expect the Supreme Court to rule in that way so that Congress 
can rule and administer funds appropriately.
  That being said, we have an obligation to rein in their out-of-
control regulation.
  The CFPB's proposed rule seeks to publicly identify so-called repeat 
financial law offenders by establishing a database of enforcement 
actions taken against certain nonbank covered entities.
  Specifically, the proposed rule would require certain nonbank 
entities to register with the bureau and to provide regular updates on 
such covered orders.
  The proposed rule also includes obtaining enforcement actions against 
organizations that have already settled with State or local 
authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is empowering an agency that has already gone too 
far. It has gone beyond its mandate, it is unconstitutional, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, Congress gave the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, the CFPB, the job of ensuring that consumer 
protection laws are enforced consistently and that companies do not 
engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.
  The statute is clear that this authority extends to oversight of 
nonbank companies that offer financial services or products.
  Consistent with its mission of protecting consumers from abusive 
practices, the CFPB's nonbank registry will provide increased 
transparency over this sector and deter bad behavior. This amendment 
would stymie the CFPB's important effort on behalf of consumers and 
block the agency from preventing abusive practices by nonbanks that 
offer Financial Services or products.
  Congress has to focus its attention on strengthening consumer 
protections for working people and investors, preventing companies from 
charging junk fees, and supporting enforcement to crack down on 
unscrupulous behavior. These are things we should be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, I urge a ``no'' vote, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the CFPB is essentially orchestrating a 
name-and-shame scheme with this registry, and it is openly weaponizing 
the power of the Federal Government to target market participants.
  It could be weaponized, and it could be leveraged. So if they don't 
like how you operate, Mr. Chairman, if you are not woke enough, or if 
you are not green enough, then they can put on a registry.
  To be clear, the CFPB does not have the authority to promulgate a 
robust set of registration requirements, nor does it have the authority 
to establish a database for a particular category of information. Such 
a registry will result in cost compliances and measures for covered 
nonbank entities, many of which are small businesses.
  We are hearing this from the banking sector and from the adjacent 
sectors as well that the cost of compliance, because of the CFPB and 
because of the rulemaking, is off the charts. Ultimately, the consumer 
pays that cost.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. Obviously, I 
ask that this amendment be adopted and ultimately that the CFPB be 
dismantled.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  No funds made available by this Act may be used 
     to finalize the proposed rule entitled ``Miscellaneous and 
     General Requirements'' (87 Fed. Reg. 78014 (December 21, 
     2022)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to finalize the 
Federal Labor Relations Authority's proposed rule which would restrict 
Federal employees' ability to opt out of membership in a labor union.
  I am not against the union, per se, but the right for someone to opt 
out. They should have that right.
  In its Janus decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that government 
employees have a First Amendment right to retain their jobs while 
choosing to abstain from funding or participating in a public-sector 
union.
  However, the Federal Labor Relations Authority has proposed a rule to 
violate the intention of that ruling.
  First, it restricts Federal employees to a limited window each 
calendar year to opt out of having union dues deducted from their 
paychecks. Then, preposterously, it requires agencies to assume that 
employees who have already opted out of paying dues want to resume 
paying dues in the future, which requires the employee to then opt out 
again.
  This is not the intent of the Supreme Court decision. The employees 
should be empowered and not basically hemmed in by a regulatory rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Labor Relations Authority's 
proposed changes to rules around how and when Federal employees can 
cancel payments of their union dues merely restores a longstanding 
policy about dues payments that had been in place since 1981.
  The policy merely establishes that employees may opt out of their 
union dues payments during a certain time period each year.
  Under this longstanding procedure, Federal employees who choose to 
join their agency's union are made aware of the annual dues revocation 
period. Every year some members choose to revoke their membership and 
cease paying dues, a fair process that has worked well for decades.
  This amendment would block these decades-old rules and introduce less 
stability, less financial security, and less predictability for Federal 
employee unions.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, I urge a ``no'' vote, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to point out in its Janus 
decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that employees have a First 
Amendment right to opt out. The decision didn't say that the employee 
has a First Amendment right 1 month out of the year. It said that they 
have the right.
  This rule is unreasonable in that it requires an employee, if they 
need or decide they want to opt out, to wait 11 months. That is not 
what the decision says.
  Mr. Chairman, you have a First Amendment right to say no.
  Furthermore, once you have opted out, why, then can the union then 
ignore your First Amendment right and opt you back in the following 
year?
  That is not the intent of this decision, and it is not our obligation 
to ensure the stability of a union. Moreover,

[[Page H5635]]

this decision was to protect the rights of workers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands amendment No. 88 will not be 
offered.


               Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the ``Federal Supplier Climate Risks and 
     Resilience Proposed Rule''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment No. 89 will prohibit any 
funds made available in this act from being used to enforce the Federal 
supplier climate risks and resilience proposed rule.
  This rule is part of the Biden administration's plan for the Federal 
Government to reach net-zero procurement.
  The rule seeks to impose impractical and overly burdensome climate 
reporting standards on large- and medium-sized government contractors 
of which small businesses make up 29 percent and 64 percent 
respectively.
  Climate and emissions standards should not be integrated into 
financial reporting, especially for the small businesses who lack the 
resources to meet these environmentalists' extreme standards.
  These government contractors play a critical role in providing 
essential goods and services such as weapons systems to our military 
and the very uniforms that they wear. Wool from Montana is used in the 
design and the production of our Army uniforms.
  Currently, only 10 percent of medium-sized contractors and 31 percent 
of large contractors disclose their GHG emissions.
  These reporting requirements represent a substantial burden, 
especially for contractors who lack the infrastructure to collect 
emissions data. To comply with these overly burdensome regulations, 
these small businesses will be required to invest significant amounts 
of time, money, and manpower to establish entirely new emissions 
reporting regimes. Such an endeavor will be financially crippling for 
many of them.
  As Congress, we should ensure that the best companies for the job are 
the ones who get the contract, not just massive government contractors 
who can produce time-consuming reports. We should not be imposing these 
impractical emissions reporting standards on any businesses, 
particularly on the family ranches that produce our military uniforms.
  This amendment is about ensuring that our government remains 
impartial and does not become a platform for large corporations to 
stifle competition.

                              {time}  1815

  We must champion true and fair competition within the government 
contract space, promoting economic fairness and a level playing field 
over an environmentalist agenda.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, 
which aims to protect the interests of small businesses and uphold the 
principles of fairness, competitiveness, and financial responsibility.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment blocks an important rule requiring major Federal 
contractors to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and 
climate-related financial risks and sets science-based emissions 
reduction targets.
  The Federal Government is the world's single-largest buyer of goods 
and services, purchasing over $630 billion in the last fiscal year 
alone. Accordingly, the rule recognizes that the Federal Government 
also faces significant financial risks from climate change.
  This amendment would have us bury our heads in the sand, ignore the 
Federal Government's exposure to climate change impacts, and prevent us 
from working toward commonsense climate goals. For those reasons, I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, just so everybody understands, this 
proposed rule from the Biden administration requires major contractors 
to annually disclose scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and to establish 
science-based target requirements.
  Let me tell you what scope 1 is: greenhouse gas emissions from 
sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting entity. If I am 
raising wool, am I supposed to follow around behind each and every 
sheep that runs through the pasture to check the flatulence that they 
are releasing from their derrieres? This is absolutely ridiculous, and 
this is the kind of thing that the other side of the aisle is 
requiring.
  I am not going to the south end of a northbound sheep to try to find 
out how much is being emitted.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I think that we have very quickly 
demonstrated how ridiculous this standard is, and I hope that all of my 
colleagues support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 90 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 90 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the purchase or construction of any new Federal 
     building in Washington, D.C.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 90 would prohibit any 
funds made available by this act from being used for the purchase or 
construction of any new Federal building in Washington, D.C.
  Our Nation is over $33 trillion in debt, with an expected annual 
deficit this year of nearly $2 trillion. We need to find innovative 
ways to reduce this spending.
  The Federal Government spends approximately $25 billion annually to 
operate, maintain, or lease over 278,000 buildings. Some Realtors out 
there are getting very wealthy managing these properties.
  A recent GAO report found that, in early 2023, well past COVID at-
home working, two-thirds of Federal agencies used a mere 25 percent or 
less of

[[Page H5636]]

their space at headquarters. You cannot keep vacancy rates like that on 
any commercial enterprise and stay in business.
  The same report also found that, on the higher range, agencies used 
an estimated 39 to 49 percent of the capacity of their headquarters.
  The Federal Government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars to own and 
maintain buildings and barely uses them. This is unacceptable, and 
quite frankly, it is an insult to the taxpayers of Montana. Moreover, 
having all of our Federal agencies in Washington, D.C., makes them less 
accountable to the American people.
  One of President Trump's accomplishments was moving the Bureau of 
Land Management headquarters to Colorado. Agencies should be close to 
the constituents where their actions have the biggest impact. 
Unfortunately, Secretary Haaland reversed course and moved the BLM's 
headquarters back to Washington, D.C. If the BLM was still 
headquartered in Colorado, maybe Director Stone-Manning would be more 
accessible to the constituents whom her disastrous rules have harmed.
  Our Nation is trillions in debt and wastes billions on underutilized 
Federal buildings. No organization can operate this way successfully. 
The status quo must change. My commonsense amendment would simply 
prohibit funds for constructing or purchasing new buildings in 
Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment would block the construction of Federal buildings in 
Washington, D.C., and with all due respect to the gentleman from 
Montana, it is based on a fundamental misconception. It is not like 
these projects go up at the whim of the administration. Buildings have 
to have appropriated funding, and there is a prospectus process on the 
authorizing side.
  This is a misguided amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, let me reiterate this again: Two-thirds of 
Federal agencies used 25 percent or less of their space at 
headquarters. This was not during the peak of COVID when we had a lot 
of people working from home. This is a report that the GAO just 
produced in 2023.
  We have vacant buildings. People are probably wandering around there, 
wondering what the echo sound is.
  In January 2023, at a meeting of the Federal Real Property Council, 
more than half of the agency officials acknowledged that their 
headquarters buildings had excess space prior to the pandemic.
  Mr. Chair, we have too much real estate. We need to liquidate some of 
these assets. We need to get some of those buildings off the books. 
Then, we can have a conversation about where new construction can take 
place.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  This amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this bill for the 
purchase or construction of any new building in the District of 
Columbia. The purchase or construction of new Federal buildings can 
save taxpayers money and improve government operations.
  The ongoing consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security's 
headquarters at St. Elizabeth's in the District of Columbia is a prime 
example of how new construction can result in significant savings for 
taxpayers.
  The Department is currently housed in more than 50 separate locations 
throughout the national capital region, and 79 percent of those leases 
will expire in the next 5 years. Consolidating the Department at St. 
Elizabeth's will reduce the Department's leasing portfolio and costs by 
at least 20 percent in accordance with the Reduce the Footprint policy 
of the General Services Administration as required by Congress and is 
estimated to result in $1.17 billion in savings.
  If this amendment were adopted, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Security Agency and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis would be 
forced to extend expensive short-term leases at significant taxpayer 
cost.
  The consolidation of the Department at St. Elizabeth's is important 
for streamlining operations and coordination among key Department 
agencies and offices.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 91 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  The amount otherwise made available by this Act 
     for the Consumer Product Safety Commission is hereby reduced 
     by 50 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 91 would reduce funding to 
the Commission by 50 percent, saving American taxpayers approximately 
$69 million. This does not include the savings from the unnecessary 
regulations on the industry and the obligation that the regulatory 
state has created on them.
  The Biden-appointed CPSC Commissioners began talking about banning 
gas stoves this past January. After major pushback, the Chair of the 
CPSC said that they weren't looking into a ban on gas stoves. However, 
the Biden administration still moved forward with the Department of 
Energy rule on gas stove emissions.
  I was proud to vote for Representative Kelly Armstrong's Gas Stove 
Protection and Freedom Act in June, and I am pleased that the base text 
of this bill includes a provision to protect Americans from unserious 
and invasive emissions standards.
  However, this ordeal has led me to lose any confidence in the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, which should probably not exist in 
the first place and should only issue recommendations.
  These unelected bureaucrats get paid to work out of a beltway office 
and decide what products Americans can buy. It is time to rein them in. 
American people and businesses should be the ones making those 
decisions. If there is a particularly egregious product, consumers have 
legal recourse, and Congress can step in and make a law. It shouldn't 
be done by unaccountable bureaucrats who are invested in keeping 
themselves employed by continuing to overregulate products.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  For more than 50 years, the United States Consumer Product Safety 
Commission has worked to fulfill its statutory mission to protect the 
public against unreasonable risk of injuries and deaths associated with 
consumer products.
  By cutting the CPSC's budget by half, this amendment would gut the 
agency's staff and undermine its mission.
  It is an extreme measure that would place children, families, and 
communities around the country at greater risk of injury and death from 
product

[[Page H5637]]

hazards. This amendment would leave consumers vulnerable to products 
that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or that 
can injure children.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, besides trying to ban gas stoves, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission has also proposed other ridiculous 
rules.
  For example, on October 25, 2023--not the early 1900s, 2023--the 
Commission proposed a rule on furnaces that states: The U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission has determined preliminarily that there is an 
unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with residential gas-
fired central furnaces, boilers, wall furnaces, and floor furnaces.
  This is all gas furnaces and boilers.

                              {time}  1830

  Let's get to the crux of this. This agency is trying to put the 
natural fuels that we have in our country out of business. This is 
another ploy by the Biden administration to drive us all to this broken 
idea of relying upon renewable energy. It is not realistic. This is 
just another agency that is trying to perpetuate that, and they do not 
need more money to attack the American people and American industries.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, under the legal theory espoused by the 
Commission, all manufacturers and retailers would be liable for 
injuries caused by consumers' negligence or even intentional misuse of 
a safe product, even when the manufacturer provided warnings and 
instructions on safe use. This is nothing more than a trial attorney's 
dream come true. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 92 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE BY THIS ACT MAY BE 
                   USED FOR THE OFFICE OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION 
                   IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 92 would prohibit funding 
for President Biden's new Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
  Since President Biden took office in January of 2021, our Second 
Amendment rights have been under assault. Now, with the stroke of a 
pen, President Biden created the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, 
allowing his administration to bypass Congress unilaterally and 
implement the left's gun control agenda.
  This office would be overseen by Vice President Kamala Harris and 
staffed with radical former gun control lobbyists, allowing the swamp 
to have total control of Biden's gun control agenda.
  In Montana, 64 percent of the households have firearms. Montanans 
will not go along with the White House's attempt to undermine our 
Second Amendment rights.
  People often say, what are they afraid of out there in Montana? Why 
do they need so many firearms? I will tell you, we are not afraid of 
anything, and it is because we do have our firearms.
  It is unacceptable for the hard-earned tax dollars of gun owners in 
Montana to fund the salaries of unelected, gun-grabbing bureaucrats who 
are hell-bent on branding law-abiding, responsible gun owners as 
criminals.
  My amendment would throw a wrench in the gun control lobbyists' plans 
and severely hamper the Biden administration's ability to impose 
further restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. It is time we 
drained the swamp and kicked the gun control lobby out of the White 
House. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this senseless 
amendment.
  The White House gun violence task force is committed to treating gun 
violence as the public health crisis it is. By approaching this issue 
from a public health perspective, the task force aims to reduce the 
staggering number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the 
United States.
  The task force emphasizes the importance of data-driven and evidence-
based policy decisions that will create solutions that balance the 
rights of law-abiding gun owners with the need for public safety.
  Mr. Chair, as a gun owner myself, I tell you that task force seeks to 
enact commonsense gun safety measures that the majority of Americans 
support. These include: background checks for all gun sales, closing 
the gun show and online sale loopholes, and implementing red flag laws 
temporarily to disarm individuals who pose a danger to themselves or 
others.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, as I have referenced, Vice President Harris 
possesses no special credentials to run the Office of Gun Violence 
Prevention and will act as nothing more than a figurehead. The office 
will rely on leftwing special interests and lobbyists to enact the 
Democrats' war on the Second Amendment while also rewarding President 
Biden's donors with cushy jobs at the White House.
  Rob Wilcox, the Deputy Director of the Office of Gun Violence 
Prevention, led Federal policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, which is 
primarily financed by Michael Bloomberg. All the time my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are trying to undermine and compromise our 
Second Amendment rights, they fail to recognize the prosecutors that 
they have put in place around the country that refuse to charge and 
prosecute the criminals that should not have guns, that have been doing 
crimes with illegal firearms. That is where the focus needs to be. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment to eliminate the White House Office of Gun Violence 
Prevention, which President Biden took historic action to create.
  This year, there have been more shootings than days in the year. It 
has been a deadly year, and that is why the American people want to see 
us take action, not tear down the simple efforts they are owed.
  However, my colleagues aren't listening to the American people. They 
are listening to the gun manufacturers. They are listening to the gun 
lobby, the gun lobby that emailed everyone about this amendment that we 
are debating right now, saying they would endorse against any 
politician who votes with common sense. It was an email filled with 
pure hyperbole saying that this office was made to take guns away.
  This office is not created to take guns away, it is created to save 
lives. The American people fear for their safety, and that should be 
more important than Republican politicians' fear for their careers.
  How many more dreams need to be extinguished until we say enough is 
enough?
  The swamp radicals that we are referring to are people like Greg 
Jackson, a survivor of gun violence who was shot not too far from this 
Chamber and fought for his life in the hospital. He

[[Page H5638]]

almost died due to senseless gun violence, and he has committed his 
life to saving all of our lives. I am offended that someone would call 
him or Rob Wilcox, another survivor of gun violence, the swamp.
  The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention will save lives, 
and voting ``no'' means trying to eliminate a FEMA-like response for 
communities after shootings and the coordination of gun violence 
prevention programs that will save lives.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, again, what my colleagues fail to recognize 
time and time again is the fact that we have so much crime that takes 
place, criminal on criminal, or criminals committing these crimes and 
an innocent victim gets tied up in the crossfire.

  They also refuse to recognize that these communities and cities that 
are led by Democrat leaders have had increased crime rates over the 
last several years since the Biden administration has taken over, and 
that is because they have prosecutors who are not charging and 
prosecuting these criminals and letting them off without proper 
punitive measures taking place.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will make this about criminal-on-criminal activity. One of the core 
tenets of this office is for community violence intervention, one of 
the only such programs in our country that go into communities, find 
out people who are most likely to shoot someone, and people who are 
most likely to be shot, create relationships, and intervene before the 
violence happens. This office is working to solve exactly the problem 
that was just iterated by the other side.
  I hope if my colleagues follow their own logic that they will vote 
``no'' on this amendment so we can save lives across the entire 
country.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, forgive me if I don't trust a Federal 
agency to be policing a community and using their discretion about who 
may or may not be committing a crime in the future.
  My gosh, we have just witnessed the FBI conducting surveillance on 
Catholics because they were attending Latin masses.
  We watched them conduct surveillance on parents because they dared 
attempt to attend school board meetings.
  Now we are going to unleash the Federal agencies to conduct 
surveillance on people who might own a firearm, who may not own a 
firearm, who might commit a crime in the future, and they are going to 
be the sole judge of that?
  The people across Montana will not support that. They will not 
tolerate that, and this amendment deems to get rid of an agency that is 
trying to do those exact kinds of acts.
  I ask my colleagues to please support this amendment. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 93 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act, 
     including titles IV and VIII, may be used to carry out 
     section 3a of the Immunization of School Students Act of 1979 
     (sec. 38-502.01, D.C. Official Code).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I am offering would prohibit 
the District of Columbia from using Federal funding to require that 
elementary or secondary school students take the COVID-19 vaccine and 
all the boosters to attend school.
  In 2021, the D.C. City Council voted to create an unscientific 
mandate that D.C. students be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 
including boosters. It was repeatedly delayed, as the parents of more 
than 40 percent of children over 12 in D.C. decided the COVID-19 
vaccine was not worth the risks and declined to get vaccinated.
  Today, the mandate would keep 73 percent of all D.C. students between 
the ages of 12 and 17 out of classrooms.
  Now, the issue here, obviously, is twofold. One is whether Congress 
should have a role in impacting policy choices in the District of 
Columbia, which the Constitution clearly contemplates.
  In fact, the District of Columbia is not a State. It was not designed 
to be a State. It is not going to be a State because the District of 
Columbia was set up in our Constitution to be our National Capital, by 
design, very specifically.
  One of the things that we are able to do as a Congress is effect 
policy in the District of Columbia, whereas we are not supposed to 
intervene for the most part in the laboratories of democracy among the 
States. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle never find any 
limit to their ability to want to interject into the States.
  One of the things we can do in D.C. is try to impact policy here. 
Now, the fact is, these vaccine mandates were completely ineffective; 
and, in fact, they were destructive. The CDC's own website states that 
when cases have occurred, they have most frequently been seen in 
adolescent and young adult males.
  The Pfizer website states myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred 
in some people who have received the vaccine, more commonly in 
adolescent males.
  The FDA has placed a warning label on both the Moderna and Pfizer 
vaccines. I could go on and on with the evidence and the indication of 
the concerns these mandates have on freedom and, importantly, our 
children.
  Now, obviously, the rule for this was passed before yesterday when 
the D.C. City Council unanimously voted to repeal this unscientific 
mandate.

                              {time}  1845

  There is not some vast Republican conspiracy afoot in D.C. The 
Department of Health, Office of State Superintendent of Education, and 
the Deputy Mayor of Education each testified in favor of repealing the 
vaccine mandate.
  What we are doing here in offering this is making clear that it is 
the position of the United States Congress who is constitutionally 
charged with ensuring that the District of Columbia is managed 
appropriately is no longer foisting upon the children who live in the 
Nation's Capital a, frankly, intrusive and harmful vaccine mandate, and 
it should not continue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. This 
amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia from using its local 
funds to carry out the section of D.C.'s Immunization of School 
Students Act of 1979 that required students to receive a COVID-19 
vaccine.
  D.C. has already repealed this section. While the repeal of the 
section expires on January 23, 2024, yesterday the D.C. Council passed 
legislation that would permanently repeal this section.
  Nevertheless, how D.C. spends its local funds, which consist of local 
taxes and fees, should be a decision for D.C., not Congress.
  If D.C.'s locally elected officials want to spend local D.C. funds to 
carry out COVID-19 vaccine requirements for students, they should have 
the authority to do so.

[[Page H5639]]

  If they do not want to spend D.C.'s local funds to carry out COVID-19 
vaccine requirements for students, they should have the authority not 
to do so.
  D.C.'s locally elected officials are accountable to D.C. residents. 
If D.C. residents do not like the decisions of their locally elected 
officials, they can vote them out of office.
  D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable 
of governing themselves. If House Republicans cared about democratic 
principles or D.C. residents, they would bring my D.C. statehood bill, 
which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and 
full local self-government, to this floor.
  Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of 
Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will.
  I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C. If you 
want to legislate on local D.C. matters, become a D.C. resident and get 
elected Mayor or councilmember.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, in March of this year President Biden signed 
legislation that we moved through this body overturning the criminal 
code revisions of the D.C. City Council that reduced the maximum 
penalties for burglary, carjacking, and robbery.
  Our own colleague, the gentleman from Texas, was carjacked at 
gunpoint nine blocks from where we are right here.
  The fact of the matter is D.C. needs continued oversight from this 
body. I am glad that we acted and passed that legislation and forced 
change to the code, and I am glad that President Biden signed it.
  What we are doing here is not just academic. I understand the D.C. 
City Council acted yesterday, but it is important for this body, for 
the House of Representatives, to make clear that the students in this 
country should not be subjected to mandatory vaccine mandates that 
undermine their health through pseudoscience.
  We have an obligation to ensure that we are ensuring that Nation's 
Capital is doing the right thing, and, frankly, we have the ability to 
influence that in ways we should not when interfering directly with the 
laboratories of democracy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 94 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement any of the following Executive orders:
       (1) Executive Order 13990, relating to Protecting Public 
     Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle 
     the Climate Crisis.
       (2) Executive Order 14008, relating to Tackling the Climate 
     Crisis at Home and Abroad.
       (3) Section 6 of Executive Order 14013, relating to 
     Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and 
     Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration.
       (4) Executive Order 14030, relating to Climate-Related 
     Financial Risk.
       (5) Executive Order 14057, relating to Catalyzing Clean 
     Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability.
       (6) Executive Order 14082, relating to Implementation of 
     the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation 
     Reduction Act of 2022.
       (7) Executive Order 14096, relating to Revitalizing Our 
     Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I am offering here prohibits 
any of the funding in the Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations Act from being used to carry out President Biden's 
executive orders on climate change.
  This is something I have been offering in each of the appropriations 
bills because I believe that the implications of the President's 
executive orders on climate change are significant.
  They are undermining our well-being. They are undermining the 
prosperity of American citizens. They are harming the economy. They are 
driving up inflation. They are minimizing options for the people of 
this country to go about doing their jobs. They are driving up the 
price of energy. They are making cars more expensive. They are making 
homes more expensive.
  You wonder why we have high inflation? Look no further than the 
radical environmental policies of my Democratic colleagues.
  In September, the Department of the Treasury issued its ``Principles 
for Net-Zero Financing & Investment,'' which highlighted best practices 
for net-zero commitments and approaches to implementing them.
  The SEC has proposed rules to force all public companies to report on 
their emissions and all the emissions in their value chains. The bill 
defunds that.
  The IRS is implementing the vast majority of $1.2 trillion in climate 
subsidies included in the IRA--again, $1.2 trillion in climate 
subsidies included in the IRA.
  The goal is clear: Force divestment from oil and gas--one of our 
largest geopolitical assets, one of our strongest blessings from the 
good Lord that this country has to be able to stand independently, 
energy independent, and to be able to have a significant force in the 
world.
  These orders have directed the General Services Administration to 
overhaul the Federal building portfolio and vehicle fleet.
  Each agency's light-duty vehicle acquisitions shall be zero-emission 
vehicles by the end of fiscal year 2027. Each agency shall achieve net-
zero emissions across its portfolio of buildings, campuses, and 
installations by 2045 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 
percent.
  This rapid overhaul of the Federal footprint should concern everyone. 
We are going to make our Federal vehicle fleet dependent on an EV 
supply chain that is 90 percent dominated by China.
  Eight of the ten largest solar equipment makers are headquartered in 
China, and 10 of the 15 largest wind equipment makers are Chinese.
  The fact of the matter is the implementation of the President's 
executive orders undermines our national security, empowers our 
enemies, and undermines our ability to have a prosperous economy.
  For that reason, I am glad it has been adopted in virtually every one 
of the appropriations bills that we have moved forward, and I hope that 
it will be here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Climate-related financial risks can have significant adverse 
economic impacts on businesses, communities, and the financial sector.
  Come on. Addressing these risks is essential to safeguard economic 
stability and resilience, and these things are crucial in the face of a 
changing climate.
  Financial institutions and Federal agencies ought to consider climate 
risks in their decisionmaking processes, particularly in investment and 
lending practices. By doing so, it promotes responsible and sustainable 
investment choices that support projects and businesses with low 
environmental impacts.
  These executive orders underscore the importance of the United States 
taking a leadership role in global efforts to combat climate change. By 
setting ambitious domestic goals and engaging with international 
partners, the United States can encourage other countries to follow 
suit, resulting in a more effective global response to climate change. 
The United States should be leading this effort.
  These executive orders are essential for combating climate change 
because they address climate-related financial risks, encourage 
responsible investment, promote global leadership, strengthen 
resilience, and accelerate the transition to clean energy.

[[Page H5640]]

  They collectively contribute to a more comprehensive and effective 
approach to mitigating the impacts of climate change and advancing 
environmental sustainability.

  For these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I do urge a 
``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says ``come on'' to my 
assertions about the damage that this causes, but I would just say come 
on with respect to the family that has to choose between fuel and food 
this month because that is what is happening.
  It was the Secretary of Transportation who literally said earlier 
this year: The American people need to feel pain.
  Now, imagine if the Secretary of Transportation, allegedly in charge 
of making sure we have roads and the ability for people to move around 
this country, engage in commerce, take care of their families, have a 
strong economy for our national security, for our well-being, our 
prosperity, imagine if that Secretary says to all of the families out 
there: Oh, I am sorry. Come on. Looks at them and says: Well, too bad. 
You have got to experience some pain, don't you understand.
  Never mind the 1,100 coal-fired plants in China compared to our 250. 
Never mind they have two a week they keep adding.
  Never mind that if you eliminate the internal combustion engine, you 
are not going to dent CO2 production around the world.
  We are pursuing a radical agenda to the detriment of the American 
people, and they know it. They feel it. They see it every single day 
with the high price of gas, the high price of electricity, the increase 
in the cost of their homes, and the inability to buy goods and services 
that rely on that energy.
  They see it every day in a world destabilized around the globe 
because we are not pushing out American energy, liquefied natural gas. 
We are not building nuclear power.
  We are not doing all the things we could do to be significantly 
energy independent here using our resources to make sure that we are 
not buying into unicorn energy, undermining our national security and 
our prosperity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is opposed, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 95 Offered by Ms. Salazar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 95 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Ms. SALAZAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 902.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to produce documents containing the term ``latinx'' 
     or the term ``latin-x''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Salazar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. SALAZAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which would simply prohibit the executive branch from using the term 
``Latinx'' in official public documents.
  Although 98 percent of Latinos reject the term ``Latinx,'' the White 
House has made a point to continue referring to us, the Latinos, as 
``Latinx.''
  Mr. Chair, let's talk about the epidemic of wokeness in our 
community. Wokeness has taken over our schools and our children, and 
now it wants to take over the Hispanic culture.
  The reality is that the Spanish language has two genders, masculine 
and feminine--male and female, period. There is no x.
  A new generation wants to modify a universal Hispanic reality. It 
wants to erase a grammatical rule that has been place for centuries.
  In 2004, the term ``Latinx'' first appeared online on Google Trends. 
It is supposed to signify a nonbinary option for Hispanics by removing 
the ``a'' for female or the ``o'' for male when addressing someone.

                              {time}  1900

  ``Latinx'' has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Hispanic community 
in this country. Only 2 percent of the Hispanic population uses the 
term ``Latinx,'' while 90 percent prefer to use ``Hispanic'' or 
``Latino.''
  What we are seeing is that the use of ``Latinx'' is growing in 
university classrooms, where gender ideology and political correctness 
have taken over academics and intellectual rigor.
  Listen to this. We are seeing the use of ``Latinx'' in government 
documents at a time when the people it refers to don't even want to use 
it. How could that be? That is imposing on us. We don't even want it.
  That is why I have introduced this amendment to prohibit the Biden 
administration from using ``Latinx'' in official, public-facing 
government documents.
  This is an important move that would prevent this wokeness from being 
forced onto us, the Hispanics, a conservative community that uses 
``male'' and ``female,'' period.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment and 
to stand with the Latino community--``Latino'' with an o and ``Latina'' 
with an a, not with an x. I urge them to choose our traditional 
Hispanic culture over woke culture, to choose our history over 
political correctness to please a small group of people who don't even 
know anything about us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SALAZAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 96 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for 18F within Technology Transformation Services at 
     the General Services Administration.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, this past March, the inspector general of 
the General Services Administration issued a report into the identity 
verification and validation service Login.gov.
  Login.gov is managed by the Technology Transformation Service within 
GSA and was built by a group called 18F, which lies within TTS and 
describes itself as a technology design consultancy for the U.S. 
Government.
  Login.gov was intended to provide the public with a single website 
through which they can access digital services with a single username 
and password.
  For agencies, it is supposed to ensure persons trying to access 
services are who they claim to be so that security and convenience are 
met.
  What could go wrong? Well, the March IG report that I will include in 
the Record detailed how employees at Login.gov knowingly misrepresented 
the level of security they provided to their clients within the 
government. It even billed agency clients over $10 million for services 
that they did not provide and for products that did not exist. Without 
getting too technical, Login.gov claimed that it offered a level of 
security that included biometric comparisons for applicants.
  I realize there had been and still are concerns about the biometric 
comparisons returning false positives within

[[Page H5641]]

certain ethnic groups, but if there were these concerns, the proper way 
to deal with the situation was not to lie and say you provided a 
service that you did not, in fact, provide.
  When the IG report came out, the House Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, which I was the chairman of at the time, held hearings 
into fraud in Federal programs. We heard how taxpayers had lost 
hundreds of billions of dollars to bad actors from the IRS, and a 
central tactic in such fraud was identity theft, which is at the very 
heart of what the 18F group is about.
  Here we have a Federal entity marketing a service to Federal 
customers that is intended to assure identity, but that Federal entity 
is not telling the truth.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment targets 18F. Why 18F and not Login.gov 
itself? Because since its inception in 2014, in the wake of the 
healthcare.gov debacle, trouble has followed 18F around. It was 
envisioned to be a tech-savvy group within the Federal Government that 
would bring a startup mentality and a high level of competence to help 
usher Federal agencies into the digital age. In practice, it has been 
more like a group run amok, a group run amok that intended to deceive 
people about what they were doing.
  In 2016, the IG issued a report describing how 18F had run up a 
deficit of $31 million between 2014 and the third quarter of 2016, even 
though it was supposed to generate enough revenue to cover its costs.
  In 2017, the IG issued another report describing how 18F routinely 
circumvented fundamental security policies and guidelines established 
by our government.
  In the 2023 report on Login.gov, the IG reported that despite the 
concerns raised in the two previous reports, the culture of 18F and its 
parent group, TTS, was still a problem. One Federal tech executive is 
quoted as saying about 18F that they came in to solve one problem and 
created two different problems.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment takes care of 18F by not allowing them to 
be funded. 18F has been in operation for over a decade, leaving a trail 
of expensive problems and questionable value.
  The Committee on Oversight held a hearing on this. It was a 
bipartisan hearing. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle had an 
opportunity to talk about this, and we came up with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Steil, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the staff legal bulletin 
     entitled ``Shareholder Proposals: Staff Legal Bulletin No. 
     14L (CF)'' (published November 3, 2021).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, like so many amendments that I, along with 
many others, introduced today, this is an assault on the taxpayers and 
more bureaucratic red tape that they want the taxpayers to pay for.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement the 
SEC's ``Staff Legal Bulletin 14L,'' also known as SLB 14L. This staff 
legal bulletin allows the SEC staff to open up a big loophole for 
activist proposals to the detriment of American workers and retirement 
savers.
  It is either doing one or two things: paying staff twice or hiring 
staff to do something that was not anticipated by the SEC.
  Traditionally, under rule 14a-8, public companies could request a no-
action letter from the SEC allowing them to exclude shareholder 
proposals that are irrelevant to the company's business.
  The SLB, or staff legal bulletin, said they will not issue no-action 
letters if a proposal concerns an issue with a broad societal impact. I 
don't even know what that is, ``a broad societal impact.'' Try defining 
that.
  In other words, it doesn't matter if a shareholder proposal is 
illegal or irrelevant to the company. If it is on a significant social 
policy issue of broad societal impact--whatever that is--it has to be 
considered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The SEC guidance that this rule would block provides clearer guidance 
for companies for disclosure of non-generally accepted accounting 
principles, non-GAAP. This clarity helps investors better understand a 
company's financial performance, making investment decisions more 
informed. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, basically, what my friends on the opposite 
side of the aisle are saying is that investors are too stupid to know 
where they put their money, if it is legitimate or not--get this--and 
they need help from staff judgments to decide which societal policy 
issues to prioritize. This is basically saying the American people are 
stupid.
  Nobody should be surprised that this has led to a spike in ESG-
related shareholder proposals.
  Again, this political performance does not belong in the boardrooms. 
Companies should be governed to a maximum shareholder value on our 
retirement plans that should work toward healthy returns. I guess they 
are going to get the staff judgments to say if they are healthy returns 
or not.
  Allowing the SEC to politicize the shareholders' proposals hurts 
workers, retirement savers, and the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 98 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Steil, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the final rule of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission entitled ``Proxy Voting 
     Advice'' (87 Fed. Reg. 43168; published July 19, 2022).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, much like the previous amendment to stop 
the assault on the American taxpayer, I rise in support of this 
amendment to prohibit funds for the SEC's 2022 proxy adviser rule.
  By issuing this new rule, the Biden SEC gutted key safeguards from 
the previous administration. Those safeguards provided sorely needed 
accountability and transparency for the proxy adviser industry.
  ISS and Glass Lewis, the two main proxy adviser firms, control 97 
percent of the market for proxy advice. The businesses that manage our 
retirement savings rely on these firms when deciding how to vote on 
corporate governance issues.
  The two that they rely on control 97 percent. They are the ones that 
have

[[Page H5642]]

the expertise, and to say anything different is just flatout wrong and 
not in reality.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The SEC's 2022 proxy adviser rule promotes transparency and 
accountability by requiring proxy advisory firms to provide more 
disclosure about their methodologies, their potential conflicts of 
interest, and their engagement with issuers. This rule aims to improve 
the accuracy and reliability of proxy advisory recommendations, which 
play a crucial role in corporate governance.
  The SEC's 2022 proxy adviser rule strikes a balance among the 
interests of issuers, investors, and proxy advisory firms.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I will close with the fact that, instead, this 
powerful duopoly is fueling a movement to weaponize your retirement 
funds to basically push a political agenda that this Biden 
administration has been so adamant on. Both firms often recommend in 
favor of harmful ESG measures and proposals that violate State or local 
law. They have a long track record of costly factual errors and 
uncontrolled conflicts of interest.
  The 2022 Biden administration rule lets proxy advisers continue to 
push a political agenda and make bad recommendations. Our retirement 
savings should be geared toward higher returns and not political 
objectives.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Steube

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 99 
printed in part B of House Report 118-269.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Communications Equity and Diversity Council 
     at the Federal Communications Commission.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 847, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Steube) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, our Federal bureaucracy is riddled with 
wasteful and purposeless offices that do nothing but fuel the flames of 
divisiveness in our government.
  Why is our Federal Government more concerned with advancing programs 
that fuel racism over the needs of the American people? These offices 
seek to treat people differently based on immutable characteristics 
like the color of their skin or their gender. That should be offensive 
to all of us in Congress.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment would eliminate funding for the 
Communications Equity and Diversity Commission within the FCC. The 
mission of this woke DEI office is to advance ``equity in the provision 
of and access to digital communication services.'' Further, it seeks to 
advance progressive priorities by elevating certain small businesses 
based merely on the race or gender of the businessowner.
  Through the establishment of this council, it is clear that the FCC 
is working for special, politically favored groups instead of the 
American people as a whole.
  We are already seeing the products of these DEI policies at the FCC 
through draft rules implementing an obscure provision of the 2021 
infrastructure bill that directed the FCC to prevent ``digital 
discrimination.'' Your guess is as good as mine as to what that has to 
do with infrastructure.
  Democrats on the FCC seek to go beyond the plain letter of this law 
to define ``digital discrimination'' to include disparate impact as 
evidence of discrimination. This means that the FCC could find that 
internet providers are guilty of discrimination simply because some 
areas of the country have slightly better access to the internet than 
others, regardless of whether there is any evidence of actual, 
legitimate discrimination. Unfortunately, even our internet access is 
not immune to the scourge of DEI ideology.
  Mr. Chair, these divisive DEI policies deserve no place in our 
Federal Government, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in rooting 
out this radical, progressive, and woke ideology.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Communications Equity and Diversity Council at the Federal 
Communications Commission, the FCC, is instrumental in promoting 
inclusivity within the organization. By championing diversity, it 
ensures that the workforce represents a broader spectrum of 
perspectives, fostering a more inclusive and equitable workplace.
  The council's existence improves decisionmaking at the FCC by 
incorporating diverse viewpoints. Diverse teams are more likely to 
generate innovative ideas, leading to better policies and regulations 
that benefit a wider range of people in the ever-evolving 
communications and technology sector.
  The Communications Equity and Diversity Council also plays a crucial 
role in ensuring that the FCC complies with American law as well as 
ethical guidelines related to diversity and equity in employment.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, section 60506 of the IIJA mandates that the 
FCC develops a regulation to prevent digital discrimination of 
broadband access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, 
religion, or national origin.
  Progressive groups and FCC Democratic Commissioners want to use this 
provision to promulgate a regulation that goes beyond intentional 
discrimination. They want to include disparate impact as a form of 
discrimination under the rule.
  Under a disparate impact analysis, evidence of discrimination can be 
found solely in the outcome of certain practices. Essentially, internet 
service providers would have to provide the same exact product at the 
same speed to every customer in order to avoid a potential government 
investigation. If there is even a small difference in connectivity in 
an area inhabited by low-income individuals in comparison with 
wealthier areas, the FCC could claim the provider is guilty of 
discrimination under the draft rules promoted by these progressive 
groups and FCC Democrats.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this 
very good amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Steube) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moylan, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4664) 
making appropriations for financial services and general government for 
the fiscal year ending

[[Page H5643]]

September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________