[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.
____________________