Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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. 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.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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. HOYER. And our consumers.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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).

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.

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. 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.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in perplexion which I presume is objection.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I ask the gentlewoman to yield for a question.

Mr. HOYER. I ask you to yield.

Mr. HOYER. I am asking if you will yield for a question.

Mr. HOYER. What funds in this bill are used for the purposes you are opposed to?

Mr. HOYER. Precautionary for what? I am asking--

Mr. HOYER. I understand that.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.