Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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. 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 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.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

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.

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 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.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I hope the chairman will also be in opposition to this amendment.

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. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the chairman of our committee.

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to articulate the Treasury's position.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.

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.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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. 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.