Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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, 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.

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. HOYER. Is the gentleman opposed to the working group that now exists?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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.

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

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 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. 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.

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

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a pro forma amendment at the desk. I rise as the designee of the ranking member.

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

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. 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. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Perry says that. I don't say that.

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