Steve Womack

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Would the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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.

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.

Mr. WOMACK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member of the subcommittee.

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.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, for the reasons stated previously, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. WOMACK. Exactly.

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. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOMACK. It may be duplicative, but it is twice as nice, so we will proceed.

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

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.

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 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. 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. 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.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Iowa.

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. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close.

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.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 847, I offer amendments en bloc.