Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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, this decision was to protect the rights of workers.
Mr. Chairman,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source