Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the former chair and ranking member for yielding. I thank her for her work. I thank Mr. Cole for his work.

Anybody who knows me knows that I am opposed to CRs, but I am for keeping the government open, if those are the only alternatives.

Mr. Chair, this would not be my bill, but I think probably most of the Members on this floor can say that. It is a bill that cooperatively has been made better, I think, as it has passed through the House and Senate in conference.

It provides increases for several key programs for the American people.

That includes a $13 million increase over the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for entrepreneurial development programs at the Small Business Administration. The ranking member mentioned that program, but it is critically important to our communities and to the small business community.

This bill also increases funding for election security grants by $30 million. I created that program, along with Bob Ney from Ohio, when we passed the Help America Vote Act. We all want to make sure our elections are run well. At that point in time, we distributed to the States over $3 billion. This is $45 million for 50 States, not a lot of money, but it is proper for the Federal Government to help pay for the elections that are run by the locals that include United States Senators and Members of Congress.

The judiciary, Mr. Chairman, receives $584 million or a 6.2 percent increase over the 2025 enacted, which is what they asked for. The reason we wanted to do that is to make sure that the courts can act efficiently, effectively, and justly. We also included $142 million or a 19 percent increase for court security. Unfortunately, as we see on our streets today, we are living in an era in which violence is too often repaired to.

Crucially, the bill fixes the funding hole for Federal Public Defender services, which are constitutionally required, providing an increase of $315 million or 22 percent over the 2025 enacted level to meet constitutional responsibilities.

Other programs for the Department of the Treasury, including the community development financial institutions, so critical for small communities and communities of little means, were flat funded in the fiscal year 2025 enacted level, instead of being eliminated. While it is not everything we would want, it is a vast improvement over what was requested.

Even still, Mr. Chair, some of my colleagues may notice my lack of enthusiasm for this final bill.

This bill's $1 billion or 9 percent cut to the Internal Revenue Service below the fiscal year 2025 enacted is particularly concerning to me. I have made this point I think every time we have considered this bill. I might say that we tried to overcome this deficiency and have not yet done that.

It includes a $438 million or an 8 percent cut to IRS enforcement. Now, what does cutting enforcement mean? It means that we have gone from 9 percent in looking at tax returns over a million dollars to 0.6 percent. What incentive is that to people who make a lot of money and who try to avoid taxation? The little guy has to pick up the tab. Mr. Chair, that cut will cost the American people dearly by making it easier for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations to avoid paying the taxes they owe under existing law.

Nevertheless, this bill is better than it would have otherwise been. IRS data indicates that every $1 produces $7. A Harvard study shows that for the top 10 percent, every dollar invested in enforcement brings us $12 in additional revenue in taxes owed but not paid. Who will have to pick up the tab? As I said, hardworking Americans who dutifully pay their taxes.

If you are serious about fiscal responsibility, as I am and as I think many are----

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. If you are serious, you have to be serious about collecting revenue that is due and owing. That means funding the IRS, which has been understaffed and underresourced far too long.

Now, I am concerned not only by the IRS but also the FBI. For two decades, I have worked to help the FBI move out of the crumbling, unhealthy J. Edgar Hoover Building and into a new consolidated headquarters that meets its security and operational needs. The administration has decided to move the FBI from an inadequate 51-year- old building to an inadequate 28-year-old building, the Reagan Building. Its exposed location and its design as an accessible public- private facility would greatly undermine the FBI security.

I will continue to work on that throughout the year that I have remaining to me.

There was language in the CJS bill that I wanted the Rules Committee to include the same exact language, saying simply that we would oversee the plans of the GSA and the FBI before we spend money. That was the responsible thing to do. I am sorry, Mr. Chair, that we did not do it, but I am going to support this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Mr. Chair, I presume this is a message amendment. I presume that because I know that the gentleman who offered it is bright, knowledgeable, and knows this amendment is clearly unconstitutional.

I am sure he has read the Constitution. He talks about it from time to time. Of course, the language of the Constitution is very clear for exactly the reason that the Founders did not want us to be able to monetarily penalize them for judgments with which we disagreed.

They wanted an independent judiciary. They wanted a Nation of laws and not of men. They wanted a nation of laws that are not compromised by threats of cutting salaries and changing lifestyles so that the judiciary would be, unlike England, who had a king who made the laws. It would be the parliament and the courts.

Mr. Chair, I suggest we withdraw this amendment, with all due respect to my friend from Texas, because surely he would not want to go against the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Chair, I also want to say that I am honored to serve as the ranking member. I would rather be chairman. I am honored to serve as the ranking member with the distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Joyce.

If he would like me to yield to him now, I will. If not, I want to thank him for his leadership of our committee, which has been collegial and positive. I think it has led to this resolution today.

Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously and by the way, let me mention to the gentleman from Texas he is protected by the Constitution of the United States from having exactly the same thing done to him.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Sessions, from the great State of Texas for his remarks. I want to tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) that the gentleman who offered this amendment is protected by that same Constitution of the United States from having this done to him. Surely he would want to do unto others as he would want done unto him.

Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised a point. He has carefully drafted this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, his rhetoric, however, and the other gentleman who spoke has been about an individual, about a judge. Their effort is to indirectly do what the Constitution says they cannot do directly.

This Congress ought to recognize that the Constitution clearly had in mind that you cannot do this, directly or indirectly, when the expressed intent of the outcome of the adoption of this amendment is to cut the salaries of judges with whom they disagree.

That would not be a nation of laws. It would be a nation of men. That, we should hold askew, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I again urge the rejection of this amendment. It is clearly designed to alter opinions based upon the threat of being reduced in monetary ability to proceed.

They disagree with the judge. There is a way to go about that. It is to appeal, not to threaten financial retribution.

Mr. Chair, for the sake of our democracy and the sanctity of something that makes America special, which is a justice system that works unrelated to threats of retribution, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source