[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)] [House] [Pages H1960-H1977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-26
Chamber: HOUSE
Mr. COLE: I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think if you happen to be listening to the debate, you might get confused. It is as if we are going to impose our will on somebody. The reality is the Democrats control the United States Senate. The Democratic President of the United States has a veto that he can sustain in either Chamber. What we are saying is let's sit down and talk things through, and here is our opening position. That is all that is going on here. We are not in a position here to do what my friends did last time, and that is both what they regret losing and fear might someday come to pass. The last time my friends didn't have to negotiate 2 years ago, what did they do? An explosion of spending that generated the worst inflation in modern American history; the worst inflation in over 40 years. Looking around this Chamber, I think I am probably the only one here old enough to remember it. The reality is they took a crisis that was ending and used it to justify $1.9 trillion worth of spending that many of their own economists warned them would lead to inflation. They jammed it through without a single vote. The next year, they called something an Inflation Reduction Act that we all know was a climate bill. They crammed through another $500 billion worth of spending. That doesn't even include plussing up the regular discretionary accounts of the United States. My friends own the inflation that has impoverished every single American.  Every American family is worse off, not better off, given the economic stewardship of this administration and, frankly, the Democratic Congress. We look forward to the debate. We look forward to something my friends aren't used to doing, that is actually negotiating, and that is what we are talking about. We are going to extend the debt limit, just as we said we would. Here is our negotiation. Here are our ideas where we can save money. Do you have any ideas where we can save money? Let's talk about that because you can't get what you want. You can't pass through a Democratic Senate a clean debt bill. If you can't do it there, you are certainly not going to do it here, so let's begin the discussion sooner rather than later. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my good friend from Oklahoma said that we are engaged in theatrics. Well, let me put that to rest. I mean, we are dealing with real numbers. Last night in the Rules Committee, I asked the chairman of Ways and Means and the chairman of the Budget Committee some basic questions about the SNAP program. They had no clue. People who don't have a clue shouldn't be writing legislation to determine policy. They should do the hearings and learn about what the facts are. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following: A letter from the Department of Energy, which states that reductions of this magnitude in this bill would have significant setbacks on U.S. competitiveness to adversarial nations like Russia and China; A letter from the Department of Labor which states that these cuts in this bill would prevent more than 4,000 veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness from receiving critical employment care; A letter from the Department of Education, which states that under these radical cuts, funding for more than 100,000 teaching jobs nationwide would be eliminated, and it would reduce aid for more than 6.6 million Pell Grant recipients; A letter from the Small Business Administration, which states that Republican spending cuts would mean that almost 300,000 fewer small businesses would be able to participate in their entrepreneurial development program; A letter from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which states that 286,000 families will lose rental assistance under the Republicans' proposed budget cuts and thousands more would be at risk for homelessness; A letter from the Department of Homeland Security, which states that the proposed cuts could lead to more illegal drugs entering our country, including 350,000 grams of fentanyl. That is over 200 million fatal doses of fentanyl that Republicans will be responsible for letting into our country. Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Department of Agriculture detailing how these radical Republican budget cuts would lead to more than a million new mothers losing WIC assistance.  The Secretary of Energy,  Washington, DC, March 17, 2023. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative DeLauro: I share the concern expressed in your letter dated January 19, 2023, about potential impacts of proposals that would cap fiscal year (FY) 2024 discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted levels. While Congressional Republicans have not released a specific plan, cuts on this scale would have very real and damaging impacts on our families, our communities, our economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical services the American people rely on in their everyday lives. President Biden's FY 2024 Budget, which he released on March 9, details his plans to invest in America, continue to lower costs for families, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and reduce the deficit. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have reportedly proposed unprecedented cuts in FY 2024 funding for key services, programs, and protections such as education, public safety, research, nutrition and more. Such action would have serious consequences for Department of Energy programs and initiatives at the Federal, state, Tribal, and local levels, and would jeopardize recent bipartisan gains targeted at improving the lives of everyday Americans. Impacts would be felt across the country and could rise to the level of jeopardizing the Department's ability to do its part in protecting national security interests from energy security and nuclear security threats. Capping funding at this level would also hamper our ability to cut energy costs for families and businesses across the country, reduce the number of everyday Americans that can access tax breaks for clean energy, and reduce the impact of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specific examples of potential impacts are listed below. Scenario l. Across-the-board cap on FY 2024 discretionary spending at FY 2022 levels. Example impacts are listed below: A reduction to FY 2022 funding levels would delay all National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) major construction projects of at least one year, increasing operational risks and the likelihood of cost increases. The FY 2022 funding level represents a \1/3\ reduction from planned execution in FY 2024. The W93 and W87-1 warhead modernization programs would be delayed at least 1-2 years, with significant risks for the aging U.S. stockpile, DoD plans for delivery system modernization, and U.S. support for the United Kingdom's Replacement Warhead. Hundreds of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy research projects and 2-3 large infrastructure projects at national labs would be cancelled or paused, resulting in up to one thousand (1,000) layoffs within the labs, partner organizations, and the local construction and support workforce across the country. This would negatively impact the ability of the national laboratories to continue to advance cutting edge research. Scenario 2. Across-the-board 22 percent reduction to current enacted funding levels (FY 2023) for FY 2024. Example impacts of this scenario are listed below. Scenario 1 impacts would also be intensified: At a minimum, research at Office of Science national laboratories and universities would be reduced by about $700 million, resulting in substantial reduction of nearly 5,200 scientists, students, and technical staff. Many of the Administration research priorities would receive significantly less funding resulting in curtailed research efforts in the areas of Climate Change; Artificial Intelligence; High Performance Computing; emerging technologies in Quantum Information Science, Microelectronics, and Biotechnology; Fusion Energy; and Isotope Production. At a minimum, Office of Science facility operations funding would be reduced, resulting in only 68 percent of operational funding and a substantial reduction of over 6,000 users of the over 38,000 annual users at the 28 scientific user facilities across the national laboratories. All facilities would have a significant reduction in force of personnel, with loss of critical expertise. A review would be required to determine which facilities to close to maintain adequate operations at the remaining user facilities. Facilities cannot operate safely at this funding level. This action would result in major economic impact to the United States, both in the short-term and in the long- term as the U.S. will be subject to loss of scientific talent and leadership. At a minimum, thousands of low-income households (anywhere from 4,400-8,800) would be deferred from weatherization services, and reductions in state energy programs more broadly would limit efforts to cut energy costs for families and businesses, disproportionately affecting smaller states and US territories. Reductions of this magnitude would have significant setbacks of U.S. geopolitical competitiveness to adversarial nations like Russia and China. This would include the reduction of the Idaho National Laboratory operational status to the minimal allowable for safe and secure support of DOE and national security programs and research. It would also include elimination of all efforts to support the deployment of American nuclear energy technologies as the preferred alternative to Russian and Chinese technologies in countries looking to implement large scale power sources. These are a few examples of the serious impacts of these scenarios on ongoing efforts by the Department in the areas of national security, safety of critical infrastructure, threats to the Nation's competitive edge, and impacts on consumers and industry. Sincerely, Jennifer M. Granholm. ____  U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Washington, DC. Hon. Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for contacting the Department of Labor (DOL) with important questions about the impact of capping discretionary spending levels at the fiscal year (FY) 2022 enacted level on workers and their families. The Department of Labor's mission is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the     United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work- related benefits and rights. This includes centering our work on the most vulnerable and marginalized workers, those facing barriers to employment, misclassified workers, and workers in temporary jobs or other jobs that heighten their economic insecurity and vulnerability. On March 9, 2023, the President released his Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget. The FY 2024 budget request builds on the Biden-Harris Administration's successes, reinforces President Biden's investments in America, continues to lower costs for families, protects and strengthens Social Security and Medicare, and reduces the deficit. The Department's role in this effort is to ensure that all workers and job seekers in America--particularly those from disadvantaged communities-- have access to high-quality jobs that can support a middle- class life. That includes accessing training and finding pathways to high-quality jobs as well as protecting workers' rights and benefits, health and safety, and wages once they are employed. The potential cuts you describe in your letter would have very real and damaging impacts on our families, communities, economy, and competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical services the American people rely on in their everyday lives. These drastic reductions in spending proposed by certain Congressional Republicans would be devastating--undermining our ability to protect our nation's most vulnerable workers and hindering our efforts to address critical issues like exploitative child labor. These types of cuts would send an unmistakable message that the workers who were essential during the pandemic are expendable, diminishing the value of their work and failing to honor them by ensuring their wages, health, and safety are protected. Additionally, drastically cutting funding levels would mean fewer resources for workforce training programs designed to ensure there is a workforce armed with the skills needed to fill high-quality jobs in our growing economy. Below please find specific examples of how funding cuts would impact Department of Labor programs and the workers we aim to serve. For each example, the Department analyzed two scenarios: (1) FY 2024 appropriations equal to 22 percent below currently enacted levels and (2) FY 2024 appropriations equal to the FY 2022 enacted levels.  Limiting Access to Training for Job Seekers and Workers Across the Country  The Employment and Training Administration provides grants to states for running the Adult, Youth, and Dislocated Worker employment programs, which provide training and job assistance services. Reductions to each of those programs would result in people losing critical services they need to obtain and retain better jobs. Workfbrce Development & Training: A 22 percent reduction would prevent about 750,000 job seekers from accessing services and training through ETA-funded programming. A return to FY 2022 enacted levels would result in about 125,000 fewer job seekers receiving services and training from the workforce development system. Registered Apprenticeship: A 22 percent reduction would lead to over 100,000 fewer workers being employed through Registered Apprenticeships. A return to FY 2022 enacted levels would lead to 76,000 fewer workers being employed through Registered Apprenticeships. Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP): A 22 percent reduction would lead to almost 10,000 fewer low- income older workers participating in paid community service work. Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC ): If funding levels were reduced by 22 percent, there would be significant processing delays across the labor certification programs. Labor certification decisions for nonimmigrant visas, especially for seasonal nonagricultural businesses, would be delayed. Employers would have to wait up to 2 additional months for decisions on their ability to hire H-2B workers. In the PERM immigrant program, labor certification decision would increase 73 percent, from 188 days (FY 2022) to approximately 325 days. Similarly, if funding levels reverted to the FY 2022 level, and workloads continued to rise, average processing times in the FLC programs would continue to increase. OFLC would prioritize available resources to address more time-sensitive H-2A and H-2B applications for farmers and seasonal nonagricultural businesses.  Weakening Wage and Safety Protections for Workers  The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) promotes compliance with basic labor laws and ensures that workers receive the protections they are entitled to under the law. Last year, WHD staff recovered more than $213 million in back wages for nearly 153,000 workers--an average of $1.400 per worker. These recovered wages make a real difference for workers struggling to pay rent. buy food, pay for childcare, or cover gas or transportation costs to get to their jobs. Cuts to WHD funding levels would undermine the agency's ability to ensure workers receive the wages that they've earned. WHD would be forced to reduce the number of compliance actions, investigations, and targeted inspections that result in recovery for thousands of workers. Specifically, a 22 percent reduction in funding levels would result in about $156 million less in back wages for 135,000 workers or an average over $1,000 per worker. A return to FY 2022 enacted levels would result in $24.5 million less in back wages recovered for nearly 21,000 workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) works to assure safe and healthful working conditions. Every worker deserves to return home safely at the end of the day. Cutting OSHA's budget by one-fifth would mean fewer inspections, fewer staff, less enforcement, and less safe and healthy workplaces. A 22 percent budget reduction would result in OSHA losing at least 270 inspectors and conducting 10,800 fewer inspections. This would be by far the lowest level of enforcement in OSHA's 52-year history. Fewer inspections would significantly reduce OSHA's ability to conduct proactive and more complex inspections such as those involving chemical exposure, heat, musculoskeletal injuries, and workplace violence. A return to 2022 enacted levels would result in 2,800 fewer safety inspections and 715 fewer health inspections. OSHA would drastically cut back on responding to worker complaints and proactive inspections, including strategic priorities like silica, heat, and fall protection. Reducing OSHA's ability to conduct preventive inspections would result in more workplace injuries and illnesses--allowing unscrupulous employers to put workers in danger under a weaker, more predictable, and less strategic OSHA. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) works to prevent death, illness. and injury from mining and promote safe and healthful workplaces for U.S. miners. MSHA's enforcement responsibilities--statutorily mandated inspections, accident investigations, and responding to hazard complaints, among others--have contributed significantly to the reduction in fatal mining accidents. Significant budget cuts would jeopardize the health and safety of the nation's miners. For example, under a 22 percent reduction, MSHA would not be able to complete approximately 4,400 mandatory inspections of surface and underground mines. Fatal accident investigation activities would continue but MSHA could not perform serious injury accident investigations and could only investigate 75 percent of hazard complaints in a timely manner. Targeted safety and health initiatives that address hazards associated with the leading causes of mining fatalities and occupational illnesses would not occur. Approximately one third of coal mine plan and addenda approvals, which are necessary for operators to continue mining operations, would be delayed by approximately a month. At the FY 2022 funding level, MSHA would not be able to complete approximately 2,200 mandatory inspections of surface and underground mines. Fatal accident investigations would continue, but MSHA would be limited in its ability to perform any serious accident investigations and could only investigate 50 percent of the hazard complaints in a timely manner. Approximately 3,200 samples for respirable dust, silica, diesel particulate matter, and other toxic substances would not be taken, putting miners at risk of developing preventable debilitating occupational illnesses like Black Lung and silicosis.  Eliminating Critical Employment Services for Veterans  The Department's Veterans' Employment and Training Service helps veterans transition to employment, protects their employment rights, and promotes their employment opportunities. The Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program provides intensive employment and job placement services for eligible veterans, and JVSG fund allow states to hire qualified veterans to provide these services. There are currently over 1,800 JVSG staff at 2,300 American Job Centers (AJC) nationwide. A 22 percent reduction would result in 4,282 fewer veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness receiving employment services through the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP). A return to the 2022 enacted level would lead to a reduction of 16 staff serving veterans at AJCs as well as 1,428 fewer veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness receiving employment services through HVRP. I have seen first-hand the positive impacts of the Biden- Harris plan. 202 1 and 2022 were the two strongest years of job growth in our nation's history. More than 12 million jobs have been created since President Biden took office-- including nearly 800.000 manufacturing jobs. The unemployment rate has been below 4% for more than a year, and a record number of small businesses have started since President Biden took office. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans have near-record-low unemployment rates and people with disabilities are experiencing record-low unemployment. The Department stands ready and committed to continuing the plan as laid out by the Biden-Harris Administration to build an economy and a labor market that is more just and equitable and creates opportunity for all. Liz Watson, Assistant Secretary, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor. ____ The Secretary of Education,  Washington, DC, March 17, 2023. Hon. Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your letter of January 19, 2023, requesting details regarding the potential impact of proposed budget cuts on the economy, neighborhoods, and other essential government functions that keep people healthy and safe. President Biden's FY24 Budget lays out a detailed plan to invest in America, continue to lower costs for families, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and reduce the deficit. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have proposed unprecedented cuts in fiscal year (FY) 2024 funding for key services, programs, and protections such as education, public safety, research, nutrition and more. Cuts on this scale would have very real and damaging impacts on our families, our communities, our economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical services the American people rely on in their everyday lives. Your letter specifically references a plan to cap fiscal year 2024 discretionary spending at the fiscal year 2022 enacted level. Your letter makes clear that the impact of such a plan on agency appropriation levels is at this time unknown, as the specifics of the plan have not been publicly released. If we assumed that defense funding would be shielded from budget cuts under this plan, it would equate to a cut of about 22 percent to non-defense discretionary funding. Accordingly, we analyzed impacts at two levels: 1) FY 2022 enacted and 2) 22 percent below the currently enacted level for FY 2023. As you know, the Federal government has long played a critical role in supporting States, school districts, and postsecondary institutions in meeting the needs of students, especially underserved students and children in under- resourced communities, children with disabilities, English learners, and those experiencing homelessness. While representing but a small portion of overall education funding nationwide, Federal resources help States and school districts fill gaps in State and local support and meet critical needs for our most vulnerable students. From supporting additional staff positions and educational materials, to expanding after school programming, providing access to life-changing education and training, and helping students afford college, the Federal investment in education makes a positive difference in children's lives every day. The Department of Education has examined several of our most significant programs to assess potential impacts resulting from 1) receiving FY 2022 funding and 2) receiving funding 22 percent below currently enacted levels: ESEA Title I Grants to LEAs--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted level would cut $850 million in funding from this program--a cut equivalent to removing more than 13,000 teachers and service providers from classrooms serving low- income children; a 22 percent reduction from the currently enacted level would cut approximately $4.0 billion in funding, impacting an estimated 25 million students and reducing program funding to its lowest level in almost a decade--a cut equivalent to removing more than 60,000 teachers and related service providers from classrooms serving low-income students. IDEA Grants to States--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted level would cut $850 million in funding from this program--a cut equivalent to removing more than 13,000 teachers and service providers from classrooms serving low-income children; a 22 percent reduction from the currently enacted level would cut more than $3.1 billion in funding, impacting an estimated 7.5 million children with disabilities and reducing Federal support to its lowest share since 1997--a cut equivalent to removing more than 48,000 teachers and related services providers from the classroom. Title II-A (Supporting effective instruction State grants) and Title IV-A (Student support and academic enrichment grants)--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted level would cut more than $35 million for these activities; a 22 percent reduction from the currently enacted level would cut more than $500 million in annual support for teachers and students, curtailing learning opportunities for teachers and school leaders, and hampering school districts' efforts to promote a well-rounded education for students in safe schools. Pell Grants--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted level would likely have a minimal effect on students and parents, while a reduction of 22 percent from currently enacted levels would likely reduce the maximum Pell award by nearly $1,000, decreasing aid to all 6.6 million Pell recipients and eliminating Pell Grants altogether for approximately 80,000 students. Cutting the discretionary funding by 22 percent without cutting the maximum award would eliminate the surplus and create a $17 billion shortfall by 2026. The program cannot function with a shortfall that large. Administering Student Financial Aid--a reduction of 22 percent from currently enacted levels would cut $468 million in federal support to determine, disburse, and service student aid. This level of funding would have devastating effects on student and parent interactions with the Department, as well as on their ability to successfully apply for and receive student aid. However, even if funding were kept at the FY 2022 enacted level, more than 40 million student loan borrowers would be impacted through decreased service hours and longer turnaround times to make changes to student loan repayment plans, or obtain a deferment, forbearance, or discharge of student loans. More than 17 .6 million students and parents applying for student aid and calling the Department for information could experience multiple-hour wait times and reduced center hours, and student aid applicants requesting specific assistance with the FAFSA, student loan promissory notes, PLUS loan applications, or other student aid applications could see their requests take weeks longer to process. Additionally, the oversight of the more than 5,500 schools and enforcement of the Higher Education Act would suffer, putting taxpayer dollars at risk. Federal Work-Study Program (FWS)--a reduction to the FY 2022 enacted level would provide less aid for all program recipients and eliminate FWS financial support for approximately 11,000 students; a cut of 22 percent from the currently enacted level would provide less aid for all program recipients and eliminate Work-Study financial support for approximately 85,000 students. Schools would be forced to make impossible decisions around whether to cut essential positions reliant on FWS funds or the amounts that students are able to earn under the program. Should you have additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs. Sincerely, Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D., U.S. Secretary of Education. ____  U.S. Small Business  Administration,  Washington, DC, March 20, 2023. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative DeLauro: Thank you for your January 19, 2023 letter to the U.S. Small Business Administration (``SBA'') regarding plans by House Republican Leadership to cap Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted level. President Biden's FY 2024 Budget lays out a detailed plan to invest in America and the small business economy, continue to lower costs for families, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and reduce the deficit. Strong Federal support and investments by Congress ensure that America's 33 million small businesses have the resources they need to create jobs across our nation. SBA offers access to affordable capital, training, and technical assistance to help small businesses grow and thrive. These resources have been critical especially during the surge of new-start small businesses over the past two years under the Biden Administration. Congressional Republicans have proposed unprecedented cuts in FY 2024 funding for key services and programs. While Congressional Republicans haven't released a specific plan, cuts on this scale would have very real and damaging impacts on our small businesses, our communities, our economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical services the American people rely on in their everyday lives. That is why I share your concern that proposed budget cuts could have a negative impact on SBA's ability to deliver important services to American citizens and small businesses who rely on the SBA for guidance and support and capital. One example of the potential impact is to the SBA's Entrepreneurial Development appropriation which funds critical programs that served 1.2 million small businesses in 2022. If Entrepreneurial Development program funding levels are capped at FY 2022 levels--a cut of $29.9 million from FY 2023 enacted funding levels--we estimate that up to 125,000 fewer entrepreneurs and small businesses would have access to free business counseling supported by SBA, including the Small Business Development Centers, that help bolster the small business economy. If Entrepreneurial Development Program funding levels were reduced by 22 percent from FY 2023 enacted, this would be a reduction of $70.4 million, which would equate to nearly 295,000 fewer small businesses being served. Either scenario would have a significant impact on the agency's ability to ensuring that undeserved communities such as Veterans, Women, and Native American entrepreneurs receive the support they deserve. We estimate that thousands of veterans and women entrepreneurs would be impacted negatively as they look to start or grow their own businesses. For instance, we would have fewer opportunities to further expand equity efforts for underserved and underrepresented small business communities, including specific reduction to support Veterans, Women, Native American entrepreneurs. Additionally, reductions to SBA's Salaries and Expense funding would be detrimental to SBA's operations. If funding is reduced to FY 2022 enacted funding levels in FY 2024, SBA will not have sufficient funding to fully support the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Certification program. A cut to funding in this program could significantly impact SBA's ability to certify service-disabled veteran- owned small businesses. This certification is crucial to the 35,000 veterans and service-disabled veterans that     compete for and provide integral services to the Federal Government. Reverting to FY 2022 spending levels would also shrink SBA's staffing by up to 203 positions which has a direct impact on the agency's ability to deliver and oversee services for small businesses. Staff reductions will result in SBA customer service degradation in loan processing, small business outreach, training and counseling, processing government contracting, and validating small business certifications. Small businesses and resource partners will likely experience longer wait times, and SBA may become to network and cybersecurity infrastructure threats and attacks at the risk of all SBA stakeholders. A 22 percent reduction from FY 2023 enacted levels would reduce Salaries and Expenses by nearly 385 positions, which could not be attained without a reduction in force and further reductions to services and outreach to small businesses provided across the board. This would also reduce Disaster Loan Program Administration by nearly $8 million, or over 45 positions, hurting SBA's ability to respond quickly when a disaster strikes to ensure access to capital for disaster survivors. Finally, maintaining SBA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) funding at the FY 2022 enacted level would decrease OIG's investigative and fraud enforcement capabilities by over $25 million in FY 2024, and would undermine the SBA's OIG mission to fight fraud and abuse, including in COVID-19 relief programs. SBA is committed to combating fraud, waste, and abuse, and the taxpayers benefit greatly from the Inspector General's ongoing efforts. We need to ensure that we continue to build on that commitment. I stand ready to provide Congress with any further information to ensure the small business owners and entrepreneurs can continue to be supported. Thank you for your partnership in helping the American people and the economy. Sincerely, Isabella Casillas Guzman, Administrator. ____  U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary, Washington, DC, March 17, 2023. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your letter requesting the impact of the proposed House Republican Leadership 2024 budget cuts on Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs and assisted families. In short, the reduced funding scenarios would represent the most devastating impacts in HUD's history. On March 9th, President Biden released his Budget showing his plans to invest in America, continue to lower costs for families, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and reduce the deficit. Congressional Republicans are reportedly planning unprecedented cuts in 2024 funding for key services, programs, and protections such as education, public safety, research, nutrition and more. While Congressional Republicans have not released one specific plan, cuts on this scale would have very real and damaging impacts on our families, our communities, our economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical services the American people rely on in their everyday lives. This letter will consider two scenarios, a reduction to 2022 enacted levels and a 22 percent reduction to 2023 enacted levels. Most HUD programs received modest increases in 2023. Increases in the 2023 enacted budget levels relative to 2022 primarily serve to maintain existing programs, not to permit program expansions. Except for targeted funding increases for homeless assistance and tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), almost all of HUD's programs remained at or near level funding with zero or minimal increases. Consequently, any cuts to the 2023 level do not eliminate ``extra'' funding added in 2023 but translate to direct cuts to the 2022 baseline. These cuts, in turn, would reduce existing services that families and communities rely on, including programs housing low-income families. Today's HUD rental housing programs' funding levels are necessary to maintain existing rental assistance to keep currently assisted families in their homes. Under the 22 percent potential funding cut scenario, it would be impossible to stave off mass evictions.  If These Draconian Cuts Were Made--  Thousands Would Lose Housing Choice Vouchers  Nearly the entire increase in voucher funding between 2022 and 2023 (aside from small amounts for homeless veterans and at-risk youth) supported renewal of existing assistance to families in their current units. The dollar increase relative to 2022 was necessary to match major cost increases in the housing market. For example, between 2022 and 2023 the national population-weighted average Fair Market Rent (FMR) increased by nearly 10 percent, with 16 HUD Metro FMR Areas increasing by 20 percent or more. Rents are expected to stay high in 2024, even as growth slows down. Any cut to the 2023 funding level will not simply revert to the same number of families that could be supported in 2022, but will put large numbers of the most vulnerable and lowest income American families at risk of losing their rental assistance entirely. HUD rental assistance serves the most vulnerable low-income families, with an average income of only $15,000 per year, and includes older adults, persons with disabilities, and families with children. The Housing Choice Voucher program currently assists approximately 2.3 million families. 2022 flat--eliminates funding for 350,000 families. 22 percent cut to 2023 funding--eliminates funding for 640,000 families.  Families Living in Public Housing Would be Exposed to Unsafe Living Conditions  The needs of public housing portfolio continue to grow, so major cuts to this program threaten to remove important affordable housing assets from the inventory. If there is a 22 percent cut, HUD calculates an expected 78 percent proration for the Operating Fund. At this level, there would be significant impacts to PHA operations. All PHAs would need to drastically cut operations, including regular property maintenance, services to families, and likely staff layoffs to right-size operations to expected revenues. Deferred maintenance would decrease housing quality, potentially exposing families to unsafe living conditions such as mold and lead-based paint. Finally, there would be the likelihood of PHA insolvency or other program failures. The projected $700 million cut from the capital grants would leave no funding to address backlog needs and $2 billion in unfunded accrual needs. Unmet capital needs mean the further deterioration of the inventory and contribute to lower occupancy rates, higher costs for utilities, less resilience to climate change, and increased health and safety risks for residents.  There Would be an Unprecedented Loss of Existing Affordable Housing, Leading to Mass Evictions  HUD's Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) program, which serves approximately 1.3 million families, needed almost $1 billion above 2022 levels to just renew the existing owner contracts for 2023. These increases are statutory and reflect increased costs, and HUD cannot avoid them within the contracts. As a result, any cuts to the 2023 level would force HUD to short fund or cancel existing contracts between the federal government and private property owners. The termination of contracts with rental owners will likely lead the owners to convert their housing to market-rate, leaving currently supported tenants in units that are now unaffordable to them, likely resulting in evictions. This would represent an historically unprecedented loss of existing affordable housing, a breach of federal contracts, and a repudiation of decades of long-term bipartisan federal investment. 2022 flat--eliminates funding for approximately 87,000 families 22 percent cut to 2023 funding--eliminates funding for approximately 286,000 families  States and Localities Would Be Prevented from Making Basic Infrastructure Improvements  In addition to rental assistance, HUD's programs also include the most popular and effective funding programs for states, cities, counties, and towns: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships. CDBG and HOME provide flexible block grant assistance whereby funding decisions are locally controlled. CDBG: The median CDBG annual grant is $1 million provided through a block grant allocation formula. Urban and rural municipalities and counties rely on the funding for basic housing-related infrastructure such as rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, water and sewer connections, sidewalks, as well as direct assistance for small businesses, economic development, and essential services. The estimated impact of the funding cut of 22 percent will reduce the average grant by approximately $440,000. HOME: As with CDBG, the vital HOME Program received zero increase in 2023. Funding cuts to HOME would result in fewer new affordable rental and homeownership opportunities for low-income families, fewer grants for repair and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, and less tenant-based rental assistance available, resulting in increased risk of homelessness. This will directly exacerbate the existing national affordable housing crisis. The estimated impact of the funding cut of 22 percent from 2023 to the average HOME formula grant of $1.5 million will reduce the average grant by $330,000 and will result in more than 6,700 fewer units of affordable housing produced.  Thousands More Americans Would be Sleeping on the Streets  HUD received a targeted increase in funding for Homeless Assistance Grants in 2023, which would sustain existing resources for emergency shelter, increase availability of permanent supportive housing, and continue to provide other homeless assistance to the most vulnerable Americans. Undoing this increase will severely curtail the services that communities across the country would be able to provide to those experiencing homelessness. Cuts to the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program from the 2023 baseline would result in less emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, and rapid rehousing. A funding cut of 22 percent would result in over 24,000 fewer people receiving assistance, likely leading to large increases in the number of people sleeping on the streets. In the Continuum of Care and Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program, funding provides permanent supportive housing for people with severe disabilities and illnesses, and rapid rehousing and transitional     housing for youth and adults to help them achieve housing stability and self-sufficiency. In recent years, HUD has significantly expanded assistance to people fleeing domestic violence. Providing funding at the 2022 level for CoC renewals would result in at least 54,000 fewer homeless people and domestic violence survivors receiving assistance than in 2023, and a 22 percent cut from 2023 levels would result in nearly 95,000 fewer people receiving assistance. These cuts would eliminate new funding for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program, an effort that has helped reduce the number of homeless unaccompanied youth by more than 25 percent since 2017.  Dire Housing Conditions in Indian Country Would be Exacerbated  Housing conditions in Indian Country are among the most dire in the United States. Thus, any cuts to the 2023 formula funding level would have a significant impact on the program, which is the single largest source of funding for Indian housing assistance. It would make it almost impossible for most Tribal grantees to construct new affordable housing units and a challenge to meet the basic operations and maintenance needs of their existing housing. It would also make it extremely difficult to leverage other non-Federal resources to develop affordable housing. Funding for the formula block grant component would be reduced by $173 million with a 22-percent cut, which would reduce funding for Native American Housing Block Grants to its lowest level since it was implemented in 1996 (adjusting for inflation).  Efforts to Abate Lead Hazards Would be Slowed  HUD's Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes programs to reduce lead poisoning hazards for children in lower income families, together with a variety of programs aimed at reducing indoor home health hazards. Home health hazards are scientifically proven to cause lifelong damage when ongoing exposure occurs during childhood. For example, even low levels of lead exposure during childhood have been linked with lifelong impacts on intelligence, attention, and academic achievement. Further cuts below the previous 2022 level would substantially slow and adversely affect the Federal government's planned efforts to abate lead hazards and prevent home health hazards from negatively affecting child development.  Critical Research Would be Jeopardized  The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) enables the Congress, the Secretary, and other HUD principal staff to make evidence-informed decisions on budget and legislative proposals and strengthens housing and community development policy. The total investment for research, evaluation, and technical assistance was essentially level between 2022 and 2023. Thus, any cuts would substantially reduce HUD's ability to conduct research, program evaluations, and provide critical technical assistance (TA) and capacity building support, including, for example, through the Distressed Cities TA program that supports small, rural and underserved localities. A 22 percent cut to PD&R's 2023 funding would result in a $32 million cut to existing activities and investments, placing major PD&R-funded survey efforts at risk, such as the American Housing Survey, jeopardizing critical research providing the next generation of evidence on how HUD can most effectively support affordable homeownership and quality rental housing.  Efforts to Combat Housing Discrimination Would be Severely Impacted  A 22 percent cut to Fair Housing Programs would severely impact the ability of the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) to support state and local agency enforcement of the Fair Housing Act nationwide. FHAP agencies currently investigate about 75 percent of all fair housing complaints filed under the Fair Housing Act, and this level of funding would jeopardize the FHAP agencies' ability to conduct investigations, litigate complaints, retain staff, and keep up with inflation. This level of funding would also hinder the Department's ability to admit new FHAP agencies into the program. A 22 percent cut to the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) would significantly impact the geographical representation of and activities performed by fair housing organizations nationally. Last year, as usual, HUD was unable to fund all Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI) qualified applicants. A reduction would further limit HUD's ability to fund organizations in underserved and unserved communities. This also could prevent HUD from maintaining the current maximum level of funding under the Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI), which funds fair housing organizations to conduct testing, investigations, and public education and outreach on the rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act. Lastly, the Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST program would be severely limited in maintaining a broad scope of services, especially focused on addressing accessibility compliance in federally-assisted affordable housing programs.  Highlighted Impacts on HUD Operations  Salaries and Expenses (S&E) If HUD's 2024 appropriation were equal to the 2022 appropriation, that would result in a reduction of $152 million from our current 2023 enacted level and require HUD to absorb a staffing reduction of over 650 full time equivalents (FTE), which would have devastating impacts on HUD services in all Program Offices. A reduction of this size would require an immediate hiring freeze and the potential for at least some furlough days, which would cause HUD services to the public to be suspended or delayed, including providing assistance to existing FHA homeowners, increasing homeownership opportunities for potential homebuyers, processing fair housing complaints and conducting complex closings of multifamily properties. A 22 percent reduction from the 2023 enacted level would reduce S&E by $390 million and require a staffing reduction of more than 1,700 FTE. Given HUD is unable to attrit that amount of FTE during a fiscal year, it would require either implementing a Reduction in Force (RIF), incurring up to 60 furlough days, or a combination of the two, which would cause HUD services to the public to be delayed or suspended. Additionally, it would result in dramatic reductions in contractor support services to include areas such as federal protection services for building security and financial oversight and audit support services. Information Technology (IT) Reducing the Department's IT resources to the 2022 level represents a significant operational vulnerability. Such a reduction will have agency-wide implications on HUD operations and program administration. At this reduced funding level, the current operations and maintenance contracts will be scaled back resulting in a diminished service level for software and systems across the Department. While HUD will make every effort to keep public facing systems operational and available for external partners and the public, HUD cannot guarantee full functionality of these systems with budget reductions of this magnitude. A 22 percent reduction in IT resources creates an extremely high level of risk to the Department's core technology infrastructure and services. At this level, a portion of HUD's existing operations and maintenance contracts will stop work due to insufficient funds. The likely impacts include prioritization of contractor support for existing major systems and cancelation of support for systems within the nonmajor portfolio. This diminished support will lead to grantee and stakeholder interruptions due to inability to access HUD grant systems and financial interfaces. Such challenges may delay state, local, and non-profit partners access to formula grant funding and rental assistance due to service disruption in relevant IT systems and contractor support. Local governments would face delays in implementing the plans that they put in place to, for example, construct affordable housing or provide support to Meals on Wheels, as they waited for HUD's systems. New homebuyers and affordable housing developers could experience delays in FHA and multifamily loan processing to service disruptions to associated systems. All IT development will stop and existing contract support for these and any new efforts will terminate. As you can see, the proposed funding cuts would have a catastrophic impact on the ability of HUD to provide quality, affordable homes for all and to develop equitable, inclusive communities. Please do not hesitate to reach out for any additional assistance. Sincerely, Marcia L. Fudge. ____  U.S. Department of  Homeland Security,  Washington, DC, March 19, 2023. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your January 19, 2023, letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Secretary Mayorkas asked that I respond on his behalf. On March 9, President Biden released his Budget for DHS that equips our Department to address the threats of today and prepare for the threats of tomorrow. The President's budget invests in programs that protect us against the threat of terrorism, strengthen the security of our borders, ensures the swift response to and recovery from natural disasters, and more. As requested, DHS conducted an analysis of what capping FY 2024 discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted level would mean to the services the Department provides to the American people. The entire Department and the critical services we provide would be impacted, including but not limited to the following: A reduction in CBP frontline law enforcement staffing levels of up to 2,400 agents and officers; A reduction in our Department's ability to prevent drugs from entering the country; Cuts in federal assistance to state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners for disaster preparedness; and Reductions in TSA personnel that would result in wait times in excess of 2 hours at large airports across the country. The analysis in the enclosure provides additional details on just some of the significant impacts that may occur.  Operational Impacts of Returning to FY 2022 Funding Levels--Department of Homeland Security  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)  Sea and Land Ports of Entry: CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO) may need to reduce hours of service at all sea and land ports of entry (220 ports in total) and would     deny landing rights at all 241 airports outside of core hours of operation based on personnel availability. With reduced hours, wait times would increase and some land ports of entry may close with commercial and private traffic still in queues, which would result in exacerbated supply chain issues potentially impacting food stuffs and American manufacturing. Staffing: CBP may be forced to implement a hiring freeze, which would impact the agency's ability to hire the additional 300 Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) provided for in the FY 2023 budget and the 150 CBP Officers (CBPOs) and BPAs requested in the FY 2024 Budget. A hiring freeze would also result in attrition of frontline law enforcement officers by perhaps as much as 1,000 CBPOs and 1,400 BPAs. Fentanyl Impacts: Any impacts on CBPO staffing levels, described above, would negatively impact fentanyl seizures as well as other narcotics seizures. Impacts could also affect the operations at ports of entry for lawful travel and goods presented for admission to the United States. Approximately 90 percent of resources at ports of entry go through these regular operations, which impact the special operations teams responsible for targeting, enforcement, and analysis. Reductions to these special operations teams will result in a reduction in targeting opioids for both inbound and outbound operations. With limited resources, OFO would only be able to perform enhanced inspections upon primary or threshold level targets. Reducing or eliminating outbound operations will result in more money not being interdicted leaving the U.S. and enable more trafficking and deeper concealments, likely increasing the amount of fentanyl entering the country. Air and Marine Operations: CBP's Office of Air and Marine Operations would experience 56 percent reduction in operational capabilities equating to 45,833 unexecuted aircraft hours and 11,448 boat hours. A reduction of this magnitude would result in a reduction in our operations equivalent to the following: 154,657 lbs. of cocaine not seized 859 lbs. of fentanyl and 1,948 lbs. of heroin not seized 17,148 lbs. of methamphetamine not seized $9M in currency not seized 561 criminals not arrested, and 57,594 apprehensions not made 361 people not rescued Trade: CBP enforces trade laws and implements measures such as penalties, suspensions, and debarment while enforcing anti-dumping and countervailing duties as well as forced labor laws. Decreasing the capacity of the Office of Trade would result in unprecedented gaps in defending America's economic security, resulting in revenue loss to the U.S. government and economy. Additional impacts include degradation of trade enforcement operations resulting in increased violations of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) such as the production of counterfeit goods, duty evasion through transshipment, misclassification, country of origin claims, and use of forced labor in the production of goods in U.S. supply chains. Agriculture: Due to decreased inspectional staff and capacity, these cuts would result in increased risk of introductions of foreign animal disease, including African Swine Fever, and plant pests due to significant increases in cargo and passenger wait times.  Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)  Cyber Resiliency: Budget cuts would stifle CISA's early efforts to support cyber resiliency across state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. This critical support ensures resource-poor jurisdictions (or their management service providers) are cognizant of threats and prepared to face them, and are hardening the defenses of the national critical functions under their stewardship (e.g., water supply, wastewater treatment, and emergency communications). Specifically, cyber resiliency provides support to stakeholders and mission partners in their efforts to predict, adapt, and dynamically recover from threats in high- risk areas who are significantly underserved with current resources. Without this funding, CISA will not be able to: Design targeted assessments for highlighting cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities to emergency communications systems nor identify mitigating actions; Identify requirements, develop, and deliver curriculum that improves cybersecurity and interoperability in the face of evolving IP-hosted communications technology used during responses of varying size/complexity; Design specific assessments for urban areas to evaluate and enhance cybersecurity; nor, Expand Emergency Communications Coordinators' support to stakeholders via CISA's regional service delivery model. In addition, the reduction of funding would eliminate the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)/Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) program. This would impact CISA's execution of DHS's responsibility as the FASC's Information Sharing Agency (ISA) and would terminate support on the development of a doctrine required to respond to Federal Government-wide supply chain risks and planning coordination. Cyber Protection: CISA would not have the resources to implement requirements of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA). CIRCIA requires CISA to develop and implement regulations requiring covered entities to report cyber incidents and ransomware payments to CISA. These reports enable CISA to rapidly deploy resources and render assistance to victims suffering attacks, analyze cross-sector trends, and quickly share information with network defenders to warn other potential victims. Implementation of this new congressional mandate will result in an exponential increase in the number of incident reports coming from critical infrastructure. If funding is held at FY 2022 levels, CISA would not have any dedicated funding to respond to this new requirement and therefore would be unable to collect and rapidly share information with critical infrastructure owners and operators. Cyber Incident Response: CISA's Operations Center would lose the ability to ingest, triage, collate. record, and visualize information from over 50,000 cyber incidents over a one-year period. CISA would be unable to provide critical infrastructure owners and operators with analyzed reports, statistics, or trends, leading to a significant decrease in their ability to proactively avoid known and emerging threats and vulnerabilities to the nation's critical infrastructure. State and Local Impacts: Budget cuts would lead to a 13 percent reduction in CISA's regional field forces. The regional workforce is a critical component of CISA's service delivery model. With reduced funding, CISA would have to reduce assistance provided in response to ransomware and other cyberattacks. It would also have to reduce security assessments and chemical inspections, thereby impacting businesses, healthcare providers, K-12 institutions, state and local governments, municipalities, and critical infrastructure entities. In addition, CISA would have to reduce the number of engagements and support of pre-election security assessments of polling places in communities nationwide. This would result in limiting interactions with local election officials where CISA helps to assure the security of election offices, polling places, and election infrastructure. The number of impacted jurisdictions would vary by state, as some states have tens of election jurisdictions, and some states have more than a thousand.  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  FEMA grant assistance to support and help state, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) and the private sector could be reduced by half. This would negatively impact SLTT capabilities to implement preparedness strategies successfully and reduce or eliminate longterm risks to people and property from hazards and their effects.  Transportation Security Administration (TSA)  Passenger Security Wait Times and Aviation Security: In FY 2024, passenger volume is anticipated to increase by 9.2 percent over FY 2022 levels. Fewer Transportation Security Officers would increase passenger wait times from 10 minutes in FY 2023 to upwards of 30 minutes in FY 2024. At larger airports, passengers would experience wait times in excess of two hours where a steady influx of passengers makes it impossible to recover without the necessary staffing. These high wait times would also result in large crowds of unscreened people in the checkpoint queues, increasing potential soft targets. Transportation security equipment maintenance would have to be reduced, impacting equipment reliability and increasing passenger wait times while resulting in costly actions to modify contracts. Furloughed positions would impact transportation security now and in the future as TSA would see fewer staff at checkpoints. Additionally, TSA would have a greater gap between experienced staff and staff with minimal experience.  u.s. Secret Service (USSS)  Cyber Fraud Task Forces: Secret Service would eliminate or severely reduce the capacity of the 42 Cyber Fraud Task Forces across the country that partner with private industry, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies and federal and state prosecutors to prevent, detect, and mitigate complex cyber-enabled financial crimes. Cyber Forensics Training: Secret Service would shut down the National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) and eliminate training for state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges used to combat cyber threats. NCFI graduates conduct cyber forensic exams across the USSS, completing over 150,000 exams in FY 2022 that were for cases involving murder, rape, and child exploitation. COVID-19 Fraud: Cuts would reduce the ability of Secret Service to combat COVID-19 related crime by over 50 percent. USSS is currently focused on four broad areas of COVID-19 related crime and to date has arrested over 500 criminals, recovered $1B and responded to over 5,000 investigations and inquiries.  U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)  The United States Coast Guard would immediately cease the advancement of acquisitions, procurement, and construction resulting in a reduction to operational readiness along the maritime borders. Specifically, the inability to progress the Coast Guard's two highest acquisition priorities, the Offshore Patrol Cutter and the Polar Security Cutter, would create an operational gap and further delay of the U.S. presence in the polar regions and reduce the ability detect, deter,     prevent, and disrupt terrorist attacks and other criminal acts in the U.S. maritime domain as well as our National Defense Strategy. ____  USDA,  Office of the Secretary,  Washington, DC, March 17, 2023. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your letter of January 19, 2023, requesting an analysis of the impact of potential non-Defense spending cuts on the American people that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) serves. I am very concerned about the unprecedented cuts in FY 2024 funding that Congressional Republicans have proposed. While Congressional Republicans haven't released a specific plan, cuts on the scale suggested would have a very real and damaging impacts on our families, our communities, our economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical services the American people rely on in their everyday lives such as food and nutrition security, protection of life and property from catastrophic wildland fires, a safe food supply, and more. President Biden released a Budget on March 9th that demonstrates his commitment to invest in America, continuing to provide the critical services the American people depend on, and reducing the deficit. USDA analyzed two possible House Republican Leadership plan scenarios. One assumes a funding level equal to that of fiscal year 2022 and while the other assumes a 22 percent reduction in funding for Government programs, which would mean a reduction of about $6.15 billion for USDA in FY 2024. A decrease of that magnitude would threaten the safety and well-being of tens of millions of Americans, raise the risk of homelessness for tens of thousands of Americans, and lead to thousands of farm families not having access to the credit and help they need to continue to farm. The attachment provides a few examples of impacts but does not capture the entirety of the detrimental effects should the House Republicans' plan come to fruition. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss further or, if requested, provide more information in writing. I deeply profoundly hope that Congressional leaders will reach an agreement that will does not result in these draconian reductions to USDA. I look forward to working with Congress to preserve the many priorities of rural America. Again, thank you for writing. Sincerely, Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary.  Additional Analysis of Potential Spending Cuts  Bureau: Food and Nutrition Service Program: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Reduction Amount: Up to $1.4 billion WIC is a federally funded nutrition assistance program with an average monthly participation currently projected to be 6.5 million in fiscal year (FY) 2024. Under both reduction scenarios (FY22 level and a 22 percent reduction), State WIC programs would have to reduce participation and establish waiting lists using the priority system provided in regulation. In the first scenario, nearly 250,000 monthly participants would not receive benefits. A 22 percent decrease would only allow the program to support about 5.07 million participants--a reduction of approximately 1,180,000 participants from the FY22 monthly average and 1,500,000 participants from current FY24 participation projections. Since the late 1990's, the appropriations committees' bipartisan practice has been to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all eligible applicants. When funds are not sufficient to support caseload, WIC agencies implement a priority waiting list of individuals. The first to lose benefits would be non-breastfeeding postpartum women and individuals certified solely due to homelessness or migrancy, followed by children. This means some of the participants needing benefits the most would be cut off. In addition, Nutrition Services and Administration funding provided to States would be reduced, which would hinder State agencies' ability to provide services in a timely manner and result in losses of WIC-related State and local jobs.  Bureau: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Program: Salaries and Expenses Reduction Amount: Up to $250 million Drastic changes to the FSIS' funding level would result in an across-the-board furlough of as many as 400 and 1,800 Food Safety inspectors at the FY22 and 22 percent reduction scenarios, respectively. Since, Federal law mandates inspection of meat, poultry, and egg products, approximately 6,800 establishments nationwide would experience production impacts. At the higher threshold of the cut, USDA estimates a lost production volume of more than 11.5 billion pounds of meat, an additional 11.1 billion pounds of poultry and over 590 million pounds of egg products. Together, the industry would experience a production loss of over $89 billion with a total extended loss including distribution and retail of $416 billion. Consumers would experience a shortage of meat, poultry, and egg products available for public consumption, and the shortage may result in price increases for these products. Restaurants, grocers, local merchants, and others who rely on FSIS-inspected products would suffer multiplier effects from the shortfall in production. The impact could force smaller businesses and merchants out of business. Industry workers would also be furloughed, resulting in over $2.2 billion in lost wages. The livestock industry would also incur additional costs for disruption of the pipeline from farms to production establishments as farmers and livestock producers would have to feed and store animals longer than anticipated. The FSIS would also eliminate export inspections, resulting in losses for U.S. producers and causing additional storage costs and or loss of product. Export inspections could adversely affect other nations since the volume of products would decline. Furthermore, public food safety could be compromised by the illegal selling and distribution of uninspected meat, poultry, and egg products. Because the FSIS is also responsible for verifying the safety of imported products, cutting import inspections would result in a reduction of 1.1 billion pounds of imported meat, poultry, and egg products entering the country, in addition to the lost production capacity within the United States. Cutting import inspections might be construed as an international trade issue. Moreover, there is limited storage space along the border so unless foreign countries stopped shipments, chill/frozen storage capacity and refrigerated truck/train/ship capacity would be compromised.  Bureau: Rural Development, Rural Housing Service Program: Rental Assistance Reduction Amount: Up to $325 million The Rental Assistance Program helps eligible low-income tenants, in the USDA-financed multi-family housing, pay no more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent. Approximately 288,000 tenants receive the benefit of rental assistance in almost all the apartment complexes financed by Rural Development. The House Republican leadership's planned reduction would cause between 40,000 and 63,000 current recipients to lose rental assistance. The average annual income of families and individuals receiving rental assistance (generally female-headed households, elderly, and the disabled) is approximately $12,501. These Americans are the least able to absorb any increase in the rent due to the loss of rental assistance. Loss of this rent supplement may cause property owners to increase rents, making the units unaffordable to the very low-income residents who have few options for decent, affordable housing. With the loss of rental assistance, or higher vacancies resulting from very low-income Americans being unable to afford higher rents, many properties would be unable to pay all their operating costs. Owners may be unable to maintain the property and allow it to fall into despair, or the properties may become delinquent in their loan payments. Currently, the USDA has 160 multifamily properties in the foreclosure process, which may increase with reduction in rental assistance. Ongoing delinquencies will lead to defaults and foreclosure and may result in long-term loss of affordable housing in rural communities in future years.  Bureau: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Program: Conservation Operations Reduction Amount: Up to $225 million Most of the NRCS' funding is appropriated for the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) which is the agency's primary program to work with private landowners across the country through the USDA's unique delivery system of local field offices. Working one-on-one, NRCS helps producers use new technologies and implement conservation practices such as organic production systems, on farm energy management, air, soil, and water quality improvement, and enhancement of pollinator populations. A reduction of up to $225 million would reduce Technical Assistance Support, resulting in up to 84,000 fewer producers (54 percent) receiving conservation planning assistance (impacting up to 54,000,000 acres). These reductions will have a deleterious impact on landscape-scale conservation, water quality improvements, wildlife habitat protection, open space protection, as well as natural infrastructure restoration, carbon sequestration, weather prediction capacity, plant material development and other programs and services that support extreme weather and climate change adaptation and mitigation. Funding cuts of this nature will hurt farm programs and rural America. The Administration is committed to working with Congress to improve options and better target farm programs, saving money for the Federal Government while maintaining a robust farm safety net. Program improvements can level the playing field by ensuring payments and technical assistance support the farmers and ranchers who need them most--not wealthy people, passive investors, or large and profitable agribusinesses. We can strengthen program integrity by excluding non-farmers and investors, addressing duplicative payments and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the USDA's risk management and mitigation tools.  Bureau: Farm Service Agency (FSA) Program: Farm Loan, Salaries and Expenses, and Grant Programs Reduction Amount: Up to $370 million Funding cuts would drastically impact service levels currently provided by the FSA.     At the upper level of the proposed cut, there would be 5,100 fewer direct farm operating loans and 1,500 other farm loans (Emergency Loans, Guaranteed Operating Loans, Highly Fractionated Indian Land, Heirs' Property Relending Program) that could be made. The reduction of farm loan funding could result in a loss of up to 26,250 private sector jobs (plus the hundreds of farmers that would be forced out of farming and into the off-farm job market), reduce the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by more than $1.6 billion, and reduce household income by more than $1.3 billion.  Bureau: Forest Service Program: Wildland Fire Management Sequestration Amount: Up to $515 million for Wildland Fire Management Salaries and Expenses, and Preparedness, and Hazardous Fuels Funding cuts under either scenario would place the United States Forest Service (USFS) wildland fire fighting mission in a decreased state of readiness and reduce agency capacity to protect life and property. At the FY22 funding level, efforts to modernize the workforce through pay reform and additional hiring will virtually stop, and the strategy for aerial wildland firefighting resource procurement and usage will need to be significantly revised. The number of firefighters, helicopters and airtankers will all need to decrease which could lead to more fires that escape initial attack and yield more large fires take weeks to contain, endanger nearby communities, damage watersheds and diminish other forest ecosystem services, and increase suppression costs. At a 22 percent reduction, 2,200-2,700 wildland firefighters would be furloughed. For both funding scenarios, fewer firefighters would also reduce performance of hazardous fuel treatments and maintenance of acres already treated, including new priority acres that are at high and very high fire risk (as high as 350,000 acres annually).  Mr. McGOVERN. These are actual numbers. These are real statistics compiled by real experts. When we talk about the fact that no one needs to worry about what is being debated here, this is why we are worried. This is the impact of what they are trying to do. What they are trying to do will hurt regular people, will hurt veterans, will hurt people who are struggling to put food on the table, will hurt teachers, will hurt the people that we represent. It will hurt children. This is unconscionable, what is going on here. We cannot just sit by while everybody on the other side says: Oh, don't worry, be happy. It will all just work out. No, it won't. We don't share these values of these cuts. We have a separate set of values if my friends think that it is okay to cut these programs and hurt these people. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.