▶ 0:00:21Wait. Testing one, two, one, two. Testing one, two, one, two.
▶ 0:21:18Mr. Connley. Yes, sir. The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Pursuant to committee rule 5B and House rule 11 clause two, the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote or the yays and nays are ordered.
▶ 0:21:46The committee will continue to use electronic system for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills before the committee. Of course, should any technical issues arise, which I do not anticipate, we will immediately transition to traditional roll call votes. Any procedural or motion related votes during today's markup will be dispensed with by traditional roll call vote. Our first item for consideration is HR 1295, the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025.
▶ 0:22:15The clerk will please designate the bill. HR1295, the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025, a bill to amend chapter 9 of Title 5, United States Code, to reauthorize the Executive Reorganization Authority of the President and to ensure efficient executive reorganization and for other purposes. Without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The cl the clerk will please designate the amendment.
▶ 0:22:43An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1295 offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. My bill, the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025 would renew and extend the authority of the president to propose a government reorganization plan.
▶ 0:23:09President prom President Trump promised he would eliminate Washington waste and reform the unchecked federal bureaucracy and he is delivering on his promises made to the American people. For decades and on a bipartisan basis, members of this committee have lamented the inefficiency of the federal We fought neverending battles against the waste, fraud, and abuse the bureaucracy generates during both Republican and Democrat administrations.
▶ 0:23:40The federal government has expanded dramatically since the early years of our republic. Today, there are more than 400 executive branch agencies and sub agencies and roughly 1,000 federal commissions. Most of these entities are relatively new creations. They did not exist for most of our nation's history. Not only has the government grown in size and complexity, but has also taken on many functions once handled by the states or the private sector.
▶ 0:24:10Over time, the expansion of entities and programs has led to an increasingly complex bureaucracy with a massive amount of overlap and For instance, the Government Accountability Office recently found 43 job training programs scattered across nine different federal agencies. That's just one of dozens of areas of wasteful duplication GAO has identified across a range of federal activities.
▶ 0:24:38Since 2011, GAO's report on government duplication and overlap has found more than $667 billion dollar in potential cost savings from proposed efficiency reforms. The president has considerable authority within existing law to reorganize certain government offices and functions. But some reorganizations do require changes in law.
▶ 0:25:02Throughout our nation's history, such reorganization legislation typically originated from the White House. That's in part because for much of the 20th century, presidential reorganization proposals requiring changes in law were granted special consideration by Congress. The Reorganizing Government Act of 2025 amends the Reorganization Act amendments 1984 to renew and extend this special consideration through December 2026.
▶ 0:25:33This reorganization authority has not been active since 1985 despite several presidents including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama having asked Congress to renew the authority as this bill would do. Under HR 1295, a reorganization plan must be considered via an up or down vote on a joint resolution of approval within 90 calendar days.
▶ 0:25:59This joint resolution is highly privileged, expedited, and not subject to the filibuster. The bill also expands the authority of the president to submit reorganization plans that impact whole executive departments instead of just agencies under current law. Renewing the special re reorganization authority, requiring Congress to take an up or down vote on reorganization proposals by the president will help facilitate needed improvements in government operations.
▶ 0:26:29It will also allow Congress to have a say in how government reorganization is carried out. That should be what we want here. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yet now yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, congressional Republicans have finally admitted with this bill that President Trump and Elon Musk do not have the legal authority to delete whole agencies.
▶ 0:27:00Nor do they have the legal authority to take a chainsaw to essential programs like social security and Medicaid or Medicare or to purge the federal workers that care for veterans, keep our food supplies safe and fight cancer.
▶ 0:27:16Congressional Republicans also know these dangerous, deeply unpopular cuts would face a real challenge in congressional approvals to regular order as they have in the past, which you just pointed out. So now they bought us HR 1295, the so-called Reorganizing Government Act, in a desperate attempt to circumvent normal congressional process.
▶ 0:27:44The bill isn't about reorganizing government. It's about dismantling it. HR 1295 would use the shell of a long dormant statue as a Trojan horse to give President Trump and Elon Musk unprecedented filibuster proof authority to eliminate federal department and agencies, statutory programs, government services, and regular protections to promote the health and well-being of
▶ 0:28:14American families. This dormant authority was used in the past between 1932 and 1984 to allow a president limited limited authority to present plans to reorganize limited portions of the government which could then be fasttracked to Congress.
▶ 0:28:36Congress has chosen not not to renew that authority in over four decades despite requests to do so. as you point out for Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Barack Obama.
▶ 0:28:50In the past, presidential reorganization authority was used to respond to the needs of the American people, including creating the agencies of EPA, the National Oceanraphic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And it came with key limitations and guard rails. HR 1295 dramatically and recklessly expands the power it would give to President Trump and Elon Musk.
▶ 0:29:19And without these key limitations, the guardrails that have always existed. In fact, the bill would include new presidential powers Congress explicitly prohibited the last time it granted this authority. For example, it was strike language that prevented past plans from abolishing whole executive departments and independent regulatory agencies, terminating any enforcement functions or programs.
▶ 0:29:48The dismantling government act would grant Donald Trump and Elon Musk a filibuster proof pathway to get their reckless actions blessed by Congress. And we already know exactly what they'll do with that power. They will abolish whole departments and agencies.
▶ 0:30:05President Trump could use this new power to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board, the Institute of Peace, the Agency for International Development, and any other federal entity with a simple majority vote in the House and the Senate. They will wipe away statutory protections authorized by Congress.
▶ 0:30:30Trump would be able to use his power to eliminate statutory programs through his reorganization plans, a feature that was expressly prohibited prohibited by Congress in the past. Republicans in Congress would not be able to amend the plans. So, they'd be able to be forced to support a broad reorganization package that cuts or eliminates Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other programs beloved by their constituents.
▶ 0:30:56They will eliminate regulatory protections that keep people safe and healthy. President Trump will use this new power to gut agency's abilities to enforce laws and regulations. Goodbye regulations that are protecting Americans from junk fees, air pollution, and lead in our drinking water. And it will use this authority to eliminate the defenses we have against reckless purges of our federal workers.
▶ 0:31:24purges that have often been found unlawful by courts all around the country in the last month. Unlike the previous reorganization authority, Trump's new power would explicitly authorize any plan he deemed necessary to reduce the number of federal employees. The dismantling government act does nothing more than hand even more power over to an unelected billionaire, Elon Musk. It's an unconscionable affront to the American people and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
▶ 0:31:54I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Do any other members wish to be heard? The what? Mr. Chairman. Chair recogniz. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, I I would like to raise my objections to HR 1295.
▶ 0:32:22As I review the bill, I I think it's really important that the American people understand what this bill is and does and the ways in which it really gives away the constitutional power of Congress to the executive branch. Um, so, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if I could just ask you a couple of questions about this bill since this is your bill.
▶ 0:32:45So, I'm trying to understand the purpose of this bill, and I know as you presented the bill, you said that this is really to empower the Trump administration, which you believe is uh using its authority to try to reform the government. But I see under uh pages two and three of your bill that it includes the discretion of the executive branch to eliminate the operations to be determined unnecessary for the execution of constitutional duties.
▶ 0:33:16So this means essentially if I'm understanding it Mr. chairman that if Donald Trump or Elon Musk decided that an agency and its operations was unnecessary under your bill, they could just eliminate it. Is that correct? Yeah, it requires Congress to vote on it. Mr. Mr.
▶ 0:33:41Chairman, as I read it, your bill is giving the congressional authority to the executive to do it without Congress. No, that's not true. You're misinterpreting the bill. Can you please point us to the language in the bill that retains Congress's authority? Resolution in Congress. It requires a privilege resolution in Congress.
▶ 0:34:07Can you please point us to the page and the line number that requires congressional consent for reorganization of the federal government? The long
▶ 0:34:48sections 908 and 90. in sections 9008 and 909 of title five of title five which is which bill was amended uh I'm sorry Mr. Chairman, section 908 says striking December 31st, 1985.
▶ 0:35:09Can you please refer to the language that Congress's authority under the United States Constitution to reign in the executive to stop it from eliminating unnecessary duties, reducing federal employees, amending rules and regulations, and eliminating executive departments, agencies, independent establishments, offices or officers of the executive branch.
▶ 0:35:44If my colleague would yield this just let me answer that question. This bill amends title 5 section 908 and 909 which retains congressional again. Mr. Chairman, can you please point us to the place in your bill where it retains Congress Congress's constitutional authority to reign in the executive She's intentionally you you're intentionally misrepresenting the bill. Mr.
▶ 0:36:12Chairman, I'm reading the bill and I'm asking you as the sponsor to point to us where your bill which you are trying to pass through this committee today retains the authority of Congress. It it changes the date to 2026. It amends the date. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to read from your bill. I've got 40 seconds here. It allows The bill amends current law.
▶ 0:36:40What you're looking at, what you're looking for already exist as law. Mr. Chairman, your bill, as introduced here, allows the executive to eliminate any executive department, agency, independent establishment, or corporation within the United States, an office or an officer to essentially repeal, amend any regulation, and to eliminate anything that the executive branch determines to be unnecessary.
▶ 0:37:05And I strongly oppose this bill because this is a blank check to Donald Trump and Elon Musk to continue to dismantle the federal government. on.
▶ 0:37:28Just let me say for the final time, the bill amends current law to extend an authority where the president submits to Congress a reorganization plan. So this should be something that we all support. Now uh does any other members seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, our amendments in order now. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I heard I don't even know where it came from. Oh, Miss Mace, chair recognized Miss Mace. Yes, sir.
▶ 0:37:57I I was just going to uh emphasize what you were saying earlier that the uh this bill amends it to renew and extend it through December of 2026. Um I would appreciate it if members on the other side of the aisle spoke the truth. actually read the bill, understood what it did after reading it. Uh maybe some reading comprehension perhaps might be needed. And also um you know the offense that President Trump or Elon Musk get cart blanch authority. Well, it was uh presidents Bill Clinton, George W.
▶ 0:38:24Bush and Barack Obama have asked Congress to renew presidential reorganization authority. So this is actually bipartisan. But because the orange man is president, it can't be right. just because they don't like the president of the United States, it can't possibly uh be. But this has been a bipartisan effort in the past in the normal times when people had common sense on both sides of the aisle. Uh so appreciate your leadership and transparency, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Aayobach. Very good explanation. Any other members seek recognition?
▶ 0:38:54Mr. Connley, I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk report the amendment? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1295 is offered by Mr. Connelly of Virginia. Uh do uh chair recognizes a recommendation.
▶ 0:39:17The chairman's bill to authorize presidential reorganization plans that are clearly and specifically designed to aid and abet Elon Musk in a chaotic, cruel, arbitrary dismantling of our government threatens the essential life saving services Americans rely on every day.
▶ 0:39:34My amendment would simply prohibit any reorganization plan for the sole purpose of reducing the number of federal employees and would instead require any reorganization plan submitted by the president to restore the federal workers already recklessly purged by Elon Musk. Civil servants perform critical work that helps keep the federal government performing its essential missions.
▶ 0:39:57The American public relies upon the work of dedicated federal civil servants, but Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and so much more. Civil servants turn down lucrative jobs in the private sector, where they can make a lot more money because they believe in the mission of public service. Nearly onethird of these public servants are veterans. The Trump Musk administration is working overtime to purge these dedicated individuals from the federal government and federal service.
▶ 0:40:26Enough is enough. My bill, my amendment clarifies critical protections against waste, fraud, and abuse and corruption by requiring any president reorganization plan to include the common sense protections for inspectors general, included in my bill, the protect our watchdogs act.
▶ 0:40:46IG's play a critical role in independently and objectively holding federal agencies accountable by rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, and mismanagement in government operations. Late in the evening of January 24th, President Trump attempted to fire 17 IG's across 18 agencies by sending them a Friday night email stating they were quote terminated effective immediately due to changing priorities unquote.
▶ 0:41:14The emails sent to those IGs attempting to terminate them immediately failed to provide the required notice or a legitimate rationale for termination as required by law. To date, 18 IG's across 19 agencies have been terminated by president and another 11 presidentially appointed IG positions are vacant. The amendment I offer would require that any attempt to terminate an IG must be done for cause.
▶ 0:41:42for instance due to a neglect of duty malfeasance or gross mismanagement. It creates specific criteria for the substantive rationale including detailed and case specific reasons that the president is already required of providing to Congress as mandated by the inspector general act of 1978 amended in 2022 with broad bipartisan support.
▶ 0:42:06President Trump's contempt for lawful protections of IG's is unlawful, unwise, and unamerican, and warrants this amendment's clarification so that independent IGs are protected and their independence preserved. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for statement uh in opposition.
▶ 0:42:26This amendment is yet another attempt by committee Democrats to misconstrue what this bill does and use this markup to rant about the Trump administration's work to eliminate Washington waste and reform the unchecked federal bureaucracy. For decades, presidents have sent Congress reorganization plans for an up or down vote. for decades.
▶ 0:42:48This bill, the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025, renews this long-standing authority for the Trump administration, thus reestablishing a process for how Congress will review and consider reorganization plans from the administration. This authority is not some new abusive or unprecedented power, as the Democrats would like us all to believe. In fact, President Obama requested Congress revise or renew the same reorganization authority during his presidency.
▶ 0:43:15A reorganization plan will only go into effect if Congress approves it, thus preserving Congress's role in right sizing the federal government on behalf of the American people. That be what we all support. I believe this amendment seeks to unprecedently limit the president's authority under the Reorganization Act by limiting the types of functions and employees that can be included in the plan. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Connley amendment.
▶ 0:43:43Does any other members seek recognition? Uh the the the question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Connley. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair that those have it. I would request a recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
▶ 0:44:11Uh well the question Wait a minute. We've got to do the A8. Is that No, that's right. That's right. Yeah. Are there any other amendments? Chair recognized Miss Brown. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Okay. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1295 is offered by Miss Brown of Ohio. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order.
▶ 0:44:40Uh the gentleoman from Ohio is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's be clear about what this bill really does. It hands sweeping unchecked power to the executive branch, allowing the president to dismantle our federal agencies with virtually no oversight from Congress. This bill allows the president to abolish any federal agency or department he deems unnecessary or burdensome without any check from Congress.
▶ 0:45:09It allows him to gut rules and regulations he personally dislikes. And let's talk about federal workers because this bill strips away critical job protections who keep our government running. Right now, federal employees can only be laid off for a valid reason. But this bill would let the president fire them at will for any reason he sees fit.
▶ 0:45:34That means career civil servants who serve the public, not a political party, could be dismissed for purely political reasons, silencing experts and weakening the very institutions that keep our government running. In other words, this bill would embolden and enable this president to continue his chaotic assault on our federal government.
▶ 0:45:56more indiscriminate firings, more funding freezes, and more attempts to shut down agencies that provide services to the American people. So, make no mistake, this isn't just about streamlining government. This is about dismantling our system of checks and balances and consolidating absolute power in the hands of one man. America fought a revolution to free ourselves from kings.
▶ 0:46:24Now some of my colleagues are trying to count crown one. The American people deserve better. That is why I'm offering a simple amendment to protect the American people's private and personal data from this power grab.
▶ 0:46:40My amendment will require the president's reorganization plan to include a list of executive databases that contain personal and private information of American citizens that Doge has accessed and prohibit any employees of Doge or anyone partnering with Doge from accessing this private I think we should all agree no president, no bureaucrat,
▶ 0:47:11and no unelected billionaire should have free reign over our American citizens private information. Let's protect the American people, not strip them of their rights and safeguards. Would my friend yield? Yes, I'll yield to the R. I I want to endorse her amendment and thank her for this initiative. Privacy is key to our liberty. Privacy is a key value in America.
▶ 0:47:39We don't want people accessing our private data and using it for whatever purpose they may decide to use it for. And I think that yours is a common sense amendment that gives us a guard rail and requires a rationale for anyone including Elon Musk and his Doge team to access private data uh bases. So I I I want to endorse the effort and I thank my friend for her initiative and I yield back to her. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:48:09Ranking member. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. I'll recognize myself for a moment. Uh this amendment is yet another attempt by committee Democrats to misconrue what this bill does and use this markup to rant about the Trump administration's work to eliminate Washington waste and reform the unchecked federal bureaucracy. For decades, presidents have sent Congress reorganization plans for an up and down vote.
▶ 0:48:32This bill, the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025, renews this long-standing authority for the Trump administration, thus reestablishing a process for how Congress will review and consider reorganization plans from the administration. This authority is not, and let me repeat, is not some new abusive or unprecedented power as the Democrats would like us all to believe. As I said earlier, President Obama requested Congress revise and renew the same reorganization authority during his presidency.
▶ 0:49:01A reorganization plan will only go into effect if Congress approves it, thus preserving our role in rightsizing the federal government on behalf of the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Brown Amendment. Does any other members seek recognition on the Brown Amendment? Seeing none, do you ask Mr. Stbury. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:49:25I wonder uh if I might ask the sponsor of the amendment a few questions and engage in a friendly conversation about the background on the amendment. So, uh Mr. Chairman, Representative Brown, can you tell us a little bit more about why you believe it's necessary to include a list and description of the data that's being accessed by the administration in response to the American people and to what we've been hearing in the
▶ 0:49:55in the news. Um, Doge has been accessing private information and we don't know to what degree or what length and when we attempted to subpoena uh Mr. Musk to uh clarify the work that they've been doing in this newly created department. We were rejected by our Republican colleagues. I would imagine if they were proud of the work that they were doing, uh they would allow Mr. Musk to come before this committee to to clarify the work that he's doing. So, I'm just asking for clarification um on behalf of the American people. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:50:26Chairman and Representative Brown. And to my knowledge, I I don't believe that Mr. Musk or any member of the administration has actually been in front of this committee to even hear this bill. Is that your understanding, Representative Brown? That is my understanding.
▶ 0:50:38And yet here we are in a process to pass it without any clarification about why this authority is needed, why these expanded definitions are needed, why they want to have this put into statute as there are literally over 160 lawsuits in the federal court system that are challenging the legality of what they're doing, including hacking private data of American citizens.
▶ 0:51:05And that's exactly what your amendment is about identifying and protecting. And Representative Brown, as I understand it, just a couple of days ago, in fact, the courts found that the accessing of social security data by Elon Musk and Doge was illegal and unfounded. And we know that millions of Americans out there are frightened right now that their social security payments are going to be shut down by Elon Musk. Is that correct? You can tell from our town halls that is absolutely correct.
▶ 0:51:36Well, it'd be probably useful for our friends across the aisle to actually hold their town halls because then they would hear from their own constituents about the millions of Americans that are upset about this. But in addition to that, there's been numerous other court orders around data, including one of the very first and highly uh identified breaches of federal data privacy and security, which was when Elon Musk sent his hackers into the Treasury Department to hack our Treasury payment systems, which
▶ 0:52:06by the way is not only a violation of privacy, but a violation of the law. But because the US Department of Justice is not pursuing federal cases against administration officials who are breaking the law, the states and nonprofits and individuals are having to go to the courts in order to enforce these laws.
▶ 0:52:24So what I find very difficult to understand is how we can be sitting in this committee today hearing a bill that would actually expand the scope of what would be considered for government reorganization, including the wholesale, as Elon Musk likes to put it, deleting of agencies that they find unnecessary. That allows essentially a complete reworking of the federal government.
▶ 0:52:52And we still haven't even had the administration in front of this committee yet. They haven't even come here to answer what they're doing to the American people and our colleagues aren't even listening to the people in their districts. So, I strongly support your amendment. I think that the breaches to data and especially data privacy and whatever they are doing with this data is one of the most egregious and abusive things that this administration is doing. and I'm grateful that you brought this amendment to defend the American people's rights.
▶ 0:53:22And with that, I yield back. Any other members seek recognition? The question is now on the Brown amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, Miss Brown, recorded vote. Uh recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Do any other member? Okay.
▶ 0:53:49Chair, Miss Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have You have an amendment at the desk, right? Okay. Uh, will the clerk distribute and report the amendment? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1295 as offered by Miss Randall of Washington. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. Uh the gentleoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:54:22Um you know, this this amendment is what I think should be a simple bipartisan fix to this um to this bill is I have heard over and over and over um this administration say that one of their goals is to lower prices for regular people.
▶ 0:54:44We hear a lot about the cost of eggs, about the cost of health care, about the cost of housing, about the costs that working and middle class families are facing every day. And you know, this administration has promised to work on lowering those costs for people.
▶ 0:55:05Um, and I've heard from my constituents, nearly 20,000 of them at town halls over the last month who are really struggling under high costs of living. Those folks are especially struggling who have been laid off or fired from their federal work. um or contractors who have lost their jobs because their federal contracts have been cancelled.
▶ 0:55:31I think we can all agree that prices are high and it is hard out there for working families. Um what this simple amendment does is says that a reorganization plan may not provide for or have the effect of increasing consumer prices or eliminating or otherwise diminishing existing consumer protection actions by an executive department.
▶ 0:55:55So what this does is says that we want to safeguard the consumer protections that exist and ensure that no plan that is submitted for congressional approval would prices. I don't know anyone out there who is hoping for this administration to raise the prices of the goods that they are struggling to purchase every day.
▶ 0:56:19So, you know, as as we work to ensure that um you know, working families can have good jobs, make a good living, um you know, protect uh the the promise of American dream. I think working to um to make certain that no plans introduced to Congress would increase prices is a common sense solution.
▶ 0:56:48And you know the speaking to the consumer protection piece, um you know last month accidentally somehow uh staff at the USDA who are responsible for managing our bird flu response were fired. And because of bird flu, we've seen the largest ever price jump for eggs since 1980.
▶ 0:57:15But indiscriminate firings of federal workers are leading to higher prices. And so I think we should do everything we can to make sure that we keep prices as low as possible for folks out there who are just trying to live their lives and build a strong future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bren, yield to the ranking member. Yes. I I thank Miss Randall and I thank her for this amendment.
▶ 0:57:43Nothing being done by Doge ought to increase consumer prices. Nothing done by Doge should threaten public safety, food and medical safety, especially there have been a number of recalls already on food stuffs around the country. That comes from FDA, the Federal Drug Administration. We must protect the American consumer. I applaud my colleagues initiative and urge my colleagues to support her amendment. I yield back to her.
▶ 0:58:13Does the lady yield back? Thank you. Yes, I yield. All right. I'll myself. All I'm I obviously oppose the amendment for the same reason I oppose the two previous amendments.
▶ 0:58:27And all I'm going to do is uh ask for a unanimous consent uh to enter into the record a press release dated January 13, 2012 when speaker when Nancy Pelosi issued a statement on Obama's administration's government reorganization proposal. Nancy Pelosi supported this exact same piece of legislation in 2012. I'd like to enter that into the record without objection. So ordered. Do any other members seek recognition?
▶ 0:58:59Mr. Chairman, a question. Yes. Um, with respect to that, I I don't object, but um I think Nancy Pelosi was responding to Barack Obama's request to simply reauthorize the underlying bill. Barack Obama did not ask for the kind of bill you're proposing here today. Is that not correct? Uh, pretty sure he did.
▶ 0:59:32Yeah, he he he asked for the pretty much the same bill. Similar similar very I I think we disagree about that, Mr. All right. Any other members seek recognition on the Randall amendment? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment offered by Miss Randall. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair.
▶ 1:00:01Uh Mr. Randle asks for a recorded vote. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Uh any other members seek recognition. Mr. Chairman. Uh and uh Miss Sensari, you Well, who's they? They told me he wants to wait. They told you to go. Who's next? Okay, you're saying I'm sorry, Miss Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment on the table as well. Uh, will the clerk please distribute and report the Ansari amendment?
▶ 1:00:32Amendment to the amendment in nature of a substitute to HR1295 as offered by Miss Ansari of Arizona. Uh, without objection, the amendment is considered as red. I reserve a point of order. Uh, gentleoman from Nevada is recognized for five minutes to explain amendment. Arizona. I said I'm sorry, Arizona. Apologize. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Close. Like uh like millions of Americans, I am deeply concerned about the authoritarian nature of this administration.
▶ 1:00:59It is very clear that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the entirety of uh the president's cabinet want to operate without any sort of uh accountability, without willing to willingness to come here and speak to the oversight committee uh by attacking journalists, by attacking um rightful American citizens. And they want to do whatever they want without any checks and balances. And that is exactly what Republicans on this committee are handing them with this bill.
▶ 1:01:27They want to allow want to be dictators to completely dismantle the federal government without review, without consideration of how it affects families who depend on government programs and without a care in the world. And the reason they are pushing for this bill is because Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Doge have already been found consistently to be acting outside of the law in their mass layoffs and agency closures by the courts.
▶ 1:01:55They shut down US aid and the courts ruled that they violated the Constitution because they need congressional approval to do so. Now, instead of defending their own powers, congressional Republicans are pushing forward this bill to hand over their powers to the president. Again, this is further revealing cowardice and weakness and deep fear about a primary challenge funded by the richest man in the world. So, those are my overall issues with this bill.
▶ 1:02:23Now, speaking to this amendment directly, this is in regard to veterans. Earlier this month, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced plans to fire more than 80,000 of its employees. This is a department that we all know is already woefully understaffed. They desperately need more nurses, more doctors, and more administrators to provide the care and benefits that Americans need. More than 9.1 million veterans rely on VA healthcare.
▶ 1:02:52Over 32,000 veterans are homeless. Upwards of 17 veterans commit suicide daily. Two of the VA employees from the regional office in Phoenix are a 20-year Air Force veteran and the other is a former Marine. They were both loan specialists helping struggling veterans from losing their homes and were each handling 1500 cases at the time of their termination. Just two people were managing 3,000 cases.
▶ 1:03:23Now imagine 80,000 workers laid off from the VA. These are men and women who put their lives on the line for each and every one of us. And this country has already failed them in many, many ways. Now Elon Musk wants to decimate the agency that cares for them. My amendment protects veterans and VA workers from these cruel actions so that the VA can continue improving the level of care our veterans receive rather than hanging them out to dry.
▶ 1:03:52So I hope my colleagues will vote in support of this in a amendment and I will yield back to the ranking member. Thank you. I I thank my colleague and I thank her for this initiative. Nothing is more reckless than gutting the Veterans Administration. As you point out, millions of veterans and their families rely on VA for health care. I've visited dialysis clinics run by the VA. They are essential.
▶ 1:04:23Laying off people who are technicians, who are uh in admittance, who are providing technical and nursing and medical services to our veterans is disgusting. If the United States has any obligation, going back to Lincoln's eloquent call to heal the wounds of our veterans and their widows and their orphans, it is this.
▶ 1:04:49So, I applaud my colleague for taking this initiative and highlighting how serious this is. Remember, a third of all federal employees are veterans. Deliberately, we wanted to give them a leg up. And as my friend pointed out, the suicide rate is alarming. We've got to provide mental health services as well as medical services. So, I think this goes a long way to protecting our veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. And I yield back to Miss Ansari.
▶ 1:05:20Miss Sari, yield back. Thank you so much. I I appreciate the comments of the ranking member. I I could not agree more and again really urged colleagues to vote for this to protect veterans who are Republicans, Democrats, independents, but deserve all of our support. Thank you. Gentle lady yields back. Um I recognize myself.
▶ 1:05:46I don't think President Trump or any Republican has advocated for reducing nurses at the VA or classroom teachers in the Department of Education. What they're talking about are bureaucrats, many of whom haven't been to work in years. Hopefully, we can get rid of the bureaucrats and have more money to hire more classroom teachers and more nurses. We have to have a reorganization of the government.
▶ 1:06:14has gotten out of the out of hand uh over the past four years. Bureaucracies have grown, bureaucrats have increased in number, and the the people taking it on the chin in the federal workforce are the ones who actually do the work at the bottom of the organizational chart. This is a reorganization for them.
▶ 1:06:36I just feel like if the Democrats would fight as hard for the workingclass taxpayers and the frontline federal employees as they fight for unnecessary bure bureaucrats, then we could accomplish a lot this Congress. So, I oppose this amendment. Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. All right. Uh, you've already I I just have a question for you. Sure. um that I'll new here.
▶ 1:07:02This is my first first term, but one of the first, you know, in my second month on Valentine's Day, I was at the VA in Arizona for for Valentine's for vets. It was the night before that the administration fired, I believe, a thousand employees from the VA. Again, a woefully understaffed agency. So, I just I guess do you agree that that occurred and do you believe that that is waste fraud and abuse taking from an already understaffed agency that supports our veterans? I don't know about that particular instance you're talking about.
▶ 1:07:30I would recommend you look into it because it happened again completely aligned with the day we're all supposed to go and visit our veterans and support them. Thank you. Chair recognized Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I I I'm going directly address my veteran brothers and sisters across the country. We're going to fix the VA whether anybody in the bureaucracy machine likes it or not.
▶ 1:07:53I've helped thousands and thousands of veterans across Louisiana and every one of them has the same issue. It's a problem with the bureaucratic machine of the VA, not the nurses and the doctors, not their fellow veterans.
▶ 1:08:12Their problem is with the waste and the and the ignorance and the and the audacity to be arrogant from the bureaucracies towards our veterans that we serve. And you just sit by and watch. But if you're in our way, we're rolling over you because we're about to fix the VA. And that means we're going to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and theft within the VA.
▶ 1:08:41We're going to fire people that don't work, don't show up for work, or don't even exist. And we're going to work together with the executive. Finally, we have an executive branch that's courageous enough to tackle this thing. And that executive branch has has advocates for the America first agenda and and a veteran first agenda within this Congress. And I'm one of those advocates, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:09:09I oppose any amendment that restricts Congress's obligation and legislative effort through this oversight committee to assist the executive branch in its in intent to fix the bureaucracies of our country by eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and theft. I oppose this amendment. Mr.
▶ 1:09:39Chairman, I I yield to my my colleague, Mr. Begs from Arizona. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also oppose this amendment, and I want to give you an example of how the bureaucracy has prevented good health care practices for veterans. TBI, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder.
▶ 1:10:02One of the very best ways to deal, combat, and help heal is hyperbaric oxygen treatment. I have been trying since I got here, but the bureaucra bureaucracy is consistently stood in the way. We need to provide that type of treatment. And when the bureaucrats say, "Oh, well, you know, there's no there's no uh studies that show this," they're wrong.
▶ 1:10:31the IDF almost everybody comes out getting HBOT and it helps them. The studies are crystal and clear. What's preventing us from providing that type of medical care is the bureaucracy. It's the bureaucracy that says no. And they would rather give PTSD or TBI patients a surfet of opiates.
▶ 1:11:00get them addicted. What they need is Hbot therapy. That's not true. Who in the hell are you? Be quiet. I have the floor. Order. If we do not allow comments from the crowd. It is true. The studies are clear. The studies have been t over and over again.
▶ 1:11:27TBI PTSD is helped by HBOT. Ma'am, you will be asked to be removed. One more outburst. Under the rules of the house, the chairman responsible for maintaining order and preserving the quorum in the committee room. I expect audience members to be respectful of the witnesses and the public. Mr. Biggs, please proceed. Thank you, honor. It is true. There is study after study that show it and demonstrate it. You can shake your head till the rocks fall out, but the reality is it is true. That's the studies.
▶ 1:11:57I'll yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana. The gentleman yields back to me. Mr. Chairman, let me say that we admire the young lady's passion. The bottom line is that bureaucrats are in the way of of actual VA service to actual veterans.
▶ 1:12:15And whatever the whatever the manifestation of that of that interference may be, we certainly subject to legitimate debate, but we're going to oppose bureaucrats standing in the way of actual service to our veterans. I yield, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman's times expired. Mr. Chairman, chair recognizes ranking member. I thank you. Um, you know, that would that would be great. I I don't know how Mr. Bigs and Mr.
▶ 1:12:45Higgins have a special code to pick only bureaucrats and they're the ones we're going to eliminate because they have decided they're the problem. That isn't what Elon Musk and Donald Trump have done. They've gone into the VA and fired thousands. They don't know whether they're nurses. You don't know it either, Mr. Higgins. They don't know if they're technicians. They don't know if they're specialists in admittance for hospital care or home care.
▶ 1:13:14They They don't know. They didn't take the time. They didn't take the time to study the architecture of the VA to make sure no harm was being done. That is what this amendment is designed to try to do, to protect veterans from having negative consequences because of those actions which were not vetted. still haven't been vetted and are definitely going to hurt our veterans.
▶ 1:13:42So, it's great to say we're only going after bureaucrats. There's no evidence that that is true. And in fact, I worry deeply it is not only not true, it's the opposite. I yield back. I I yield to Mrs. Stansbury. Member yields back. Do any other members seek recognition? uh chair Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh wow.
▶ 1:14:12Okay, let's break this down. I'm going to read the amendment here. It says essentially here that it would insert the following language that basically it would not allow the administration to reduce, degrade any existing services, benefits or jobs for veterans provided by an executive department and is required to fully restore all veteran services, benefits or jobs at the executive department that have
▶ 1:14:42been reduced, degraded or eliminated by the United States Doge So, I'm sorry. I represent one of the highest proportion of veterans in active duty military in the country. And I find it deeply offensive that my colleagues would not support a simple amendment, a simple amendment that would protect our veterans.
▶ 1:15:08And to claim to sit here and claim today that what the administration is doing has not impacted veterans is completely a lie. Because I can tell you that three weeks ago, veterans who work for the VA showed up on Monday after Elon Musk, not even the VA, issued a mass firing of probationary staff on a Friday afternoon.
▶ 1:15:36And people showed up to their jobs at veterans hospitals and administration offices across the country and couldn't even get into their emails because they were locked out. But inside of those emails were actual statements saying that they had underperformed and they were being fired basically without cause. Now already the federal court system has found that those firings were illegal.
▶ 1:16:02So, you can't sit here today and pretend like the actions of the administration have not impacted our veterans and the VA system because that is a lie. That is a boldfaced lie. Secondly, last week before we went home, the Republicans passed a CR that underfunded the Pacted Act.
▶ 1:16:26We passed the PAC Act a couple of years ago to expand health care to the VA system to three million veterans who were impacted by burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxins over the course of their service. This was the largest expansion of VA benefits since World War II, and you underfunded it in your own continuing resolution.
▶ 1:16:48And I'm sorry, if you were actually holding town halls and actually listening to your constituents, you would know that our veterans across the country are pissed as hell. You are not representing the interests of our Third, under the opaces of your DEI order, thousands of veterans who have proudly served this country had
▶ 1:17:18their history erased from websites. Last week, New Mexico's Navajo code talkers who helped us win World War II were erased from the DoD website. airmen.
▶ 1:17:37Thousands of instances of people of color, women, LGBT service members who proudly gave their lives and served this country were erased from the DoD website. And finally, you want to talk about impacts to veterans? You know what we should be actually doing oversight over today?
▶ 1:18:01How about the fact that the DoD secretary leaked a Yemeni war plan yesterday to a nonclassified journalist on an unsecured text chain. Let's do real oversight here. You want to talk about risks to our veterans?
▶ 1:18:24These are the same people that accidentally fired nuclear scientists and engineers who literally maintain our stockpile. These are the same people who leaked classified documents to a journalist. And this is the same DoD who on Friday almost gave of our classified war plans for China to Elon Musk.
▶ 1:18:48So don't sit here and pretend like you're actually protecting our veterans and you're not even doing your most oversight. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Chair Mr. Biggs for a yes request. Thank you honor. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:19:04Um I put this this is an original research published in journal of clinical psychiatry November uh 11th 2024 dedicated HBOT protocols uh can improve PTSD symptoms uh 68% of participants showed at least a 30% reduction in symptoms and then upon revision 39%. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yield back without objection so ordered. Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Subra Marian. Uh thank you Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:19:33I I just want to make clear that um many of these so-called bureaucrats are actually veterans. In fact, many of them um served their country well. Many of them had exemplary work records. Many of them did a lot of work. In fact, they wanted nothing more than to serve their fellow fellow veterans. And the real problem with the system was that they were using antiquated technology. They were constantly underfunded and they all these rules were in place to make their job 10 times harder.
▶ 1:20:02And many of those people live in my district and I hear from them all the time that all they want to do is the best that they possibly can for our veterans. And yet we have failed them. We in Washington have failed them. And so they will continue to serve. But many of them are now being fired. And what's going to happen when you decrease resources again and again and again? Our veterans will suffer again and again and again. We are breaking our promise to our veterans. And all this amendment does is say that let's actually fulfill that promise to our veterans.
▶ 1:20:31And so I I support this amendment. I'm actually going to yield over to Miss Ansari to continue her Uh thank you. Um thank you, Congressman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask uh unanimous consent to enter two items into the record. One is one you said you don't uh recall from an article from February 13, 2025. VA dismisses more than 1,000 employees.
▶ 1:20:58And then without objection to ordered, the second article, this is a crucial job. Valley veteran working for Phoenix VA unexpectedly loses job in widespread widespread layoff. So as my colleague said, the people being fired from the VA are largely veterans. My colleague point of order, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of all, without objection, so ordered on the UC. You're not objecting to the UC? No, not objection to the UC at all. Now, now I recognize you for a point of order.
▶ 1:21:25Yeah, point of order is when you're getting a UC, you don't get to read the article. That's right. That is correct. You just the title title. Right. You did that. That is the title of the article. If I could use the rest of my time, the callousness that we are seeing from colleagues side of the aisle. Point of order. Point of order to that. She's had her minutes to speak. She's now trying to use her UC to go forward. Yeah. Mr. Sabbron yielded her. Okay. Then I apologize. Okay.
▶ 1:21:54But you're correct on how to propose a unanimous consent request. The title. Yes. Otherwise, I would go forward. That's where we got into an argument with Miss Presley. She was uh going into detail on a chairman. You had time. Right. Right. That's right. Thank you. Everybody's correct here. Perfect. Please proceed. All right.
▶ 1:22:17So the callousness that we are seeing from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in regard to veterans, you are obsessed with buzzwords that does do not recognize that real people are suffering in the midst of it. When on February 13th, a thousand veterans are fired. Then on February 24th, VA accesses another 1,400 employees. The point was made today.
▶ 1:22:47What was the reason for the firing of these employees allegedly be under the opaces of diversity, equity and inclusion? Again, buzzwords they are obsessed with. Diversity, equity, and inclusion means women. It means members of the disabled community. It means African-Americans. It means Latinos. It means Native Americans. It means anyone who they do not deem qualified in their sense.
▶ 1:23:12hardworking real the real people who deserve the positions that they are in have been fired from these positions simply because this administration does not recognize them and does not value them. So let us just be honest about who is being impacted here. Veterans are suffering. Last week I held a town hall with the Arizona Disability Coalition. Several are veterans. We held a town hall with hundreds of people who came and showed up.
▶ 1:23:39veterans in Phoenix showed up and are devastated about the cuts to their health care, about the cuts to the VA. And these are again real lives. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not listen to their constituents. They hide from their constituents and they don't understand the issues that they're talking about. I yield back. Thank you. I yield back to the ranking member. Thank you. I think the points are made quite happily.
▶ 1:24:07uh this process undertaken by Doge and Elon Musk and Donald Trump will jeopardize veterans. They work there. They serve there. They're the also the customer base of the VA. to have nine million veterans put at risk under the under the false pretense of we're going after the bureaucracy.
▶ 1:24:30You there's no way you're not going to get into uh heart and tissue in terms of the quality of medical care provided for the veterans. Nothing in this c in this Congress, nothing should ever promote or provoke us to providing less than absolute excellent quality care for our veterans. They've earned it. Their families have earned it. It's our sacred obligation. I really appreciate the amendment and I urge this adoption.
▶ 1:25:00Gentleman's times expired. Chair recognizes Mr. Infume. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of personal privilege. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of uh the ranking member, I'm going to go this far and and on behalf of you, I just want to call the attention to the young people who have joined us when we welcome you, this group of young individuals and students who have stopped by uh to the capitol. This is your House of Representatives in action.
▶ 1:25:28Uh look at it, learn from it, and uh and grow from it. It's a unique experience. I don't know where you might be from, but all of us here on the committee really like it when we see young people and students stop in to see what we're doing and to check us where possible. Thank you. I yield back. Thank Welcome. Do any other members seek recognition? Yes, Mr. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:25:58Um, I just wanted to add my voice to um disputing the uh position that everyone who has lost their job has been a wasteful bureaucrat. I have um an email from uh one of our colleagues at Veterans Affairs in Washington State and they share with me some of the folks that they lost um in on February 24th.
▶ 1:26:30uh six from supply chain management which includes an inventory specialists a position that is in such critical short supply that they can no longer staff the night shift. Those are the folks who ensure that the hospital is supplied with medical supplies and equipment.
▶ 1:26:49This this inventory specialist was hired on a veteran's preference and her position was so necessary that she was hired during the budgetary hiring pause, but she lost her job on February 24th. They lost two program support assistants who go out in the community to help house homeless veterans, folks who are living on the street.
▶ 1:27:16One of them was a disabled Iraq war veteran and a cancer survivor who was so happy to be back at the VA supporting the organization that supported him through his bone marrow transplant and other procedures. Another program support specialist worked in geriatrics and extended care where he was working in the homebased primary care program traveling and supporting nurses who were visiting patients who were unable to leave their homes to come to the hospital to get the care
▶ 1:27:46that they needed. Another in radiology a similar program where we have had extreme shortages. dedicated public servants who believe in the mission of the VA, who believe in helping their feder fellow veterans, who show up every day to serve, but are being characterized as bureaucrats, as wasteful, as a a waste of our taxpayer dollars.
▶ 1:28:16when when people real people real veterans who have served our community are relying on them to help them access care. Mixed up with all in the midst of all these firings, we've seen truly uh wasteful and inefficient use of government resources when procurement cards were limited to $1. There was a pause on procurement cards.
▶ 1:28:44And what that meant was that folks who were traveling like that veteran I mentioned earlier to receive essential care like a bone marrow transplant were not able to have their housing paid for while they and their family were traveling out of state. These are serious impacts on veterans in our community who have served bravely and who continue to do the work of caring for others who have served.
▶ 1:29:14This is not about wasteful bureaucracy. This is about ensuring that we are keeping our promise to take care of those who have stood up for us. I yield back to the to I yield to um my colleague, Mr. Submayan. Uh thank you. Uh, I just want to read a a story that someone wrote in to my office who lives in the district. Uh, she said that, "I've worked as a contractor on a project for the Department of Veteran Affairs for eight years.
▶ 1:29:41When I first started, our business owner was a woman who had worked for the VA for 20 years. Her husband and children were veterans. She had more passion about taking care of our vets than any other business owner I've ever seen. She was a role model for so many people in our office and for me, and we were able to accomplish so much good for veterans because of her." In 2020, she left the VA and in 2024, she returned to our project. We were so excited to have her back and have her guidance for our program moving forward, but she was laid off last week as part of the probationary firings.
▶ 1:30:09Her position has no near-term plan to be filled, and other VA employees are stepping in, but they do not have the capacity, knowledge, or deep personal relationships to make the project successful. This has been a devastating and a huge loss to our veterans and their families. We work in backend IT, so it's not something a veteran would ever notice. But we work behind the scenes to keep the VA modern and as efficient as possible, and this is a terrible loss for the American people. That's just one person who is serving the VA. Imagine you multiply that by thousands. That's what's going to happen to the VA.
▶ 1:30:38That is not waste getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. That is making things worse for our veterans. I yield back to the ranking member. I think I thank my friend for his observation. That's exactly what is happening because there was no vetting. Uh time's expired. Any other members seek recognition on the amendment? Mr. Bell. Who? Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell have an amendment. Oh, okay. Hang hang tight before we You're next on the amendment.
▶ 1:31:08No other speakers on this amendment. This was Subramanyam. Yeah. Okay. No, this was the Rand uh the Randall amendment. Okay. All right. A lot of amendment here. No, this is Ansar's amendment. This is onar sorry. All right. This is Onsar's. Okay. All right. Okay. I got it. You're good. Uh the question is now on the amendment offered by Miss Unsari. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 1:31:37All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman would request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be What's that? Now, Mr. Subman, Mr. Chair, I I um have an amendment. Will the clerk please uh report the amendment?
▶ 1:32:04Amendment to the amendment in nature of a substitute to HR1295 is offered by Mr. Submanium in Virginia. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Uh the amendment is pretty simple.
▶ 1:32:19All it does is ask that we review do a real review and a comprehensive mitigation plan for any conflict of interest that may threaten the ability of the executive department to serve the public interest including any conflicts of interest of the president, vice president and officer employee of the executive branch. Uh any officer serving in the level one of the executive schedule or any special government employee. Um, and the reason for this is also simple.
▶ 1:32:47The American people do not want corruption in our government. They want to make sure that the decisions being made by the executive branch are not to line the pockets of people in the executive branch, but rather to make sure we're doing what's best for the American people. And if there's anything that's bipartisan, it should be that we want to rid ourselves of corruption. I've heard it over and over again. We want to get a waste, fraud, and abuse. I think uh lining your own pockets and using the federal government as a slush fund is fraud and it's abuse of our federal government.
▶ 1:33:18And so uh whether it's a Democrat or Republican, uh we should all come together in Congress and make sure that we get rid of people lining their own pockets and using their office to enrich themselves. And that's what's happening right now. And so I want to make sure if we're going to try to do this reorganization of government that is not full of corruption.
▶ 1:33:37But what I think is happening instead is that we are going through a practice where we're making corruption easier, where we're embracing uh people lining their pockets and using their office and using their positions in the executive branch to enrich themselves. And by getting rid of some of the safeguards, getting rid of the inspectors general, getting rid of the people who are in charge of getting rid of waste fraud and abuse, we are making it worse. And so it's a simple amendment.
▶ 1:34:03I hope it has bipartisan support because this should be a bipartisan effort to rid ourselves of corruption. And uh I'll yield back to the ranking member and hope that both sides of the aisle support the amendment. I thank my colleague for yielding and I support this amendment. The American people ought to be reassured that whoever is involved in government efficiency is clean and has no conflict of interest. Elon Musk has huge conflicts of interest.
▶ 1:34:31Whether it be Tesla, whether it be SpaceX, whether it be his interest in China, he is a walking sandwich board for conflict of interest. I think this amendment would go a long way to reassuring the American public and Congress that we have scoped it out and that the people involved in so-called Department of Government efficiency are in fact themselves clean.
▶ 1:34:59If they're not, it takes everything they're doing. So, I thank Mr. Suberman for bringing this to uh to our attention. I thank him for his leadership and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. And I yield back to the gentleman from I yield back to the chair. Any members wish to speak on the uh Subraman amendment? Uh chair recognizes Miss Stanbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:35:27Uh I would love to ask the sponsor of this amendment a few questions just to clarify why it's necessary. You know, I think we have seen an unprecedented effort to not only dismantle the federal government, but the kind of self-deing that I mean, let's all be honest, we saw a lot of that during the first Trump administration, but we never saw an unelected billionaire placed in a key decision-making role that would literally be
▶ 1:35:58dismantling wholesale agencies, cutting thousands of federal jobs, ending contracts, data mining, federal data, who had direct financial conflicts of interest with the federal government.
▶ 1:36:14And so I want to ask the sponsor of the bill, you know, we've seen uh for example, just a couple of weeks ago as the FAA uh was infiltrated by Doge and by Elon Musk, it's my understanding that he replaced the communications contract for the FAA with his own Starly program. Is that correct? That is correct. And it's also my understanding that Mr.
▶ 1:36:40Elon Musk who has also infiltrated Noah which is the uh agency that does our weather service and tells the Americans and the world uh that you know what's going to happen with the weather that uh there's also indications inside the agency that he would like to have SpaceX become the primary contractor for the satellite systems for Noah. Is that correct? That is correct. And we've also heard that Mr.
▶ 1:37:06Elon Musk, who the DoD secretary almost gave access to secret war plans for China last week, is also angling to get billions of dollars in new contracts under the Department of Defense. Is that correct? That is correct. So, I don't know about all of you guys, but this sure looks like a scam to me. I mean, right, they're calling it waste, fraud, and abuse, but really what we see is a special government employee who's a private businessman.
▶ 1:37:35He's the wealthiest man in the world and he is literally infiltrating these federal agencies that he has a personal financial interest in. He's cutting the programs. He's eliminating staff and then he is essentially positioning himself to put into place private contracts.
▶ 1:37:54Now, I also want to take a minute to talk about some of the social programs that we're also highly concerned about because, as we know, our colleagues across the aisle passed a resolution, a budget framework a couple of weeks ago here in the House that is setting the stage for one of the largest tax breaks in American history to go to billionaires. So, they're robbing the federal government. They're getting ready to give themselves massive multi-billion dollar contracts.
▶ 1:38:21And then they're going to rob our most vulnerable members of our communities, low-income families. They're going to dismantle the Medicaid system. Now, they're talking openly about uh dismantling Social Security. And then they're going to take those so-called savings, which are you, the American people, and give permanent tax breaks to the same guy that is dismantling the federal government and giving himself private contracts.
▶ 1:38:50This is a total scam. A total scam. Like folks need to wake up. This is not about waste, fraud, and abuse. This is a scam. They are running a scam on the American people and on the federal government. And what this bill does, because we had a little bit of debate about this earlier, you know, they're saying, "Oh, this just this just preserves congressional authority.
▶ 1:39:16This doesn't actually expand any authority." If that was true, then why the hell would you want to try to pass this bill? And if you read the underlying statute, since my colleague across the aisle uh alleged that I don't have good reading uh we we downloaded the original statute with the uh amendments that the underlying bill that is being heard here today would uh do to the underlying statute.
▶ 1:39:41And what it does is it eliminates Senate authority to stop this bad stuff from happening because it essentially only requires a simple majority resolution in the Senate to gut hundreds of years of federal statutes creating agencies that help the American people so that Elon Musk can make more money. And that is what this bill is all about. I yield back.
▶ 1:40:14Time's expired. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, u the question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Superman. Uh from Virginia, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not to Mr. Ranking member. I would request a recorded vote. Recorded vote is requested by Mr. Connley has previously announced further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
▶ 1:40:43Now chair recognized Mr. Bell. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um as a former pro desk right we have to do that first. You have an amendment at the desk. I have an amendment. Would the clerk please report the amendment then we'll get you? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1295 is offered by Mr. Bell of Missouri. Without objection. The amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman Mr. Bell is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:41:13Um, as a former prosecutor, I know about scams and in the past, Congress has granted presidents limited authority to propose structural changes to the federal government under expedited procedures. As we've talked about, uh, this authority used responsibly by past administrations allowed for reorganizations aimed at improving government efficiency.
▶ 1:41:37Um, but what we've seen with this administration has been amateur-ish and sloppy, just like releasing government or or war plans on a signal chat. Uh critically, that authority has always come with guard rails.
▶ 1:41:56A prohibition on eliminating entire executive departments or independent agencies and a prohibition on terminating congressionallymandated enforcement functions and statutory programs. These safeguards ensured that reorganization efforts could not be used as a backdoor to dis dismantle essential government services or weakened protections for the American people.
▶ 1:42:22Unfortunately, HR 1295 represents a dangerous and unprecedented expansion of that authority. It seeks to hijack this long dormant statute, stripping away the limitations that previously ensured congressional oversight imbalance and im and balanced.
▶ 1:42:42If enacted, it would give the president and Elon Musk filibuster proof power to eliminate entire federal departments and agencies, abolish statutory programs, and roll back essential regulatory and enforcement functions that protect public health, economic stability, and the rights of working Americans.
▶ 1:43:05Among other vulnerable targets under this expanded authority are the US Postal Service and the Postal Regula Regulatory Commission, two independent institutions that provide vital services and public accountability. The now former post postmaster general's perilous agreement with Doge representatives signals an effort by the president to insert itself in that statutoily independent postal service, one of America's most cherished institutions.
▶ 1:43:36The president's threat to strip and sell off the postal service is very real and it will devastate service for rural rural and hard-to-reach areas that are not profitable for the post service postal service. This amendment is essential to preserving the postal services integrity as a public institution that serves millions of Americans no matter where they live or how much it costs to deliver mail to them.
▶ 1:44:04It would prohibit any effort by the president to reduce or degrade postal performance standards or eliminate any component of the PRC, particularly if such actions are taken in coordination with external actors like the so-called United States Doge Service who would appear to be operating with the support or encouragement of this administration. So, let me be clear. The USPS is not a tool of private interest.
▶ 1:44:30It's an independent agency enshrined in law that millions of Americans depend on. Undermining it either directly or through regulatory manipulation would have sweeping consequences for service delivery, federal workers, and the American public. This amendment ensures that even as we debate executive reorganization powers, we do not allow political or corporate interests to dismantle the institutions that hold our democracy together.
▶ 1:44:58I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and stand up for the independence of the postal service and the rule of law. And one other thing, um, an individual during this hearing spoke out of turn and that was inappropriate and the chair rightfully restored order, but my colleague raising his voice and saying, "Who the hell are you?" is there's no place for that in this house.
▶ 1:45:26We're talking about guests in the people's house. And to be clear, the guests in the people's house are sitting at this dis. These are this is their house. And so this body needs to not forget itself and not get too far to where we're so so caught up in making clips to go viral that we're not forgetting that we have a a duty to set an example of what good governance and bipartisanship is supposed to look like.
▶ 1:45:55Let's keep in mind we have not only Americans watching, but we have kids in the room and we have kids around the country that are watching and following our example. I yield my time to the member. I got four seconds. I agree with the gentleman in all respects and particularly as champion of the postal service that needs to be preserved and improved. I thank my friend. Gentleman times expired. Any other members seek recognition? Uh Mr. Chair recogniz Mr. Infume. Thank you very much, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:46:25I uh want to take a moment to uh support the amendment that is before us. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for offering it. And I want to thank him also for his clear and concise description of the postal service, the USPS and the fact that it is constitutionally established. In fact, article 8 of the constitution established the post office. We don't see any other name there. No, Doge is not listed there. This is article eight of the constitution.
▶ 1:46:56And so we have a right, a solemn right as a congress to protect the sovereignty of the postal system and to make sure that we do everything that we can to ward off attempts to water it down. I was in a pro protest picket line two days ago with rural letter carriers, urban air letter carriers, and others who are worried like hell that there is a move of foot to privatize the United States Postal Service.
▶ 1:47:23And those men and women from all walks of life, all races and religions, stood out and are standing out every day now to make that clear. Many of them are on the hill today and will be visiting some of the offices that we represent. This is not a partisan issue. This is a protection of what is constitutionally guaranteed and protected in article 8 of the constitution. I want to thank the gentleman for offering it and I also want to thank him for his very specific call back to order. I yield back. Would my friend yield for some questions?
▶ 1:47:53Yes, I would. Is it true that the postal service is created by the constitution? In fact, the only service mandated in the Constitution and the original postmaster general actually preceded the Constitution and his name was Benjamin Franklin. That's correct. Article 1, Section 8. Is it true that the Postal Service represents 635,000 employees? That is true.
▶ 1:48:19Is it true that the Postal Service represents the second largest fleet in the American in America, 235,000 vehicles? That is true. Is it true that the postal service hits every business and every home 169 million every day? That is true. And is it true that it takes the last mile that it it eats the lost leader that UPS and FedEx are not willing to take? That is true.
▶ 1:48:48Would it be also fair to speculate that were we to damage, privatize or disrupt the postal service, the people most affected immediately would ironically be in red rural parts of America? That is true. I thank my friend for yielding. I yield to the gentleoman from Ohio. Uh thank you.
▶ 1:49:10Uh I I too stood with uh National Letter Carriers on Sunday as they um stood firmly in their conviction of the great work that they do. Um I want to remind folks that the consequences would be devastating um jeopardizing the jobs of 7.9 million people who are employed by the 1.9 trillion dollar mailing industry.
▶ 1:49:35It would reduce those services that the ranking member talked about of 51.5 million households and businesses in rural communities where private carriers do not deliver and it would raise shipping costs driving inflation higher for businesses and consumers. Um, as we pointed out, these proposals would be illegal and unconstitutional. The postal service itself is older than the nation itself.
▶ 1:50:01Enshrined in the Constitution, giving Congress, not the president, a key role in setting postal policy mandated by federal law. USPS has been an independent, self-sufficient agency for 55 years. So we want to ensure that we continue to protect this agency that delivers and helps to save lives not only for those in urban America but across America all over the country.
▶ 1:50:31So with that I yield back. Thank you. Yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Yield to the ranking member if there's any time remaining. I'm sorry. Yield. I would yield to the ranking member if there's any time remain. Oh, sorry. I think I really had to say what I said in my question to Mr. Mafumi.
▶ 1:50:52Postal service is a vital service, one of the most popular services presented by government aquasi government and was a vital link during the pandemic. It saved lives by delivering food stuffs, medicine, uh testing kits uh for corona virus. So I I think it's really important that we re reinstate our support for the postal service. I know you, Mr. Chairman, have been a champion of postal reform, as have I.
▶ 1:51:22We should work together to make sure the postal service is viable and stable and uh and financially uh tenable. Thank you. Gentle times expired. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Bell from Missouri. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No.
▶ 1:51:50In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reagan member, I would ask for a recorded vote. Reported vote is ordered by Mr. Connley as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be Does any member seek recognition? Miss Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please report? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1295 is offered by Miss Simon of California.
▶ 1:52:21Thank you so much. Okay. I'm sorry. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. Uh Miss Simon is now recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you, chair. Thank you, ranking member. Before I get into my remarks, I would like to acknowledge the young people from Fremont High, from Oakland, California. You all are amazing and you are here. I want to just say that Ella Baker, one of the mothers of the civil rights movement, said, "Young people come first.
▶ 1:52:49They have the courage where we fail." Today you get to look in the faces of folks who have made clear decisions to gut support services for you to live your dreams specifically to the H.B.CU ecosystem. I want you to know that my daughter graduated from Howard University School of Law and is a prosecutor serving the government. I want everything and all things for you.
▶ 1:53:18The H.B.CU are not just universities. They are sacred ground where blood was spilled so folks who look like you could have a chance in this country. Today, as I offer this amendment, I offer it with love to you. As folks try to gut Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare, I know what you are worthy of.
▶ 1:53:41a government that loves you and supports every single ounce of you and your grandmother and your father and the children that you will have. So today I am offering a common sense amendment, a simple guarantee to protect Americans access to critical health care, food assistance, social security benefits, and any future plan, listen to me, any future plan to reduce or eliminate federal departments in this
▶ 1:54:11administration. Simply put, this amendment would prohibit this administration from reducing any existing benefit provided or administered by the Social Security Administration, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare, the Food and Nutrition Service at the Department of Agriculture, the Affordable Care Act. Mr.
▶ 1:54:35Chair, I have mentioned in this committee time after time in my few short months here that I am a widow and I've waited at the Social Security office for hours to receive a very small survivor benefit for my daughter and I after my husband tragically died of a very very rare cancer. I had been that single mother in college who received a small bit. And it was actually $27 a month of SNAP.
▶ 1:55:03And I had to foot put food back routinely at the counter cuz I didn't have enough even with that support. No one, no one, I don't care how you vote, where you live, deserves to be left behind because this administration is hellbent on destroying our federal government and gutting the core social safety net that we collectively have built to support the fatherless, the widow, and the sick and the elderly.
▶ 1:55:32Any reduction in benefits or services provided by provided by SSA, by SNAP, by CMS or the ACA could be the very difference of life or death. Folks living on the streets or for so so many vulnerable population in this great country.
▶ 1:55:53According to the California Department on Public Health, there are 260,000 hard-working constituents, both young and elderly, working and middle class and lowincome, in my district, who are eligible for medical. This includes 13,000 children, some in this room. Look at their faces.
▶ 1:56:20They benefit from the basic social safety nets that we have promised them to eat, to be well, to study hard. Over 46,000 seniors and people with disabilities and over 3,000 adults who are eligible for ACA. I am just asking for a simple acknowledgement that we will not touch these services for the folks who need them most. at UCF UCSF benefit uh binoff hospital.
▶ 1:56:50Last week I toured over 70% of the people that this children's hospital in my district serves rely on Medicaid for the state-of-the-art care that they deserve, including children with cancer and congenital heart defects. No one should have to worry that the Trump administration is going to end their healthcare. No one should have to worry that this administration is going to gut their retirement.
▶ 1:57:16No young person in this room and in this nation should have to worry that an administration would touch their rights and their ability to go on to secondary educations. And in closing, I am voting voting and asking you all to vote for this amendment. It's easy.
▶ 1:57:36It's an easy way to demonstrate to my constituents, these young people, their parents, their neighbors, that we need and trust that they will grow to be strong human beings that will benefit this country. And with that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back. Thank you, Fremont High, for coming today. Gentle lady yields back. Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I I have a unanimous consent. Yeah. Recognize ranking member for UC.
▶ 1:58:05I thank the chair and I thank Mr. Sessions for waiting. Um I just ask unanimous consent to enter into the record today's story in the Washington Post entitled long waits waves of calls web crashes social security is breaking down. Without objection so ordered chair now recognize Mr. Sessions from Texas. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I want to welcome the new member and delighted that she is here to offer amendments and to have her voice be heard.
▶ 1:58:34But I would offer to remind her that this country as testimony before this committee and subcommittees, we have a 300 to500 billion dollar a year misdirected payments uh that have contributed over the last few years to a trillion500 billion dollar worth of of misdirected I think it would be fair
▶ 1:59:04for her to articulate what she would like to, but I would say to her that an audit is going to take place. That audit is necessary. And some of the things the gentlewoman spoke about are not to destroy but to enhance those very systems that we and she have spoken about.
▶ 1:59:27ACA, Social Security, and a lot of these other government programs that are important, the integrity of them. As a matter of fact, I'm sure the gentleoman said, "Don't touch anything." Well, if you touch nothing, that means you failed to do an audit.
▶ 1:59:48That means you fail to take people out who have created either uh an inducement for them that was uh unlawful or uh something that might have happened uh along the way with fraud, waste, fraud, and abuse. But I would tell the gentleoman that if we evidently she understands how social security works. I don't.
▶ 2:00:13But I one thing I do know is is that if you turn 65 or Medicare eligible and you have an 18y old or less than 18 year old in your household, that person qualifies for social security up to $1,500 a month and there is no dollar limit about that.
▶ 2:00:36A family could make 300, 400, 500, $600,000 to provide money to that person that is underage. Now, I don't want to beat up the system. I have a down syndrome son. If I had not made it to where I am now, Social Security would have gone to help my down syndrome son.
▶ 2:01:03I'm not saying we have to delete anything, but a review of these processes is important. An audit, so to speak, is not only proper, it's legitimate for the government to be able to come in and look at the money that is being spent.
▶ 2:01:26There will be things that are touched, but it I think is from my perspective less than a fair argument to say they're going to gut all these things. They they're not going to gut them. Congress has already voted to put all the money for this year that we had last year.
▶ 2:01:49And I have seen nothing that has substantially changed those benefits. And it will come to committee and we will have these debates and we will have these votes and they will be a vote that a person who is a member of Congress will make.
▶ 2:02:11But for us to say that we should touch nothing simply means that our country moves further and further and further into not only debt but literally a debt that's become so crushing that we can never turn it around.
▶ 2:02:30And so those people that are in our future, not just today, that are in our immediate future, will find the diminishment of goods and services and opportunities in the future. And so I think it's important how we talk about this because believe it or not, there are people who are listening to us.
▶ 2:02:51And so I would offer some bit of compromise about the ferveny that we take this debate to with some balance of reality. Mr. Chairman, we are going to do these audits. they are going to be done intended for the integrity of the programs and I do not believe that I've seen evidence that it's going to diminish or stop these necessary important items for people who need it the most. Mr.
▶ 2:03:22Chairman, I yield back my time. Very good. Gentleman yields back. Any other Mr. Superman? Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to explain the the reality on the ground. Um uh right now what they're trying to do is cut social security but in a sneaky way. What they're trying to do is say you have to show up to the office in person if there's any problems. But then they're firing half the people at these offices and closing down offices.
▶ 2:03:49And then on Friday I get notice from many constituents that they had appointments already scheduled to do the right thing. And those appointments have been cancelled because there's not enough people. So that's cutting social security. That's the reality on the ground and that's not, you know, that's taking a sledgehammer to our benefits and social security is is an earned benefit. People paid into it for years and now it's being taken away from them and they deserve better. Our seniors deserve better. Our veterans deserve better.
▶ 2:04:18The American people deserve better than what they're getting right now. And so these amendments are simply to protect the American people and their benefits that they rightly earned. And so the reality on the ground is much different than what I've been hearing from the other side. I yield back to the ranking member. I thank I thank my friend and I wonder if I could ask him a question. Is it not true that this amendment simply prevents the reduction of any existing benefits? That's exactly right. Right.
▶ 2:04:45Uh and if you read the po the post article I inserted in the record, um chaos is ensuing at Social Security. The idea that everything's fine and we're just going after bureaucrats, not true. And it's going to have huge political ramifications in this country. But more importantly, it's going to affect our constituents and the quality of their lives.
▶ 2:05:0870 million people rely on Medicare or andor social security uh including perhaps people with Down syndrome. And uh we've got to take care of those people. That's our obligation.
▶ 2:05:21I thank my friend for I I'll just add that I have a constituent who works at one of the offices, the Social Security offices, who told me that appointments that were made have been cancelled because half the workers in her office were fired, including people who actually knew how to make the system better and more efficient. And because of that, our office simply cannot help people right now with their social security benefits. That's just social security.
▶ 2:05:49I mean, this amendment talks about other uh other programs as well. SNAP, would the gentleman yield? Yes, I'll yield. Were the workers instructed to diminish or change the benefits as a result of what you've heard today.
▶ 2:06:09The workers were not instructed that specifically, but they cannot help the people that they serve with their benefits and with issues with their benefits if there's simply not enough people in the office to help all the people. But they have not cut. There's been no cut or change in the benefit necess I'll yield. Thank you, sir. When you close down, for instance, there will be six I'm talking about SBA for a second, too.
▶ 2:06:37Six SBAs and folks have to go in in person to acquire their re their resources for their small business. When you cut thousands of VA staff members who pick up the phone and folks to emergency services, when you close and fire social security workers.
▶ 2:06:56If you have never had to go into one of these offices and bow your head and beg for a few dollars to put food on the table while you go to college and while you carry your baby on public transportation, don't talk to me about what it means to be poor and try to just survive in this country.
▶ 2:07:17Poor people continuously are being punched down by this administration and folks just want the same things to send their babies to college to get the health care when they need it. These folks, the ones that I represent, aren't getting rich off a $650 social security check when they have to pay $1,800 for rent. We're talking about sustaining basic benefits.
▶ 2:07:43And until you walk with these people hand in hand and see their hard work, their fury to survive, how could you say no to an amendment that says just keep in place the small amount of resources that poor and the sick are trying to sustain while they pass through these very difficult times in their lives. We cannot be the cruel governments that we pay shade to. I yield back.
▶ 2:08:12I'll put a finer point to answer your question. If if what you're saying is they're not cutting benefits, then why not support this amendment that says not to cut benefits, right? Put your vote where your mouth is if you really want to make sure that we don't cut benefits. Back to the ranking member. Well, and and I think it's a casuistic distinction. No one was directed to cut benefits. Well, if I'm cutting the people who provide the benefits, I'm pro I'm cutting the benefits. Uh I think that's kind of a a simple piece of logic. I thank my friend for yielding.
▶ 2:08:43I go back to the chair. Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Chair, uh Mr. Frost, thank you. Um so I oppose the underlying bill and I support uh Representative uh Simon's amendment. Um and I agree with what was just said. Um if you are against cutting these programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, you should support this amendment. But I also want to say something else.
▶ 2:09:08I find it astonishing that this committee is focused on passing legislation that would give the Trump administration more power just 24 hours after we learned that members of this administration, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegsth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, uh Vice President JD Vance, and other top decision makers are responsible for one of the greatest
▶ 2:09:38national security failures of this century. It is our most basic duty as the committee on oversight to find out how this could have happened and what damage could have been done and has been done to our national security.
▶ 2:09:54And as I claim time to debate on this bill, it is relevant to raise the question of why the Republican sponsor considers this issue more important than getting to the bottom of this quote Houthi PC small group end quote signal chat where highly sensitive information about a military operation prior to it being carried out was shared on an unofficial and unsecured channel with a private citizen.
▶ 2:10:21Yesterday, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg published the astonishing story of how he was added to a signal chat by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz that included the Secretary of Defense, Vice President, and 16 others, most of whom have yet to be identified. The White House has already acknowledged the legitimacy of this conversation. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this Atlantic article titled, "The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans." without objection to order.
▶ 2:10:51Over the course of several days, this chat openly discussed military operations against the Houthis in Yemen, putting our service members at risk and putting our country at risk. This is the oversight committee. We need to conduct oversight.
▶ 2:11:09If a Democratic administration committed such a colossal and possibly criminal failure of national security, I know that my fellow Democrats and I on this committee would join Republicans in investigating it because it makes our country less safe. We need to have Secretary of Defense Hegsth in these chairs under oath opening up an immediate investigation to answer these following obvious questions.
▶ 2:11:39Why was Signal being used for this conversation? Is Signal or other unofficial unsecure channels being used for other national security conversations? Is it DoD, NSA or White House policy to use Signal for official business? Whose policy is it? Were laws broken through the use of Signal to discuss these future military operations? And if so, which ones?
▶ 2:12:05What other signal channels discussing classified information exist? The 18 names in this chat mostly appear as just initials. Who are these people? And do they all have proper security clearance to discuss this information? It was reported that the messages in this group were set to an autodelete after 8 days. Was that a Department of Defense policy? Did someone in the signal group make that decision on their own? What operational details were discussed?
▶ 2:12:34And could operational security be compromised if an enemy actor has accessed the signal chat? Secretary of Defense Hegsth was asked if he participated in the signal group chat and instead of giving a straight answer, he verbally attacked the journalist asking the question. He should be answering those questions here today under oath. Mr. Chairman, this is an extreme breach of trust, a violation of the law that demands congressional oversight.
▶ 2:13:01Later this afternoon, Ranking Member Connelly and I will be sending a letter that demands that all departments implicated in this confounding episode preserve all related documents and communications, including the signal chats. I invite all my colleagues on this committee, Democrats and Republicans, to join us in this effort. Mr. Comr, I hope you will fulfill your commitment to conducting serious congressional oversight and sign this letter. I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:13:28Any other members seek recognition on the We're still on the Simon amendment. Yes, Miss Random. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Okay. Okay.
▶ 2:13:41I I didn't see, you know, in in in response to um you know, the arguments that this amendment is going to diminish the ability for us to audit um government programs, recipients of uh folks of Social Security, of Medicare and Medicaid services of SNAP.
▶ 2:14:09I'd say that this does nothing like that. It just says that this plan cannot diminish the actual benefits that folks are receiving. And I've heard a lot of conversation in this committee and at the capital about waste, fraud, and abuse. And you know, I would argue that uh Mr.
▶ 2:14:32For us, comments about an abuse of power and misuse of resources are much greater than the 0.00002% of Medicaid claims in Washington state that have been found to be fraudulent. Of 2 million a year, 2 million, there have been between 30 and 40 fraudulent payments discovered.
▶ 2:15:01And I, you know, use the 40, the higher level when I determine the percentage of fraudulent claims. These families with children with Down syndrome, like Mr. Sessions, with children with microphille, like my family, parents who have just given birth and are trying to stay healthy to care for their new baby.
▶ 2:15:30kids and low-income families, seniors who deserve health care. Everyone deserves health care. But outside of the underlying bill, uh, Republicans and this administration have asked for a have submitted and passed a budget resolution that looks to eliminate
▶ 2:16:00$880 from from energy and commerce, which is impossible without significantly cutting Medicaid. So, we can stand here and say we're not trying to cut Medicaid. We're just trying to make government more efficient, but in the meantime, we're trying to pass a budget that will significantly eliminate Medicaid funds.
▶ 2:16:27So, you know, respect respectfully, regardless of what this underlying bill seeks to do, the efforts are there to tear away benefits from individuals who need Medicaid to survive, who need Medicaid to thrive, who are just trying to live their lives.
▶ 2:16:50While we are um we have been voting on budget policy that is would defund those programs in order to give tax breaks to people who are in a position to make a lot of money off some of the decisions that this Congress is making. I think it is the bare minimum to say we will not reduce these existing benefits in any plans that we submit to this Congress. I yield back to the ranking member.
▶ 2:17:20I thank the general lady and I think her observations are quite quite correct and quite apt. Um we forget in cloaking ourselves around a fight against bureaucrats that there are real people, real people who have real needs. Social Security, the Veterans Administration, other programs of the federal government provide those needs. They service those people.
▶ 2:17:46They are vital links for a huge population of Americans. And when we tamper with that, when we jeopardize that, we are jeopardizing their security, their health, their safety. I think that's really important. These are not faceless bureaucrats who are going to be victims. These are our constituents. I thank the gentle lady for pointing that out. I yield back. Time's expired. Any other members seek recognition on the Simon? Mr. Infume is recognized.
▶ 2:18:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to take a minute to thank the general beg pardon. Am I still recognized, Mr. Chair? Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. And then I'll recognize Mr. Lynch next so I don't forget. I apologize. Thank you. I want to uh salute and rise in support of the gentleoman from California who succinctly put this in human terms.
▶ 2:18:40Someone once said, "Your passion is where your pain is." And for those who pain at the suffering that's going on, their passion is something that we should welcome. And I just can't underscore enough what it's like to be in this committee and what it's like to be out on the ground where you are in a line if you are able to get in it. Where you wonder are things going to be cut?
▶ 2:19:05where you see jobs being eliminated, where you see people being eliminated, and where you understand the need has not left us at all. I want to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the Washington Post story, which went online just seven hours ago entitled, "Long waits, waves of calls, website crashes, and the like. Social Security quote is breaking down.
▶ 2:19:35And if I can just from that article offer a few things to this committee that was reported, the Social Security Administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month, blocking millions of retirees all over the country and disabled Americans all over the country from logging into their online accounts because the servers are In the field, office managers have resorted to answering
▶ 2:20:05phones at the front desk as receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out. But the agency no longer has a system to monitor customers experiences with these services because that office was eliminated as part of a costcutting effort by Elon Musk. And the article goes on by saying and the phones keep ringing and ringing and ringing.
▶ 2:20:33So there is a need here to preserve and that is what the gentleoman has asked for to preserve the very basics provided by this government. Social security is in my district in Baltimore. It's the heart and soul of Baltimore County. And I can tell you firsthand that people continue to hurt and continue to wonder what have they done to deserve this.
▶ 2:20:57If we're after waste, fraud, and abuse, there's a way to go after it, but not to summarily punish people by saying today you are working and next week you are not. So I think process here is important. Uh otherwise this all becomes suspect. If there was a real elongated effort to review, reorder, resubstantiate, and reprove the need for these programs, that would be taking place in a very orderly way.
▶ 2:21:27But order is out the door. Due process is out the door. And in its place, we've gotten this chaos, almost design chaos, that has left so many of us asking these questions. So, it's not a personal issue. It's not an issue to try to get time on anybody's network. It's an issue of people and pain and their passion and where things are standing out in this country. So I u I would ask unanimous consent for that. Mr.
▶ 2:21:54Chairman, I again want to commend the gentleoman from California for succinctly laying this out in real terms. And I commend those who will vote for this bill, which I hope this amendment, which I hope will be most of us. I yield back. With without objection, uh we'll enter into the record the Washington Post story from Mr. Without objection. So ordered. Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr.
▶ 2:22:22Chairman, it is it is hard to ignore uh what what is what is at the root of of today's hearing. Um, and it's sad, you know, I've been on this oversight committee for 25 years uh in Congress, and it's sad to see that this once proud committee has stooped to the situation where we are in right now.
▶ 2:22:44Uh, let me first say that I support Miss Miss Simon's courageous uh amendment and I oppose the underlying bill and I'm thankful for the leadership of our ranking member in this fight. But at a time when we are sitting here uh punching down at at the most vulnerable in in our society and trying to rip holes in the safety net that protects those individuals.
▶ 2:23:12And I and I speak of course of of you know the efforts and the attitude of the commerce secretary uh of this Trump administration who said the other day basically it's not a problem. It's not a problem if people don't get their social security checks. It's not a problem.
▶ 2:23:35And I'm speaking, of course, of the Republican budget resolution that says it identifies $880 billion in cuts from Medicaid, which is the major program that cares for the poor, and it also cares for seniors and in in nursing homes, and and people who who go to the local community health center to get their care. And and I speak especially to our veterans.
▶ 2:24:01Now, we in this committee know that uh over the past year, we had the inspector general of the uh VA look at all of our VA hospitals. And the VA said we were down. We we needed in order to get a base level of care for our veterans, we needed to add about 3,000 more people. That's what they told us. They told us that 86% of our VA facilities needed a medical director.
▶ 2:24:27They said 82% of our VA centers across the United States needed nurses. Needed nurses. So what does the administration do when they come in? They announced that they're going to cut 80,000 more employees from the VA. So So we have an administration here that is punching down Sorry, did you say 80,000? 80,000 80 80,000.
▶ 2:24:52And so this administration is punching down at the weakest in our society, the most vulnerable. We're talking about the poor. We're talking about seniors who can't help themselves and can't go out and get another job or generate more income. We're talking about wounded veterans at our VA hospitals, wounded veterans. And and there's something special about VA benefits, veterans benefits.
▶ 2:25:17Those benefits are for for services, courageous services previously rendered. And so now now after after our veterans put on the uniform, fulfill their obligation honorably, and come home, many many of them with the scars of war, both visible and invisible, the administration is cutting the benefits that should automatically acrue
▶ 2:25:48them. It's unthinkable. That has never been a tradition in this country to to ignore the the valent service of our veterans, but it is today. Unfortunately, I do want to say one thing to follow up on what Mr.
▶ 2:26:09Frost was talking about about what happened over the weekend with uh Secretary Hezgith and the fact that they had a a a live real time discussion prior to sending our sons and daughters in uniform into a war zone giving the details of that that operation to to in in within an unsecure uh line of communication on signal. Anybody could have picked that up.
▶ 2:26:39They elevated the the the status of the assistant editor of the the Atlantic to to someone who was part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I want people to remember that when Lloyd Austin a couple of years ago declined to make public his prostate cancer exam. My Republican colleague said he should resign. He should be fired.
▶ 2:27:08That's because he didn't disclose his prostate cancer treatment. We should be calling for Hezga to retire, to resign right now. Right now. And the people who were on that call with them. They put our sons and daughters at risk. We could we could had had we could have had pilots shot down. We could have had a frigot sunk because they let the information of an operation against the Hoodi rebels who have anti-aircraft capability who have uh naval warfare capability.
▶ 2:27:39We exposed our sons and daughters to that for that reason. For that reason, a real reason a fact. We should call on those people who are on that call to resign. To resign. And if not, we should fire them. as as President Trump did on social media when when Secretary Austin failed to disclose his prostate exam.
▶ 2:28:07I have the the tweet here. Lloyd Austin should be fired be fired for unprofessional conduct. He didn't disclose his prostate cancer exam. What about this? What What about Hezg? What about the rest of them exposing our sons and daughters to to real danger? Mr. Mr. Lynch, your times expired a minute and a half ago. I appreciate the courtesy, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 2:28:35Do any other members seek recognition on the Simon a Mr. Cloud from Texas? Yeah, there's no doubt that this uh signal chat issue was a blunder, but it was referred to in this committee as the intelligence failure in a century. Lloyd Austin uh didn't report for duty. He went awall for a couple weeks. That was the issue.
▶ 2:29:02Now, it might have been because he had cancer and that's tragic, but the fact was he went awall and that's the reasons for the call. It was res less than 24 hours. Excuse me. This is my time, sir. This is uh the hyperbole coming from the left is is is just amazing. Uh in spite of the fact that my understanding an operation was discussed, my understanding is that operation has happened.
▶ 2:29:32Did anyone were that was that operation successful? My understanding is it was my understanding is that there were no US casualties. This is very unlike Afghanistan where we saw 13 people killed during a botched withdrawal. Let's try to get back to some sensible sort of conversation, please. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 2:30:05Mr. Chairman. Okay. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, yeah, I realize that the gentleman uh ran out of time and I would like to yield as much of my time as he may consume to Representative Neil. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman. Look, the Okay, sorry, but it it's fine. I recognize Mr. Infume and he yielded to Go ahead.
▶ 2:30:36I I thank the gentleman. I just I just think that look look over my 25 years on this committee, we have proudly worked side by side on issues. Mr. Chairman, excuse me for interrupting. I just would ask the courtesy of attention. The gentleman is Lynch is recognized. Please have order. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:31:06I I've had the opportunity, the honor really, to serve on this committee for 25 years. And there have been been there have been moments. I was elected on September 11th, the day of the attacks. And so when I got here, there was a there was a real sense of of uh unity, a real sense of being Americans and and identifying the real threats to this country and coming together, Republican and Democrat, working on that together.
▶ 2:31:34And uh frankly, I miss that. I miss that. Uh here's a situation where clearly clearly I mean there's no way to you can't put lipsticks on lipstick on this pig. We we had a a a real time conversation with with rich details about a real-time attack on an adversary.
▶ 2:32:02And we allowed that to occur with a whole host of defense and intelligence personnel in the Trump administration on an unsecure line. So it wasn't an error on one person's part.
▶ 2:32:21It was a it was it was a toddry example of the Keystone cops here where all of them all of them on an insec unsecured line discussed the details of a military operation that was happening imminently.
▶ 2:32:41If if the Houthis if first of all that uh system is as we know on this committee and we are warned not to go on that in our official capacity. We are warned so we know how vulnerable that is and they knew the officials knew. They went on and and discussed the details.
▶ 2:33:09Now, we know we've all received those warnings here from that from our intelligence personnel about the vulnerability we might present if we have important discussions on that on that network on signal. We're we're told that the Russians and the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans are watching that and watching us and we're told not not to go on that network. Okay, that's a fact.
▶ 2:33:36We all know that they went on that network and discussed the plans of an imminent attack, an imminent operation against the hoodies who have anti-aircraft capa capacity, anti-naval capacity and and could have killed a whole lot of Americans because of the carelessness of this group. Will the gentleman yield question? That used to be not yet.
▶ 2:34:02That used to be the type of thing that brought us together when we recognized that danger, when we recognized that vulnerability and and and we would hold people accountable back in the day. And we're not doing that right now. We're giving it a good leave alone. And I'm just saying that this goes to the very heart of this this committee.
▶ 2:34:31This is the This is We were built for this. This committee, we were built for this. We were made for this. And And I'm just saying we're missing an opportunity. You know, there's politics. I get that. But then there's also the safety. Look, there's the responsibility us. When I nominate a kid to the Naval Academy or or or to to West Point, that comes with responsibility.
▶ 2:34:58And those are the kids we're sending in here, putting them at risk because we're allowing this inept group of people who shouldn't be in the in the positions they are in the first place. They were totally unqualified. But this is exactly what happens when you when you put accountability in your back pocket and you refuse to stand up to the president of the United States. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired and I'll yield back. Time's expired. Any other members seek recognition?
▶ 2:35:28M Mr. Chairman, I would move adopt. Simon, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair of the noair. Mr. Rank member. I want to request a recorded vote. Recorded vote. Request a recorded vote. Sir is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Now chair recognizes Miss Presley or for what purpose does Miss Presley seek recognition? Mr.
▶ 2:35:58Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Would the clerk please report the amendment? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1295 is offered by Miss Presley of Massachusetts. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleoman from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. This should be a simple and unanimous addition to this bill. It reads, quote, "Rule of construction.
▶ 2:36:24Nothing in this act may be construed to allow an executive department to enact a policy that supports racial segregation." End quote. There should be no debate about whether our government should be able to implement segregationist policies. But without this amendment, nothing stops an administration from using reorganization powers to roll back civil rights.
▶ 2:36:52Now, I represent a diverse and beautiful district, the Massachusetts 7th Congressional District, where people at town halls in my district, this last in district work period, genuinely expressed concern that our country is moving backwards. Trump's slogan, make America great again, begs the question, when exactly is he talking about?
▶ 2:37:21What year does Donald Trump want to return to? I'd like to know. I can venture a guess uh based on uh many actions which I'll enumerate shortly. But let's uh take a moment to revisit Donald Trump's origins and his track record.
▶ 2:37:40Donald Trump was born in the 1940s and raised under Jim Crow, a time when laws were codified to give him an advantage with the segregation of schools, businesses, and public spaces. And when he started taking control of his dad's real estate businesses a few years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Trump made front page news when he was sued for discriminating against black families who applied for housing.
▶ 2:38:1160 years later, he is still making front page news for racial discrimination. Just last week, the Trump administration revoked a decades old policy that prohibited federal contractors from having segregated facilities. Mr.
▶ 2:38:31Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this New York Times article from March 21st, 2025 titled, "Trump administration dropped policy prohibiting contractors from having segregated facilities." Without objection to ordered. All right, y'all. Now, let that sink in.
▶ 2:38:52This administration, this administration just made it easier for businesses to reintroduce white only waiting rooms, white only bathrooms, and white only water fountains in the year 2025. But this isn't just about one policy change. It's about a broader coordinated assault on civil rights to take America back to Jim Crow.
▶ 2:39:17Trump has appointed judges that don't support the Brown versus Board of Education decision, an obvious opening for a return to segregated schools. Trump is dismantling the Department of Education as we speak to prevent access to equal education and upend more than 300 active civil rights cases in my district alone. Trump has overturned executive orders from the 1960s, including one signed in 1965, but mandated equal opportunity for people of color in the recruitment, hiring, and training of federal contractors.
▶ 2:39:47Trump has even removed black history from government websites, including the Department of Defense. He is literally trying to prevent people from learning about black veterans and their contributions and sacrifices in this country. I could go on, but we would be here until tomorrow. And listen, I will be the first to acknowledge Democrats and Republicans alike have a bad history on this issue. But today, only one party is acknowledging that shameful legacy while the Republicans remain silent, deafeningly so.
▶ 2:40:18So, I will give everyone here a chance to clarify. This vote is simple. Are you against racial segregation? This is your chance to go on the record if you are in fact opposed to racial segregation. Let's ensure that no administration, present or future, can support policies of segregation.
▶ 2:40:43Clearly, Donald Trump, your president, or perhaps your king, does support segregation because Donald Trump was born in, benefited from, and wants to return to a segregated society. I urge passage of my amendment. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 2:41:02Before we close debate on what I hope is the last amendment to this bill, I want to reiterate that between 1932 and 1984, presidents submitted more than 100 reorganization plans. Presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan use this authority to create or dismantle federal agencies. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama requested renewed and expand authority.
▶ 2:41:31This bill does just that for President Trump. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a CRS report titled Presidential Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress, which details what I just mentioned. Without objection, so ordered. Do any other members seek recognition on the Presley amendment? Miss Simon. Thank you, chair and ranking member.
▶ 2:41:59I want to thank um my esteemed colleague uh for this amendment and we have seen just in the last couple of months a very clear attack on the the beauty of inclusion, the fabric that we have weaved together as a nation saying that we all all have culture and history that makes up these great states. I will yield my time to Congresswoman Presley. Thank you to my esteemed colleague uh from California.
▶ 2:42:30Look, I don't want us to um lose sight of what is actually here. Let's not revise what's happening. The Trump cabinet is on track to be one of the whitest cabinets in modern history. And when the government is given unchecked authority, civil rights are often the first to be sacrificed.
▶ 2:42:51Without this amendment, nothing in this bill stops an administration from using its reorganization powers to weaken the enforcement of civil rights and protections. So, I don't know why anyone here would be either deafeningly quiet or be opposed to a guarantee that government cannot support segregation.
▶ 2:43:21This bill grants the president and executive departments new powers and it is essential that we explicitly limit these powers from rolling back civil rights and supporting segregation. Now listen, I'm somebody who believes, you know, in the power of data. So, so let me offer some data points here. the Department of Housing at HUD.
▶ 2:43:45Trump is firing HUD workers in my district, including those that oversee anti-discrimination work. If we do not pass this amendment, he could try to allow for segregated housing like he did with his real estate properties in New York. Department of Labor. Trump has fired members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an independent agency leading to power being concentrated in the Department of Labor.
▶ 2:44:14If we do not pass this amendment, we could see the eraser of all progress made for equal employ equal employment and equal pay regardless of race. And finally, the Department of Veterans, the eraser of the contributions of black veterans is already happening under the Trump administration. Without this amendment, Trump would go further than websites.
▶ 2:44:41He will deny black people care at local VA hospitals throughout the country. So I I don't understand why anyone would opposed to what should be an easy amendment to support unless you support the efforts of Donald Trump to reegregate this society,
▶ 2:45:12which he is clearly on track to do, having just dropped this policy. prohibiting contractors from having facilities. Why would such an action be taken if that is not the root and the motivation of his dangerous and draconian actions that seek to take us back? Would the gentle lady yield for a second? Who's asking? Maryland.
▶ 2:45:42I yield to Yeah, I yield to Mr. Inform. Uh, following up on what you just said, is it true that the Department of Defense erased all accounts of the Tuskegee Airmen and all the bravery that they demonstrated during World War II? Shamefully, yes. And is it true that the Sigi Airmen are all black? Yes. Is it true that the Department of Defense erased Jackie Robinson's contributions when he was away serving his country as he played baseball? Yes. Is Jackie Robinson black? Yes.
▶ 2:46:10Is it true that the Department of Defense recently, yesterday, erased mention of Doris Dory Miller, the first mess attendant Cook, who ran upstairs while Peril Harbor was under attack with no training and grabbed a gun and artillery and shot down enemy planes? Yes. And was Dory Miller black? Yes. So, your point about eraser here is very well taken. And these are not things that I made up.
▶ 2:46:40These are things that have been reported in the last 10, 15 days that have taken back. I yield back. I thank the gentle lady for a time. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent. Proceed. I want to enter into the record this article from the go from March 21st, 2025 titled Trump's move to dismantle department of education sparks fears of racial segregation.
▶ 2:47:07quote, "An attack on black children," unquote. Now, I'm sorry. Without objection, to order. Thank you. And now, your time's expired, but I'll give you a few more seconds. I don't want to get into a tick- tock battle with you here. Well, all right. I'm fine with us making news to expose what's actually happening here uh in this country with this government. Is there someone who would yield me time? Any of my colleagues, please? Yeah, let's do that. Miss Stanbury, you're recognized.
▶ 2:47:37Uh, Mr. Chairman, I just want to read this amendment really quick. It says, "Nothing in this act may be construed to an to allow an executive department to enact a policy that supports racial segregation. If you guys vote against this, you are voting against a sentence says that nothing in this bill should allow or support racial segregation." I want that to be on the record.
▶ 2:48:07So when we have a recorded vote on this, if you vote no to this amendment, you are voting to racially reegregate the United States. Let's be clear about that. I yield my time to the gentle lady. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Stansbury. Um, you know, again, I don't want us to to get distracted here.
▶ 2:48:30when I'm in district and my constituents are expressing their fears about uh ongoing unrelenting coordinated efforts to resegregate society. The reason the public is talking about segregation is because Trump is talking about segregation. Trump is repealing policies from the 1960s, not me or other Democrats. Trump is allowing businesses to discriminate against black people, not me or other Democrats.
▶ 2:48:58In fact, immediately after Trump issued his executive order targeting the Department of Education, Google searches for the term segregation surged to their highest recorded levels, skyrocketing to more than five times the volume of searches from just week prior. Why? Because our communities are preparing for a roll back in civil rights. Because Donald Trump isn't just talking about it, he's doing it.
▶ 2:49:28and our constituents. The American people are smart enough to recognize that attacking the Department of Education will disproportionately impact black and brown students. The agency was created in the 1970s after segregation ended and destroying it now is laying the groundwork for segregation to restart. Uh, you yield. I yield.
▶ 2:49:57Gentle lady, we go back to yield back. Stands. Any other members seek The question is now on the amendment offered by Miss Presley. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Connley, I request a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr.
▶ 2:50:27Chairman, point of order. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that there was a recorded vote requested because all of the Republicans just voted orally against an amendment point of order. That's not a point of order. Allow the administration to be You'll get on MSNBC tonight some other way. All right. No point of order. You're out of order, Mr. Chairman. This is point of order. She's out of order. Gentle lady's out of order. What just occurred?
▶ 2:50:57You are on the record. You Miss Stainsbury, you know what the parliamentary procedure is on a point of order. No, you Mr. Chairman, that is true. But you all are going to have to answer to the American people. Uh, you go. Eliminating the Department of Education bureaucrats is going to lead to white only water fountains. That's that's what you all have just said. All right, sir. That's the American people are going to buy that. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 2:51:29For consideration question, we move to the next bill. Okay, we go to the next bill. All right. Our next item for consideration is HR 1210, the Protecting Taxpayers Wallets Act of 2025. The clerk will please designate the bill.
▶ 2:51:46HR1210, the Protecting Taxpayers Wallets Act of 2025, a bill to amend Chapter 71 of Title 5, United States Code, to charge labor organizations for the agency resources and employee time used by such labor organizations and for other purposes. Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk, please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1210 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky.
▶ 2:52:15Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill in the amendment. HR 1210, the Protecting Taxpayers Wallets Act would charge federal employee unions a fee to compensate federal agencies and the nation's taxpayers for resources used to support union activities.
▶ 2:52:37Under federal law, certain federal employees are authorized official time for collective bargaining purposes during the time the employee otherwise would be in a duty status. In other words, federal agency employees who also serve as employees of a federal employee union may conduct and be paid to conduct official union activities during work hours instead of performing their regular job duties.
▶ 2:53:00The bill would shift the financial burden of supporting such official time away from the taxpayers to the federal employee It should shock American taxpayers that federal employees are being paid to work substantial hours in support of public sector unions instead of the agency operations, missions, and programs they were hired for in the first place. In some notable cases, federal employees dedicate all their working hours to union activity. This bill would discourage overuse and abuse of official time by federal employees.
▶ 2:53:29This bill would discourage overuse and abuse. Uh I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania for his attention to this matter and for leading the protecting taxpayers wallet act. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible reform. I now recognize uh the ranking member for his opening statement. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh this bill is an attack on our federal workers. Uh official time is often used to engage in projects that improve efficiency and productivity.
▶ 2:53:58I know this because I've heard it directly from my constituents. Uh many federal workers in my district have said that it's used for management trainings to increase productivity in departments and it's used to resolve office conflicts to make sure employees can do their jobs effectively. If we continue to attack the workplace of the federal government, how can we expect to retain any talent and compete with the private sector? How can we expect to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse? And what's going to happen is there's going to be a brain drain in our federal government.
▶ 2:54:26We need these workers to keep our air travel safe, food supplies secure, and public health protected. So, this isn't about government efficiency. This is yet another example of targeting our federal workers. I yield back. Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:54:46The Protecting Taxpayers Wallet Act requires federal employee unions to reimburse federal agencies for the use of agency resources and official time spent each quarter. Now, federal agencies will assess public sector unions a fee to utilize resources such as office space, equipment, expenses incurred while on union time, and any official union time used by labor representatives affiliated with these organizations.
▶ 2:55:13American taxpayers would be shocked to learn that federal employees are paid for work hours while supporting public sector unions rather than the agency operations, missions, and programs they were hired to support in the first place. So, let me make it plain.
▶ 2:55:29If you go to the VA and we're we've hired somebody there to be a nurse, maybe a physician, any really, well, they might be doing that work, but they just as might as well be doing work for the union, making the same pay, but not doing the work that that we're paying them to do.
▶ 2:55:50And so you might be being held up at the VA because the person that your practitioner instead of dealing with you is dealing with these other programs instead. Now, according to OPM, official time logged by federal employees can be used for lobbying Congress alongside allowing employees to spend 100% of their time handling union representation functions while still being paid by federal agencies.
▶ 2:56:18So, uh, most of the people in the private sector I know don't get paid to lobby Congress. They go vote. In 2019, before President Biden halted the OPM tracking reporting of official time, it was reported that employees across the federal government were paid 135 million to do $2.6 million hours of union work while on the clock at their government jobs, which they weren't doing.
▶ 2:56:44Additionally, federal government unions have are heavily involved in party politics, staging massive political protests and contributing lump sums of money and manpower into influencing key elections. Which, look, that's fine if you want to do that on your own time with your own money, but it's not fine with taxpayer money and time. Forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill for federal union organization is outrageous and absurd. Even even FDR, President Roosevelt agreed with that.
▶ 2:57:14It's quite simple. If federal employees and resources are going to be used for union tasks, the union should quite clearly have to pay the to foot the bill. It it'd be like having an NRA convention or something in in your federal government office. No, most of people here wouldn't agree with that, but somehow they agree with this. American taxpayers are paying government employees to do a job, not the bidding of and strategizing of organized union bosses.
▶ 2:57:42The Protecting Taxpayer Wallet Act addresses these priorities by implementing robust oversight mechanisms and enhancing the transparency and of expenditures on the federal workforce. We want to know what this is costing. These measures are essential for preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, and for restoring public trust in the government's management, and that people are actually doing the job they were hired to do.
▶ 2:58:06Additionally, this legislation will benefit all Americans by ensuring that taxpayer money is spent wisely and that any misuse is swiftly identified and rectified, it be identified because it was reported and we could see it, which is not, which didn't happen under the Biden administration at all. This should be a reminder that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are not to be taken advantage of. They're they're they're meant for a purpose and they are scarce and they are precious.
▶ 2:58:37This le leg legislation has been endorsed by both the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Tax Reform. At this time, I'd like to enter into the record the Americans for Tax Reform endorsement letter, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I yield the balance of without objection. So ordered. Mr. Chairman, uh, gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to also just just comment on this uh and this discussion.
▶ 2:59:07I think that what's happening today is we're seeing House Republicans working with Elon Musk to not just our federal agencies, but also our unions and our public workers. And this is not about efficiency or about services. Now, we know why Elon Musk and this committee are working together to destroy federal unions. It's because federal unions are working to defend their workers, but they're also working to defend us from Elon Musk looting of the federal government. They're suing to protect your private financial data from Doge at the Treasury Department.
▶ 2:59:37They're suing to make sure that Trump can purge the bureaucracy and replace them with his personal loyalists. Okay? And they're suing to make sure that critical programs can go forward. Now, the American Federation of Government Employees Union alone has nine ongoing lawsuits, and they have secured several real wins already. If they can destroy federal unions, it's easier for the Doge agenda to steal resources, gut federal agencies, gut health care, cut education, and fund giveaways to Elon Musk and his billionaire friends.
▶ 3:00:07We should not forget this is not just about federal unions. Elon Musk has fought to attack his own workers and unions for We know that Tesla has violated safety rules leading to electrocution of a contractor working in a plant in Austin this last August. Tesla has violated national labor laws by suppressing employees from discussing pay and bringing up grievances on working conditions. Now, in 2019, we know that Tesla illegally retaliated against pro- union employees.
▶ 3:00:37And the National Labor Relations Board also ruled that Tesla unlawfully restricted union materials in the workplace. Now, Tesla is currently under investigation for firing workers for discussing working conditions. And they're also accused of union busting when they fired employees for attempting to unionize while hiding behind other layoffs. Now, in the past, we know that Mr. Musk has tweeted that if employees joined a union, they would lose their stock options.
▶ 3:01:03This, of course, is anti-worker and the absolute wrong approach to supporting good working conditions. We also know, of course, that it gets worse. Now that he's in the White House, Trump and Elon are working to destroy federal regulators, regulations who we know protect workers and hold abusive billionaires like them accountable. We should be very clear, unions protect working people, not just their own members. They make sure that businesses and agencies do their work safely and responsibly.
▶ 3:01:32And that's why Trump, Elon Musk, and congressional Republicans are trying to unions at every turn. We of course oppose and say no to this. We should absolutely vote against all union legislation and amendments that are being filed today. I yield back. Any other members seek recognition? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Uh this is yet another attack on workers and labor from this administration.
▶ 3:01:58Union representatives are invaluable in making sure that employees are treated fairly and protected from unlawful discrimination from other practices. I want I'm very curious whether my colleagues on the other side of the room know what union representatives actually do when they use official time. They protect workers from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. They find ways to improve working conditions and keep workers safe. They develop new employee trainings to make the workplace more efficient.
▶ 3:02:29They represent employees in grievance and disciplinary proceedings leading to faster resolutions and saving the federal government money by preventing costly litigations. And they do all of that while only being being able to use a few hours per year representing each employee. At the VA, it is only 4 hours per year.
▶ 3:02:52Voting for this bill means voting for worse working conditions, higher employee turnover, less efficiency, and costly legal battles. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Yield back. Any other members seek recognition on the Perry bill? Mr. Mr. Infume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this bill in my opinion is nothing short of union busting.
▶ 3:03:14This bill would count what is known as official time or time spent representing employees with grievances before an agency um as personal time which is kind of way out of bounds considering this has been discussed in both the House and Senate going back to 1978 and we had a clear bipartisan biccameal agreement that pretty much established what union time was and what it was not.
▶ 3:03:42Possibly even more egregious, this bill would allow an agency to unilaterally descertify a legally formed public sector union if it refused to pay fees incurred by this bill. Now, that that takes it all. This bill flies in the face of 47 years of statue and practice.
▶ 3:04:02In an overwhelming bipartisan vote, as I mentioned before, Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which specifically codified official time. The Senate report that accompanied that law stated that official time is of mutual interest to both the agency and the labor organization.
▶ 3:04:23Part of that law's original intent was that a recognized federal employee union was required to represent both f union and non-union employees. So federal unions represent all federal employees at their designated agencies. And membership in a federal employee union is 100% voluntary. That was also codified. That is still the case today.
▶ 3:04:48So this bill would compel labor unions, which are in fact private organizations, to perform unpaid representational work on behalf of employees who choose not to be a part of the union and who are often uh the majority of any given bargaining unit. Official time, let me state this again, can only be used for representational activities and not the internal business of a union.
▶ 3:05:12So reprisational activities like creating fair promotional procedures, establishing flexible work hours, setting procedures that protect employees from on the job injuries, enforcing protections from unlawful discrimination, and representing employees in grievances and disciplinary actions are all covered under that. I think this is a gross overreach in my opinion to authorize an agency to terminate the certification of any labor organization.
▶ 3:05:42It is workers, not the agency, who chooses who represents them. No agency should have the authority to descertify unions that represent its workers. I would urge members to vote against this. I yield back any time, Mr. Chair, I have remaining. Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition on the Perry bill? I have an amendment, Mr. Mr. Chair. Um, yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, will the clerk report the amendment to the amendment?
▶ 3:06:14Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1210 as offered by Mr. Subermanium of Virginia on behalf of Miss Stansbury of New Mexico. Uh, the amendment to the amendments considered as read. Uh, chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia to u discuss his amendment to the Perry. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I'm introducing this amendment today uh to include our TSA employees and and to protect our TSA employees from further attacks by this administration.
▶ 3:06:44TSA employees who keep our communities keep our communities safe, including at Dallas airport in my district. And just this month, the Trump administration revoked collective bargaining rights for transportation security officers. And let me be clear, the administration's decision to resend the CBA for 47,000 TSA workers is one of the most anti-worker and anti-UN presidential actions since Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981, which is not only dangerous dangerous betrayal of our frontline workers, but it's also
▶ 3:07:14hurts our national security priorities. That this amendment would bring permanent protections for TSA workers and prevent changing presidential administrations from undercutting our national security. TSA workers not only ensure that we get to our destinations, but also keep an eye out for dangerous substances like fentanyl entering our country. They are also on the front lines of watching for and often intervening in cases of human trafficking and attacks on TSA workers make us all less safe in the process. To all the TSA workers in my district and across the country, thank you for your service.
▶ 3:07:44Thank you for keeping us safe and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Any other member any other member seek recognition? Mr. Chairman Chair is Yes, sir. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I rise in support of uh the amendment to the amendment. Uh this bill is just another attempt to undermine a statutory right to official time that is afforded to federal employees under the civil service reform act of 1978.
▶ 3:08:13uh that act is reflective of labor relations framework that has collectively established was collectively established by uh some preeminent uh American labor laws that preceded it. Uh the Norris Laguadier Act of 1932, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and Taft Hartley of 47 uh developed against the background of labor strife that occurred across industries nationwide.
▶ 3:08:40These statutes cottify the enduring principle that union representation promotes workplace efficiency. Now those laws also evidence the intention of Congress to balance the need, that's the key word here, to balance the need for economic productivity with the importance of preserving and protecting the rights of employees to fair terms and conditions of employment.
▶ 3:09:01The Civil Service Reform Act recognizes the right of federal employees to form and join a labor organization and engage in collective bargaining over the conditions of their employment through their elected representatives. And it authorizes federal employees to use official time that is granted by management based on the consent of management and labor. That that time is reasonable, it is necessary, and it serves the public interest.
▶ 3:09:29Those are the standards upon which uh what the the agency time is is measured and those activities must be in the joint interest of labor and management. At the same time, the civil service reform act includes an express prohibition on striking and expressly provides that while federal employees may request official time, federal managers and supervisors retain exclusive authority over whether or not to approve official time requests. So that's really really important.
▶ 3:09:58People people seem to forget that we in government made an agreement with our federal employees. We said your work is so important so important to the country that we're going to take away your right strike. So whatever you think about the way you're being treated as a federal employees, you you you were stripped of that right by Congress.
▶ 3:10:21But as part of that part of that contract that that agreement was that we would we would preserve in every respect your ability to to grieve to to use uh certain amount of time as as federal employees and and that would be your recourse. That would be your recourse because government thought your job was so important that we had to strip your right to strike.
▶ 3:10:51You can't put your tools down and walk away, which is that's that's what the private sector does. Private sector workers, they can just say, "Hey, this job is unsafe and I'm not doing it anymore." They could lay their tools down and walk off the job. Federal employees don't have that. They don't have that right. They've got to keep working even if they feel it's unsafe, but they can grieve it. they can file a grievance and they can take the time necessary, official time, if it's granted by by management to to protest the way they're being treated.
▶ 3:11:19So that's that's the balance here that that was struck in the Civil Service Reform Act. So we're trying to maintain that and and the underlying bill uh by Mr. Perry is trying to strip that away. And uh I I guess if you want to go back to the point where we didn't provide decency and and an opportunity for federal workers, you could also say, okay, let's let's give them back the right to strike because that's where we started.
▶ 3:11:47They had the right to strike and and we had the right to strip away whatever we could. That was the original fight and that was resolved by the Civil Service Reform Act. So I I just call on my my colleagues. You know, official time by federal employees is a statutory right and it's designed to promote agency cost-saving, productivity, and workplace safety.
▶ 3:12:10Federal employees use official time to participate in labor management meetings and they seek to identify ways to improve agency efficiency and workplace safety. That's really, really important. And uh official time can also be used to address potential employee grievances that could grow into something larger. and and and and could negatively affect morale in the workplace. Official time can be used to participate in health and safety programs led by OSHA, which is really important to keep workplaces safe.
▶ 3:12:38Official time may not be used to solicit union membership or conduct union activity or meetings or elections or any partisan political activity. And that is right. That is right. Uh, so I just think that uh this is a wrongheaded bill and uh I support the further amendment. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other members seek recognition on the super num amendment? Seeing none.
▶ 3:13:09Um, yes. I got it. I got it. U, the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. Mr. Chair, request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Do any other members? Mr. Chairman, chair recognizing Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
▶ 3:13:39I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please report the Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1210 as offered by Mr. Biggs of Arizona. The amendment uh has been considered as read. Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Perry, for his leadership on on this issue. My amendment is simple.
▶ 3:14:07It would exempt the Border Patrol Association from the requirements under this legislation. And here's why. While the Biden administration and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorcus took action to undermine border security and facilitate an invasion of at least 10 million illegal aliens into the country over the past four years, this committee had no better friend than the National Border Patrol Council.
▶ 3:14:32When political appointees in the Biden Morcus Department of Homeland Security stonewalled oversight requests from this committee and from members like me, the National Bord Border Patrol Council provided us with an unfiltered look into the chaos. The National Border Patrol Council took principled public stances in opposition to Joe Biden's reckless policies from the very first week of his administration where they outlined concerns with the administration's removal of the successful migrant protocol uh protection protocols.
▶ 3:15:01When members of Congress, including members of this committee, traveled to the southwest border to conduct oversight and DHS slowwalked requests for briefings or facilities tours, it was the National Border Patrol Council who met with us and provided us an unvarnished look into the Biden border crisis.
▶ 3:15:20If you've traveled to the border with me over the past four years, and there's been more than five dozen members of Congress who have, you have met past and present leaders of the National Border Patrol Council who were instrumental in ensuring that we could see the impact of the Biden border crisis. And they could hear how the decisions of President Biden and Secretary Mayorcis created created that crisis.
▶ 3:15:42When the president of the United States, his White House staff, and Secretary Mayorcis lied to the American people about the border crisis, for instance, about the so-called whipping incident, about the Biden administration's pursuit of policies that rewarded illegal immigration, about their culpability for eliminating the secure border that President Biden inherited, and more. The National Border Patrol Council issued public statements calling out those lies.
▶ 3:16:06The National Border Patrol Council published data and provided data to members of this committee showing how the Biden administration broke the border and made our country less safe. They highlighted specific policies that put Border Patrol agents in the communities they serve in greater danger.
▶ 3:16:21And when President Biden began to cave to public pressure in the summer of an election year, the National Border Patrol Council highlighted publicly how this how his so-called solution was nothing more than a shell game that pushed the masses of illegal immigrants to enter the country through flights and CBP-1 app appointments at ports of entry rather than by crossing the border illegally and encountering border patrol. They had one hiccup in that four years. They supported the massive stinker uh of the Senate bill, the Langford bill.
▶ 3:16:51But the rest of the time they gave us information, went out on the line and and provided us with opportunities to come see the border and see what was really going on. I support the underlying bill sponsored by my friend and I intend to vote for its passage. But I also ask that you support my amendment. The National Border Patrol Council, its leadership and its members have been integral to the work of this committee over the past four years. They have publicly stood with us, have met with us, and have informed our oversight work. And Mr.
▶ 3:17:20Chairman, I I have some uh uh unanimous consents I want to read in so we were can all remember what they were saying publicly at cost to them, potential cost to them. January 26, 2021, NBC migrant pro protection protocols concerns. September 21, 2021, the NBC responds to outrageous claims by the Biden administration. Sep 20 uh September 24th, 2021. NBC NBPC statement on President Biden's Del Rio disaster.
▶ 3:17:48November 4th, 2021, Brandon Juds plans to offer amnesty and spending up in spending package will ramp up border chaos. November 10th, 2021, Biden hides as his administration considers rewarding illegal immigrants with your money. March 10th, 2022, the border crisis continues. March 1st or excuse me, February 1st, 2023, new CBP pursuit policy encourages smugglers to evade.
▶ 3:18:12May 18, 2023, Border Patrol monthly apprehensions 2020 to present. May 31st, 2023, CBP Nationwide Encounters by month. June 6, 2024, MBPC statement on President Biden's proclamation. Mr. Chairman, I ask that those be Thank you.
▶ 3:18:35And I encourage my colleagues as you consider this amendment to remember where this this particular association has been. They've been our friend and they have fought the unjust border policies, the national security risk of this administration. That's why I think we should single them out and recognize them. Yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does anyone Mr. Lynch? Thank you. Thank you.
▶ 3:19:03You know, I I don't have any criticism for for the gentleman's uh further amendment. Uh you know, he's trying to carve out uh an exception for the Border Patrol personnel, and maybe maybe they deserve it. I'm not I'm not down on the border regularly, but uh I I could understand where he might have a favorite union, but I got some favorite unions.
▶ 3:19:24Uh, you know, I I'll start off with uh uh postal workers, you know, um letter carriers, mail handlers who who go out there every single day, well, six days a week um to every home and business in America and and do their work and and they happen to have the distinction of uh for the for over the past 20 years, they are regarded by the American public as the most trusted
▶ 3:19:55and the most valued public servants in all of our government. So, and and and they walk away with that award every single year. And and now we're trying to privatize them. But so, so I would like a I would like a a carve out for my my postal workers, letter carriers, mail handlers, you know, uh etc. Another group that I think does tremendous work is uh the workers at our VA.
▶ 3:20:22So about 30% 35% of the workers at our veterans hospitals are are veterans themselves and and and talk about giving back. They come out of the military and they go to work to take care of other veterans who are are injured and and bear the scars of war. Some of those wounds are visible, some of them are invisible, but they help them all. And they are unbelievable.
▶ 3:20:45You know, uh, previously I I mentioned that the the inspector general determined that we needed 3,000 more uh VA workers uh at our VA hospitals. We needed nurses. We need medical uh medical officers at our our VA facilities. And then uh President Trump came in and laid off 2400 of them more. So now we're about 5,400 in the hole.
▶ 3:21:09and and now we have another directive uh from the VA to lay off an 80,000 workers at the VA which if you do the math that comes out to another uh veterans would be would be fired. So I I would like to protect our our workers at the VA. They do God's work there and and think about the service that they're providing there. uh every single one of those veterans has honorably served.
▶ 3:21:38Uh and and now it's our responsibility to step up and provide for them, provide for those veterans. And and what are we doing? We're we're cutting the number of uh of of people at the VA. That just means it'll be a longer and longer wait for veterans to receive uh care or or an appointment or or benefits. That's that's what that amounts to. Another group I' I'd like to to protect as well, carve out that I'd like to see is for our nurses.
▶ 3:22:07The nurses are our the backbone of our our health care system. They they are sort of sort of the Marines of the of the health care system. They they do they do yman's work. They're they're working way too many hours. You you could talk to your local nurses or whatever hospital they're at. Uh they're all working way too many hours right now. It's it's to the point where uh you know I I worry about their health and their their ability to do their jobs. Uh we need them tremendously. So I like a carve out for the nurses.
▶ 3:22:36And then also and this is not an exhaustive list, but how about teachers? I mean, dear God, is there anybody who has more of a responsibility in protecting the future of of this this country than than the teachers who, you know, spend a whole lot of time with our kids and and try to provide the guidance and educ education that they need so that they can be productive and and uh uh protect productive
▶ 3:23:06adults and and and and good citizens. So, uh, I I I I don't discount the gentleman's amendment, which would make a carveout for Border Patrol personnel, but in order to but in order to support that amendment, I would have to have uh those carveouts that I mentioned as as well as some others that that I I didn't have time to to uh to enlist. So, um, with that, Mr. Chairman, I I guess I will yield back. All right, gentlemen. Thank you.
▶ 3:23:36Gentleman yields back. Uh, any other members seek recognition on the bigs? M, Mr. uh, Sessions? Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I want to thank Mr. Perry uh, not only for his amendment, but I want to stand up and support uh, Mr. Begs for what he's doing. I think Mr. Perry understands it. He sees it. In this case, the Border Patrol was maligned politically.
▶ 3:24:05The discussions that we're having here today about a lot of other federal employees, I do not believe are maligned on a political basis, at least not to a greater degree by any one party or the other.
▶ 3:24:22But the border patrol, the men women have served this country along our borders and they are spread out and sometimes it's a two or threeman operation, sometimes it's a one-man operation and their ability to effectively communicate with each other is diminished as they do their job.
▶ 3:24:47I believe it makes sense to say that they could be uh uh treated differently in this case would not be a part of the legislation and I believe that they have earned this opportunity because of the success uh of what they've done.
▶ 3:25:08I think it's also interesting that despite their opposition to what the mandates and and and things which they were subject to, they served this great nation most admirably their families. They came into contact with drug cartels, COVID that killed a number of them.
▶ 3:25:31I think that the opportunity for them to talk as a union, as a group, is important to spread information about what happens from one end of the border to the other. Borders uh I think that that they it serves a purpose. I think that union serves a purpose that should be carved out. And notwithstanding Mr.
▶ 3:25:59Lynch's arguments about a lot of other people. I think this is different. I think that they need each other. They need the ability to communicate through channels that are uh open and honest with each other and to express their opinions. And thus, with great respect to Mr. Perry and Mr. Biggs, I will be voting with Mr. Biggs on this amendment. I yield back my time. Gentlemen yields back. chair is uh Mr.
▶ 3:26:31Um thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the reason why this is different and this union is different is because it's the only one that supported the president in his election. I'm not aware of any other union that endorsed the president. And so what makes this different is their um willingness to support the president and endorse him. And so that's why this amendment is actually happening in my opinion.
▶ 3:26:54if um all the things you said should be applied to TSA, should be applied to other unions as well that keep us safe and make us and make us safer country. And so I just really don't think that I mean I I have nothing against it. I think the Border Patrol is you know we want to support all federal workers and CBPs included. So why not why do this for all these unions, right? Why are we singling out and exempting CBP?
▶ 3:27:21I I just think that the case has not been made very sufficiently. What it is being made is that clearly is a favor to the president. I yield back. Tman yields back. Any other members wish to speak on the bigs amendment? Mr. Chair. Uh yes, sir. Mr. Higgins. Uh Mr.
▶ 3:27:39chairman, the ranking member inquired like what what is what is a notable difference between border patrol and and we discussed this at length because of my background and and I considered Mr. bigs a member. I'm going to support it.
▶ 3:27:58But my point is we put a great deal of thought into it and discussion and not one time did any of us discuss the politics of the last election cycle and the custom border the border patrols union support of the president. It wasn't even in our mind, man. But this is what's real.
▶ 3:28:24the the Border Patrol guys are in their units like that's their office. That's a difference from TSA and other agencies. They're they're they're in their units in the middle of nowhere. Like that's your office as a a cop for a long time, patrol officer on night shift.
▶ 3:28:42my my the when I would lean back in my in my seat and look at my my ceiling light, it was a dome light of a Crown Victoria or or a Tahoe or a a Charger like that's your office.
▶ 3:28:58So when you're when you're spread out across 1,954 miles of southern border and and one of your roles for border patrol is that you're you're communicating and working on union stuff appropriately according to the law, but in your unit.
▶ 3:29:20This is a notable difference in variance from from other federal agencies including other federal law enforcement agencies. This is a this is the exception. But not one time.
▶ 3:29:36It's I mean it make an old fellow like like me chuckle when the youngsters always indicate that we that we're always you know considering the some Trump factor into politics when really we don't consider that at all when when we're talking about amendments like this and legislation. So I yield the balance of my time. Can can I have to the bill's author Mr.
▶ 3:30:04m you yield to Mr. Perry or Mr. Biggs? I yield back to to to the chair. I'll take I'll take it. M the underlying bill is what I meant. I thought Mr. Perry wanted I yield back to the chair. I yield to Mr. Big. Thank you for yielding. So So what I what I want to make clear, which I didn't even speak to uh a moment ago, and first of all, Mr. Mr. Higgins is exactly right. I don't think anybody talked to President Trump about this.
▶ 3:30:33Even the underlying bill, nobody talked about the So, it's it's really kind of a gas. But, but here's the Most of the union dudes for CBP that I know and know well and have been on their board, those guys were cutting shifts. They They were pulling shifts besides doing their union work. Their union work was was off time. They were pulling shifts. I mean, they're a unique union.
▶ 3:31:03They're unique people. Yield Do any other members wish to speak on uh I recognize Are you going to speak on the amendment or you going to offer an amendment to the movement? Speak on the amendment. Okay. Chair recognized Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:31:21And this is one of the very few occasions, maybe it's the only occasion that that I would differ from my colleague from Arizona, Biggs. And not for I will just put it this way. You know, I'm like every other member here. I come into contact with federal employees, whether that's at the TSA, at your mailbox, at the VA. They're great people.
▶ 3:31:52Almost every single one you meet is dedicated to their job. I get that it's different being a postal carrier than vastly different than being on the border dealing with cartel members who will shoot at you, knife you in the back, and leave you in the desert. I mean, vastly different. But I also come from an organization of standards. We either have a standard or we don't.
▶ 3:32:21And we can I can already tell and I'm sure my friend Mr. Biggs can tell too. Well, if we're going to do it for one, then let's do it for all. Then what's the point of this whole exercise? And I think it's awesome that they're pulling shifts and meeting afterward to do their their organizing activity.
▶ 3:32:42Then this shouldn't affect You know, this doesn't this doesn't diminish anyone's care, Democrat, Republican, independent, on this committee or any other one's affinity for the people that work in the federal war workforce that are dedicated to their job. But we also know, and I must disagree with the gentle lady from the other side of the aisle regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs.
▶ 3:33:13I think she said there were four hours used in one year. Well, according to OPM, on the last year that we took records or kept records, bargaining unit employees was 324,000 bargaining unit employees. So, you're working at the VA.
▶ 3:33:35who knows what your job is, but 324,000 of them are doing bargaining unit work. It's just the reality of the Now, I appreciate my very good friend Andy Biggs. He says, you know, if the amendment doesn't pass, he's going to vote for the bill. And I would say if the amendment's going to pass, I'm going to vote for the bill, too.
▶ 3:34:10his probably more in-depth knowledge of this circumstance than most of us here, but I do think that we ought to have a standard for federal employees so that the taxpayer money is not abused and it has been a recipe for abuse.
▶ 3:34:32Like I said, I I'm an individual who has visited the VA, by the way, the most successful, the least scandalridden, the most productive VA in the country, which is located in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. But I'll remind everybody here that the Department of Veterans Affairs, and this is just one, I've got the whole list here, has 324,000 people working for the union.
▶ 3:35:01They're not delivering care. They're not They're not there waiting for you to walk in to say, "Sir, ma'am, how can I help direct you to get the care that you need?" Because the VA is big and confusing. They're working on this other stuff. And there's a whole lot of that going on across the federal government. And the taxpayers are paying for that. And that not only doesn't seem right to me, I know it's not right.
▶ 3:35:32And so I I got to continue on my mission here and and very respectfully disagree with my friend from Arizona. Try and maintain a standard here by which everybody can follow. And that doesn't carve out special exceptions. Everybody believes that they're doing the right thing when they're working at the federal government or wherever they're working.
▶ 3:35:57That's why they're there and their job's important to them and the job that they do is important to us, whether it's on the border, whether it's at TSA, the VA, or the postal service. And with that, you Mr. Chairman, I yield. Gentleman yields. Any other members seek recognition on the bigs amendment? Seeing none, no. Mr.
▶ 3:36:18Barry, do you seek recognition on amendment amendment or Well, you have to do the amendment on the amendment before the amendment's voted on. Amendments are amending the amendment. We can't vote on the amendment.
▶ 3:37:00Mr. Perry, Mr. Perry, do you do you seek to call your amendment to the bigs amendment? Mr. Chairman, wait. If you do, we'll we'll ask her to record it. I have an amendment at the desk, a secondary amendment. Will the clerk please report? Amendment offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania to the amendment offered by Mr. BGS of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1210. Without objection. So ordered. Now chair recognizes Mr.
▶ 3:37:29Perry to discuss his amendment to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is a pretty simple amendment. This amendment would codify the bigs amendment at such time where the secretary of homeland security security certified that the department had completed 100% of the construction of the wall on the southern border.
▶ 3:37:51So the bigs amendment would be in place and there would be a special exception for the border patrol once the secretary of homeland security certified that the department had completed 100% of the construction of the wall at the southern border. With that I yield the balance. Gentleman yields back. Any Mr. Chairman I don't believe that members on this side of the aisle have a copy of the amendment. Okay sir.
▶ 3:38:17We'll make sure they we'll we you have electronic copies, but we'll also make sure you have this here. They're they're they're they're similar but different on the last line. And and m Mr. Chairman, when it's I'll give you all a minute to read it. It's pretty it's a it's a brief one. Yeah. All right. It's not like the thousandpage CR. Yeah, that's right. Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:38:46Uh, chair recognizes Mr. Biggs to speak on Mr. Perry's amendment to the amendment. Yes. Thank you. So, uh, may I inquire of the amendment to the amendments to the another amendment sponsor? Um, a question. May I have Would Mr. Pier yield to a question? I certainly will. Thank you. I I respect what you're trying to do here. Um, in your opinion, what what is 100% of the construction of the wall on the southern border?
▶ 3:39:13It's it's what uh what had been outlined in the original plan for the complete construction of the of the border wall uh in the last not the last administration but the administration previous to that. So I don't know where that was codified anywhere. Um and there was always question with regard to the river. So, I guess that's what I'm asking.
▶ 3:39:41Where I don't think we were planning on putting the wall in the river, but we were talking about putting it next to the river. Now they're talking about sticking boys in the river. Uh I I guess I'm trying to figure out what how do you define 100%. Well, that's fair for the amendment, but as it says, the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies.
▶ 3:40:03So, it would be up to Secretary Gnome to certify. Okay. Um, yeah, I I'll yield to you, Mr. I was say respectful of of Mr.
▶ 3:40:24Parish second amendments to your amendment is essentially to be difficult to define when 100% completion of the wall have the legislation the build the wall act right and um and by definition building the wall continuing reconstruction and improvement and enhancement of the existing wall like never ends.
▶ 3:40:55So it I'm strictly responding to your query of how do you identify 100%. I think we we have at least in debate and discussion of my legislation, we discussed what what does completion of the wall mean? And and there was a understanding that it it would never be a cessation of improvement and modernization of the wall.
▶ 3:41:23It would just continue in stages as long as you had a Congress that would support it and an executive branch that would execute the authorization and the appropriations for said purpose. So I'm I'm conflicted on this second degree amendment. and I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 3:41:42And and I will that was my next point is I know like for instance if you were to go down to Del Rio, you got you got holes, right? Um and those those holes include um conx uh containers, right? I know that the Kokopa reservation is 8 miles that um because it's tribal land, they refuse to allow us to build fencing.
▶ 3:42:09I know that there the toona Odum has 62 linear miles of border. They won't let us build a fence and 62 miles linear linear miles uh and and so you cannot you'll never finish that part.
▶ 3:42:25But the other aspect to it too is down uh near Sassibbe, we we have got a we've got a full-time contractor that all they do is repair holes in the fence that are being cut because the the Mexico uh right on the the southern border there's a highway and the coyotes use that highway and they'll go and they'll cut they'll cut that hole and they'll get bodies in as fast as they and
▶ 3:42:55and then here comes the contractor has to fill it up. I guess that's my I'm I'm struggling with the definition that you have here and I'm going to I will I'll yield you some time so you can respond. I appreciate you yield to me. So So it says very clearly here the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the Department has completed 100% of the construction of the wall on the southern border. Doesn't say maintains.
▶ 3:43:24It doesn't say enhances it doesn't says rebuilds it makes it better. So can I just just yield uh rea? That's it. I want to reclaim for just a sec. So if someone comes down and takes as they were doing takes down a 4ft ballard fencing area. Have they completed the construction because they had it up there but now it's been taken to if if the if the secretary certifies it as so it does.
▶ 3:43:49And I would say look once you build something just definitionally you've built it. If somebody else destroys it doesn't mean you didn't build it. Doesn't mean also that you don't have to repair it. Just give me a couple more minutes. But it's pretty clear here what this says. And so at least it's clear to me. All right. Any other discussion on the Perry amendment to amendment?
▶ 3:44:15Seeing none, uh the question is on the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry. All those in figure, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Mr. Then I'll ask you. You asked for one.
▶ 3:44:46You okay? A recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. So we can't vote. So we'll go to Mr. Perry's next amendment. Okay. To the amendment. So he's got three amendments to the amendment, but we will not go to the underlying amendment or to the underlying bill. Okay. Now they've just called votes. Do you want to keep going? We've What do you want to do? What do you do? They've called votes.
▶ 3:45:16So, let's if it's okay, Mr. Perry, Mr. Biggs, we're going to since they've called votes, we're going to go we're going to recess until 10 minutes after votes are concluded and then we'll come back and reconvene. Is that okay with everyone? Everyone good with that, Mr. Infume? All right. The committee stands in recess until 10 minutes after the conclusion of the last vote.
▶ 4:44:57until a few more members come back and we're going to skip ahead uh to HR 2249 with ANS. Uh so our next item for consideration is HR 2249, the Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
▶ 4:45:18HR2249, a bill to amend chapter 71 of Title 5, United States Code, to provide that the president may unilaterally modify collective bargaining agreements entered into under such chapter and for other purposes. Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2249 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky.
▶ 4:45:46Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. Federal employee unions focus on advancing the interest of government employees who belong to the union at the expense of government management and achievement.
▶ 4:46:06Collective bargaining agreements or CBAs are negotiated by federal employee unions and frequently result in civil service policies that prevent poorly performing federal employees from being held accountable and conflict with the policy priorities of newly elected presidents. For instance, outgoing Biden Harris administration finalized long-term CBAs with federal employee unions in order in an in order in an attempt to limit President Trump's management authority.
▶ 4:46:33In these CBAs, the Biden Harris administration made unprecedented concessions, including guaranteeing teleawwork for federal bureaucrats. Specifically, outgoing Social Security Administration Chief Martin Ali approved an agreement with the American Federation of Government Employees that seeks to lock in minimum teleawwork levels for 42,000 Social Security Administration employees until 2029.
▶ 4:47:00The agreement was finalized on November 27th, 2024, just days before Ali stepped down from his job at the SSA. This highlights everything problematic about federal sector collective bargaining agreements that tie the hands of future executive branch policymakers. A duly elected president should not be constrained by a union deal with federal employees made by the prior administration on the way out.
▶ 4:47:23This bill, the preserving presidential management authority act, would ensure that a dulyeleed president is not bound by CBAs negotiated under the previous CBAs cannot run counter to federal law, including newly passed statutes. This bill reforms will also ensure that the CBAs cannot counter presidential policy, including executive orders and memorandums. I thank Mr. Cloud from Texas for his leadership in preparing this new legislation for the committee's consideration.
▶ 4:47:54These are necessary and reasonable reforms. I urge my colleagues to support the Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act. I now recognize Miss Crockett for her opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act is simply another effort by Republicans in Congress to attack and attempt to eliminate federal government unions.
▶ 4:48:14The bill would specify that an incoming president may terminate provisions of public sector collective bargaining agreements or CBAs signed prior to the president's term of office. In doing so, it would give the president unilateral authority to terminate any provision of a CBA that the president doesn't like.
▶ 4:48:33I remind my colleagues that collective bargaining agreements are legally binding agreements and the president already has the power to renegotiate provisions of CBAs based on new management priorities. For example, if the president signs an executive order to change teleawwork policies, he or she already has the power to renegotiate a CBA provision relating to teleawwork flexibilities, even if it's bad policy.
▶ 4:49:01The bill also provides the president or an agency head unilateral authority to render any provision of a CBA uninforceable simply because they deem it in conflict with an executive order or presidential memorandum. Perhaps, for example, the National Border Patrol Council entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the federal government which included a provision requiring periodic rest breaks for agents and personnel when working in extreme heat and humidity.
▶ 4:49:32If the Secretary of Homeland Security stated in an agency memorandum that they no longer believe in providing workplace health and safety programs, those Border Patrol agents and personnel with one swipe of a pen would have their rest breaks taken away. This is just one example of an alarming effort by congressional Republicans to take away the voices and rights of federal workers.
▶ 4:49:57As President Trump and his administration attempt to consolidate power in the executive branch, the American public must be reassured that the president and his agency heads are not above the law. Federal unions don't have the power to terminate any provision of a CBA they dislike and private sector employers certainly don't have the power to over they certainly don't have power over private sector unions either.
▶ 4:50:24This concept for this legislation was raised by Republicans in a hearing earlier this year and the Trump administration's effort to dismantle our government. Republicans used the hearing to push a conspiracy theory that the Biden administration saddled the Trump administration with collective bargaining agreements that would tie President Trump's hands.
▶ 4:50:44The hearing exposed that conspiracy and laid bare the fact that the collective bargaining agreement in question was previously negotiated by the Trump administration and extended far into the Biden administration. So what the majority has done is invent a problem and use it as justification for an executive branch power grab.
▶ 4:51:08This legislation would have extremely alarming implications for Americans employed by the federal government and is put simply a public sector union busting effort. I oppose this legislation and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Lee. Uh, well, do we have any on this side first? Mr. Cloud. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I recognize the sponsor of the bill, the most important person on the bill, Mr.
▶ 4:51:38Cloud from Texas. Well, thank you, chairman. Certainly not the most important person, but I I would like to speak to the bill. Uh, and thank you for your words at the beginning. Appreciate it. This is an important bill, something that needs to be done. The Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act would ensure that the duly elected president is not bound by collective bargaining agreements. negotiate negotiated under a previous presidential administration.
▶ 4:52:02Uh this is important and we can see most recently that in the last days of the Joe Biden presidency, his administration worked around the clock to saddle President Trump with ownorous collective bargaining agreements. As you mentioned, chairman, for example, in December 2024, a month before Trump was to take office, the Social Security Administration Commissioner, Martin Ali, signed a collective bargaining agreement to look into pandemic era telework policies for 42,000 federal employees, oddly
▶ 4:52:32until 2029, the entire duration of President Trump's term. Again, on January 17th, 2025, 3 days before Trump was to take office, the Department of Education signed a collective bargaining agreement with AFGE until 2030.
▶ 4:52:51Even Politico ran an article titled, "The Fed's race to incest beyond Trump," which documented CBAs and negotiations with the EPA, National Park Service, Federal Regulatory Commission, and the Bureau of Land Management. It's not just teleawwork that's the issue. As we've established in other committee hearings, these unions uh that have been negotiating these CBAs have demonstrated a clear political bias.
▶ 4:53:17AFGE, the largest federal union workforce, has donated over three million to PAX since the 2020 cycle. Of that total, 95% went to Democrats. AFG also endorsed Camala Harris for president, which they certainly had the right to do, but it's notable that in 2020, they endorsed Biden. 2016, they endorsed Hillary. 2012, and 20 uh 2008, they endorsed uh President Barack Obama. So, we're seeing a trend here.
▶ 4:53:46This is a political organization that uh is uh as much as it is a union for our workforce. Additionally, the National Treasury Employees Union has donated over $700,000 to PAX in the 2020 cycle. Almost 99% of the money was given to Democrat organizations. It's clear we need a solution to these midnight CBAs, which only serve to ensnare President Trump and his agenda.
▶ 4:54:12My bill allows any incoming president to terminate any provision of a CBA and nullifies provisions of a CBA which conflict with rule exe executive order or presidential memorandum. This bill ensures that existing CBAs do not conflict with any incoming presidential policy.
▶ 4:54:29And ultimately, this really comes down to the fact that elections matter and the article two uh of our constitution gives an executive, the president of the United States, the authority to execute the laws of the land and to administer his administration. And so it is important that no previous president, regardless of if I like the policies of that president or not, be encumbered by a previous president's contracts and agreements with the federal workforce.
▶ 4:54:59And so this bill seeks to amend that and ensure that any incoming president has the ability to to revisit those uh contracts and to renegotiate them if necessary. And uh thank you chairman for the time and for your consideration of this uh this bill in committee. markup today and I yield back. Thank the sponsor of the bill yields back. Carnogize Mr. Lynch. Then we'll go to Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:55:23Uh just as someone who has negotiated uh collective bargainings for a living, uh I just want to point out that this would this would uh put both the government and the the contracting party, in this case the unions at a at a severe disadvantage. As we all know it sometimes it it takes years to negotiate a contract with a large labor union unfortunately because of the the rights involved and the number of employees involved.
▶ 4:55:50So it is it is quite common that um an administration such as the Trump administration might need 18 months or two years to negotiate a contract with with a uh with a a government employee union.
▶ 4:56:03Uh what this would do would be to basically abregate the fifth amendment uh rights to to uh have their contract rights respected and uh and also to attain due process in the abrogation of those rights. Um it's the nature of our government that when admin administrations change we we often times have a new view that that comes into play.
▶ 4:56:32uh especially when the administration changes from either a Republican to a Democrat or from a Democrat to a Republican administration. Uh this this amendment is totally unworkable in terms of trying to create uh some predictability for the uh that that uh would also respect the respect the rights of of the employees involved um to to have the president of the United States and and Congress uh
▶ 4:57:02you know approve a a contract uh with a labor union and then because of the vagaries of a next election have that completely blown up is is you know a complete destruction of the rights that are embodied in that that contract. So, um you know, this bill is is well, the bill is confusing and unworkable from a a practical aspect and it would effectively render all collective bargaining agreements meaningless.
▶ 4:57:32In other words, you have a contract until we say you don't. That that's what this that's what this bill does. Um bargaining involves negotiation. It involves compromise by all parties. Uh a lot of times those employees are locked into very low wage increases over four or five years and and so the by by adopting this bill you would deny the government of that that advantage that have they have gained through
▶ 4:58:03uh negotiations and and and and uh executing an agreement with that union. So it's not just you you it implies that you're just taking the rights away from the union. You're actually taking rights away from the the government itself from losing the the advantage that might be gained in a collective bargaining agreement of multiple years with with the particular union. Um you know as I said bargaining involves negotiation.
▶ 4:58:31It involves compromise by all parties uh resulting in a signed contract that balances those interests. Uh by design, no one is necessarily happy with all the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Uh this bill will result in management being able to subvert a new management.
▶ 4:58:48So a party not party to the original contract can come in and just tear that up even though it was signed uh you know by a person of authority and valid when executed after the fact it could be simply negated uh simply by obtaining a new presidential order. So this bill is is an affront to the basic basic principles of contract law.
▶ 4:59:10And uh remember we we in that collective bargaining agreement we restate that those employees don't have the right to strike. They don't have the right to stop work. They are bound by that agreement and by by statute.
▶ 4:59:29Uh and this, you know, this rewriting of the law would would negate all those uh all those rights uh that protect the employees and and the union within that agreement, but also u the predictability and the advantage gained by the taxpayer as well. With that, Mr. Chairman, I I yield back. Yield back. Chair recognize Mr. Biggs. I have an amendment at the desk. Okay.
▶ 4:59:55Does anyone else want to speak on the cloud bill? All right. Go ahead. We got one. So, so sorry. We'll halt on that. Only amendment. Okay. Go ahead, Chairman. This bill at its core is about giving the president the authority to try to screw over workers um in the middle of a contract.
▶ 5:00:25We don't have a bill here before us today to give the president the authority to go and change contracts with big businesses that do business with the government because those are the big businesses that fund so many of my Republican colleagues campaigns.
▶ 5:00:41But what you're looking at right here is a bill to come and tell frontline employees that even though they bargained and organized and did all this work to be able to win a set of wages and benefits and working conditions, that the Republican majority wants to be able to come and undercut those working conditions for those workers.
▶ 5:01:02Look, in a private company, it's been the law of the land for nearly a hundred years that if you organize a union, if you organize and come to a collective bargaining agreement, that if a new owner comes in and buys the company, those workers should have the right to continue to have their wages and working conditions honored in their collective bargaining agreements.
▶ 5:01:25And so it makes no sense why here we would just give a president the authority not because there's a particular problem identified just to give the president cart blanch authority to come in and change terms and conditions for workers that have already been organized that have already been agreed to that have already been bargained for uh and not say well why won't we take why don't we take a look at the way that we're being overcharged in some of these contracts.
▶ 5:01:50Uh but you know there would be a whole uprising of corporate lobbyists and special interest groups here before us today if we said we're going to go take a look at the way the big pharma is overcharging Medicare and Medicaid. Uh you know we have that whole fleet of people. But instead the Republican majority says we're going to go pick on working people. Go pick on workers whether in the public or in the private sector. And so I know that President Trump has gone out campaigning saying that he's for the working person.
▶ 5:02:19But these first drafts of bills and the oversight committee, they don't seem to be about actually saving people money. They seem to be about going and, you know, picking on working people that have negotiated their contracts. And I just don't see how the Republican party can claim to be the party of working people while they're going out of their way to screw over workers in this way. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back his times. For what purpose does the gentleman, Mr. Big, seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 5:02:49Uh the clerk will distribute the amendment to all the members. Clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2249 is offered by Mr. Bess of Arizona. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. This the gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes for to explain the amendment. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would exempt the Border Patrol from the particulars of this legislation.
▶ 5:03:19Uh I I want to indicate and remind people that this is uh the underlying bill uh and I I respect the bill sponsor um actually is dealing with the change with elections and is permissive not So let's in 2018, President Trump issued an executive order ensuring transparency, accountability, and efficiency in taxpayer funded union time use.
▶ 5:03:47It instructed federal agencies to renegotiate their collective bargaining agreements and cut official time, saying that quote executive branch employees should spend their duty hours performing the work of the federal government and serving the public. Close quote. In November of 2019, a new collective bargaining agreement for the Border Patrol Council took effect with President Trump's support.
▶ 5:04:09The agreement expanded the number of border agents whose roles as union officers allow them to engage in political activity and increased the amount of hours agents could spend on union activities. Under the previous agreement, agents could utilize 18,000 hours of official time per year. And under the new agreement, they can utilize 153,000 hours per year. That's a equivalent of roughly 74 full-time employees.
▶ 5:04:33While union representatives generally use official time hours to work on employee grievances and other labor related matter, they can also advocate for specific border policies. And that is what they did under the previous administration. And they did that because the previous administration destroyed our uh border security policies. So consider how beneficial that time was under the Biden administration.
▶ 5:05:01It turned out to be um serendipitous actually. For instance, the NBPC assisted with several trips to the border for members of Congress. The NBPC officials were on TV constantly during the Biden administration telling the truth to the public about the border crisis. Were it not for them and a select few dedicated reporters, the world would not have known how bad it was.
▶ 5:05:26The MBPC defended the Border Patrol agent who was falsely accused of whipping Haitian migrants in Texas. Amid a rise in assaults on Border agents 601 in fiscal year 23 and over 400 in fiscal year 24, the NVPC has defended agents by calling out the Biden administration for insufficient action. And one more.
▶ 5:05:49Following the May 2022nd Uvaldi shooting in which Border Patrol agents including Bortac were among the first responders, the NBPC provided the emotional uh counseling and professional support to agents and the So that is uh important here.
▶ 5:06:09But the other thing that's important to understand about this particular union is they were the only group under DHS that was not getting paid overtime and got no raises.
▶ 5:06:24And in the NDAA of 2023, the bill incl the NDAA included a provision spearheaded by NBPC, which I supported via other legislation to allow agents to earn time and a half or overtime for hours 81 to 100 in in a pay period which they otherwise were not getting. this this association has been uniquely positioned.
▶ 5:06:49And I I want to just talk about something that um one of my colleagues was in a previous iteration uh a previous argument was talking about these agents. I've literally been out in agents in places that were so remote you could not reach anyone.
▶ 5:07:11And I have met with agents who were attacked, assaulted, uh, seriously injured in these places where no one else is and no one else goes. Other times, I've been with agents who've literally had to stand on top of the the roof of their truck to try to reach a signal to report to other agents to please come pick up a group. that particular group that time there was 22 people.
▶ 5:07:42I've I've literally been with agents when there's been a group of three there's been groups totaling 300 people together and it's been me, a couple of congressmen and one agent as they deal with 300 individuals coming in. I have respect for what they do. I think they deserve this cutout and that's why I'm doing it. I also intend to uh support the underlying P bill. I have great respect for Mr. Cloud and his efforts in this area. He's been a leader here.
▶ 5:08:11Uh but that's where I stand and I thank you and I'll yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair chairs. Go Yeah. Casar. Chair. I I I have a very Well, first of all, I'd say to Mr. bigs.
▶ 5:08:30And to the point of this amendment, I certainly uh support the border patrol agents, CBAs to be respected and also um am of course alarmed by the dangers that uh agents face and of course by any violence against any federal employee or federal agent.
▶ 5:08:51Uh my question for the sponsor of the amendment, I really am interested in having some discussion on this point is why not also include other people who put their lives at risk that work for the federal government. Uh I was just in conversation with federal employees that literally fly a plane into a hurricane at Noah to go and let us know when and where a hurricane is going to hit. It's probably the most dangerous job on earth.
▶ 5:09:18Shouldn't we extend and make sure that their workplace protections and their workplace contracts have to be respected? Shouldn't FBI agents who also put their lives on the line have their CBA agreements respected?
▶ 5:09:32Shouldn't our veterans who have served and then come back and serve at the DoD and a variety of other agencies also have their collective bargaining agreements um also protected for the reasons in fact where I actually genuinely do agree here with uh Congressman Biggs that if we're going to respect that work why why would we come in and say we're going to not respect the collective bargaining agreement where you have in good faith bargained back and forth to the government and come to an
▶ 5:10:02agreement. And so that's my genuine question and I have time to yield back to the sponsor of the amendment or anybody else uh that would answer that. Gentlemen yields back. Chair. No, no, I just I I'm or I don't I would yield. I I'm saying I would yield to anybody that has that answer. In a moment, I'll I'm going to yield to Mr.
▶ 5:10:26Lynch, but I just I want to better understand if we are going to, as I believe we should, honor the collective baring agreements of Border Patrol agents, why not also honor the collective bargaining agreements of FBI agents? Why not also honor the collective bargaining agreements of Department of Defense workers that have served in our military? Why not also honor the collective bargaining agreements of people that put their lives on the line to protect us from natural disasters?
▶ 5:11:01Mr. Chairman, without a response, I'll uh yield a minute here to Mr. Lynch. Great. Uh I I I agree with the gentleman's reasoning. Not only is there a a a a sense of fairness at play here, but there's also the due process clause of the fifth amendment. So, uh, we we cannot have a situation where the constitutional right to contract, uh, is unprotected for these unions because we have a new president.
▶ 5:11:27And so, he can just rip up the contract and and say, "Okay, uh, your rights are are destroyed and and we're going to we're going to start fresh and I'm going to negotiate an agreement that probably could be overturned by the next president." Um, you know, that that doesn't work. uh not not for workers in the least bit. So and and Mr. Lynch, it sounded like part of the reason the amendment was laid out was because one union supported one political cause or candidate versus another. Exactly.
▶ 5:11:57And so you would see that as a violation of equal treatment under the law, equal right to contract because it sounds like there the sponsor laid out uh which one of the unions that supported one candidate for president, another union that supported a different candidate for president and wanting to respect the contracting rights for people that supported their preferred candidate versus not. Exactly. It it it it allows a u a political dimension to this that that is inappropriate. Thank you. I yield back, chairman.
▶ 5:12:27I I I and and now we have the sponsor of the amendment back and so I would I would genuinely yield time um to him if that's allowed here. I want to voice my support for for allowing CBAs to carry on for all of the different people at all the different agencies that put their lives on the line for the American people. So I would want to extend this to FBI agents, to people that fly their planes into the into the heart of the storm at Noah.
▶ 5:12:55I I just want to get a better understanding because what I just laid out with Mr. Lynch is it sounds like we want to treat certain people one way because of their political views and other people another way because of their views. And I'm opposed to that and I will continue to be opposed to that whether there's a Democratic or Republican president. So I I want to better understand why not extend this to the other federal employees that put their lives at risk every day. Chairman, I still have some time so I don't know if this if the sponsor of the amendment or others would want to speak up.
▶ 5:13:28I think I made my my position very clear um in both the earlier amendment that I ran and in my statement with this amendment. Um and I will just tell you um most of those agencies that you just referred to, they were not being attacked by their their bosses, their administrators. CBP was. And and Mr.
▶ 5:13:52Bigs, I I would work with you and anyone else to make sure that workers are not attacked by uh administrators, no matter which uh presidential uh candidate or whichever presidential administration we are under. And we should support the free speech rights of those employees, regardless of whether they agree with my preferred candidate or not, but it sounds like what we're talking about now is giving people certain rights because they had certain political ideas instead of others. And I and I believe American workers have the right to speak up whether they agree with me or not.
▶ 5:14:22Unfortunately, it sounds like the Republican majority thinks otherwise. Any other membership? Mr. Cloud. Um I as much as respect as I have for Mr. Biggs. I speak in opposition to this amendment. Um I agree with Mr. Biggs and everything he said about our border patrol. I've been to the border uh with Mr. Biggs. Uh, and also I'm from South Texas, so I've been there on my own a number of times.
▶ 5:14:50Um, and it's it's true the work they do is uh is heroic. Uh, and it's also true that they were unfairly treated by the the previous administration. Um, however, uh, for the the same reasons that similar reasons, I should say, that Mr. Lynch and Mr.
▶ 5:15:09Kasan brought up uh I I think we run into dangerous grounds when there's a very good chance that the Border Patrol Union is my favorite union, but I think that's the point is uh we should be treating uh them all fairly. And this comes down to really the question of does the executive have the authority to be the executive uh and and to manage his workforce or her workforce if the time comes. Um, and so that's simply what it is.
▶ 5:15:39And so I think it's a dangerous precedent to to start making caveats. And for for that I I must oppose this amendment. And I I thank the chairman for the time and yield back. Any other seek recognition? Seeing none, we will uh the question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Biggs. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no.
▶ 5:16:10In the opinion of the chair of the nose have it and the amendment. All right. A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Biggs. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Now, so now we go back to the We're back on the bill. Mr. Perry is not back yet. So, we're gonna keep going. He's around. He's in the home. Oh, was he in the But are we back on my bill? What? Are we back on my bill? That was his amendment. That was his amendment.
▶ 5:16:41We've got a vote on Yeah, because a recorded vote, we'll vote on all of that tonight and then Yeah, depends on how the amendment So, we have the amendment. Now, we're going to resume HR 1210. Uh Mr. Perry's amendment to Mr. Biggs's amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Perry.
▶ 5:17:11Uh, okay. You have another amendment. Yes. I think we've already done the first one. Now we're going to do the second one. Will the clerk please report the Perry amendment two to the Uh, amendment number two offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania to the amendment by offered by Mr. Biggs of Arizona to a the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1210.
▶ 5:17:41Without objection, the amendment to the amendment shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection to order, the chair uh yeah, now the chair recognizes Mr. Perry. Thank you uh Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:17:56This again in another quarter page amendment, but the operative uh portion of the amendment essentially says or does say shall not apply to any employees working in a sector of the border in which more than one pound of fentanyl has been seized in the past 12 months. And so so again, the bigs amendment would apply under that provision.
▶ 5:18:25If if they were able to stop everything other than one pound of fentanyl in the 12 months proceeding, then the bigs amendment would apply at that time. And uh you know, some people would say, well, that's unrealistic. That's We just can't give up. I mean, and look, we appreciate these folks and we have all the confidence in the world in them.
▶ 5:18:53If they're on the line, if they're out on the border, that that will be a reality that can be realized. And so I think it's um look, that's where we want to head, right? We that that's exactly where we want to be. We want to stop all of the fentanyl. We we're tired of Americans dying at the hands of Chinese fentanyl trafficked across the border.
▶ 5:19:21And uh and it's my feeling that these folks that work for Border Patrol are the ones that can stop it. And we want to provide the incentive for them to stop it as well. Not that they don't want to do it anyhow, just as a course of their job as the right thing to do, as the right thing for America. But this is an added bonus or a perk if you will for for excellent work and for reaching the milestone that we all seek.
▶ 5:19:51And so I don't want to give up. I don't want to think it can't be done. I want to believe it can be done. And if it is done, then Mr. Biggs's amendment and the language therein would be in order and in force. And with that, I yield the balance. Gentlemen yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Chair, Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:20:13With with uh appropriate agilation and respect, I have to uh oppose the gentleman's amendment. And let me explain why. When you talk about operational control, that is actually a statutoily defined term. And in the statute it says no person, no contraband, nothing enters illegally into the country.
▶ 5:20:40There happens to be places that even now when when we've basically take it's the most secure in my lifetime. The border is right now. But you actually have places that have nothing there. You have uh 62 linear miles on the to0 reservation.
▶ 5:21:02Yeah, there's I mean you you can't put enough personnel there because that we're not allowed to put adequate fencing and infrastructure. You've got the Cocoa that's eight miles. That's a little easier because it's only eight miles and you're coming right into the agricultural district of of Arizona and Yuma.
▶ 5:21:23But the point is, I don't know that you can talk to anybody other than Alejandra Mayorcas, who still thinks that he had operational control of the Uh, and and really come to understand that that operational control is is an idealized statutory goal.
▶ 5:21:46And I I you know with all due respect to my friend I think he knows that if any one of his three amendments were to go onto this onto my amendment it would actually defang and um almost render my amendment a nullity with that that's because I never know just like like operational control is 100%. I didn't say what' you say Mr.
▶ 5:22:16Chairman, what I what the amendment says is no more than one pound of fentanyl operational control. Excuse me. In the past 12 months. I'm sorry. I'll I'll I'll reclaim. Um I I I was anticipating your next amendment which is operational control with this amendment with fentanyl. Um right now it is almost impossible to stop. Yeah.
▶ 5:22:44Well, it otherwise would be impossible quite frankly and you're going to get more than a pound of fentanyl. Uh we we see that even now we've had some of the biggest drug busts in history and it's we're we're nowhere near there. And and I think the gentleman knows that, Mr. Chairman. And uh so with that, I'll respectfully um have to oppose his his amendment.
▶ 5:23:12Any other request to speak? Seeing none, the question is on the Perry amendment to the amendment. All those in favor signify by I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. A recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 5:23:41As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Perry, for what purpose recogn? Mr. Chairman, I have one last second secondary amendment at the desk. amendment amendment to the amendment uh amendment offered by Mr. uh Perry of Pennsylvania to the amendment offered by Mr.
▶ 5:24:09BGS of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1210. Uh without objection, the amendment considered is read and Mr. Perry is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. this another quarter page of which the operative terminology is the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the Department has 100% operational control over the southern border and northern border of the United States.
▶ 5:24:40Now, my good friend, and I mean that sincerely, will say, "Well, that's impossible." Well, I don't think it is impossible. I think Secretary Mayorcis said we had operational control so it's not impossible for the secretary to certify it certainly and I shouldn't we be swinging for the fences here like shouldn't we this is the standard by which we want to attain and while it is the lowest point that it has been certainly in four years maybe in 20 years
▶ 5:25:10are you saying there's no room for improvement I don't think my colleague would say that so we should we should try to get to and we should demand that we get to operational operational control over the southern border. Other countries do it. And if other countries do it, are are we saying that our fine men and women wearing the uniform on the border don't can't can't meet the challenge? I don't believe that at all. I think they can meet the challenge.
▶ 5:25:40I should I think we should expect them to. I think the American people do expect it. And uh and again it would be a further incentive. Uh and once again if certified that uh we had operational control then the mis then then my my good friend the gentleman from Arizona Mr. Biggs his amendment would be in order. The policy would be in order and everybody apparently would be happy including me.
▶ 5:26:08So 100% operational control seems like a reasonable a reasonable uh agreement um for for both of us. So with that I will yield the balance and urge adoption. Chair Mr. Bigs. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I respectfully oppose and I I did elaborate on on what operational control of the border is statutoily. So I want to I want to just nitpick just a titch at my at my good friend's bill.
▶ 5:26:36100% operational control is a redundancy because operational control in the statute uh requires perfection. Perfection. So let's think of some of the borders that I've been told, oh these these guys are great. There's there's no they have absolute operational control. Hungary I was told Hungary does. That's no Hungary doesn't. They still have folks coming in. Now what do they do when they get them in? They try to get them out, right? that they're going to remove them.
▶ 5:27:07That's different than having 100% operational control. Also, I think of some of the authoritarian nations. I think of China. China doesn't, oddly enough, there are some people that are trying to get into China. Um, but they don't have operational control. That's why I was going to say, North Koreans, North Koreans are ve very successful in some respects in getting into into China. They don't have operational control. There's virtually no nation.
▶ 5:27:35I don't know of a nation that has has operational control the way we define statutoily. And so again, uh what what what's happens here is you make you make my amendment abinio and that that I understand and I respect my colleague for for his efforts to do so.
▶ 5:27:59But I would encourage everyone understand, I've expressed the reasons why I think that the Border Patrol council should receive an exception to the underlying bill. But this notion of operational control, it isn't just a notion, it is a statute. They're obliged to get there. Maybe one day they will, but it may not be in my lifetime. I'll yield back.
▶ 5:28:28Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Perry. This Perry amendment three. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Big Both of you request. Okay. Both Perry and Bigs request a recorded vote.
▶ 5:28:57Recorded vote is ordered. All right. Going to 2174. Our next item for consideration is HR 2174, the Paycheck Protection Act. The clerk will please designate the bill. HR 2174, the Paycheck Protection Act, a bill to amend Title 5, United States Code, to provide that agencies may not deduct labor organization dues from the pay of federal employees and for other purposes. Without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amending point.
▶ 5:29:24Without objection to ordered, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk, please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2174 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. Recent years have shown a growing public appetite for civil service reforms to enhance government efficiency and bring accountability to the federal workforce.
▶ 5:29:51These priorities culminated in President Trump's second election and his ensuing efforts at streamlining the federal government. Fortunately, we now have a chief executive who's determined to see his mission through. However, primary obstacle to effective presidential management of the executive branch are federal employee labor unions whose mission is often to protect their existence at the expense of the American taxpayer. A common tactic for these partisan organizations is to push legal accommodations to put their memberships on autopilot.
▶ 5:30:20Currently, federal law provides that employing agencies are responsible for withholding union dues from federal employee union member paychecks. It should not be the responsibility of the federal agency resources to facilitate public sector union membership dues collection. Which is why I support Mr. Berles from Missouri's bill to re remedy this problem. The Paycheck Protection Act prohibits federal agencies from collecting dues from federal employees paychecks on behalf of labor unions. I thank Mr.
▶ 5:30:46Bullis for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill. I now recognize the ranking member for his statement. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh like a few of the bills we are considering today, the Paycheck Protection Act is simply an anti-worker and anti-UN bill. Uh the bill would prohibit federal agencies, including the US Postal Service, from deducting labor union dues, fees, or contributions from employee pay.
▶ 5:31:13current law requires agencies to deduct union dues upon receiving a request from an employee to do so. And that is because Congress recognized in the Civil Service Reform Act that quote labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest. But apparently times have changed and this bill is simply a swipe at the federal unions and payroll dues, deductions costs uh the government nothing actually to administer.
▶ 5:31:39uh they occur electronically just like other voluntary payroll deductions such as the combined federal campaign tax withholding and contributions to the thrift saving program. So I oppose the bill and urge all members to join me. I yield back. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any other member? Oh, chair recognizes Mr. Berles, the sponsor of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm here to support the Paycheck Protection Act HR 2174.
▶ 5:32:05This bill stops the federal government from deducting union dues directly from the paychecks of its employees. Instead, it requires labor unions to collect their own dues from their members. This bill is common sense. It's about freedom of choice. How much longer are we going to force this on our workers? Federal employees should have the right to decide whether to join a union and pay dues.
▶ 5:32:27And if Doge has taught us anything over the past few months, it is that we will be better off without the government making decisions about our money. It's also about transparency. Right now, if you're a newly hired federal employee in a unionized workplace, dues are deducted automatically. Employees might not know and not be fully aware of how much that they're paying.
▶ 5:32:49Even worse, how many employees do we think know that they have a portion of their hard-earned money taken out of their paycheck at Members of the committee, do you think that our federal employees know what their dues are being used for? How many federal employees know that their dues are being used to promote political causes that they may or may not support?
▶ 5:33:10By requiring direct collection of dues from federal union members, which this bill does, we ensure that employees are informed and can make informed decisions. I hope that you will see that by making unions collect their own dues as common sense, the Paycheck Protection Act is going to help unions be more accountable to their members and give federal workers greater control over their finances. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:33:41Gentlemen, yield back. Any other Miss Presley? Thank you. Make no mistake, the bills we are considering today are a coordinated and shameful attack on federal workers and labor unions. This is not about efficiency. This is not about accountability. This is about silencing workers and stripping away their rights in the name of unchecked power. Let me be plain about what's happening here.
▶ 5:34:06These bills would gut federal unions, weaken worker protections, and strip employees of their rights to fight for fair wages, save workplaces and the basic dignity they deserve. They are meant to intimidate, isolate, and disempower the very people who keep our country running. The people who inspect our food, protect our veterans, process social security checks, and uphold services that millions of people use. It's union busting.
▶ 5:34:32But instead of targeting corporations, Republicans are targeting our very own public servants. Let's talk about what these bills actually do. Republicans want to eliminate official time, a tool that allows workers to report fraud, waste, and abuse without fear of retaliation. Just to be clear, this would make it harder for workers to blow the whistle on corporate corruption and inefficiency. That doesn't sound like it protects taxpayers to me. Republicans want to give the president unchecked power to tear up collective bargaining agreements at will.
▶ 5:35:02making every worker's contract essentially meaningless. Imagine signing a contract for a mortgage only to have the bank come back six months later and say, "Never mind, we're changing the terms and you have no say in it." That's what they want to do to federal workers. Republicans also want to ban federal workers from deducting union dues from their paychecks, even though it's completely voluntary and no different from deductions for retirement funds, health care, or charitable donations.
▶ 5:35:29They are singling out unions here not because it saves money but because they don't want workers to have power. So no, this isn't about efficiency and it certainly isn't about protecting the taxpayer. If it were, then Republicans wouldn't be rolling back whistleblower protections or forcing unions to provide representation for free.
▶ 5:35:51In reality, it's about giving more power to co-presidents Trump and Musk, dismantling the one force that stands up against abuse and injustice in the workplace, unions. The right to unionize is not just about making a living. It's about making a life, and a good one at that. In my district, the M7 from Cambridge to Roxbury, median income drops by $50,000. We can't address long-standing inequities like this if workers aren't empowered.
▶ 5:36:17Throughout our history, unions have fought for and won better wages and benefits, safer working conditions against the greed of big corporations and special interests. I've witnessed many of these victories firsthand from my early days on the picket lines with my mother, may she rest in power, who taught me early on that workers rights are human rights and economic justice is workers justice. That truth has not changed. Now more than ever, we need to support unions in protecting their workers.
▶ 5:36:47I'll continue to do just that and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I yield back. Gentleman yield. Gentle lady yields back. Chairman, Mr. Higgins, you yield recognition. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:37:03Uh, the gentleman's bill simply addresses the withholding of union dues from paychecks and federal agencies and There's nothing to the the service that unions provide or the right of the worker to participate in in the unions, but whether or not that that federal employee is is going to essentially be forced to participate from day
▶ 5:37:34one with with the union organization that they have the right to oppose. But but they they take a job and they have to like actively stop their their participation in the union and become a red flag and they just don't do it.
▶ 5:37:58So across the country, you know, we we find the best examples of of freedom in this aspect made manifest in the in the private sector where you have you want to you want to join a union, join a union. If you don't, don't.
▶ 5:38:15You know, why should it why should why why would we as a representative republic not reflect that level of freedom within the the the infrastructures of the federal government and the federal bureaucracies? Why would we not reflect that that core principle of individual rights, liberties, and freedoms?
▶ 5:38:38So the gentleman's bill simply restores that freedom with specific regards to union dues being deducted from your paycheck. These federal employees are quite capable of paying their own bills. They pay their own mortgage, their own utility bills, their own car note. They pay for their insurance. They buy their groceries. They're quite capable of paying their bills.
▶ 5:39:08If they want to join a union, join a union. If you don't, don't. That's called freedom. And Mr. Berles's bill supports this this inherent God-given right to conduct our own affairs. Why anyone would oppose such a core principle that's at the very bedrock of republic is is fascinating to observe.
▶ 5:39:36But I'm in support of the gentleman's Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, chair, Mr. Bigs from Arizona. I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please report? Amendment to the amendment of the nature of a substitute to HR 2174 as offered by Mr. Biggs of Arizona.
▶ 5:40:06Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve point of order. Gentleman is recognized. Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Similar to my other uh amendments on these on these three I've expressed my appreciation and gratitude to the bill sponsor. He's a leader on this subject and and he's worked hard on this and um I appreciate where he's going and and uh I will be supporting the underlying bill.
▶ 5:40:36But I do think again for the reasons that I have iterated multiple times today that there should be an exception on behalf of the nor the National Border Patrol Council. Um I appreciate what they do. Um and and I if I need to I can go through and again list many of the same reasons that I've done multiple times today, but I would urge a yes vote on my amendment. Thank you. and I yield.
▶ 5:41:08Any other members seek recognition on the bigs amendment? Mr. Berles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment offered by um you know, one of my someone I consider my mentor um Mr. Biggs.
▶ 5:41:23But unfortunately, while I understand his motivations and and I too support our border patrol's mission to secure our nation's border, this bill, the underlying bill does not affect their operational control of our borders or the ability of Border Patrol to carry out its mission. Period. And the bottom line is that the federal government has absolutely no business serving as the federal union's dues collector for any public sector union.
▶ 5:41:52Even if we agree with the political activities of a polit of a of a union, the administrative costs should be handled 100% by the unions and laws should apply generally, not in a way that provides preferential treatment for special interests. We should not be providing a targeted exemption from the law for a specific union based on politics.
▶ 5:42:16In the case of Border Patrol officers, the unions can simply set up their own administrative services to collect union dues. This would not put an undue burden on the unions or members, but rather create a parody with the dues collection in the private sector. Simply, this will end the federal government from providing a service that it has no business providing. This is exactly what the Doge efforts have been about as well.
▶ 5:42:44This amendment would ultimately defeat the entire purpose of the bill to provide fairness by treating all public sector unions equally and get the government out of the business of collecting dues on behalf of federal unions. Thank you and I urge a no vote on the amendment. Any other members seek to recognition? Seeing none, he's got an amendment. Okay. Mr. Chair rec what purpose does Mr. Berles seek recognition?
▶ 5:43:13Um, I have an amendment at the desk. Would the clerk please report the amendment to the amendment? Is that right? Amendment offered by Mr. Burles of Missouri to the amendment offered by Mr. BGS of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2174. Uh, without objection, the bill considered as red. Chair recognized Mr. Berles. This is a simple amendment. In fact, it's very similar to the one that we heard before from on a different bill.
▶ 5:43:40Uh this this says that um the exemption that's being expressed in this a the underlying amendment would be would be a available uh would not be available unless the department secretary of homeland security certifies that cong to Congress that the department has 100% operational control of the southern border of the United States and northern border and um I move for its adoption. Gentleman yields back. member seek recognition. Mr.
▶ 5:44:10Biggs, thank thank you, Mr. Chairman. So again, um not to nitpick, but um this 100% operational control is redundant because within the definition of operation operational control statutoily, no person, no contraband would be getting into the uh the United States. And uh so that's that's just a nitpicky flaw.
▶ 5:44:37But of course the purpose of this is to uh basically emasculate the amendment that I that I have offered and um so I I get that. But I I want to go to to just just a thought here.
▶ 5:44:59we if I wanted to to have my retirement dollars or my health insurance dollars or some other withheld, I just contact HR and they do I I I guess I'm struggling to understand the uh you know I I understand the underlying but but here you have you have a union
▶ 5:45:29of employees who are actually out all almost all of them at least certainly over the last four years were working double shifts. They were out in the middle of nowhere getting no credit for time as they drive to that remote duty post.
▶ 5:45:57Seems to me that we would take and give them some kind of special recognition. And this this is probably the the the least special recognition you could give them. and I have made my case for them and uh reurge my the UC over all of those articles that I've put into the record already. And um I regretfully because I have great deal of respect for Mr. Berles.
▶ 5:46:26I regretfully have to oppose his amendment. Um and I'll yield back. See any any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is on Mr. Berles's amendment to Mr. Biggs's amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 5:46:50All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Uh Mr. Berles, request a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered. previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be Uh, for what purposes does Mr. Berles seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please report? Amendment offered by Mr.
▶ 5:47:20Berles of Missouri to the amendment offered by Mr. Begs of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2174. Without objection, the amendment to the amendments considered is read. Chair recognized Mr. Burlesen. Again, this amendment is similar to one of the amendments that we've heard re previously.
▶ 5:47:35Uh this is an amendment that um says that these the exemption can go into place um but cannot go into place um the the employees are working in a sector of the border in which more than one pound of fentanel has been seized in the past 12 months. Um and with that I ask urge the body for its adoption. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Biggs. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:48:03With all due respect, again, I I I'm afraid I must oppose this secondary amendment. The uh the idea is that you would um give an exception to the Border they if they have not seized more than one pound of
▶ 5:48:38fentanyl in in in a 12-month period. Um, and what that does is actually has a perverse incentive, does it not? Does it not say to CBP agents, well, if you want if you want the underlying bill to go into place, then simply stop trying to interdict fentinel.
▶ 5:49:04And so it does have a bit of a u rationale there. But again I I for that and other reasons that I have iterated multiple times today I would um respectfully oppose the the amendment the secondary amendment. Does any other members seek recognition? Seeing the question is now on Mr.
▶ 5:49:32Berles's amendment number three to Mr. Bigg's amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute a amendment number two instead of three. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying In the opinion of the chair the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Berles the final amendment. Mr. recorded vote is requested by Mr.
▶ 5:50:02Burlson as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be All right. You got I I I did not request a recorded vote. Oh, you did not. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I thought you did. All right. No, scratch that. I I have an amendment at the desk. Oh, okay. That was your thing. Will the clerk please report the amendment? Amendment number three offered by Mr. Burlesen of Missouri to the amendment offered by Mr. Bigs of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2174.
▶ 5:50:31Uh without objection, the amendment's considered as read. Chair recognized Mr. Burson. Um again, this is an amendment that we've seen previously today. This says that this exemption that Mr. Figs is trying to put in place uh would go into effect upon the upon at the moment that the uh Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to Congress that the department has completed 100% of the construction of the wall on the southern border.
▶ 5:50:59And with that um I think that this I would say if anything this mo this will provide a motivation um which I think we want we want to provide um meritbased um opportunities and and this would certainly motivate the border patrol to complete the border construction and with that I urge adoption. Gentleman yields back. Any member seek recognition? Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Sorry. Thank thank you Mr.
▶ 5:51:27chairman and I appreciate the the gentleman from Missouri's uh efforts here today. He's doing yman's work. Um I would actually point out one other interesting thing about this. CBP does not erect, construct, repair, extend anything along with the wall. The Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors do that.
▶ 5:51:54That's so so what you're saying is we're going to hold the Border Patrol guys, their union hostage on the ability of the executive branch to engage a contractor that Congress is funding to build the fence before they could get this benefit.
▶ 5:52:20I appreciate that you're willing to give them that benefit, but that seems like a a condition that um is almost unmeable. And with that, uh I must respectfully and uh oppose this amendment and yield back. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the Mr. Berles's amendment three to Mr.
▶ 5:52:45Big's amendment to the amendment in the nature of a All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Berlesen uh requests a recorded vote.
▶ 5:53:08As previously announced, further proceeding on the question will be 21. Our next item for consideration is HR 2193, the FE Federal Employees Health Benefits Protection Act. The clerk will please designate the bill. HR 2193, the FEB Protection Act, a bill to require the director of the Office of Personnel Management to take certain actions with respect to the health insurance program carried out under chapter 89 of Title 5, United States Code, and for other purposes.
▶ 5:53:38Without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. The chair ages himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2193 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. The federal employee health benefits program provides quality health insurance coverage for approximately 8 million federal employees, retirees, and their families.
▶ 5:54:08With nearly $60 billion in combined annual premiums paid by the government enrolles, this committee has a vested interest in ensuring the program is free from waste, fraud, and abuse. In 2022, the Government Accountability Office released a report that found ineligible family members enrolled in FEB plans. According to the Office of Personnel Management Inspector General, the enrollment of ineligible family members may cost as much as $3 billion in improper or fraudulent payments annually.
▶ 5:54:38The bill incorporates solutions from GAO's report to better prevent, identify, and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse resulting from enrolling in eligible family members in FEP. First, this bill requires OM to verify the eligibility of family members receiving FEP coverage to better ensure those who are added to the roles are legally eligible. Second, the bill requires OPM to audit the documentation and ranks of FEB employee enrollies to identify those who may have slipped through the cracks.
▶ 5:55:08The bill requires a disenrollment or removal of ineligible individuals from FEB coverage and requires OPM to incorporate a review of ineligible family members in their fraud risk assessment of the FEB to better inform the scope of the problem and identify additional solutions. Finally, the bill incorporates an OPM inspector general recommendation to centralize the FHB program administration under OPM, thus consolidating the current enrollment management mess from over 160 employing agencies.
▶ 5:55:37The bill would also direct the OPM inspector general to provide ongoing program oversight to ensure this problem does not develop again in the future. I thank Mr. Grin for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill to address costly waste, fraud, and abuse. And now recognize the ranking member for his Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I actually support this bill. Um, the FEHB is the largest employer sponsored health care program in the country with over 8 million participants.
▶ 5:56:03And as the chair mentioned, uh, December 22, the GAO issued a report on the FEB program that estimated that ineligible family members could be costing the program approximately $1 billion a year. And the OPM officer of the inspector general has estimated the cost of ineligible individuals to be somewhere between 250 million to three billion per year. So and this overspending is entirely avoidable.
▶ 5:56:28And so the this bill would help ensure that rules that are already in place about who is eligible for coverage under the federal employee health benefit program are enforced. And this bill specifically requires OPM to conduct a comprehensive audit of employee family members enrolled in the FEHP program to strengthen the program for all federal employees and their families.
▶ 5:56:49And as I and others on this side of that have said time and time again, we support efforts that actually promote government accountability, transparency, and effectiveness, and particularly with respect to addressing improper payments. And this bill would do just that. Uh I would note though that this legislation is fixing a problem. identified by some of our government's critical nonpartisan watchdog agencies, GAO, and the OPM Inspectors General.
▶ 5:57:14Uh, President Trump illegally fired the OPM Inspector General earlier this year as part of his Friday night massacre of 17 IG's across 18 agencies despite the critical and independent mission IG's play in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. Our federal IG's do this work with integrity and transparency. And unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Doge Initiative, which is not operating with the same transparency and evidence. based approach advanced by the GAO, Inspectors General, and this bill.
▶ 5:57:40So, I encourage my colleagues to support efforts like this that seek to make government more responsive to the needs of the American public through thoughtful evidence-based efforts, not what's happening with Doge. I intend to support this bill and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Gman from Wisconsin. Well, thank you. You both did such a good job. Will try not to add a lot to it. point out that last time this bill did come out of committee, uh, very bipartisan. Well over half the Democrats voted for it.
▶ 5:58:08And I hope we get another booming big vote today uh, as we make another dent in our massive um, government debt. But very good. Thank you, Mr. Copen.
▶ 5:58:25Any other members seek Seeing none, um the question is now on the uh the amendment in the nature of in the nature of a substitute offered by uh Mr. Groman from from uh Wisconsin. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it.
▶ 5:58:55The amendment is agreed final passage. I I guess it the question is now on favorably reporting HR 2193 is amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have the bill as ordered. Favorably reported as amended. Mr. Groin, I guess uh we are told we want a a roll call on that. Uh Mr. Groin, request a recorded vote. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
▶ 5:59:26All right. Our next item for consideration is HR 2277, the Federal Accountability Committee for Transparency Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
▶ 5:59:40HR2277 to amend the CARES Act to extend the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee through December 31st, 2026, and to change the name of such committee to the fraud prevention and accountability committee and for other Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection to ordered, the chairs himself for offered amendment the nature of substitute. The clerk, please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2277 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky.
▶ 6:00:07Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purpose amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Sessions from Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Uh when I speak today, I want to speak on behalf of the co-sponsor of this, Mr. Infume, who serves as the ranking member on the subcommittee which we sit, government operations. Mr.
▶ 6:00:32Chairman, I I speak today about a bill that is called the Federal Accountability Committee for Transparency Act, Fact Act. As we all know, this committee and the subcommittees of this committee have discovered that there are billions and billions of dollars each year that go under the term of waste, fraud, and abuse or misdirected payments. As a result of this uh work on the subcommittee, Mr.
▶ 6:01:02Fume and I discovered that there was something called the pandemic a analytic center of excellence or known as PACE which was uh prescribed in law in 2020 and which actually served a role of trying to figure out what payments were uh misapplied to people who had filed for those payments.
▶ 6:01:29Uh and it's important to know that since the beginning of last Congress, we've worked diligently to work with uh OM and uh the inspector generals uh and other organizations to find out best practices about how we across government can avoid giving money to people where it's in other words chasing giving money out and then chasing money when we
▶ 6:01:59found out what was wrong. We have learned that uh I'm sorry, PRA wasn't was an opportunity where they developed over 1.8 billion billion pieces of information which would give them insight as to who was properly to receive the payments that came from the government. that is going to find that PACE is done away with.
▶ 6:02:29I'm sorry, PRA moves through law and will be uh eliminated at the end of the summer. So, what this bill is attempting to do is to bring forth an agreement that we would keep PACE through the end of 2026.
▶ 6:02:47It's a common sense uh bill that will allow us to not only work with uh PACE and to understand how they operate but to potentially bring that to bear for the rest of the government agencies including uh OM. So Mr. Chairman I would move this uh bill and I want to thank Mr. Infume for his work in support of the development of this piece of legislation. I yield back my time. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 6:03:17any other members or I recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I support this bill as well, intend to be a co-sponsor as well. Um this bill uh the pandemic response accountability committee or the PC is a committee of council of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency.
▶ 6:03:38And the PRC's purpose is to coordinate and support the oversight of the significant emergency relief funds authorized to respond to the COVID pandemic and to identify major risks that cut across program and agency boundaries. It will sunset on September 30, 2025. And this act would extend that to December 31st, 2026.
▶ 6:03:55And many uh offices of inspector general are small and cannot afford the technical infrastructure and skilled data analysts necessary to use the capabilities developed by the PRA which has amassed the data established the systems and employed the data analysts necessary to provide these analytic services to small OIGs and the fact act is intended to give the committee additional time to work toward permanent reauthorization of the PC. So I strongly support this bill and urge members to do so as well. I yield. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 6:04:24I just want to uh recognize myself for a second. I This bill would enable the PR to continue to assist with law enforcement efforts to investigate fraud because there are still people out there who need to be held accountable. The PR needs to uh continue the fight to punish the bad guys and retrieve some of the billions that have been stolen from the American taxpayer. Uh this bill would enable them to continue to do that. I want to thank Mr. Sessions and Mr. Infume for working together in a bipartisan way to lead this bill.
▶ 6:04:53Uh, I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bipartisan bill that cleanly extends the PAC through December 2026. Do do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
▶ 6:05:23The question is now on favorably reporting HR 2277 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair the eyes haven't, the bill is ordered favorably. Mr. Sessions request a recorded vote. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
▶ 6:05:49Our next item for consideration is HR 256, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act. The uh the now recognize the clerk. HR 2056, a bill to require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws. Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, ordered. Uh the chair now recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 6:06:18The clerk will please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2056 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Higgins for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:06:36We recently have had extensive hearings regarding the the negative impact of sanctuary city policies and the the District of Columbia, our nation's capital, is of unique significance to the entire nation and should reflect the best policies of enforcement of of local, state, and federal law and the immigration policies and laws of the United
▶ 6:07:07States. The the reality is, however, Mr. Chairman, is that District of Columbia does not reflect those law enforcement uh traditions and the professional understandings and agreements between u law enforcement authorities across the country at the local, state, and federal level.
▶ 6:07:35wherein cooperation is the standard norm. The sanctuary city policies removes those cities from from the historically uh very effective operations of law enforcement.
▶ 6:07:55wherein a a jurisdictional uh that has that that has possession of of u an offender. If there's a warrant for that offender that's been issued and is legitimate and has been communicated from another jurisdictional authority, then there's a cooperative effort across law enforcement. Sanctuary cities don't do that.
▶ 6:08:22So my bill enforces the District of Columbia into compliance with federal law. It nullifies any statute, ordinance, policy or practice of the DC government which restricts any entity or official from providing citizenship or immigration status to federal, state, and local law enforcement or from complying with a lawful request by the Department of Homeland Security under sections
▶ 6:08:52236 and 287 that regards the apprehension and detention of aliens. s and the powers of immigration officers and employees is all under the Immigration and Nationality Act, including complying with detainers or uh at the point of release of an individual.
▶ 6:09:15Wherefore that that release will be directly to the uh security and control of DHS if a if a proper detainer has been noticed. The bill also provides safe harbor for individuals who come forward as a witness to or as a victim of a crime wherein specifically in the legislation, Mr.
▶ 6:09:39Chairman, um any human being that is has witnessed to or victim of a crime would not be subject to further enforcement if it's specifically under this law like this. the DC would not be considered not in compliance with this law if they're protecting the identity of a victim or a witness to a crime in an ongoing investigation.
▶ 6:10:10So the in summary, Mr. Chairman, this bill would be opposed by our colleagues across the aisle, no doubt. But but it simply brings the nation's capital into compliance with the nation's laws and with the standards by which law enforcement at the local, state, and federal level have a longstanding relationship of cooperation.
▶ 6:10:38and it it it forces our nation's capital to be in compliance with those with those standards of norm. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your consideration of this bill and today's markup. I urge it support on both sides of the aisle and I yield. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes ranking member for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:11:05Before I discuss my opposition to this bill, which my friend anticipated, I must ask, are House Republicans trying to sabotage the operations and finances of the District of Columbia? And to what end? The recently enacted continuing resolution cut DC's local budget by more than a billion dollars.
▶ 6:11:29If that stands, DC will likely have to lay off first responders, police, teachers, and Fitz ratings placed DC because of no action on their own on a rating watch negative. Every CR the last two decades contained a provision that allowed DC to spend under its current local budget during the CR. House Republicans admitted that this year.
▶ 6:11:59Let's be clear about the absurdity of this situation. DC's local budget consists of local funds, not federal. DC raised its own fiscal 2025 money. That money is in DC's bank account. DC has been spending that money for six months and now Congress has ordered DC to abandon its strategic priorities and opportunities.
▶ 6:12:27I served for 14 years on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors just across the river in Virginia, including five years as chairman like being mayor. I cannot imagine running a local government subject to the whims of a dysfunctional Congress. There's been a bipartisan agreement on the stasis. We want DC to be safe and prosperous. The Senate passed a standalone bill sponsored by a Republican member to fix treatment of DC in the CR.
▶ 6:12:58That bill is within this committee's jurisdiction. I urge a Republican majority in the committee to work with Republican leadership to bring that bill up immediately. Now, let me turn to the bill before us, which I strongly oppose. DC should be free to govern itself. That my friend from Louisiana has no more business telling them how to run their business than I do from Fairfax, Virginia.
▶ 6:13:22The bill nullifies DC laws and policies that, like those of other jurisdictions, are in full compliance with federal law. They do not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and they are backed by evidence demonstrating that they keep people safer. Counties with laws that do not honor extrajudicial warrantless civil detainers had significant lower levels of violent crime than counties that do not have such laws.
▶ 6:13:51Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, local leaders have made clear that the way to combat violent crime is allowing local police to do their job of ensuring public safety in their own communities, not commandeering them to spend limited time and resources, rounding up and detaining non-violent immigrants who pose no threat. The committee has a hearing on this issue.
▶ 6:14:16That hearing accomplished none of the majority's objectives, which were primarily to demagogue immigration enforcement policies in l urban areas. Instead, that hearing showcased American cities that were focused on public safety and complying with federal immigration law without getting dragged into the costly business of the Trump administration's cruel, unconstitutional, and inhumane immigration policies.
▶ 6:14:43That hearing failed to force the Trump administration immigration enforcement operations down the throats of American cities. So now Republicans are turning their eyes to a vulnerable Washington DC where they are hoping to press the hobnail boot of the federal government that they control to the throat of the nation's capital. It's a shameless moment and it's one I cannot support and I oppose this bill. I yield I yield back.
▶ 6:15:11gentleman yields back chair recognized Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support Mr. Higgins bill and uh the ANS offered by the chairman. I'm going to focus just on two brief aspects of this and uh section one, excuse me, section two, sub A2 requires compliance with a request lawfully made. that should not cause anyone heartburn.
▶ 6:15:42It is a lawful lawfully made request pursuant to 236 or section 287 of the INA. Um and then it's a new or a diversionary tactic that we're seeing now. But what has happened here that Mr.
▶ 6:16:01Higgins has done that I think addresses and should assuage much of what the my friends across the aisle have traditionally raised is he has provided a safe harbor for those who are witnesses or victims who wish to come forward so that there can be no other action against them. Uh so with that I think Mr. Mr.
▶ 6:16:25Higgins bill is is uh strikingly good, necessary, and appropriate at this time. And I'll yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and I respect the ranking member. May surprise the nation and know that he he and I have a very friendly and respectful relationship.
▶ 6:16:46And I I respectfully um would remind the gentleman that that the District of Columbia is indeed unique amongst all municipalities in the country for as our our nation's capital and and Congress does indeed have authority uh within the decision-making process of the District of Columbia and we have seated some of that to be sure for local affairs but the interaction with federal federal law
▶ 6:17:17enforcement as it relates specifically uh in this case to the removal of illegal aliens. This is certainly a consideration and therefore our nation's capital should be in compliance with the with federal laws and and should be exemplary therein. However, that's not the case.
▶ 6:17:37And the gentleman knows that laws are written, statutes are written at the local, state and federal level with words like may and shall for particular purpose. This is removes discretion.
▶ 6:17:51This shows the the severity of the of the intent of the statute as it was written and under under the the code of the District of Columbia 24107 the prohibition on cooperation with federal immigration agencies. The District of Columbia shall not hold an individual after they've been otherwise released to comply with an ICE detainer request.
▶ 6:18:20Provide any facility or equipment to assist ICE with a search or inquiry about an individual in DC custody. Permit ICE to interview a suspect in DC custody unless compelled by court order. provide ICE information about an individual's release date or location or any information about why they were detained.
▶ 6:18:42Grant access to federal immigration authorities to District of Columbia detention facilities or inquire into the immigration status of an individual in DC laws go on with similar sanctuary city policies prefaced by shall not or will, not may or can. No discretion there.
▶ 6:19:08These laws were written with severity leaning towards sanctuary city policies. And our nation's capital should not reflect a refusal, in fact, a mandated denial of compliance with federal immigration law. I thank the gentleman for yielding me some of his time and I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona. I thank the gentleman. I yield, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, yield. Any other members?
▶ 6:19:38Chair recognizes Miss Norton from Washington DC. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly oppose this undemocratic anti-immigrant bill which would nullify duly enacted laws, policies, and practices of the District of Columbia. Before I address the details of this bill, I want to discuss democracy and the lack of democracy in DC. The Revolutionary War was forced to give consent to the governor and to end taxation without representation.
▶ 6:20:08Yet more than 700,000 DC residents are denied voting representation in Congress and full local self uh government. Even though DC pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and more total federal taxes than 19 states. Last Congress, Republicans introduced more than 100 bills and amendments to repeal or block DC laws and policies.
▶ 6:20:36This Congress, Republicans have already introduced 17 such bills and amendments. Two weeks ago, Congress passed a bill drafted by Republicans that cut more than $1 billion dollar from the DC local budget, which consists entirely of locally raised revenue. Although Congress has plenerary authority over DC, legislating on DC matters is a choice.
▶ 6:21:03In 1953, the Supreme Court held that there held that quote, "There is no constitutional barrier to delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power." End quote. DC has a local legislature. The members are elected by DC residents. If DC residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office. That is called democracy.
▶ 6:21:30The voting members of Congress are elected by residents of of states. If DC residents do not like how members vote on DC local matters, they cannot vote them out of office. That is the antithesis of democracy. Congress has the authority to grant DC residents full democratic rights. It simply needs to pass my DC Washington DC admission act which would make the residential and commercial areas of DC a state.
▶ 6:22:01The merits of DC local laws and HR2056 are irrelevant since there is never justification for Congress interfering in DC local matters. But I will briefly discuss them. Consistent with federal law, DC, like states, cities, and counties across the country, has passed laws to support and protect the safety of all its residents, regardless of immigration status.
▶ 6:22:32In passing such laws, DC followed its values and the evidence on the benefits of such laws for the entire city. House R2056 contains an exception for victims and witness and witness uh to to uh witnesses to crimes. The exception is a fig leaf.
▶ 6:22:54If enacted, the bill would deter immigration from immigrants from seeking assistance from or cor cooperating with the DC government, including the police department. I urge members to vote no on this bill. Ask my friend to yield. Yield to Mr. Connley. I thank my friend. I just want to say local control is best.
▶ 6:23:24And I uh I say to my friend from Louisiana, and he is my friend. Um, I don't think Baton Rouge would like Congress telling it how to do its policing or its fire services or other municipal services provided. Neither would my jurisdiction. Neither does DC, which is 700,000 people. We either believe in the principle of local control, we don't, even when we disagree with decisions they make.
▶ 6:23:53God knows I've disagreed with decisions made in DC, but I've never tried to interfere. I've presumed. If we're going to go down this road, why don't we take over zoning? So, we can do zoning for DC. We can decide on the building height limit. We can decide on where commercial goes, where real estate, where residential goes. Uh we can get involved in the geothermal experiment, which is exciting.
▶ 6:24:23and do whatever we want to do about it. We can really tie up this committee with a lot of DC business that belongs in the hands of the locally elected empowered DC city council. U and I believe very firmly in that principle. I have never tried to overturn or or legislatively question a decision made by that council. It's not about my personal preference.
▶ 6:24:50is about the democratic will of the people of the District of Columbia, 700,000 fellow citizens. I urge to feed this bill and I thank my friend for yielding. Does any other member seek recognition on the Higgins bill? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no.
▶ 6:25:18In the opinion share the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favorably reporting HR 2056 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair of the eyes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um if Mr. Higgins isn't requesting a recorded vote, I do. All right. Uh Mr. Connley requests a recorded vote as previously announced.
▶ 6:25:47Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is House Resolution 187 of inquiry requesting the president to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives referring to the termination, removal, placement on administrative leave moved to another Department of Federal Employees and Inspectors General of agencies. The clerk will please designate the bill.
▶ 6:26:13House Resolution 187, inquiry requesting the president to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives, referring to the termination, removal, placement on administrative leave, moved to another Department of Federal Employees and Inspectors General of agencies. Without objection, the resolution shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection to order, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk, please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered to House Resolution 187 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky.
▶ 6:26:40Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and substitute will be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for statement on the resolution and the amendment. Democrats are offering this privileged resolution of inquiry to vocally protest President Trump's actions to increase the federal government's efficiency. This is another attempt by partisan Democrats to distract President Trump and his administration from bringing accountability and efficiency to the executive branch.
▶ 6:27:06The expansion of the federal government has led to a frequently redundant bureaucratic black box. There are currently more than 400 executive branch agencies and sub agencies and roughly 1,000 federal boards and commissions. To support this, the federal workforce has grown to more than 2 million federal civilian employees. Instead of working to find areas of agreement with President Trump and his administration, committee Democrats are refusing to acknowledge obvious government waste and are obstructing common sense reforms.
▶ 6:27:36I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution of inquiry so that this committee can ad may adversely report out of this uh measure and remove its privilege for consideration by the full house. I now recognize the ranking member for his statement. I thank the chair. I'm not sure what Democrats my my friend the chair is talking about.
▶ 6:27:57Um we Democrats object to the fact that 24,000 probationary employees were summarily dismissed at the direction of President Trump and Elon Musk without cause. Without cause there's no efficiency argument there. We object to the removal of 17 inspectors general without cause and and unlawfully, I might add.
▶ 6:28:22We object to the summary firing and pro p prospective firing of 80,000 workers at the Veterans Administration. Not an efficiency move. It's it's it's puditive. It's just to cut down on the size of government to save money to finance a big tax cut that's coming in the reconciliation. That's what the Democrats are opposing. Mr. Chairman, I oppose I I support this resolution.
▶ 6:28:53I thank my friend Quisy Mafumi. Um and I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters uh I and others on our side of the aisle have sent related to the federal workforce without I thank my friend and I yield back. I yield back unless crazy Mr. Mafubi wast my time. Uh yeah, if I could be recognized. Um Mr. Pub. Thank you very much. Uh, Chairman Comr.
▶ 6:29:21I really do offer this on behalf of federal workers in every state of the nation who have been impacted uh by the decisions recently, the flurry of decisions by Doge, which occurred without due process. Those persons cannot be here today to speak on behalf of themselves or to offer this resolution of inquiry. But I do so on behalf of all of them.
▶ 6:29:48I thank you and the ranking member uh for the markup and for making this resolution in order. Uh HR res 187 requests the president to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives referring to the termination, removal, placement on administrative leave and reassignment to any other department of federal work. these individuals who have been affected.
▶ 6:30:17It also covers all of the inspector generals of the agencies that were also fired. The purpose of the resolution is simple. I hope at least. If passed, the president would receive a formal request from Congress to share information with us and with the American people about what his administration is doing to our federal workforce, including independent nonpartisan inspectors general.
▶ 6:30:46Specifically, the resolution would require the Trump administration to provide documents, communication, and information regarding all federal employees who have been fired, reassigned, or placed on administrative leave.
▶ 6:31:02It would also request the documents of the Office of Personnel Management's decision that employees classified or working in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs be subject to immediate removal. Americans have every right and every expectation to know how these determinations were made.
▶ 6:31:28Finally, this resolution requires the transmission of any and all documents related to the removal of non-partisan inspectors general and whether the administration discuss Congress of any of these removals since they are legally required to do so.
▶ 6:31:47The resolution of inquiry is an extraordinary step that we are forced to take today after the administration has failed res to respond to over six requests from members of this committee uh for information.
▶ 6:32:02The simple fact is that Elon Musk and Donald Trump's actions at Doge, or as I prefer to call it, the Department of Government evil, affects constituents in every congressional district in America, and affects the congressional districts obviously of every member of this committee.
▶ 6:32:21Every American, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, region, or anything else, suffers when the waste times at the Veterans Administration and weight times at Social Security double. When there are no longer enough staff to administer federal grants that support cities and support farmers and support families. Those persons and those entities we all represent.
▶ 6:32:49And without any respect to due process, we have seen the unfolding of this and the hurt and the pain that has been inflicted upon it. Is not something that anybody on this committee made up. It is real. Despite the claims to the contrary, 80% of all federal workers live and work outside of Washington DC.
▶ 6:33:11Altogether, outside of those that represent the National Capital Region, members of this committee represent an 416,000 of those federal workers. These workers are almost equally distributed across districts, as I've said before, on both sides of the aisle, in red states and in blue states.
▶ 6:33:31In my home district of Baltimore, 19,000 residents made a choice to dedicate their lives to the profession of public service and they have worked for the federal government and as such supported the federal government.
▶ 6:33:46This resolution of inquiry is an opportunity for those constituents and really for all of our constituents to gain insight and transparency into why the Trump administration has made the decisions that they have made and give Congress an opportunity to fulfill our article one responsibilities and demand real oversight beyond the impact to federal workers.
▶ 6:34:12This resolution also demands documents regarding the firing of independent inspectors general. As a ranking member of the government operations subcommittee, I agree with many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that our country needs reforms to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse to make it work better for all that it is supposed to serve. That's why I could not believe it when upon taking office, the president immediately fired 18 inspector generals.
▶ 6:34:42As we all know, inspector generals are Senate confirmed. They are nonpartisan officials who work to provide oversight to the agencies that they are assigned to. These inspector generals and their teams have decades upon decades of institutional knowledge of the problems facing agencies and more importantly how to fix those problems.
▶ 6:35:05Many of them had been making important reforms to reduce improper payments and fraud, but now they're not able to do that. And if there was any instance of their repeated efforts to bring about change, just remember that the Department of Defense has failed seven straight audits.
▶ 6:35:24Any supporter of Dodge ought to have an interest in knowing why these inspector generals were illegally fired and why Congress didn't even receive notice as required under law. And so I'd like to close, Mr. chairman, by again emphasizing our duty to the federal workforce, to contractors, and to others who have been shamefully treated without due process uh for the crime of wanting to serve their country.
▶ 6:35:53These workers are Americans, Americans with families, Americans that are part of their communities and Americans who livelihood in many respect is now being destroyed. And so I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rare resolution of inquiry in order to give transparency and accountability a chance. Our constituents, all of them are depending on it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
▶ 6:36:24Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Ben. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to voice my strong support for House Resolution 187 and thank my colleague from Maryland for bringing this forward. Uh, this resolution seeks transparency and answers about the abrupt and illegal removal, reassignment, and termination of federal employees as well as the independent watchd dogss, the inspectors general who are supposed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
▶ 6:36:52These are the employees who ensure that our government functions efficiently and remains accountable to the American people. And let's be clear, these dismissals did not improve efficiency or eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. When Donald Trump fired the inspector generals for a number of key agencies and departments in his January 24th Friday night massacre, he substantially increased the likelihood of corruption and fraud.
▶ 6:37:15And when Elon Musk decided to arbitrarily and illegally fire thousands of federal workers, uh this wasn't about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. Firing air traffic controllers and then hiring them back isn't efficient. Firing nuclear weapons security personnel and then trying to rehire them isn't efficient. And as we're seeing unfold in real time, firing Social Security personnel and making it harder for seniors to get their checks isn't efficient. This endeavor is not about efficiency.
▶ 6:37:41It's about finding spending cuts to justify $4.5 trillion in tax cuts primarily directed to billionaires. And I want to note that of this, hundreds of billions of dollars of those tax cuts go to foreign investors. The tax cuts that the Republicans are hatching up are predominantly designed to benefit investors in corporate securities, in real estate investment trusts, and in private equity funds. And as it turns out, over 20% of those investors are foreign. That is right.
▶ 6:38:08Elon Musk is literally trying to eliminate 14% of funding for our public schools and funding for cancer trials and science research and cut social security so that Saudi, Chinese, Russian, and yes, South African billionaires can get a bigger tax break. But the real issue is that all of this is grossly illegal and unconstitutional. And I know that at least some of my colleagues across the aisle know this. Congress and only Congress has the authority to create laws and appropriate funds.
▶ 6:38:34And what Musk and Trump are doing in purporting to fire federal workers and inspector generals without cause. What they're actually doing is undoing appropriations mandated by Congress to fund these federal agencies and overturning acts of Congress that created these inspector generals. They are stealing Congress's constitutional authorities. And so I have to ask, when will congressional Republicans stand up for our powers and our rights here in this body?
▶ 6:38:57Look, if House Republicans want to get rid of IG's and fire all the air traffic controllers and eliminate social security, they have the majority and they can do that. But we all know it's supposed to be done here in Congress, not by unelected special government employees, not by 21 year old coders. It's through Congress. And the Constitution is clear on this point. This is all grossly illegal. And that's why the courts keep ruling against Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
▶ 6:39:20But instead of standing up against these unprecedented assaults on our congressional powers, uh, congressional Republicans are instead attacking the independence of the judiciary, including attempts to impeach judges as many judges appointed by Republicans who have issued decisions against Trump and Musk. And I just want to state the obvious here. America is not a dictatorship. It's a democracy based on three co-equal branches of government, all of which are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We all take that oath here.
▶ 6:39:51Okay, but here's the problem. Trump and Musk are basically saying they can do whatever they want. Fire inspector generals in violation of the law. Fire commissioners in violation of the law. Fire federal employees in violation of the law. And instead of standing up to this illegal and unconstitutional behavior, congressional Republicans are basically saying Trump and Mos can do whatever they want. We are supposed to be a co-equal branch of the government, not a lap dog for the president.
▶ 6:40:16And by attacking the judiciary, congressional Republicans are going after the independence of the third co-equal branch of government. This is not supporting and defending the Constitution. It is assaulting and attacking the most important provisions of the Constitution. It is dangerous and it is wrong. House Resolution 187 is a necessary step to try to reclaim our congressional authorities. It's about reestablishing trust in our institutions and reaffirming our commitment to accountability and the rule of law and the Constitution.
▶ 6:40:44Again, if congressional Republicans want to fire thousands of federal employees and eliminate inspectors general, if they think that is efficient, they can do that through appropriations and legislation, not by allowing Musk and Trump to claim that authority. Uh, and in so doing, you are creating a constitutional crisis. So, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to stand up for the principles that have defined this country for two and a half centuries. I yield back. Chair recognizes Mr. Presley. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 6:41:12chair and thank you representative infume uh for your steadfast leadership on on this and so many other important issues. Uh I appreciate your introducing this resolution and I'm proud to be a co-sponsor. Since taking office, co-presidents Trump and Elon Musk have engaged in an unlawful and unprecedented purge of nonpartisan civil servants using intimidation, threats, and outright m retaliation to force them out of their jobs.
▶ 6:41:38These firings were not about performance, not about accountability, and certainly not about serving the people. My district, the MA7th, is home to thousands of the Commonwealth's 46,000 federal employees. My constituents are not faceless bureaucrats. They prepare us for national disasters and public health emergencies. They ensure our veterans, who risk their lives for our country, get the care they deserve.
▶ 6:42:05They make our schools run, our food safe, and our government accountable. And for their service, they've been met with a reckless, cruel, and illegal assault from this administration. This administration targeted career civil servants for no legitimate reason. They stripped them of their livelihoods, their pensions, and their ability to serve the country they love. And they did it behind closed doors with no transparency and no accountability.
▶ 6:42:33Uh, in the great words of the great Elijah Cummings, it is this committee's job to be in efficient and effective pursuit of the truth. Mr. Infume's resolution of inquiry is simple and necessary. It's about revealing the truth. It uncovers how many federal employees were wrongfully fired, why they were targeted, and how these unlawful purges were carried out. Now, I've met with many of the impacted workers in my district, and their stories are heartbreaking.
▶ 6:43:01Public servants who uprooted their families moving states to serve at the Boston VA only to be fired within months for no reason. Dedicated professionals who spent their careers bettering the lives of others only to have their own livelihoods ripped away in an instant. These workers deserve answers. They deserve justice.
▶ 6:43:21To that end, in addition to supporting this resolution, I'm leading my colleagues in the Massachusetts Congressional delegation and requesting information from the Office of Personnel Management about the impact of these mass firings on our Commonwealth. We will get the facts. We do demand accountability and we will work to ensure that no administration now or in the future can ever abuse its power to silence, intimidate, or unlawfully fire workers again.
▶ 6:43:49I urge my colleagues to stand with the public servants, many of whom are our shared constituents and the communities they serve, by supporting this resolution. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Randle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, as uh my colleague, Mr.
▶ 6:44:14men stated so clearly, "This administration nor my Republican colleagues in this Congress seem to care that Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government. I served for six years in a Democratic trifecta where I knew my responsibility was not to serve our governor but to serve the constituents who elected me to represent them.
▶ 6:44:44That is our job here as well. And constituents, 26,000 federal workers included, over and over, have told me that they are fed up with this administration acting illegally, um, taking unconstitutionally and taking a chainsaw to programs that our neighbors rely on.
▶ 6:45:10Not just the jobs of the people who are losing them, but the safety and security of our community. So many of my federal employees in the sixth congressional district have national security jobs, work for the Department of Defense, maintain um our nuclear submarine fleet, ensure that our naval ships are ready for their work in the Pacific theater.
▶ 6:45:40This is important essential work. And the folks who who show up every day, many of them veterans, to keep our country safe, have been attacked over and over and over again by these reckless and dangerous firings.
▶ 6:46:00This resolution of inquiry seeks information about what is happening and seeks answers for our neighbors who deserve them. You know, who have moved their families, folks who put their lives on the line, folks who are doing very important work in our communities. And it's not just federal workers of which we already have a shortage in the um in the Department of Defense.
▶ 6:46:31You know, we have to recruit from out of state. People have to move in order to do these important jobs. But we have folks in the park service and the postal service, people who are ensuring that our communities are thriving and that people can rely on the services that they need in order to build their futures.
▶ 6:46:54But instead of listening to the workers on the front lines of these programs who could tell you if asked how to make their departments work more efficiently, how to save tax taxpayer dollars, how to deliver real results. We are seeing mass firings of folks who could save us money.
▶ 6:47:17And in fact, some courts have determined that these firings are in fact illegal have required folks who were um fired illegally to be reinstated in their jobs and to have to be paid back pay which is not saving taxpayer dollars.
▶ 6:47:35It is costing us to spend more money and to the for our government to work uh we you know as much as we hear about waste, fraud, and abuse and wanting to get answers, I have it is not clear to me why we wouldn't pass this resolution so that we could get more information about what is happening in the federal government. Mr. Chair, I yield my time.
▶ 6:48:04Any other members seek recognition? none, the question is now the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not. Mr.
▶ 6:48:33I would request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to House rules, further proceedings on this measure are postponed. All recorded votes will be rolled to the end at a time to be announced. Uh, our last item for consideration is HR 186, an inquiry requesting the president to transmit certain document to the House of Representatives relating to the conflicts of interest of Elon Musk and related information. The clerk will please designate the resolution.
▶ 6:48:58House Resolution 186 of inquiry requesting that the president to transmit certain documents to the House of Representatives related to the conflicts of interest of Elon Musk and related information. Without objection, the resolution shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection to ordered, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk, please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to House Resolution 186 is offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read in the substitute be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
▶ 6:49:26I now recognize myself for five minutes on a statement on the resolution. The Democrats are also offering the second privilege resolution of inquiry to vocally protest Elon Musk's critical role in helping President Trump fulfill his promises to the American people. The Democrat spent the last four years covering up for the corrupt Biden crime family and obstructing efforts at seeking executive branch accountability.
▶ 6:49:50Over the last two years of Biden's presidency, while they were serving in the minority, the Democrats offered zero resolutions of inquiry. And before that, while serving in the majority, the Democrats routinely dismissed Republicans ROI, seeking information from the corrupt Biden administration. Elon Musk is offering his expertise and business best practices to assist President Trump in identifying new efficiencies for the federal bureaucracy.
▶ 6:50:14However, it seems Elon Musk's efforts in service of the administration's government efficiency and cost cutting goals is the very reason for the Democrat skepticism and opposition to his involvement in this administration. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution of inquiry so that this committee may adversely report out this measure and move its privilege for consideration by the full house. I now recognize the ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our government is a great experiment.
▶ 6:50:44The first ever government designed to be of, by, and for the people. It is mostly made up of dedicated public servants who take an oath to serve the American people and support and defend the Constitution of the United States. No one swears loyalty to a king or an emperor or even the president or congress but to the constitution.
▶ 6:51:11The oath is the foundation upon which every civil servant's career built. Yet President Trump has shown since the day he illegally fired 17 nonpartisan inspectors general across 18 agencies that political loyalty is paramount. is far more important to him than the interest that oath that our civil servants take to protect the people.
▶ 6:51:40Along with his chainsaw wielding billionaire donor, Elon Musk, President Trump is working to turn a nation of laws for the people into a nation of grift for the wealthy. in an unprecedented arrangement. Trump has outsourced government uh in an unlawful and possibly unconstitutional way uh conferring unprecedented powers on elected unelected billionaire.
▶ 6:52:10While slashing federal government employees, programs, and services, Elon Musk remains in charge of a sprawling private sector business empire that continues to rely on billions of dollars in government funding and has been charged with managing his own conflicts of interest.
▶ 6:52:30As of February 2025, Musk has promised been promised a combined total of at least $ 38 billion in federal contracts, loans, subsidies, tax credits from federal and state governments. Musk continues to profit from taxpayer dollars and now finds himself in charge of determining which federal contracts the government will keep and which will be cut.
▶ 6:52:58an arrangement that runs a foul of the law and is a recipe for potential corruption. Mus space exploration company SpaceX and satellite and telecommunications subsidiary Starlink have benefited from a GSA multiple award schedule for satellite services and equipment through which the companies have received already 1.8 million from various federal agencies since 2021. at the Department of Transportation.
▶ 6:53:27Musk's Doge operation has directed the firing of 400 employees at the Federal FAA, which just months earlier fined Mr. Musk SpaceX company for disregarding license requirements for two of its launches.
▶ 6:53:43Could that be Dodge has fired 4% of the 800 person workforce at the National Highway Trade Traffic Safety Administration, which has opened five investigations into Tesla, several of which concern life-threatening flaws with the car's self-driving mode, including unexpected braking, loss of steering control, and crashes.
▶ 6:54:09He is circumventing federal ethics laws to avoid filing public financial disclosures required of senior administration officials which further obscures the extent of his conflicts of interest. This resolution of inquiry is simple.
▶ 6:54:24It would require the president to provide information about Mus actual status within the federal government, any conflicts of interest Musk has related to his role in the federal government and any federal contract involving Musk owned company to which he serves on the board of or on the board of directors. I did not introduce this resolution lightly, Mr. Chairman. In fact, committee Democrats have made numerous attempts to get this information before taking this step.
▶ 6:54:54with 50 we've sent 54 letters over 400 requests. We've even requested you, Mr. Chairman, to invite him to testify. All to no avail. Given expansive influence in the Trump administration, the American people have a right to know this information. The American people have a right to know how an unelected billionaire bureaucrat is taking a chainsaw to their government, arrandising himself.
▶ 6:55:21I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for once for transparency and accountability no matter who's in the White House and to ensure that this government remains of, by, and for the people. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair, Mr. Min. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to voice my support for House Resolution 186. Uh, as the great Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeise once said, sunshine is the best disinfectant.
▶ 6:55:50And yet we have continually seen this administration and its allies in Congress refuse to allow transparency uh to continually be hostile to basic disclosure requests. So the resolution of inquiry here is pretty simple. People want to know what is Elon Musk's exact role in the federal government. This question by far has been the one my constituents are most concerned about. Uh since taking office, my office has received thousands of calls and letters on this.
▶ 6:56:16Uh, just this past week, we had over 1,500 constituents show up to my town hall to make sure that I knew how concerned and outra out outraged they are. Right now, Congress and the American people that we represent have no way of knowing what potential conflicts of interest Elon Musk has. And the reason we don't know is because this administration has refused to tell us and Congress has conducted zero oversight on this question. This resolution is just about transparency.
▶ 6:56:43The American people deserve to know how decisions are being made and whose interests are being prioritized. Elon Musk Musk's dual role as a private business magnet and a federal government adviser uh of unknown origin because he's supposed to be a temporary special government employee, but is wielding powers uh far beyond that. Uh this combination raises serious ethical concerns. His companies, including SpaceX and Tesla, have received billions in federal contracts.
▶ 6:57:11And yet, he is now in a position to influence the very agencies that regulate and fund his business. And to no one's surprise, Elon Musk and Doge seem to continue coming out ahead here. SpaceX, Tesla, their contracts are never touched by Doge. In fact, they seem like they get expanded. Uh Elon Musk's private business interests are directly benefiting from his government role, and he and others have been weaponizing government to benefit Tesla and SpaceX's bottom line.
▶ 6:57:40President Trump turned the White House's South Lawn into shameful Tesla displayed almost like a Tesla dealership earlier this month, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik appeared on TV hawking Tesla's stock in what was an obvious violation of law. And since then, we've learned that Lutnik and others in the Trump administration are heavily invested in Tesla stock.
▶ 6:58:01There are members of Congress, including one on this committee, who are reportedly heavily invested in Tesla stock, and who are trying to use the government to weaponize it to specifically help Tesla's revenues. Where is the investigation? Where is the oversight from Congress and from this committee? HRES 186 is a necessary, but not sufficient first step to try to bring these issues to light. and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution inquiry. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Do any other members seek recognition?
▶ 6:58:31Seeing none, that concludes debate. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess. Mr. Chair, go ahead, Mr. Rack member. Well, you got to call for a vote. Oh, that's a good idea. We will call for a vote. I was excited there. I know. Uh the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 6:58:57All those in favor signify by saying this is the uh Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair that no have it. A recorded vote is requested by Mr. Connley pursuant to house rules. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed. Now that concludes debate. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess until 6:30, at which time we will vote on a postponed How many we got?
▶ 9:04:22there 20 the nays or 23? The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bell from Missouri. Members will record their vote using electronic voting system. Clerk will now open the vote on the bell amendment to HR 1295.
▶ 9:04:59Mr. Timmons, have you been recording? Have all members been recorded? Does any member wish to change a vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20. The naysay are 23. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The questions now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of a substitute offered by Miss Simon from California.
▶ 9:05:30Members will record your vote using the electronic voting system. Clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of HR 1295, the Simon amendment. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr.
▶ 9:06:00Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the main amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Miss Presley from Massachusetts. Members will record a vote using electronic voting system. Clerk will now open the vote on the Presley amendment of HR 1295.
▶ 9:06:32Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1295.
▶ 9:07:02All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair of the eyes having the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1295 is agreed to. Uh The question is on favorably reporting 1295. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:07:29The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 1295. Chair votes I. If we can get the screen up. Have all members been recorded who wish to be
▶ 9:08:00recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 23, the nays are 20. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. The committee will now resume consideration of HR 1210, the protecting taxpayers wallets act of 12 of 2025.
▶ 9:08:29The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Miss Stanbury from New Mexico. Members were required to vote using electronic voting system. Uh, clerk will now open the vote on the Stanbury amendment of HR 1210.
▶ 9:09:09Have all members been recorded? My uh my electronic Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I think on many of our sheets, uh this is noted as the Subramanan amendment since he carried it in mystead. That that what now? Oh, um the the you noted that this is a Stanbury amendment, but Mr. Subramanan carried it for me. Offered it on her behalf.
▶ 9:09:40He he offered it on your behalf. So on many people's sheet, it's noted number five. Yeah, number five is the big one. Mr. Chairman, point of order. She She doesn't know what bills are. She doesn't know what amendments are. We're done with this. Let's move on. This is this is the This is your amendment offered by Mr. Subman. Submanan. So it's no big deal. Okay. All right. We'll continue.
▶ 9:10:07It's this is the Stanbury amendment, but it was offered by Mr. Submerman during the markup. Everybody understand? Stanberry doesn't understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? No. Does does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. We've lost some people. Mr.
▶ 9:10:35Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 21, the nays are 23. The naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The qu amendment to the amendment. Okay. This is the committee will now resume consideration of HR 1210 the protecting taxpayers wallets act of 2025. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment by Mr.
▶ 9:11:03Perry of Pennsylvania to the amendment by Mr. Biggs of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. Clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of HR 1210. I kept picking it.
▶ 9:11:32It just I don't know why I have to hit this three or four Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
▶ 9:12:08Mr. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes's are 18, the nays are 26. The naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment by Mr. Perry, the Perry number two amendment to the Mr. Bigs amendment in the nature of a substitute. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of HR 1210.
▶ 9:12:39This is the Perry number two. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will report the vote total.
▶ 9:13:12Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 17, the nays are 27. The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania, the number three Perry amendment to the amendment by Mr. Biggs of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment.
▶ 9:13:37This is the Perry amendment number three of Okay. All right. It's off again. Hold on a second. Mine's off It keeps going off here. Go ahead and The screen does battery. All right. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 9:14:07Does any member wish to change or vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 17. The naysay are 27. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the the uh this is the big session right there. Okay.
▶ 9:14:37The committee will now resume consideration of HR1210 the protecting taxpayers wallets act of 2025. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. Clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of HR1210, the bigs amendment.
▶ 9:15:23Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are nine, the nays are 35. The naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 1210. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 9:15:54I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute HR 1210 is agreed to. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I mean that's not the same. The question is on favorably reporting HR 1210. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 1210 by Mr. Burlesen.
▶ 9:16:39Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 23, the nays are 21. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table.
▶ 9:17:02The committee will now resume consideration of HR 2249, the preserving presidential management authority act. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of HR 2249.
▶ 9:17:48Have all members Mr. Have all members been recorded? Does anybody wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes's are 13, the nays are 31. The the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 9:18:17The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2249. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion chair the eyes haven't the amendment nature substitute to HR 2249 is agreed to. The question is on favorably reporting HR 2249. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:18:45The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 2249. Have all members been recorded? Does any member wish to change or vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 23, the nays are 21.
▶ 9:19:14The eyes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. The committee will now resume consideration of HR 2174, the Paycheck Protection Act. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment by Mr. Berles of Missouri to the amendment by Mr. Bigs of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:19:42The clerk will now open the vote on the Berlesen amendment number one of HR 2174. Okay. Have all members been recorded?
▶ 9:20:10Does any member wish to change your vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 16, the nays are 28. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment by Mr. Berles of Missouri to the amendment by Mr. Biggs of Arizona to the amendment in the nature of substitute.
▶ 9:20:41Members will record their vote using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the Berles number three amendment to the amendment of HR 2174. Have all members been recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 9:21:11The clerk will report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 18, the nays are 26. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously Yep, I've got it. The commit the committee will now resume consideration of HR 2174. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
▶ 9:21:41Members are required to vote using the electronic voting system. Clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of HR 2174. Have all members been recorded?
▶ 9:22:10Does any member wish to change vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes's are 14, the nays are 30. The naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The questions now on the amendment, the nature of a substitute to HR 2174. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 9:22:39All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment the nature of substitute HR 2174 is agreed to. The question is on favorably reporting HR 2174. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:22:57The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 2174. Have all members been recorded. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
▶ 9:23:29Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 23, the nays are 21. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 2193. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:23:46The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 2193. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 9:24:13The clerk will uh report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 29, the nays are 15. The eyes have the eyes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting HR 227 2277. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:24:39The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 2277. Have all members been recorded?
▶ 9:25:07Does any member wish to change vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Wait, wait. What does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will now close the vote total. Report the vote. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 44, the nays are zero. They always said, Mr. Mr.
▶ 9:25:36Connley, this was a bipartisan committee. Uh, the eyes have it. The bill is ordered, favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. That's That's not right. That's not We do need this. Okay. The question is now in favor of reporting HR 206. Members record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:26:05The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting HR 2056. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote total. Mr. Mr.
▶ 9:26:33Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 23, the nays are 21. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting House Resolution 187. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system.
▶ 9:26:53The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting House Resolution Have all members
▶ 9:27:23been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will uh close the vote. Report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes's are 21, the naysay are 23. The nos have it and the resolution fails. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. I I got it. The question is on favorably reporting House Resolution 186.
▶ 9:27:51Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting House Resolution Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 9:28:21The clerk will close the vote and report the vote. Total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 21, the nays are 23. the the nos have it and the resolution fails. We need to leave the motion to reconsider on the table. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. Want to thank uh pursuant to house rule 11 clause 2. I ask that the committee members have the right to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental additional minority and descending views without objection.
▶ 9:28:52Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the bills ordered reported today subject to the approval of the minority without objection. So ordered. If there's no further business before the committee and thank everyone for coming out. This is 7-hour markup. Without objection, the committee stands