▶ 0:06:22I'm make my opening remarks. Good morning. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Mr. Arrington is very close and I think I I really like to stay on time as you all know. I want to honor the people who show up on time and so we're going to begin without him.
▶ 0:06:49Today the rules committee is convening to consider a single measure, the Senate amendment to the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution. As has been said by the speaker and many others, the House's consideration of the Senate amendment to H Conres 14 is the key to unlocking the next critical stage of the budget reconciliation process. We are here today to do our part in moving that process forward.
▶ 0:07:16The House's instructions remain ironclad as they have always been since we began our work in February. Our Republican majority here within the people's house understands that this process is not just about simply securing another whim and putting another notch in our belt. This process is about fulfilling the American people's mandate and advancing the president's America first agenda.
▶ 0:07:44We will use it to eliminate the possibility of the greatest tax increase in history being led against every American and their families. Provide ample resources to the military so that the common defense of the nation remains unabated. Allocate necessary critical resources to the Trump administration so that it can further secure the border and reinforce national security.
▶ 0:08:13trim wasteful programs, rightsizing our fiscal footprint, and putting us on a path to fiscal sanity. It's just that simple. We ought to remind ourselves of the imperatives that remain top of mind for Americans across the entire country. They want a secure border, lower taxes, American energy dominance, and a smaller, less costly, and more accountable federal government.
▶ 0:08:42We ought to address these imperatives without delay. And that means proceeding to the reconciliation process and continuing our work that began just a few short months ago. Republicans are the ones who will do these things on behalf of all Americans.
▶ 0:09:01Democrats, independents, all classes, and all We welcome our Democrat colleagues to join us in saving our country and setting it on a path of greatness once again. With that, I look forward to today's discussion and I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make. Well, thank you, uh, Madam Chair. And here we go again. An emergency meeting. And what's the emergency?
▶ 0:09:32Not the tariffs that are tanking our economy. Not the urgent need to bring down prices. Not the fact that we have 47 million hungry people in this country. No, the big emergency is that it's now time to jam through Trump's disastrous budget. A bud a budget written by the rich for the rich to help the rich get richer. That is what this is. A massive transfer of wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top. It's like Robin Hood in reverse.
▶ 0:10:01This budget steals from the poor to give to the rich. And it's not just Democrats who think that that this bill is terrible. It's Republicans, too. Mr. Norman, not here right now, but a member of this committee said the Senate version is dead on arrival. Mr. Roy, a member of the rules committee. Adopting a policy baseline does not change basic math. Mr. Ogles, the Senate budget bill is really offensive. But don't worry, Donald Trump is on top of things.
▶ 0:10:30He says, "Close your eyes and vote for it." I would just add to that, "Close your eyes, cover your ears, and hide your calculators." He claims he's got countries calling him, kissing his ass to work out a trade deal. I'm not sure if the penguins have called yet, but the bottom line is that he wants you you he wants all of you guys to close your eyes and kiss his ass, and I'm pretty sure that you're all about to do just that. What an embarrassment.
▶ 0:10:58But I think uh that is a moral outrage. If you are willing to support this, we simply do not share the same values. For example, I believe it is wrong to gut Medicaid. I don't want to kick seniors off of their long-term health care. I think it is wrong to kick kids and Americans with disabilities off of food assistance. I think it's evil to give tax breaks to billionaires while you're telling working families to beg for table scraps. I think those are rotten, mean, nasty things to do.
▶ 0:11:28This isn't about fiscal responsibility. Give me a break. This is about choices. We are the richest country on earth, or at least we were last week. I haven't done the math since Trump sent our economy off a cliff. But we are making choices here here to steal from the poor. We are making a choice to help the rich get richer. My Republican friends want to talk about fiscal responsibility. This budget adds to the national debt.
▶ 0:11:53There are so many tax breaks for billionaires in here that estimates estimates say that this package could inflate our deficits by more than $5 trillion. That's trillion with a T. So this is not just immoral, it is financially reckless. Budgets are moral documents. And this one tells hungry kids, sick seniors, working parents too bad. All because Republicans in Congress care more about their rich donors than kitchen table issues.
▶ 0:12:22Because of this budget, kids will become malnourished. Because of this budget, grandparents will have to sell their houses to afford medical care. Because of this budget, more veterans will be homeless. Because of this budget, our nation will fall behind and our future will be less prosperous and worse off. Well, I won't be silent while Republicans turn their backs on the American people. This economy doesn't work for most people. It hasn't for a long time and it hasn't because of budgets like this where the rich get handout after handout.
▶ 0:12:52And I think plain and simple that is wrong. Madame Chair, someday we're all going to be gone. And history won't judge us by the size of our bank accounts. It won't judge us by how many tax breaks we gave to Wall Street billionaires. It'll judge us by our decency, our compassion, our kindness, and yes, by our work to ensure that we build a society where everyone can get ahead and nobody is left behind. This is an immoral budget.
▶ 0:13:21And I want the American people to know Democrats do not share these values. We reject this budget. And I would urge uh my uh uh to open their eyes, to read the budget, read the CBO score, and use your own judgment. Uh make up your own mind, and don't follow Trump over a cliff uh like our economy.
▶ 0:13:48Uh with that, I yield Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel, Chairman Arrington and ranking member Bole from the committee on the budget. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Arrington, I welcome your testimony.
▶ 0:14:18Thank you, Madam Chairman, a ranking member and my dear friend Brendan Bole, a proud Fighting Irish fan and uh and a good guy to do business with. Uh but we have disagreements. This one will be a big disagreement. The path forward for our country to get our economy growing uh to bend the curve on mandatory spending that's driving uh the debt of our country that's unsustainable.
▶ 0:14:43Um, in the most historic election of our lifetime, Americans resoundedly elected President Trump and Republican le Congress to reverse course on the failed policies of the last four years. Unbridled spending and bad economic pol policies have weakened our economy, created a cost of living disaster for working families and pushed our nation even closer to the precipice of a debt crisis, which would be catastrophic and I believe irreparable.
▶ 0:15:10Uh we are at a critical inflection point with a generational opportunity to rein in wasteful spending in the federal government, reignite economic growth, and put our nation on a responsible and sustainable fiscal path. The House did this in our fiscal framework. We locked in lower taxes for hardworking families and provided uh tax relief for small businesses, opened up American energy production after a whole of government assault on the lifeblood of our economy.
▶ 0:15:39will reign in regulatory overreach, rightsize the bloat in our uh federal government after COVID, root out massive waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. And uh I think GAO said one60 billion in improper payments as high as 500 billion a year in fraud. Um we provide President Trump with the tools and resources to secure the border and strengthen the military.
▶ 0:16:05Of course, we do this in the House resolution in a balanced and fiscally responsible way. Despite having a one vote margin, we passed the House budget resolution that seeks to reduce wasteful spending by at least $1.5 trillion. That's the floor. The goal is 2 trillion or more.
▶ 0:16:21While the Senate budget resolution included many progrowth policies and critical investment in national security, it fell far short of the spending reduction targets in the House bill with 5.8 8 trillion in new cost and a mere 4 billion in enforcable savings. Furthermore, scoring the tax cuts is current policy without without commensurate cuts or offsets or savings so that the deficit doesn't go up on our watch. Madam Chair, I think is a dangerous precedent.
▶ 0:16:52For this reason, it's critical that the reconciliation bill be guided by the House's resolution framework. Otherwise, we do risk uh adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Uh George Washington said in his farewell address, don't put a debt burden on the next generation such that you are not willing to bear. Um Alexander Hamlet said, "The best way to achieve prosperity is to continuously pay off the nation's debt and avoid incurring more." I agree.
▶ 0:17:22We're taking $2 trillion of critical investment capital from the private sector every year and that's going to double uh in 10 years. That's the annual deficit. Uh not to mention the trillion dollars in interest that's squeezing our ability to fund our national priorities, namely our sons and daughters that wear the uniform that protect our freedom uh and and and our way of life. But my favorite admonishment uh was was uh from James Madison. A public debt is a public curse.
▶ 0:17:51And in our Republican form of government, it's the worst curse of its kind. Here's the bottom line. Out of control deficit spending and unsustainable debt is the greatest threat to our country and our children's future. And no responsible leader, not a Republican or Democrat, right or left, can witness this precipitous fiscal decline and stand idly by defending the status quo. If we're going to usher in the golden age of America, we must advance a reconciliation bill that includes the entirety of President Trump's uh uh uh America first agenda.
▶ 0:18:21Not just the tax cuts, not just Derek, not just American energy, but reigning in runaway spending that threatens to bankrupt the United States of America. As we unlock the reconciliation process, Madam Chair, we must hold fast to the principles established in the House budget resolution. If we do, we have a shot. We have a shot at preserving the blessings of liberty and prosperity for our children and grandchildren.
▶ 0:18:48If we don't and we shrink back and we miss this moment, this I think I believe will be the last best opportunity to write the ship and uh to save the country from fiscal ruin. Let's reverse the curse. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Arrington. And I believe the majority of us agree with you. Mr. Bole, you're recognized. Again, thank you.
▶ 0:19:17Thank you, Madame Chair, and and to the ranking member and to my good friend uh the chair of the budget committee. Um the president has in instructed the House of Representatives to close your eyes and pass his bill. I hope my remarks this morning will help open some eyes. Let's look at the last three months or even just the last week.
▶ 0:19:42Three months ago, no one was predicting, not a liberal economist, not a conservative economist, no one was predicting recession. Now, it is the consensus projection that we will soon be in a recession if we aren't in one now. There have been three recessions in the last 25 years in this century. 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. 2008 when the housing bubble burst and 2020 the pandemic.
▶ 0:20:10Each of those were caused by an external event that I just described. What is causing this recession? Donald Trump's policies. Every single day we are seeing carnage in the markets. Every growth projection from three months ago is now showing a projection of recession.
▶ 0:20:33job losses, retirement savings, 401ks are becoming 2011ks and dropping. This is all a direct result not of a terrorist attack, not of a pandemic, but President Donald Trump's wrongheaded policies.
▶ 0:20:52So, Madam Chair, I respectfully suggest we should be here as a Congress working on a bipartisan basis how we will stop and reverse the tremendous damage that has been done over the last two and a half months, but especially in the last week. And frankly, if we don't come together and do that soon, I believe, as do others, that it can and will get far worse.
▶ 0:21:22But instead, we're here not to talk about what everyone else is focusing on from CNBC and and news networks on on uh all sides of the ideological spectrum and just everyday Americans. Instead, we're here to talk about this bill um that essentially is trillions of dollars in tax cuts paid for either by further debt or deep cuts, including and especially to Medicaid.
▶ 0:21:52Now, I will say this, there is a little challenge uh in of presenting remarks in opposition because I'm not sure which bill to speak about, the House Republican bill or the Senate Republican bill, because the two bills are apart. I will say this, I give House Republicans, led by the budget committee chairman credit.
▶ 0:22:18I profoundly disagree and made that clear over our 12-hour uh markup of how much I disagree with their work. But I respect they at least did the work. I respect the fact that they put down in pen and paper what they believe put $1.5 trillion at least of cuts which include the largest cuts to Medicaid in American history as well as other programs. Senate Republicans, they just gave up.
▶ 0:22:48They put even more for tax cuts and include nothing in cuts, 0.2%. Why? Because they they are using with a straight face something called current policy baseline. Now, that has a very official sounding term. Surely that must be some wellthoughtout uh way of looking at things.
▶ 0:23:14No, current policy baseline is intellectually bankrupt. It is pretending like math no exists. It is saying that we don't have to pay for the extension of the tax cuts next year or the next 5 years or the next decade and beyond. It's pretending like that trillions of dollars in costs that CBO has certified go to zero.
▶ 0:23:40I'll say this, not only do I oppose use of current policy baseline in this context, I oppose it. Period. This is a dangerous precedent to set. And I would say to my Republican friends, if this precedent is set, just imagine the next time there's a Democratic trifecta, do you really want current policy baseline to be used by your friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle?
▶ 0:24:05And then how in the world will we really tackle the growing debt crisis that we have? We all know current policy baseline is a complete fraud. Frankly, if this becomes the president and becomes the new way of doing things, I don't know why CBO would even exist. There would be no need for it. Pass a bill, fund something for a week, then immediately pass another bill and say, "Well, we're adopting current policy baseline that has become permanent.
▶ 0:24:35That's the way things will happen around here from now on. And we will look back at this moment as the moment of origin of when it began. Now, finally, I will say this. Whether it's the House Republican plan or the Senate Republican plan or some combination of the two, we do know enough to say as CBO has confirmed these include hund this bill or either version will include hundreds of billions of dollars to cuts to
▶ 0:25:06Medicaid. 44% of the people in my district, Madam Chair, are on Medicaid. Tens of millions of Americans are on Medicaid. They might know it by a different name depending on state. This will have a devastating impact on my district, on my state, and all 435 congressional districts throughout our land.
▶ 0:25:29Why would we cut Well, what the other side is attempting to do is to use those cuts in order to offset the largest tax cut to the top 1% in American history. I believe that that is wrong. I believe that it is immoral.
▶ 0:25:49I believe instead we should come together and in conclusion on a bipartisan basis reclaim article one power and correct the damage that this administration has done over the last week and over the last three months. And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Bole. Chairman Arrington.
▶ 0:26:13Um, we've just listened to a litany of scare tactics in my opinion on what this budget resolution contains and we've heard these for weeks and some of my colleagues say to me when we're not in rules, oh, how do you stand to listen to all those comments that are being made?
▶ 0:26:39And we know it's but it these scare tactics um don't apply. It should not be um stated here because this budget does not contain what our colleagues are saying. It doesn't assume a single change within Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security, for example.
▶ 0:27:10Is that correct? Let's clear up the record. Well, first of all, there Thank you, Madam Chair. there aren't specifics um because it would be inappropriate for the budget committee of either chamber to lay out the the the uh specific policies that would meet these targets. These are targets. Now, be clear, there will be reforms, whether it be on the tax code or in some mandatory program.
▶ 0:27:40There will be reforms to achieve those targets. There aren't specifics. The president and uh the leaders of our party have been clear. Uh there will be no cuts period to Medicare, to Social Security, which is exempt by the way from reconciliation or benefits to Medicaid recipients.
▶ 0:28:01What there will be cuts to, I can promise you without even getting into specifics, will be part of the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse that GAO has confirmed year after year, number one.
▶ 0:28:17And number two, there will be a reversal of President Biden and my Democrats spending spree over the last four years that aided added $8 trillion to the debt through programs like offering Obamacare to illegal immigrants by executive order or since they feel so strongly about uh in opposition to tax breaks for the quote rich, then they probably would join us
▶ 0:28:47in supporting repealing tax breaks for green energy corporations that not only enrich the corporate CEOs of these green energy companies according to their narrative but distort the energy markets make the cost of heating and cooling homes and putting gas in your cars more expensive for the working people.
▶ 0:29:12That's the nature of our mission and our focus and it is driven uh madam chair as I said in my comments it is driven by the fact that our current fiscal path and the fiscal state of our nation is completely unsustainable. So every program and whether it's Mr. McGovern's comments about uh anti-poverty or safety nets for food, nutrition or its infrastructure and defense.
▶ 0:29:42There ain't anything sustainable in this federal budget unless we deal with this uh growing deficit and national debt that is uh I believe the biggest threat to the Well, we have to figure out a way to say this more and more often because um the distortions of what's in our various budgets have been um
▶ 0:30:12very very troubling. So, your budget allows for needed flexibility to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And we know that after the tax cuts and jobs act, we had a booming economy. And we want to make sure that we get that booming economy again. But our Democrat colleagues have continued to state that these tax cuts drive up the deficit.
▶ 0:30:39Isn't it true that tax receipts have been going up ever since the TG TCJA's adoption? Madam chair that we had we we cut the corporate tax rate not to be the most competitive. We're probably in the top quartortile but we were the highest business tax rate of any developed country and in fact we put more taxes on our businesses than communist China.
▶ 0:31:10So, we did what I believe was the right thing to make our uh business tax rate competitive globally. And as a result, not only did we have billions of repatriated US capital come back to the United States, not only did we have record R&D and capital investment, record jobs, record low unemployment, six million people lifted out of poverty because all boats rise on the tide of prosperity.
▶ 0:31:39that was truly unleashed in the totality of our economic agenda with tax cuts being uh the lead dog in that sled. But I would tell you um the corporate the other benefit was we had corporate tax revenue at record levels record levels and uh so there was tre there was the incentive for growth investment and job creation and and revenue the treasury as a result and uh we need to continue that
▶ 0:32:10um growth. But most importantly, if we fail to act and we um acquies or seed to the opposition of our Democrat colleagues, we will put a tax hike of about $400 billion a year on this economy that will send it spiraling into a recession. And you'd put a 22% tax hike on the average American.
▶ 0:32:36That's after they had a 20 plus% inflation regressive tax hike from the last four years of Democrat policies. Completely unsustainable, unconscionable. And that's why we want to extend uh simply extend the tax cuts and jobs act. Yes. Our friends will never admit that inflation is one is the crulest tax on the lowest income people.
▶ 0:33:05And we suffered that mightily under the Biden administration. And we had practically no inflation under the first Trump administration. And so that's another thing that has to be debunked or explained to the American people that they suffered a huge tax increase under the Biden administration due to the high inflation that we had. So, let's talk about one other mistruth.
▶ 0:33:35Mistruth seems like a strange way to call it, uh, but we're trying to be polite. Um, so last time you were here, I asked you about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and things that have been said about it that have been debunked.
▶ 0:33:53Despite this, the other side states that the Trump tax cuts drove wealth towards the richest despite the fact that tax cuts went to families across the board. And we heard those comments this morning that this is all for the wealthy in our country. That that's all that a Republican that's those are the people that Republicans care about. No, we care about everybody.
▶ 0:34:21We care about the lowest income people in this country, which is why we do what we do. So, let me ask you again, isn't it true that the share of taxes paid by the top 1% actually hit new heights after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted?
▶ 0:34:48Um, yes, ma'am, Madam um Democrats u and progressive think tanks that made some of the same uh criticisms about tax tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor. Those were debunked and and even the Washington Post gave like three Pinocchios to to comments of that nature. Uh the facts don't bear that out. They bear out exactly what you said.
▶ 0:35:13the top 1% uh after we did TCJA, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, uh they the top 1% paid a greater share of taxes. Now, um I would also add that we have the most progressive tax code uh among um OECD countries, the most progressive tax code. Uh which is why the top 1% pay 50% of the bills uh in this building and and and in this uh massive federal government.
▶ 0:35:41And in fact, the top 10% pay 70% of the freight. So, you know, Margaret Thatcher was right. At some point, you just you run out of other people's money uh to do all these things uh that we think the federal government ought to do that I would disagree with. But know this, the the lowest 10% income earners actually grew their income and wages by twice the top.
▶ 0:36:03and the wealth at the lower end as a result of the tax cuts and jobs act and the totality of our economic uh policies as Republicans, the wealth grew at three times the rate of the top 1%. So, it was a success and especially because we had 6 million people out of poverty in jobs uh with the blessing and dignity of working. Thank you for debunking the things our colleagues have said and putting the facts out there. Mr.
▶ 0:36:33McGovern, you're recognized. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not as polite as you. Um I think this budget um is immoral. Um I really do. And I do believe everything I said. I think it helps the rich get richer. Um and it really screws poor people. Um but I I just in in in in um response to uh the chairwoman's questioning that somehow that uh there really there are no cuts in programs like Medicaid.
▶ 0:36:59Um I'm kind of beside myself that Republicans are still claiming that this budget that does not cut uh cut Medicare directly. U it absolutely does. It absolutely does. And you don't have to trust my word on it. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from the Hill entitled Republicans need to cut Medicaid to hit budget savings target CBO fines. Without objection, Madam Chair, what he originally said Medicare? No, it's a Medicaid as well. You said Medicare.
▶ 0:37:28It's a Medicaid. If I misspoke once, I mean Medicaid. Okay. Um, what this budget does is do is direct the committee on energy and commerce to come up with at $880 billion in cuts within their $880 billion. Now, Republicans want to be able to claim that there's no way to know at this point in the process where those cuts will come from. But guess what?
▶ 0:37:55If you don't cut Medicaid, Medicare, or CHIP, there is only $381 billion left to cut in Energy and Commerce's jurisdiction. So even if you cut literally every single other dollar, you're still at least $500 billion short. $500 billion. I guess I understand why President Trump suggested you all close your eyes before you uh vote on this steaming pile of Medicaid cuts.
▶ 0:38:24Um, Mr. Bole, do you want to You're complete, you're completely correct. Actually stole the took the words out of my mouth. In fact, you don't have to take that article's word for it or your word for it or my word for it.
▶ 0:38:38It was confirmed in a letter from the Congressional Budget Office dated March 5th uh to uh ranking member Frank Palone and to me uh and again everything else energy and commerce has jurisdiction over um only total $381 billion.
▶ 0:38:58So, by definition, there have to be at least half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, the largest in American history, uh, in order to to meet uh, the requirements of this uh, budget resolution. No. And um, yeah. So, I mean, yeah, we are people are scared, Madam Chair. People are frightened uh, because they know what's coming.
▶ 0:39:22Um, and with with these kinds of numbers, um, uh, there's no way to not hurt people who are who are vulnerable right now. Mr. Arrington, I appreciated your eloquent comments on the deficit and the debt. Uh, this is the second budget you're bringing to the uh, committee that actually increases the deficit by trillions of dollars. Um, is is this budget you're bringing today better than the House budget?
▶ 0:39:47The House budget is superior to the resolution to the Senate resolution without any question and mainly because they have a floor which is several singledigit billion dollars of uh spending reductions. Ours is one and a half as a floor trillion in spending reductions. And that's the only thing you can bank on enforce your eyes and vote for the Senate. No.
▶ 0:40:13Well, there's plenty of time to coordinate and to uh merge the best of both, but the best of of the House bill and what is completely superior and maybe even devoid totally in the Senate is the fact that we actually hold ourselves accountable for the most important and necessary thing, which is bending the spending. I'm just trying to understand the way you guys think. Uh let let's say I paid $18 per month for Netflix last year.
▶ 0:40:42Is it free to continue the subscription this year because I was already paying for it or is $18 still leaving my bank account every month? I would just say that um uh is it is it uh should we assume that in the next farm bill that that SNAP will continue at at hundreds of billions of dollars a I guess my question I I think it's pretty obvious that I'm I'm not going to get Netflix for free forever just because I had a subscription but Snap apparently is
▶ 0:41:12free forever according to We'll get into this discussion after I do this line of questioning, but let me try to put it in policy terms. Let's say your worst nightmare has happened. Democrats are in charge and and progressive Democrats are in charge and we enact a bill implementing Medicare for all for a single month. If we pass the second bill a couple of weeks later to make it permanent, does that bill have a cost of zero? I mean, have I figured out a magic loophole to make Medicare or all free?
▶ 0:41:43Could you you want me to answer that? I don't think that scenario is free. I don't think SNAP is free and I don't think tax cuts are free to be frank. So just know that my position Mr. McGovern, can I just can I just finish my my position has been that giving permanence to tax policy in comparable treatment to spending programs and policies I think is fair. But what I think is irresponsible is to not offset the deficit impacts on either.
▶ 0:42:13And that's been my position. But but this is exactly what Republicans are trying to argue when you use the current policy baseline to extend tax cuts for billionaires. I mean, you really can't make this stuff up. It doesn't cost any money this year because I'm just renewing the same thing that's already costing me money. I mean, really, I mean, I I I hope that fiscal conservatives in your party aren't aren't falling for this. I mean, it's kind of embarrassing. Um you know um let me ask you a question uh for you.
▶ 0:42:40Are house instructions binding on the Um the house instructions are b uh binding for the house and the house and the senate instructions are binding on the senate and but but the reconciliation policies uh will will will need to be coordinated and concurrent as we meet out the policym part of the process which is the reconciliation bill. And I'm going to read a quote, Mr. uh Chairman Arrington, the from you.
▶ 0:43:09It says, "So, uh, if if the Senate is simply using current policy to get tax cuts permanent while avoiding or skirting the responsibility to bring down spending commenurately, then that's a non-starter. So, you have to have a balanced budget resolution approach like we did in the House. Let's do solid economic policy, good fiscal policy, and ensure our country and our children's future is solid." End quote. So, you just said that over a week ago. You still believe that? and you know and and if um and and you know why are you here supporting a non-starter?
▶ 0:43:39This is what I'm quoting from you. I believe it more today than I did yesterday and I believe it more today than I did a year ago and certainly after $8 trillion of spending over the last four years. I oppose the notion that in the final reconciliation bill that we would have a deficit increase on the watch of a party that uh claims fiscal responsibility as a core principle and I will also stand by the house budget resolution framework
▶ 0:44:10that is a balanced budget framework. It offsets the deficit uh uh impacts of tax and other spending and brings the debt to GDP down which is the ultimate goal of restoring fiscal health to our country. So I mean we don't vote on notions around here. We vote on legislation. That's right. For the record, right? That's right. Uh let me ask you another question. You know, the funny math Republicans are trying to do here is clearly being complicated by the elephant in the room, which is the tariffs.
▶ 0:44:35I'm looking at an article from the Washington Post um published yesterday entitled Trump's tariffs could get in the way of this big beautiful bill. Um Miss Harrington, Wall Street analysts in this article say the tariffs are making a recession more likely which will depress consumer spending and coupled with these billionaire tax cuts will lead to lead to uh lead the economy to ruin. Um do you agree with the assessment? Um I I I will tell you this.
▶ 0:45:05There are a lot of wrongs that need to be made right. Uh there's a lot of unfairness that needs to be made fair. And one of the worst things we've done is allow China and other countries to um take advantage of us and in this unfair trade dynamic. There will be some pain, I will tell you, and disruption on the front end, but it our prospects for our kids and for the long-term future uh economically are are exponentially greater.
▶ 0:45:34And there's never a good time, Mr. McGovern, just like on the debt and the fiscal deficit, never a good time or an easy time to start uh bending the curve and riding the ship. We got to do it. It's the right and responsible thing to do. Well, I don't know how adding trillions more to the debt helps drive with any of the stuff you're you're saying, but I also say, you know, and you have more contact with the White House than I do, but you know what, a little bit of advice, tell them to stop having billionaires tell us um that we should be able to take the pain.
▶ 0:46:02Uh because the people who are going to be hurt the most by these tariffs, you know, are average workingclass people. Um, and I really I think they're beginning to resent being lectured to by a bunch of multi-billionaires who seem to know everything. And by the way, who life will not change for them at all. But I just want to say when asked about the budget about this budget resolution coupled with the tariffs, the chair of the JEC, Rep.
▶ 0:46:24Schweer said, and I quote, "How do you vote on it when you have uh different groups making up numbers on its economic effects?" Um, end quote. Uh, I mean, do you agree with uh, Representative Schweiters? I don't know the context to that except to say that uh, we need to be honest about the math on both sides of the aisle and we also need to have the collective political courage on both sides of the aisle to address uh, the the the massive math problem we have as a country.
▶ 0:46:53And I think it's fair to say based on what you testified to just now that we're not being honest about the numbers or the impact. uh you know and I I I think I am and if you ask me a direct question, I'll tell you a direct I'll give you a direct and honest answer. Right. But I mean but I mean I don't know how your opening statement um is consistent with the budget that you're bringing before us today from the Senate. I it's a fair question.
▶ 0:47:18It's a it's a fair question, but it's because the reconciliation bill is the bill that advances the policies that achieve these budgetary goals. I said the House is superior and that the House must drive and the budget targets and the principles and especially the balanced budget resolution nature should drive the reconciliation bill. That's why I'm here. Do I have concerns about the Senate? You bet. For the same some of the same reasons you've articulated quite frankly.
▶ 0:47:46And and let me just I mean you raised the issue of SNAP multiple times because you know it's a program that I feel very strongly about and I I respect that. Um, but the reason why I do uh is because it's a program that is about making sure people have some have the resources to put food on the table. I mean I mean we have 47 million people in this country who are food insecure or hungry.
▶ 0:48:10I think that's a national scandal and quite frankly I think making sure they get fed, making sure they can access nutritious food is more important than giving billionaires tax cuts. So we have a philosophical difference here. Um and again the the the way this program has been demonized I think is also a scandal. Again the vast overwhelming majority of people on this program are children are seniors you know are people um with disabilities.
▶ 0:48:35Uh and you know and and the benefit as we talked about the last time you were here is about $2 per person per meal on average. That's it. with the with the cuts that you're proposing um in your budget, it'll bring it down to about a$160. Um try to find a cup of coffee in this capital building for $2. Um and that's where you're looking at.
▶ 0:48:58Um I mean, not at not at loopholes that allow billionaires in this country to pay a lower effective tax rate than police officers or firefighters or, you know, or teachers. So yeah, that's why I feel very strongly about it and I'm going to fight with every ounce of energy that I have. Sure. To make sure that we don't increase hunger in this country. May I respond to that? You may. Yeah. Uh because I've worked I served with you on the uh a committee and and I know you're passionate about it and I totally appreciate that.
▶ 0:49:26I think all of us want uh every family to have the basic necessities for life and for flourishing. Do you think $2 per meal is an adequate benefit? I think you and I philosophically disagree that the federal government is the answer to every problem in America.
▶ 0:49:41And I think you think well but but but if you thought I this is my opinion but if you were as impassioned on this issue of feeding hungry working families or those families struggling who are looking for work uh who can work and still looking for work then you'd be just as impassionate about the damage done by the 21% increase in the cost of food and gas to get these folks to their jobs and to feed their families.
▶ 0:50:10So it goes all it has to be consistent. That's why I'm fighting against these tariffs because did you fight against this inflation? Were you as critical of the inflation tax? Co resulted in in a lot of the inflation. You don't think spending had anything to do with it? But right now it is Donald Trump's tariffs that are driving food costs up. I would just simply say, you know what, um the majority of people who are able-bodied um who can work who are on SNAP actually do work. You know, do you think they want to do you think they want to be on SNAP? No.
▶ 0:50:39they'd appreciate a better wage, right? They and we could work on if you want to work on increasing the minimum wage, I'm happy to work with you on that. But, uh, you know, work on a pay so people don't need to be on these programs, but quite frankly, work doesn't pay for a lot of these families. And anyway, um, but you think we could agree on on this particular um, since you've talked about Medicaid cuts, we've said no benefit cuts, but that's impossible. No, no, but let me let me let me break it down and just see if we can agree right here now.
▶ 0:51:07There's $500 billion dollar according to GAO over the 10-year budget window in waste, fraud, and abuse. That's the improper payment. Would you cut that or not? Yeah, I I I don't know anybody who's for fraud. Okay. But but let me but I I dispute those. Okay. But then secondly, you can't dispute this one.
▶ 0:51:26uh if we review the roles, the Medicaid roles and we just ensure that those who are not eligible legally to receive the benefit don't get the benefit so that the programs there for the most vulnerable that saves 160 billion. Are you for that? Yeah, I I I will just simply say I've seen this movie before. But do you believe that? And I think that and I and quite frankly what what what bothers me most about this budget is not just what it's going to do to our deficit, but what it's going to do to vulnerable people in this country.
▶ 0:51:55And I and quite frankly, I sat through a hearing yesterday in the ad committee on SNAP. I I know exactly where you where you guys are coming from. I thank you. I yield Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, uh you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 0:52:13I um I just want to point out that in 2020, we had a $626 billion trade and that by the time Joe Biden left office, that trade deficit had increased to 918 billion. And for January, Joe Biden's last month in office, our trade deficit was a record 131.38 billion dollar.
▶ 0:52:41We have to get the trade deficit under control. It's not going to come without some pain. We know that. But we weren't going to be able to just tell China, "Hey, pretty please, you know, would you reach an equitable balance of trade with us and then do it." None of us like the tariffs, but the bottom line is, uh, something had to be done to get the trade balance back in line or there going to be fewer jobs in America.
▶ 0:53:08So, I mean, I'm I'm hopeful that they lead to to good trade negotiations very quick. Um, I think it I think it had to be uh done. Um, and and I think that uh the right people in are in place to handle it. Um, that said, uh, Mr. Chairman, I want to go back.
▶ 0:53:31I mean, tax revenues, we have the highest two years on record, I believe, of the last two years of tax collections ever in the history of the United States. Is that correct? That's correct. And even though we had higher tax revenues than we've ever had, what was the deficit? Uh almost $2 trillion. Almost $2 trillion.
▶ 0:53:54And if that is not put under control, will the dollar maintain its position as the global world world currency? we will jeopardize losing the reserve currency for the world which is the coin of the realm uh for and the currency for our uh global leadership and influence central to it all. So So the Democrats are arguing that we're extending the tax cuts for billionaires.
▶ 0:54:21My understanding is that we're extending extending the tax cuts for everybody. Is that correct? That's correct. We believe in the principle of fairness. Everybody that's working hard and everybody that's a citizen of this country ought to get be able to keep some of the their hard-earned money. And Medicaid, they keep saying that we're kicking people off Medicaid. Uh but Medicaid has FMAP, correct? A federal match. That's correct.
▶ 0:54:48And it is actually the governors who determine who is on the Medicaid roles for the most part in this. Well, there are there are legal uh uh requisites for being quote entitled to this program. Um but those uh those uh requirements are often disregarded.
▶ 0:55:11Uh which is one of the ways you can actually save money and protect the most vulnerable and the and and pre preserve the sustainability of the program is not allow it to be gained by states.
▶ 0:55:25For example, California allows uh Medicaid dollars to flow to illegal immigrants um who by the way on a per head basis get more money in American social services paid for by the taxpayer than Medicaid recipients who are citizens of our country. And and I will tell you, I mean, and and to me, uh that's California. I'm from Georgia. I still personally believe the money should be block granted to the states.
▶ 0:55:51And as someone who served in the state legislature, we have a balanced budget uh amendment in the state of Georgia, as as all states do, it forces the state legislators to make those tough decisions. And um and if we if we if we had that at the level that we're at, we wouldn't be in the position we're in right now.
▶ 0:56:13Um, and I I would also suggest to you that if we had zerobased budgeting at the federal government, we would not be in the position that we're in right now. Mr. Scott, just to hearken back to the uh one of the many things that I'm sure are being considered in terms of how to make Medicaid run more efficiently and effectively for the people who depend on it.
▶ 0:56:38Uh you mentioned the block grant piece to to the fact that you could uh allow states to run that program and and even link the value of that program to medical inflation which is a which is a a higherity index than you you would actually turn the outcomes from going down to up for the most vulnerable and you'd save 900 billion plus dollars.
▶ 0:57:06So how much 900 almost a trillion dollars. So that just that example is all I'm saying shows you how much waste and inefficiency uh that program has when it's being run poorly run by the federal government. Madam Chair, this is um we have to get this trade deficit control if if we don't extend these the current tax law.
▶ 0:57:36I think we will have a a serious recession uh that will hurt everybody and potentially the dollar no longer be of the world currency. With that, I'm very much in favor of the bill and I yield. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott, for your attention to the time. Miss Scandlin, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, it's just after 9:30 a.m. Do you know where your 401k is? It's down. It's down.
▶ 0:58:05Stocks are tumbling again. Treasuries are off. Uh because just since midnight, Trump has added more across the board tariffs. The Chinese have retaliated and the European Union just moved 25% tariffs on US goods. So, the trade war escalates. Uh I had a town hall in my district last weekend and the turnout was overwhelming. Actually had several.
▶ 0:58:30Uh, since Republicans have all but given up on having town halls in their districts, I want to share what I heard from my constituents and from theirs when I've attended town halls in their districts. I heard from people who are terrified by the turmoil caused by Trump's economic moves, his disastrous tariff war, the layoffs, the cuts to programs that people rely upon. I heard from people whose retirement plans are hemorrhaging value. Folks who are scared about being able to afford basic goods.
▶ 0:59:00I heard from people who rely on programs like Medicaid and Medicare and SNAP and WIC to make ends meet for their families. All these peoples and their fears and their problems are victims of disastrous economic and government policies coming from the Republican parties. And it is not scare tactics when the truth is scary. You can't ignore the facts. So, in the past week, we've seen Trump cause the greatest market upheaval in recent memory.
▶ 0:59:30One that rivals the market crash caused by the pandemic. It may now be beyond it. And while trillions of dollars have been erased every night, we've heard nothing from Republicans in Congress. How long are you going to keep your heads buried in the sand while Trump burns our economy to the ground?
▶ 0:59:49To add insult to injury, our Republican colleagues are back again in rules committee today to force through a budget resolution that even they concede is disastrous, but it's one that hands tax giveaways to big businesses and the rich and pays for them by slashing fundamental benefits and services in our social safety net programs that millions of working families rely upon. These Republican policies are destroying our middle class.
▶ 1:00:17They're destroying our economy and they're destroying our strength and standing in the world. Despite 40 years, almost 50 years now I think of empirical evidence showing that these policy of robbing the middle class to give tax breaks to the rich are a resounding failure. Republicans are nonetheless trying to push through with this party orthodoxy. Again, these policies do not work. Trickle down economics does not work. It doesn't help the middle class. It doesn't create jobs.
▶ 1:00:47It doesn't increase business investment. And it doesn't grow the economy. What these policies do is allow billionaires in big business to pocket more profits at the expense of everyone else. And it allows our national debt and deficit to grow. It's because of trickle down economics that we now have the most extreme income inequality in our nation's history. But when faced with these facts, Republicans have no answers. So, what are they doing? They're making up their own facts.
▶ 1:01:18We heard uh stories about tax handouts paying for themselves. We've heard claims without proof that every federal program is burdened with massive fraud and abuse. They're now casting doubt on official budget data and making up their own fake budget scoring plan. So, they're trying to sneak around our budget laws with accounting gimmicks that hide the true cost of their budget plans.
▶ 1:01:45Even with these gimmicks, their plan will still cost trillions of dollars and add tens of trillions to the national debt. If they weren't cooking the books, the debt figures would be even higher. Time and time again, since the end of World War II, Republican economic policy has been disastrous for our economy. And it's always been Democratic presidents and Democratic Congresses that have had to clean up the mess created by the Republicans.
▶ 1:02:13Then, as now, Democrats are fighting to invest in working families, protect health care, and build an economy that works for everyone, not just the rich. But here we are about to go down the same road. Because at the end of the day, Republicans work for the rich. They work for billionaires in big business and everyone else is being left to fend for themselves. Now, when this Senate budget bill was released on Saturday, Mr.
▶ 1:02:43Arrington released a statement that said the Senate response was unserious and disappointing. And I have to agree, but probably for different reasons. Um, Mr. Bole, you spoke about the Medicaid cuts that are required by the budget plan put forward by House Republicans.
▶ 1:03:03And just to be clear, Medicaid funds medical care for seniors, children, and people with Now, we hear from our colleagues that they're not going to cut benefits. So, how do you cut half a trillion dollars from Medicaid and still not cut benefits? because the proposals I've heard have to do with capping Medicaid. So, saying that you only over the course of your life, you only get so much.
▶ 1:03:32Kind of like that insurance company a few weeks or a few months ago that tried to cap the amount of anesthesia you could get uh if you were having an operation. Um capping who's eligible, kicking people off the roles and limiting the amounts of benefits they can get. Can you talk about what these Medicaid cuts will actually look like? Yeah.
▶ 1:03:54So, first, uh, just to be clear, there's no question, as CBO has confirmed, there would have to be, in order to follow the instructions that are laid out in this resolution, there would have to be Medicaid cuts because even if Energy and Commerce cut 100% of everything else they have jurisdiction over, that would only get them about 380 uh billion dollars. So at least $500 billion would have to come from Medicaid.
▶ 1:04:22Now um a number of folks on their side including the chairman cite this $500 billion figure quote in waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid. I would point out GAO later revised their own estimate. Um they said it's $31 billion in fiscal year 2024 and includes things like correct payments with missing documents.
▶ 1:04:50In fact, JO's report explicitly states, and I quote, "Not all improper payments are the result of fraud." They further say, quote, "This estimate is not designed to detect or measure the amount of fraud." Just to be clear, if there's $1 in fraud, frankly, in any program, I strongly oppose that. I think that we should absolutely correct it.
▶ 1:05:15Uh I think it's offensive, frankly, to the people who follow the law and are law-abiding citizens, which are the vast majority of people in our country. Um but to say that, um there are, you know, uh $500 billion dollar worth of waste, fraud, and abuse, it just isn't.
▶ 1:05:33So the reality is that real working Americans will be deeply impacted by these Medicaid cuts that have to happen and yes are included in the bill before us. Thank you.
▶ 1:05:48And beyond that, when those cuts to Medicaid kick in, it's also going to cause our federally qualified health care uh clinics to go under because they're already on the line, which then leads to people having to go to the emergency room for ordinary care, which then impacts our hospital systems, and they're already struggling to keep up. Um, you know, Mr.
▶ 1:06:12made an impassion speech about the need to address the debt, but what would this bill really cost in any world? Can it be called fiscally responsible? And how I guess what would it cost and what would it do? This is a a deeply irresponsible piece of legislation that will clearly add trillions of dollars uh in in new debt.
▶ 1:06:37And you know, I want to um from some budget experts across the ideological spectrum. Um first, I mean, it was a joint letter from a number of budget experts again across the political spectrum, and this just ran on April 4th.
▶ 1:06:53Quote, "There is no point of budget enforcement if Congress gets to pick the score at once." There was another opinion piece by Brett Loper of the Peterson Foundation as well as Bill Hogland who is with the Bipartisan Policy Center and is the former Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee. Quote, "Using a current policy baseline would be a serious act of fiscal year responsibility.
▶ 1:07:19making it easier for either party to circumvent important budgetary guard rails, thereby accelerating the growth of our national debt by many trillions for years to come. And then finally, um Andrew Moland, who's the former executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, not exactly a left-leaning group, uh said quote, "Spending provisions should be debated on their own merits.
▶ 1:07:46Tax policy should de be debated on its own merits and budget scoring should be consistent regardless of which part is in charge. Trading away baseline integrity has the potential to be a monumentally bad deal not just for today but for every budget fight to come. I said this before and this isn't a threat. It's I think a common sense prediction.
▶ 1:08:12There is no question that if we set this new precedent of using current policy baseline, it will be used and abused by both sides to hike up our national debt for years and years to come. And I believe that genuine fiscal conservatives years from now will look back at this moment and live to deeply regret the opening of the door to current policy baseline. Well, I want to thank you.
▶ 1:08:39I've um greatly respect your expertise. You are very in the weeds on all this and and a real trusted messenger on it and I appreciate the data that you share with everyone on your House web page so people can look and see the impact of these various budget proposals in their region. So, thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Gale and Mr. Griffith. You're recognized.
▶ 1:09:02Thank you, Madam Let me say first that that this uh resolution just moves us forward into the process. And while I would have chosen a different path and have suggested a different path, that's all it does. We then come back and start looking at things.
▶ 1:09:22I wish and I I would hope that they might offer it uh online the sale of the Democrats magic crystal ball because I'm hearing numbers. I'm hearing things being said that just aren't happening. Furthermore, Chair, if they want to come back and criticize our final product, have at it. But we don't have that final product. None of this stuff is written into stone.
▶ 1:09:52And yet I'm hearing things about us kicking disabled and children off of off of food stamps, gutting Medicaid, etc., etc. And and none of that is on the table. Now, we are in Washington DC and we can have differences and numbers will will lay on the page and let you interpret them in different ways.
▶ 1:10:13in Medicaid as the chairman as chairman Harrington pointed out if you make efficiencies because when we're talking about a budget resolution and ultimately reconciliation we're looking out over a 10-year period and if you if you say that we're in with the hyperinflation because of the inefficiencies that we've had in Medicaid and I'm going to take a minute to explain that in a second over the last few years and and and for some time and merely
▶ 1:10:43changing that growth pattern slightly is somehow a cut, then I guess you can call it a cut. But it's not a cut. It's it's bending the curve on the in on the inflationary factors in Medicaid. And how we get into that, Madam Chair, is and I serve on energy and commerce, so we've been we've been looking at this and studying it.
▶ 1:11:04And how we get into that is is that because uh right now Medicaid is a you charge the fee, the state sends the fee to the federal government and depending on what your uh FMAP, what the federal government, state government share is in your state, different money gets sent. But but if it's an authorized uh expenditure, no matter what the cost is, federal government is paying its share, whatever that is, and it changes from state to state. In Virginia, it's 50% for regular Medicaid.
▶ 1:11:33of course 90% for Medicaid expansion, we automatically pay it. So there's no incentive for the health care providers, whether it be a hospital or the federally qualified health centers to find any efficiencies. And it's always hard to sit down and try to figure out how you're going to do We're looking at a lot of different concepts, but part of what we're looking at is is empowering the facilities to find efficiencies.
▶ 1:12:00And the cap just and and I think everybody's well-meaning in this, but to correct a statement that was made earlier that somehow we're going to cap your lifetime benefits. That is not even being talked about. I don't know where that came from. It's just a misunderstanding. The cap means that we're going to cap the amount per year per individual and then add to it an inflation factor.
▶ 1:12:27And because medical inflation in a whole, Medicaid outstrips medical inflation, medical outstrips the regular inflation, CPI, so that we're not trying to to keep in, you know, to make a cut by having inflation eat it up. Energy and Commerce is looking at medical inflation plus one or plus two. That has not yet been determined.
▶ 1:12:51And just capping the amount per patient that goes to a state or to an individual health care provider. That then gives the state and the healthcare providers incentive to reduce the extraordinary increases over a 10-year period. And so I guess we're back to that. If you cut the if you reduce No, let me finish.
▶ 1:13:19If we reduce the increase that is projected, not actually on the table right now, but projected out into the future, that's a cut. I I guess I mean I've never bought that argument, but then I guess you can say there might be in theory some reduction, but it's trying to make all of these facilities more efficient because here's what my hospitals tell me, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, and my healthcare providers.
▶ 1:13:50They understand that if we don't get the growth rate of the increases, not the basic program, but the increases and the fact that Medicaid inflation is outstripping all other medical inflation and CPI, the regular inflation. If we don't get that under control, the entire system will collapse at some point in the not too distant future.
▶ 1:14:14So what we're trying to do with this is both make the the government more efficient but also to make our delivery system more efficient. We're not trying to cut any benefits. We don't want to cut any benefits. We just want to make the system more efficient and by doing so we can find savings. Now if that's not what we do in the final bill, feel free to come after us.
▶ 1:14:40But the fact that people are afraid that we're cutting Social Security, as far as I know, not on the table. That we're cutting Medicare. I know that's not on the table. That we're cutting Medicaid benefits, not on the table. All we're trying to do is to make the system over a period of 10 years more efficient and create savings thereby. So that's that's where we're at.
▶ 1:15:02And so I've I understand that there's concern, but but people shouldn't be being scared that their benefits are going to be cut or that their hospital is going to close or that the federally qualified health centers won't be out there. Uh in the state of Virginia, my district has more federally qualified health centers than any other congressional district by far. In my district under Obamacare, I lost two hospitals.
▶ 1:15:33One has reopened. One has been able to reopen, modified and renovated, but and so it doesn't do everything it used to do, but it's still there. And before that, people had to travel because it was shut down under the Obamacare policies. Had to travel an hour to see whether they had indigestion or a heart attack. And now they've got a hospital back there. But so I don't want to damage any of that and we're working really hard to do that.
▶ 1:16:03But we also don't want the system collapsing somewhere in the notsodistant future. With that, Madam Chair. Thank you for your excellent remarks. Mr. Noose, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to our ranking member and our budget chairman. I have great respect for both of the gentlemen who are testifying today and appreciate their testimony. Uh, as you can imagine, Mr.
▶ 1:16:28Chairman, I have uh some questions for you and you deeply disagree with the approach that House Republicans are taking. First, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Miss Mary Gay Scandlin, described this, and I I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this right. So the resolution that you are here to testify in support of you have described as unserious and disappointing. Right.
▶ 1:17:00This is the bill that you want colleagues to vote for. What I would tell you is the Senate's attempt at matching the balance budget resolution of the House fell far short, which was disappointing. And I'm encouraging as we move forward in the process to the meat and potatoes of reconciliation, which is the policym side, that the House budget targets guide that. But you are correct.
▶ 1:17:29I I made this point. I'm not on the budget committee, so I want to make sure I'm understanding this right. I I We're going to vote on a resolution today, right? This is the resolution that the Senate passed. Am I That hasn't changed. That's correct. Okay. And that bill is a bill you described days ago as unserious and disappointing, right? It's not I mean, it's not a complicated. Those are your words. No, but I don't dispute those words.
▶ 1:17:56In fact, I love every time you say it, I want to say amen inside my Southern Baptist part of me wants to shout hallelujah. I don't know why you're voting for it if that's the case. Because there are two parts to the resolution in the Senate. There is the part that keeps our fiscally responsible framework for the House, which I implored my colleagues in the Senate to adopt in the upper chamber. They failed to do that. Okay?
▶ 1:18:20And all I'm saying is when we get to the combined reconciliation bill and the policies that will ultimately uh have effectuate the changes that's what should that the House should drive that I understand how you're rationalizing your vote on this. I'm just making sure it's clear for the record because I don't want to be there any ambiguity. I'll just again quote from this article.
▶ 1:18:44This is says quote this is from the Hill Arrington criticized the budget plan for creating $5.8 trillion in new costs. That's this bill you're asking us to vote for, right? I said 5.8 trillion in new cost with only a mere 4 billion in spending reductions that are enforcable. Got it.
▶ 1:19:09But I because I have a hard time believing that we're going to do more than what is enforcable and that which we are bound by law. Which is why the House is superior. The House is again I I recognize irrationalizing the vote. Just trying to clarify your perceptions of this bill of the Senate version. But the Senate version is what we're voting on. No, we've got two that's the I I admit I mean that's what we're here to meet.
▶ 1:19:36I admit it can be complicated for for some and I'm I'm not I'm not being uh demeaning but let me explain the complication away and simplify it. The House has a set of instructions that are fiscally responsible and it's a complete plan. Oh Senate are those binding on the Senate? Those instructions they are not binding. They're not binding. Oh interesting. Okay. So yes and that's the concern I express. I I hear you which is why I'm confused that you're voting for the bill. This is a very circular argument.
▶ 1:20:05On the one hand, I you get where I'm coming from, Mr. Chairman. You blast this bill as unserious and disappointing and as increasing the deficit, blowing up the deficit, $5.8 trillion in new costs. Then you make the case that well, in fact, there are instructions that the House uh has dictated and therefore that should anybody's concerns about this bill. But of course, those instructions are not binding. So, I I don't get it. I mean, I I I hear you.
▶ 1:20:31you know, you're making you're making uh you're expressing the concerns that I expressed um I think very accurately and there's still the there's still the concerns I have. So, the more you talk about it, the more I think my gosh, Mr. Nagus and I actually agree with the concerns that if the Senate's resolution were to guide the reconciliation process, I think we end up at a far less responsible outcome. Join me in voting no. It sounds like you're a no vote.
▶ 1:20:59I mean, I'm I'm a very I'm concerned for the reasons you articulated. Well, I I I I would encourage you uh if that's the case to join House Democrats in opposing the bill. I mean, it seems like you're almost there. So, anyway, I'll I'll move on. I want to talk a bit about, you know, it's I love having the opportunity to have the budget ranking member and the budget chairman here so we can talk a bit more about the broad. Why don't you pick on him a little bit? So, Mr.
▶ 1:21:24Arrington, um, you you posted this on X about a year ago. This is in August of 2024. It's a tweet and it says, "Nobody knows how to get an economy running like President Trump." You still believe I believe that President Trump's economic agenda, I still believe that. It's not. Yeah. And if passed his prologue, we're going to have a a redhot economy like we did the first. Let's talk a bit about the present.
▶ 1:21:52So would you what do you describe an economy running well as? How would you describe that? What would you I would say um would a recession count? is that I would say growing the GDP by almost an entire 1% in two years after deregulation, tax cuts, work incentives, good energy policy years because no in two years prior to co it's interesting that you've used two years as the marker because of course as you know every economist in the country is now predicting that
▶ 1:22:23we will have a recession if we are not experiencing one already. I I don't know that most Americans, like I'm not an economist, but I think most Americans, whether they're in West Texas or in Colorado, they wouldn't describe a recession as an economy running well. I mean, does that make sense? You don't disagree with that?
▶ 1:22:40I I I think the American people who voted um overwhelmingly and every swing state in support of this president said, "I don't want any more of the unbridled spending and failed economic policies of the Democrat party." with all respect and President Biden and the inflation that came with it and the increased debt that came with it and the depressed economy that came with it. It sounds like you're defending a recession. I I don't get it. Honestly, let's just level with each other. Let's just level with each other.
▶ 1:23:10I'd love to. Okay. If a Democratic president were in office Yeah. and we're taking actions that were causing a recession. You're going to tell me with a straight face you describe that as the economy running well? Let's be serious with each other. You know that. First of all, first of all, there's not a recession. There is the political courage to reset an unfair trade dynamic with the United States, which I hope you would support. Okay. So, right. I mean, market stock market collapsing, bond market in turmoil, recession on the horizon.
▶ 1:23:41None of that to you constitutes an economy that isn't running well. That's a fascinating I Yeah. No, it's that's a fascinating position to take. You know what's interesting? Okay. How about this? How would you describe a 10,00 point drop in the stock market? How would you describe it? I would say the stock market rises and falls. It's more sensitive to changes and falls. Okay. It's more sensitive to Can I just complete my thought? You answered it. You said rises and falls. It's a changes in policies and a tremendous shift. I think you would agree with the policies of the last administration. Okay.
▶ 1:24:10And uh where this president wants to take our is it a big deal or not? I don't I feel which which one? A thousand point drop in the stock market. How would you describe that? I think I think it's I think it's going to be a much bigger deal when the stock market over the long run improves along with this economy and along with the worker wages. That's not what you were saying last year. That's not what you were. Tell me what I said last year.
▶ 1:24:34So last year, here's a statement, a press release from the House Budget Committee, Chairman Arrington, on the drop in financial markets and the fiscal decline of the Biden Harris administration's economy. When the stock market dropped a thousand points several years ago, you rushed to bemoone President Biden's actions and and the economy that that he was presiding over. You condemned it.
▶ 1:24:59Now the stock market drops a thousand points every day for the last week and you claim it's the economy running well. Do you understand why that would be a tough argument? Yeah, but I can explain it to you. Yeah, I can explain it to you because you had consistently bad fiscal and economic policies that had a that resulted in persistently bad economic environment for the American people, mainly 40-year high inflation.
▶ 1:25:27So this is year after year, quarter after quarter and we're talking about the first two or three months of the pre of Trump's administration where we're transitioning from that from that failed agenda to one that's going to put us in a place of a stronger because you want to give him some time. I get it. So thousand point drop in the stock market, bond markets collapsing, recession on the horizon. At what point, let's say there's a depression. Yeah.
▶ 1:25:52At that point, would I be able to get your commitment that you'd say, "I don't agree with the president's policies." How how far are you willing to go? It's honestly, it's an honest question because we're we are likely to have a recession here again if we're not experiencing one already in the next couple of months. How much pain are the people of West Texas willing to tolerate? Is a depression enough? Well, I'm glad you asked me about my people because I can speak about West Texans. Um, they're thinking about the next generation of farmers and ranchers. Sure.
▶ 1:26:22And they know that the current conditions and relationship that is just completely and totally unfair will will bankrupt the farmers of the future. Secondly, Secondly, uh uh the people, it sounds like the answer is there's no limit. the the people I even answered the question. The people of West Texas will tell you the day you wake up and you have to beg another country for your food and for your energy like we have to beg for our drugs to be made and computer chips. You tell me what you would pay to avoid that for your children.
▶ 1:26:52And I know you love your children as much as I do. You tell me that there's no courage in this town to do what the president's doing. And we all recognize there's some transition and discomfort and pain. No one's denying that. what you describe as a transition and discomfort. Yes. Economists describe as a recession. Yeah. Well, job loss, prices going up, 401ks vanishing. That that that's what you I mean, I understand the words you're using. Discomfort, transition. Yes.
▶ 1:27:20Those don't mean much to the people of Colorado that I represent who are going to be the on the front lines of ultimately being impacted by the disastrous. How did they feel about the discomfort of the 21% uh uh regressive inflation tax? No. How did they feel about that? I shouldn't be asking you the question, Mr. Chair, but I always love our give and take. Okay. Okay. Let's talk about that. All right.
▶ 1:27:41I'd like to call attention to I understand Madam Chair. I I mean I respectful. Just call to your excuse me just want to call to your attention.
▶ 1:27:58I will not I will not belabor it but um I do want to talk about trade because you you referenced it chair and I and I don't I think you would agree trade is an important yes priority for the future growth of our economy 100%. Okay. Um do you agree with the president's tariffs? I agree with the reciprocal trade policies that treat the products of other countries the same they treat our product part of the reason why I agree with the reciprocal trade. Yes. You agree?
▶ 1:28:28Okay. Do you do you agree with uh the president President Trump's tariff formula? Like do you think it makes sense? Reciprocal trade formula the formula that he articulated earlier this week. Do you believe that it makes sense? Yes. Okay. Can you explain it? Yes. Explain it to us. the products from the United States that go into countries, the top 20 of which have twice the tariff and non-tariff barriers.
▶ 1:28:58Actually, just the tariff barriers, a 2:1 basically tax on our products. If you're talking about agriculture, it's 3:1. Those are the top 20 markets that we uh work with and compete with. Sure. And and so you understand that most economists, multiple economists described the formula that was adopted as nonsensical, as making no economic sense. And of course, the reason is because there are variety of different contributors to trade deficits.
▶ 1:29:26You concede that like like tariffs, non-tariff, including capital flows, including currency manipulation. Yeah. Comparative advantage, geography. So the formula they constructed is not one that's been defensible by virtually any economist. I disagree with that completely. The chairman's definition. Absolutely. It makes total sense that you would take tariffs, VAT and border taxes, technical and and and quota barriers, manipulation of currency, stealing our IP.
▶ 1:29:56At what point are we going to agree as Americans, forget party politics, when are we going to agree that we're not going to let other countries take advantage of this nation and to hurt our manufacturers? Have you seen how these tariffs have been received in West Texas? Man, these our guys get the sacrifice on the front end for our future and for their children. My guys are all in to support this president. And I say that unequivocally. Unequivocally, the articles I'm reading. Yeah.
▶ 1:30:24Fox West Texas tariffs expected to hit West Texas coffee drinkers, construction companies. West Texas soybean farmer expresses thoughts and concerns about upcoming tariffs. I understand cotton farming is big. Yeah. In West Texas, the biggest in the world. Biggest in the world. Wall Street Journal tariffs unraveled. Cotton prices. Boy, I mean, I the tune that you're singing and and that your colleagues are singing seems awfully different than certainly the farmers in my district that I represent.
▶ 1:30:53As you know, I represent a rural district in northwestern Colorado. And I can tell you that these tariffs are going to hit our community very, very hard. I want to just ask one last question. Yeah. And that because I know I've I I appreciate the chairwoman's adultness. It'll be my last question is simple. I appreciate that you engage in intellectually honest debate and your willingness to come before this committee and I think I assume you'd agree with me that debating these matters is really important for the American people. Absolutely.
▶ 1:31:24100%. I'm getting to it. What was that? I I enjoy the real debate as well. As do I. Uh, leader Jeff has proposed to the speaker that they debate on the floor the merits of this bill. Do you agree that the speaker ought to just do that so the American people can better understand the bill? I I believe debate is an important part of the democratic process. Will you tell the speaker so that he could accept Leader Jeff? I'll I'll share that and send your love and respect. All right. Might I yield to the gentleoman from New Mexico? Thank you.
▶ 1:31:53Uh, thank you, Time coming up after I wanted to just follow up. after the Democrat after we have a Republican speak, you will have your time. Miss Leisure Fernandez. Um, Mr. Jack, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to commend Chairman Arrington again for your thoughtful testimony. You are without question uh the leading voice in our conference as it relates to these matters. And I just want because we talked so much today about the state of the economy.
▶ 1:32:21I'd like for you to walk us through what will happen if our Democrat colleagues allow the Trump tax cuts to expire at the end of this year. Well, I'll hearken back to Miss Scandlin uh her comments about how these tax cuts are for the rich and uh and nobody else is benefiting from them and the in the porative context that she characterized it like a lot of my Democrat colleagues.
▶ 1:32:45And I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, but it's an insult to the working people who had a $5,000 um benefit that is 5,000 more in their pockets for median household incomes after the tax cuts and jobs act. Again, the working families in America uh had an increase in income and wages at twice the rate of the top earners after the tax cuts and jobs act.
▶ 1:33:15And as I mentioned before, wealth growth was three times that of the top income earners. So for my Democrat colleagues to oppose the extension of the tax cuts and jobs act, it will be a 22% tax hike on everybody. Miss Scandlin's district and everybody in in in my district.
▶ 1:33:35It will also cost working families about $1,700 after they've lost that's a year after they've lost $1,100 a month because inflation burned a hole in their wallets.
▶ 1:33:50So, I don't know how in good conscience anyone could oppose extending the tax breaks so that our country's economy can come off of high center, create better jobs and bigger paychecks, and provide the much needed relief to our families who have suffered through four years of spending induced inflation and record high interest rate hikes.
▶ 1:34:18So it's a in 90% over 90% of American families use the standard deduction. They would they would receive half of that deduction only half if my Democrat colleagues were successful in opposing the extension of the tax cuts. 40 million families depend on the child tax credit.
▶ 1:34:44And that would be cut in half if Miss Scandlin and the Democrats in this room were successful in blocking the extension of the tax cuts. The families with children in Miss Scandlin's district would take a a a child tax credit cut in half.
▶ 1:35:00And every small business uh they're about 26 million around the country, but every one of her small businesses would lose the 20% deduction in the provision of 199A that gives them comparable treatment with corporations and provides the incentive for small independent mom and pop uh uh operations in her district and mine to continue to grow and thrive in spite of the beatdown of the last four years.
▶ 1:35:27So, I don't understand the controversy and I I think most people watching and listening from home and everyone's district, not just Miss Scalin's are offended at the mischaracterization of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act after all of these benefits that occurred to the American people. Not to mention the six million people that was were were uh lifted out of poverty. I mean, what do you say to the six million people lifted out of poverty?
▶ 1:35:54And and where is the outrage from their passing the inflation reduction act that included what was scored by CBO as 250 billion in tax cuts to the green energy uh corporations but ended up being 800 billion in real cost.
▶ 1:36:14I mean, I'm just always in this parallel universe up here, but uh I agree there's uh reasonable and and credible disagreements on policy, but to just mischaracterize the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act when none of the facts that have been stated about the rich and how working families have have suffered at the expense of the rich, it's all baloney. It's BS.
▶ 1:36:44Just like the scare tact tactics that have been deployed for generations by my Democrat colleagues to scare us not to reform entitlements that are horribly inefficiently inefficient and fraught with fraud with the gentleman yield. So I can respond. I'll yield briefly. Sure. Thank you. Well, so the tax cut and jobs act did not increase wages, did not increase business investment, did not have a meaningful impact on job creation.
▶ 1:37:12The average working family only got about $1,000 off their tax bill, but the top 1% earners got tens of thousands of dollars off their tax. And our expansion of the child tax credit cut child poverty in half, but that expansion hasn't continued and is not projected to continue.
▶ 1:37:30So, I would just uh seek unanimous consent to enter into the record an April 30th, 2024 report uh the tax cut from jobs from I'm sorry, the Center for American Progress. Yeah, the Center for American Progress. Absolutely. Yeah. They were given three Pinocchios and they actually recanted their statement about these matters. So, the report is entitled the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Without objections, the document will be entered. but does not need to be read.
▶ 1:38:01Thank you. I'll reclaim my time. Um, and since you and I both represent districts that have a lot of family-owned farms, could you talk about the impact of family-owned farms and farmers if these tax cuts It it would be the death nail for them. Um, my farmers and ranchers, I think I suspect, are not any different than many in this room, Republican or Democrat, have suffered mostly with the spending induced inflation on their inputs.
▶ 1:38:29I'm talking about fuel and fertilizer and seed cost that that has made it almost impossible to break even, let alone make a profit. So the biggest challenge they faced is the in spending induced inflation from the last uh uh four years. They've also found it difficult to hire anybody because uh in the last four years the policies were to pay people essentially not to work who were capable of working.
▶ 1:38:58So we've had a labor shortage as a result. Um the pass through uh uh 199A 20% deduction is for predominantly small and independent businesses. Um family farmers uh probably 99% of them are passroughs. Uh that 20% deduction goes away after suffering historic drought and these input prices.
▶ 1:39:23you would have um you would have a a a nationwide problem with uh farmers closing their shop and and and uh it would be disastrous. It would be epic epically disastrous. So uh we can't we've got to give them some relief and some runway uh so we can get to a better spot alto together while we're reversing course on the failed policies of the last four years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:39:53And Madam Chair, mindful of my time, I just want to conclude some of our Democrat colleagues contend the tariffs are widely rejected by working-class Americans. So, I submit for the record a Newsweek article published yesterday entitled Key Labor Union backs Donald Trump's tariffs, something needed to be done. That key labor union is the Teamsters, which represents 1.3 million working-class Americans. Without objection, I yield Thank you.
▶ 1:40:21so very much madam chair for recognizing me. And uh I just also want to point out that with regards to uh the rules committee and the manner in which this is a place where we actually do get to debate the issues and uh the bills that will be going to the house floor and and chair I really appreciate your embrace of that debate your willingness to engage in the back and forth which does take time
▶ 1:40:52and in this rules committee I believe uh although I've only sat here two terms that there has been a strong practice and precedent of allowing the debate to go on whether it's 5 minutes 10 minutes or chairwoman Fox I understand that you actually uh debated a bill on the rules committee for nearly an hour on the affordable care act for 45 minutes on the budget reconciliation.
▶ 1:41:21So this this practice of having the debate I think is really welcome and and thank you chair Arrington for doing that uh and embracing that practice. Uh and one of the questions that I wanted to ask you was uh you said that a a strong economy would be about 1.2% GDP growth over two years. Is did I remember that correctly? I think that is what you said.
▶ 1:41:45I said President Trump in two years of his economic agenda along with unified Republican leadership took an economy that was 1.8 I think percent GDP to 2.8 in two years and reducing the tax burden was a big part of that but there were other uh components.
▶ 1:42:08I didn't we I what I heard was that you thought over a two-year period of 1.2 to but even that that was a growth would you think that a uh given that would you believe that a 3.2% 2% GDP growth rate would be uh a strong economy. Well, after eight years of President Obama and leaving the economy at 18, almost anything above that is an improvement would be a good strong economy based on what you've just described.
▶ 1:42:38Historically over the last 50 years, we've been at 3%. The last couple of decades. So 3.2 question 3.2 because of course five would be better than 3.2. Well, we haven't gotten five in a long time, right? And 10 better than five. We did get 3.2% under Biden. We got a 2.3 in 23 and 24. So, we have I think what's interesting is to say depending on who is the president, there seems to be a shift on on what our strong uh economies.
▶ 1:43:06But what we're here today to talk about, it's amazing what inflation can do to your economy. It's amazing. It's amazing what we are talking about with regards to inflation. And because that goes to exactly the issue that I think we are concerned about as Democrats is that we need to address the cost of living crisis for middle and working families. And right now the tariffs do the opposite. That we have not seen anything in this committee that I think really addresses that cost of living crisis.
▶ 1:43:37The tariffs are going through the roof in terms of what it's going to mean for us. And these budget tax cuts, they are going to give tax cuts to the richest billionaires. And they're going to be paid for by hungry children, pregnant moms, and the elderly in nursing homes. And it is indeed a moral moment because if we cut as the budget resolution says where it has all those reds, right?
▶ 1:44:03All the little red sort of cut by 800 bill 80 billion here, cut by 330 billion here. their cuts to education, small businesses, clean energy, infrastructure, and the biggest benefits are going to go to cash cuts for the rich. That's why I think it's really important that Americans know what's going to happen in your district. Yeah.
▶ 1:44:27Uh and uh Representative, West Representative Boreal, I am very appreciative of your gov because what you've done in this document is list out how many Medicaid beneficiaries are in each person's uh district, who's going to get the benefit of the tax cuts in the districts, what are the education cuts going to look like in the districts.
▶ 1:44:57And I think that making sure Americans actually see the numbers and not just the rhetoric is important. Why did you actually put this document together. Well, first I'm just so glad to finally get a question. Chairman Arrington's been having all the fun uh by by himself. But yes, uh again, it's Democrats-Budget.house.gov.
▶ 1:45:20Uh our budget committee staff worked incredibly hard to create this tool that everyone can use, whether members, staff, or the millions and millions who are no doubt watching us on C-SPAN. you can tune in to that website and use that tool because everyone should be aware of what the real world impacts will be if this were to become law. Well, thank you very much for doing that.
▶ 1:45:45And Chair Arrington, I want to go back to the issue of where the disagreements are within uh the Republicans right now about whether we should move this uh uh budget resolution forward. And you have I'm not going to go into uh the those who called it unserious, but what I'm understanding is that there are a lot of Republicans who are opposed because they want budget cuts and even maybe more budget cuts uh than what the Senate has sent
▶ 1:46:15over. Am I understanding that correctly? That's where that's where the potential no votes are going to come if they're not convinced otherwise. Fiscal conservatives concerned about the massive deficits and the wartime level debts would like to see enforcable spending reduction where we have literally trillions of dollars in waste, fraud, and unnecessary spending by the people's
▶ 1:46:46government. they they they trust binding targets more than uh these institutions of ours that have repeatedly under both Democrat and Republican leadership repeatedly failed our country and our children. So uh so basically they want bigger tax cuts uh I mean they want bigger bigger program cuts and enforceable program cuts enforceable.
▶ 1:47:11I have not seen anybody say they are going to vote no on the Republican side because they don't see anything in here to pro to protect Medicaid. And you know in the Senate in the Senate we actually had Republican senators who wanted to protect Medicaid.
▶ 1:47:33There were three Republican senators who voted on a bipartisan amendment to actually explicitly say they were going to pro protect Medicaid.
▶ 1:47:49Now, that would be wonderful if we would see four Republicans from the House willing to stand up and say, "We will vote no unless we have an explicit protection for Medicaid." Because it's not enough to say, "Oh, that's it's a scare tactic." because we have the CBO uh letters and reports that say there the only way you get to that number is by cutting Medicaid.
▶ 1:48:20And what's interesting, by cutting Medicaid, just for clarity, just for clarity, by cutting Medicaid, because you keep using, and I've heard it from other colleagues of yours, by cutting Medicaid, are you saying by cutting people who are cutting the spending to people who are ineligible? Are you talking about cutting uh the payments to illegal immigrants? Are you which what are you or are you referring to cutting benefits for for citizens of the country?
▶ 1:48:48You're talking about $880 billion worth of cuts to Medicaid. And maybe I will ask I would point out and madam chair I'd like to enter into the record uh that CMS report where they actually talk about improper payments their improper payments factory. So this is coming from CMS. Madame chair, I'd like unanimous consent to without objection. So in in this report, they actually do say that there are improper payments.
▶ 1:49:18It's about 5.09%. But this is what they state and it's very similar to what Representative Bole put in is of the 2024 Medicaid improper payments almost 80% 79.11% were the result of insufficient documentation. And they go out of their way to say these payments typically involve situations where a state or provider missed an admitted state of step.
▶ 1:49:46They do not indicate fraud or race. Representative Bole, what do you have to say to this claim that they're not going to cut services, it's just fraud and abuse and race? Well, both you and I now uh separately have quoted directly from the GAO report uh in order to refute the idea that uh this is all waste, fraud, and abuse or there's 500 uh billion dollars over 10 years. It's just not so. And and GAO uh made that clear.
▶ 1:50:16I I mean, just so everyone can have it the full picture, $880 billion of Medicaid cuts, about 8 trillion a year is spent by the federal uh government on Medicaid. So $880 billion worth of cuts would be about an 11% cut to the program.
▶ 1:50:36um to act like and pretend like there wouldn't be benefit cuts if you're making an 11% cut, $880 billion worth at least, uh which is in the House version. It's just not so there clearly would be benefit cuts. Um so we should be just honest with people and recognize that there will be a realworld impact.
▶ 1:51:02I had an event on Monday morning uh in my district with Catholic Health Services as well as uh in North Philadelphia. They were talking about the noble work that they do. And one of the women um speaking and this is part of of her ministry. Um she was almost in tears and getting choked up about the people who will be impacted if this bill becomes law and these Medicaid cuts happen. Uh and that's consistent with the meetings I've had in my district.
▶ 1:51:32It's consistent with the town halls we've had. It's consistent with meetings at nursing homes uh with federally qualitative healthcare news, the uh the uh American h uh hospital association. There is everybody who actually provides services and looks at these cuts and they're the ones who are on the ground doing this work are saying it's going to potentially shut down rural health clinics and it's going to really hurt.
▶ 1:51:59And I agree that we should always do better, right? If there is a 1% bought in use, which is a lot less than the uh what they're talking about, we should work on that, right? But if Medicaid were a patient and it came to the Republicans to get healthc care for a cold, Republicans sort of what they would do, it's like, I'm here for a cold. I'm Medicaid. I'm here for a cold. How do I fix this?
▶ 1:52:27Republicans would cut off your limbs and let you bleed to death. I mean, they disappoint for Medicaid. That would be awful. And I need to say, uh, Representative Bole, in one of my meetings at a at one of our health clinics, a mother came, her son is a hemophilia. He will bleed to death from just getting a scratch when he is playing in the playground.
▶ 1:52:57Medicaid pays for his medication which keeps him alive. There were tears in her eyes as she worried about his future. We had Democrats held a hearing about the Medicaid cuts.
▶ 1:53:15And there were tears in the audience's eyes as we listened across from administrators, from hospitals, from health clinics, and then from the parents of the children who rely on Medicaid to keep them alive. And so it is something that we should worry about and it is something worth fighting about. And it is not fear-mongering.
▶ 1:53:46It is fear of the harm that will be done to these families. And so, thank you uh for being willing to fight for this and for being willing to point out what will happen because Republicans need to listen to the fact that their own voters don't want this to happen.
▶ 1:54:09Republicans pollster, Trump's pollster has reported that a majority of Trump voters, Republican voters are against Medicaid cuts. Twothirds of swing voters are against Medicaid cuts. And what Freezia Ward said is it's because 40% of the people their families utilize that. It is a working family health insurance program.
▶ 1:54:38And on here you could go see Shriker's district all the people that will be hurt and Don Bacon who's talking about against this but I don't see him voting against it even though so many of his people will be hurt next door to me in Colorado 8 that district the number of people that will be hurt.
▶ 1:54:58I mean across the board people will be hurt and people in rural districts will be hurt more than others like my district where 75% of the women giving birth use Medicaid for their health insurance. So it is something to fight for. And with that I yield back my Oh, wait a minute. Do do you want some time?
▶ 1:55:33comment regarding the chairwoman's participation in 201 for 45 minutes you spoke in this committee 45 minutes I spoke for 15 time deal I I think I think it's time I think it's so that's the new rule in the committee I think 15 minutes gets it. Okay.
▶ 1:55:56And it's I'm especially I just for the record that's the new rule and when Democrats are in the majority I hope Chairman McGovern intends to enforce it because for decades the chair of this committee has never never shut down debate and the chairwoman spoke for hours 45 minutes on one occasion an hour on another occasion.
▶ 1:56:17in this committee we have the the dates and because I want to talk for 17 minutes I want an extra two minutes to ask the chairman a question that's but that's fine again another president broken so I'm happy to I think madam chair it's part of the debate that we're hearing I will tell I I want to say something I would be much more tolerant of what you are saying if you weren't distorting ing what
▶ 1:56:47this resolution does. And I I want to tell you I I believe we are held account we are held accountable long term for scaring people for something that is not in this bill. So, Madam Chair, because I think I still do have time uh still hold the floor, but I I think that this is exactly the reason why we need to discuss.
▶ 1:57:15You have a version and a perspective on this bill, but you and your nine Republicans on the committee can debate and can raise and can ask the questions. We have a different perspective and viewpoint on the bill, which we want to raise. And so it's it's it's precisely because we have differing viewpoints and I respect that your viewpoint is one. And so my my role on behalf of my constituents is to bring our perspective. Yours is bring yours.
▶ 1:57:44Well, if we agreed we Miss Leisure Fernandez, if you could go into this resolution and specifically you're cutting, as the chairman said, you cannot show that specific people are going to be hurt. Specific people are going to be hurt. You know, we could stay here all day and debate.
▶ 1:58:11I don't think it's a good use of time and we do are taking um time we're we're taking um we're making a record of the time so that we can show how much time is used by each side even though you are in the minority and and of course elections have consequences as President Obama told us a long time ago.
▶ 1:58:38So I I think it's past time for us to move on to the next witness, I mean to the next member. I just had a question how Mr. Roy feels about this and Mr. Norman because um they have rarely been constrained by five minutes or 10 minutes or it's not your time, Miss. It's not your time to ask a question. So uh and I what? Nothing. I'm just clarifying that. Yeah.
▶ 1:59:04So we So I'm not able to you're not going to recognize Miss Ledger Fernandez yielding me for a few minutes to ask Chairman Erin a question. Uh I'll I'll recognize Miss Leger Fernandez to continue to ask a question, but fairly soon again I think we need to move on. Can you tell me what the question you was going to ask representative? Yeah, I don't understand. You're saying I should give her the question so she can ask it. I mean it'd be a lot easier if you just let him ask the question. Are you yielding to Mr. I'm yielding to All right, Mr.
▶ 1:59:34Negus, ask your question. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And I thank my colleague from New Mexico. Chairman Arrington, I just want to drill down a bit on the last comments that Miss Ledger Fernandez made. And obviously, we've had a lot of debate today about Medicaid. And I I take it your position is one you've already articulated that you concur with some of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have who have claimed that there would be no cuts to Medicaid benefits, right? That's what essentially your position. Yeah. Okay.
▶ 2:00:04Um you're familiar with an amendment that was offered in the Senate to this particular resolution that was supported by three Republican senators, Senator Holly, Senator McCowsky, and Senator Collins to protect Medicaid. Are you generally generally? Yes, I am. I don't know the language specifically. And you understand that amendment Yes, I do. I can represent to you it. Republicans voted against it with the exception of those three Republicans and all Senate Democrats.
▶ 2:00:32If you have no intention of cutting Medicaid, then why not agree to the language protecting Medicaid? Seems like it would be pretty To be very frank, it's because and you're a friend. Sure. And she's my neighbor.
▶ 2:00:51But because you all have already in this hearing and for weeks if not months prior to and you will continue to mischaracterize making that program run more efficiently, rooting out waste and fraud, structuring the program to actually support the most vulnerable as a cut.
▶ 2:01:17And there's just I mean this hearing is a great example of why there's a breakdown in trust because Miss Fernandez just talked about the limbs of our citizens being torn off of their bodies and Republicans watching them bleed out. That is a gross mischaracterization. I think you would agree of what our intentions are.
▶ 2:01:41But that's the reason why we don't play these games about What I'm suggesting to you is Senator Holly and Senator Mowsky, these are Republican senators, they're not Democrats, have some pretty simple language. Yeah. Was it Medicaid benefits or was it That's what I'm asking. Medicaid. No, I don't know. I I'm saying you have we've committed to that. We have committed to to we're accountable for what we commit to and promise to follow through. This is my point.
▶ 2:02:07Why why you know you you make much of the instructions that you've that you've designed well give me a moment here and and the various ways in which you believe the budget ought to be structured and it just strikes me that the one quote unquote promise that you feel really passionate about today about with respect to Medicaid benefits happens to be conveniently the one promise that Republicans refuse to put in the text of the instructions. Why not? It would be pretty simple.
▶ 2:02:36You could tell the American public, look, we've got it. No cuts to Medicaid. It's I can tell you, but you all won't do it. I can tell you if let me just finish the thought process here because my friends and colleagues who happen to be Democrats will contort, and uh uh the the anything we uh on Medicaid or any other
▶ 2:03:06government program to serve the purpose, the political purposes of of using it as a cudel to beat on our our party, our colleagues, when in fact it it is simply addressing like I've said before the inefficiencies of program integrity. I hear you and I would just say I and I hear your criticism, but my point is and I watched it on display today. You all have been very crystal clear about a lot in this bill. Yeah.
▶ 2:03:36Right. And my simple point is I this notion that you won't put in the bill that you're not going to gut Medicaid because you believe that if you do so, Democrats will criticize the bill as gutting Medicaid. And so therefore, you made a decision to not put No, I understand. I don't mean you. But if we do, like I mentioned to Mr. McGovern, look at the Medicaid roles twice instead. Mr. Chairman, but I wasn't finished.
▶ 2:04:03I'm just simply suggesting you're a lot simpler if you feel so passionately about not cutting Medicaid benefits to put that in the bill. So, one question and I think it's time. Thank you. And I I I I uh uh I I will finish with this. Excuse me.
▶ 2:04:20Uh, Madam Chair, um, you know, this is the rules committee and we have a custom here of, uh, allowing for debate and and and and we are now, uh, dealing in an emergency rules meeting on a budget uh, that quite frankly we think has devastating impacts for the people we represent. And if we're not going to be able to have a a a thorough debate and be able to say what's on our mind, then I think we should we should move to ajourn.
▶ 2:04:50I move to adjourn. Let's um will the clerk call the role? The question is on the motion to adjourn. All those in favor say I.
▶ 2:05:20All those opposed, no. No. Ask for a roll Mr. McGovern has asked for a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll. Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. No. Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Hchen, Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern. Hi. Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scandlin. Hi.
▶ 2:05:50Miss Scandlin. I Mr. Noose. Hi. Mr. Nus. I Miss Ledger Fernandez. Hi. Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair, no. clerk will call will u announce the total fours eight ns the amendment is is not agreed to the motion to adjourn is not agreed to madame chair I believe I had the floor and I'll finish up
▶ 2:06:20I'm sorry miss uh I believe I had the floor and I will uh the the ranking members you yield back So, I just want to say, Chairman Arrington, that you I don't think you've heard anybody say today that we are against cutting fraud or abuse or making things more efficient. We are very in favor of making things efficient.
▶ 2:06:47We are against cutting the services that uh my neighbors across uh the border rely on that I know you care about. You know, my New Mexico citizens. It's a region. It's it's we separated by a border but not by values I believe. Um so that's why you know we will be asking uh for uh protections for Medicaid services. Uh we are not against improving CMS.
▶ 2:07:17We are not against improving efficiency but we do want uh very specific protections. We'd love to get four Republicans uh doing what the three Republicans did in the Senate, which is say just that thing. We will protect Medicaid services. We'd love to get four Republicans saying uh we want to vote on Trump's tariffs. If you're for the tariffs, you're for the tariffs. If you're not, you're not. Let people vote on it.
▶ 2:07:44We'd love to move these things to the floor of the House where we could have those continued debates on the floor of the House to let people vote for them. Uh, but it is about the services and it's about the people who we meet with every day that we care about. Uh, and that's why we're doing that. Not I can tell you that's why I'm doing that. Not to beat up just non- Republicans. No, I'm a very bipartisan person. Uh, you know, rules is differently, but most of my bills are bipartisan.
▶ 2:08:11I have a, you know, a high I have a lot of Republicans in my district. I'm a D3 district like it's a very bipartisan district. I work in a very bipartisan manner. So I can assure you that it's not it's to beat up on the policy, not on your part. Sure. So with that, may I respond? Sure. waste and it in all of its forms should be bipartisan.
▶ 2:08:36But when you all were running your partisan reconciliation bill called the inflation reduction act, I didn't hear one single recommendation. I hear you want to save. You say if you can find it, I'm with you. We're all for that. We're all for that. But I didn't see anything in the Inflation Reduction Act that talked about program integrity, rooting out waste and fraud.
▶ 2:09:01Not Not one uh jot or tit in that uh huge tax and spending bill. Um, I I also, by the way, after listening to the what I think is false and empty rhetoric on taxing the rich, how much did y'all raise uh how much did y'all raise the taxes on the rich when you passed the IRA? What did you do for the top for the billionaires?
▶ 2:09:27Did y'all raise their taxes to to pay for the price fixing on drugs or any of the other thing? Did y'all raise taxes on the rich? What did you do with the time? If y'all feel so strongly about this, where was the waste, fraud, and abuse uh reforms in the IRA? And where were the tax hikes on the rich? Uh I I that's why I find this to not be as credible of a debate as I would like it to be.
▶ 2:09:54I I certainly think there sincerely held views that differ, but when when I'm hearing about limbs being ripped off and people bleeding out and I hear we all care about waste, but y'all never put uh any provision that uh that deals with the waste. You expand the IRS by 80 billion IR agents and and and but anyway, I digress.
▶ 2:10:16I I just I I I I hear a lot of lip service a consensus around waste, but I see no action. And then when we try to take action, uh we are met with the same old scare tactics about people's limbs being ripped off. And I just it's unfortunate, but I'm undeterred. I mean, and I think my colleagues are too, just completely because we do have Medicaid beneficiaries in our district.
▶ 2:10:42And we want to fight to preserve for our vulnerable Americans this important program that they rely on and to ensure that it persists into the future for future struggling and working people that need it. But, uh, but we also have a lot of taxpayers in our district. You and I do. We share a border, but like you said, we don't share uh we share a border, but we have similar values.
▶ 2:11:08My folks and your folks in Eastern New Mexico want us to be stewards of tax of their hard-earned tax dollars. And for us to not talk about waste and not try to rightsize the bloat in this in this uh people's government would be a huge missed opportunity.
▶ 2:11:26And we miss that opportunity regularly because we hear the bylines and the mischaracterizations about what you just said and they're not true and we end up just perpetuating this uh uh massive massively inefficient government a at the expense of taxpayers who are paying the freight on all of it. That's unfortunate. Thank you. And and as we note that uh I think it was very appropriate for you to speak as long as you wanted on this issue.
▶ 2:11:55So it's often times that it's not we were speaking we were giving uh our our witnesses the time to explain their position. I appreciate that. I would say that we did receive over a billion dollars uh uh out of the IRA in tax revenue because of the audits getting going against fraud and abuse of those. So that's something that we were doing.
▶ 2:12:16So I think we have done and I would also point out that in the document that I entered into the record uh the uh Medicaid improper payment rate actually went down from 8.58% in 23 to 5.09% in 24. So there is actually documentation of an effort to increase the efficiency and once again this is improper payment which is not fraud and abuse but even that we need to make things more efficient.
▶ 2:12:46I would love it if we cut out some of the, you know, regulatory overburden so it was easier for people to get paid for the patient care that they get because the other thing we know is Medicare is one of the cheapest right providers don't get bet get Medicaid is one of the cheapest ways of getting health care. uh those who are willing to take Medicaid uh patients uh get reimbursed less than they do if you take a Medicare patient.
▶ 2:13:16They get reimbursed less than if you take a private insurance patient. So, we know it's a very lean and I'm very grateful to those providers who are willing to take the Medicaid. So, that uh patients because there isn't a lot of fat in that program. Uh but with that, is there anything else? With that, Madam Chair, I yield back and thank you uh for the debate and the conversation. Thank you, Miss Fernandez. The gentle woman yields back. Mr. Langworthy. No questions, Madam Chair.
▶ 2:13:46Okay, Mr. Roy, you're recognized. I thank the chair. Um, I want to thank both of the witnesses. Um, I want to thank you for, um, putting perspectives out there that I think are important to hear from both of you.
▶ 2:14:03Um I think I want to congratulate our chairman for sitting here being here um leading um and I think a difficult position and situation. The fact is, I think this debate lays bare why the American people have lost confidence in Congress because Congress has been failing them for decades and in particular in recent years.
▶ 2:14:34Both parties both parties are failing the people. Here we have laid bare the We have on the one hand, I believe, a responsible budget put forward through the work of our chairman on the budget committee and others that worked hard on that I believe credibly lays out a path to budget neutrality in what is supposed to
▶ 2:15:04be the process and reconciliation of dealing with tax policy and spending policy. I believe it is a credible place. We debated that independently. here. I don't need to go in the weeds on it, but it is broken down into spending reductions, tax policy that has revenue impact, and then assumed economic growth that makes up the balance in roughly two trillionish in spending reductions, 2.5 trillion in assumed growth for 4.5 trillion of revenue impact on tax
▶ 2:15:35Now, we're crit being criticized for assuming that growth at 2 and a half% growth, which is the sweet spot between a historic 3% growth and uh the languishing 1.9% growth we've been in for a while. And I believe that was a responsible path forward.
▶ 2:15:51But my colleagues on other side of the aisle want to politicize, very specifically politicize the fact that Medicaid is a part of that conversation and should be and must be because Medicaid is delivering subpar outcomes. Medicaid is not delivering health care that the American people deserve. Medicaid is costing infinitely more money.
▶ 2:16:16It has skyrocketed from $49 billion in 2019 to $618 billion in 2024. An increase in 51% in just 5 years. A third of the growth in Medicaid's 60-year history was in the last 5 years. It is going to be well over a trillion dollars by 2035. It this has been recognized as a problem from both parties and it's spitting out of control for a number of reasons.
▶ 2:16:42the majority of which stem from Obamacare's expansion population and the amount that we are now subsidizing the able-bodied which is empirically true that we have Medicaid expanded and going heavily to the able-bodied at the expense of the most vulnerable. We have rates at a 90% FMAP rate as compared with the vulnerable population of 50 to 70%. Which is out of whack and everybody actually knows this to be true.
▶ 2:17:13And yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to specifically and purposely politicize this. They want to make this all about taking away Medicaid benefits. What we're trying to do is figure out how to make the balance the budget of the United States get anywhere in the zip code of balance, which we haven't done for almost 30 years, 25 years.
▶ 2:17:34We have essentially moneyaundering schemes going on where states concocted these schemes using provider taxes and funneling the money, getting the federal dollars, using that money to then prop up and subsidize people who are here illegally, put it into their budget, and then they brag about it. California literally bragged about how they're scraping federal dollars on the back of scheme. Joe Biden agreed that that was true. who's literally quoted as saying it's a scam.
▶ 2:18:04Biden said the states are gaming the system. That's former Biden. So why can't my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just say, you know what, that's a problem. Let's come together and fix that problem. We can stop the process. We can fix it.
▶ 2:18:22I can go through a whole bunch of stuff on Medicaid, but my point is just there are legitimate solutions to Medicaid that would deal with improper payments of about a trillion dollars worth of Medicaid uh improper payments. We could make serious changes to how waste, fraud, and abuse occurs. We could end what is happening with respect to the moneyaundering scam.
▶ 2:18:44These are all things that we could do and save money and still try to retain what you need for the most vulnerable under the program. Now, I concur with the gentleman from Texas, my colleague from Texas, about where we should put most of these kinds of programs. I believe in civil society. I believe in state and local government. I believe we do better when we do it locally. I don't believe the federal government does it efficiently, and I think that is borne out by looking at the numbers and including the subpar care. And I'm not just making that up.
▶ 2:19:14Study after study talking about the extent to which Medicaid delivers worse care than alternatives. Studies have shown Medicaid expansion caused enrolles to delay care because appointments were not available. A study in health affairs found Medicaid patients experienced higher hospital readmission rates than privately insured patients. I can go through study after study, but we also know the money is being wasted. The fact is, of course, we should reform it. Of course, we can make it better.
▶ 2:19:42Now, that's on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I have to say something to my colleagues on this side of the aisle. You cannot have a one-way ratchet on tax cuts and ignore the spending side of the ledger. And my colleagues in the Senate for sure and some in the House on this side of the aisle want precisely that.
▶ 2:20:10The Senate budget does that. The Senate budget is all tax cuts and no spending cuts. Now, we're told, trust us, there's a promise. There's a promise of spending cuts. Well, excuse me if I don't trust Washington. Excuse me if I don't take somebody at their word that, oh, trust me, we're going to cut something. Just vote for this next thing and we'll cut it. Trust me. I've never seen that happen.
▶ 2:20:39And by the way, the math still doesn't math because all I'm hearing from my Senate Republican colleagues is, "Well, maybe we can get a trillion dollars of savings." That's what I keep hearing. All right.
▶ 2:20:52If it's maybe a trillion dollars in savings, and if the Senate plan through the use of the policy baseline and additional tax cuts on top of the top policy baseline is somewhere in the $5.5 trillion range, total 5.x X trillion of total spending I mean I'm I'm sorry tax cuts. Will somebody do the math for me? Because if you have a trillion dollars of spending reductions, which is what they're saying they hope to achieve. Oh, trust us.
▶ 2:21:20Even though we don't put anything in the bill requiring achieving the spending restraint, that by my math leaves a gap of $4.5 trillion, even if I take them at their word that they'll get a trillion So on our side in the House, we estimated $2.5 trillion of growth from tax cuts or associated with tax cuts and regulatory policy.
▶ 2:21:44Well, that to me leaves another $2 trillion delta by my back of the envelope math. That's a problem. So to my Democratic colleagues, we have a I believe responsible House budget, even if you disagree with it, where we should sit down and figure out how to savings, reform Medicaid to make it work better, eliminate improper payments, stop the gaming by California, stop the me the Medicaid money laundering,
▶ 2:22:15get the dollars going to the people you actually want it to go to. And to the gentleman from Massachusetts, make SNAP work better. whatever we can do as a responsible government, as Congress, we can and should do that. And to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, stop making up math. Stop lying to the American people that you can just magically put something on a board and say, "Oh, it all pays for itself." It doesn't. Put pen to paper. Get an eraser and a pencil and put it down on paper and come show me.
▶ 2:22:46And that message for me goes to the White House, to my Senate Republican colleagues, and to the leadership on this side of the aisle. Come show me the math. But I can promise you, while I will vote for the rule, out of respect for the chairwoman and the process, I will not vote for this bill because it is not responsible because the Senate instructions are what will carry the day. We all know that.
▶ 2:23:09So, it's all a joke because there's nothing limiting there's nothing limiting the spending on the Senate side and there's nothing but high side on the side. Mr. Chairman, have anything you want to add to that? I'm sitting here thinking about how I could add to it, uh, but I can't.
▶ 2:23:30Um, I can just say I I uh appreciate you laying that out in an intellectually way because we are at an inflection point and this is going to be the last opportunity and it's at a point that if we don't do what was done in the House bill as you uh laid out um in this balanced budget resolution format, um I think we're going going to consign
▶ 2:24:01our children to a very different future than than than what we've experienced in this great nation of ours. So, I I appreciate that sobering um framing of this moment at this stage in this process and what's at stake and I appreciate it very much. I'll thank the chairman. I yel back. Thank you, Mr. Roy. Mr.
▶ 2:24:26Norman, you're You know, I think this is a perfect example of we just we're in two different universes with our good friends on the left. They just believe government is the answer to everything and they believe that free is better. Um, and you know, when I hear their comments about caring for children, SNAP benefits, uh, I I I think you're sincere about that.
▶ 2:24:55But when I see the um what 600,000 children that came across the border unaccompanied, where was the care for where they're getting their meal? Where was the 15 million that were led in this country um to take advantage of every um every government agency given driver's licenses um not contributing to the social security fund?
▶ 2:25:25Where was that empathy to stop? Where was the empathy with those astronauts when in space? When Elon Musk offered to get them back, which he did under Donald Trump, they they they stayed there almost nine months when their bodies only could take two weeks. Where was that empathy? Um during the four years of the Biden administration, where was the um what cuts did they implement anywhere?
▶ 2:25:56uh would if they won't cut a person who has the bandwidth to find the the u the waste, fraud, and abuse. Uh if they want to cut a man like that to save lives, I don't know. We're just in a different place. And you know, to to say what my good friend said about losing arms and limbs, that's unfair. That's not fair to the taxpayers. That's not fair for the voters. But the voters get it. The good news is the 77 million people get it.
▶ 2:26:24And I do think that um you know so they're not listening to it but it's just it cheapens the process really. Um Mr. Darington the deficit in this country uh as of April 3rd is 36.22 trillion. If you do the math that Mr. Roy is talking about is 274,000 per household.
▶ 2:26:49If you want to if you care about the children, well, it's 499,000 per child on just the debt. Yes, sir. The interest exceeds our military budget of $890 Um, and if we don't tackle it now, face it now, um, I don't know when we're going to face it. And like Mr.
▶ 2:27:11Roy said what the what the Senate came back with, you know, $4 billion as opposed to the two trillion that your our committee came up with, that's 2%. 2%. And to trust us, well, you trust, but you verify. Put it on paper. Let's see the math on it. And they're just not willing to do that. Does this make any sense from a you don't have to from any business standpoint?
▶ 2:27:40If you take a government that has run up this kind of price tag, do you take them at their word they're going to do what they they they're saying? You couldn't as a private enterprise sustain the imbalance that we have in our budget, but you certainly as a private enterprise wouldn't propose uh enforcable savings in your in your organization at at a level that that is less than the debt you're taking on in just two hours
▶ 2:28:10of borrowing. That you couldn't do. Your board wouldn't let you. It'd be malfeasants. Um, I don't know if it's criminal, but you it's it's uh it'd be foolish. Pretty close to criminal because they send us up here to do a job and it's it's not uh every country that's failed has failed internally and we're well on the way to to to failing internally. Uh you can't fund the programs that my good friends on my on the left say.
▶ 2:28:38And if if you got a bankrupt government, they're willing to drive it off the cliff. and we're willing to drive it off a cliff if we can't lock it down to an agreement on two trillion. Think about that. That's that's a teardrop in the ocean to be honest with you. Yes, sir. And we we passed it with all Republican votes. No Democrats uh would agree to that. So, um and I and I I'm I'm going to vote for this to get it out of the rules committee.
▶ 2:29:07I will I will not support this on the floor. It doesn't make financial sense. Uh, show me the math. Show me not intention. Show me what you're going to do. Now, walk me through the instructions that the Senate whatever we we and we could have done a resolution to with our intentions to get it back over there. But from a timing standpoint, what's what's your opinion? Do we do you have a timing?
▶ 2:29:33What what's the rush on getting something back to the Senate now when they've waited over a month or longer to get us anything? I think it's always a combination when you're dealing with something this significant. I think everybody's referred to this uh piece of legislation is the most consequential bill that uh of our lifetime. I agree with that.
▶ 2:29:57If that's the case, I think you have to move with purpose and with a sense of urgency because time kills deals. I think that's true statement in the private sector. I think it's true also of this process, but you it's too important also uh to get it wrong.
▶ 2:30:18It's too important for unintended or intended consequences to set us back to a place uh where we never get out of the hole that we're in as a nation. The just trust us mentality obviously hasn't worked for either party because we are in war world war levels of debt in relative peace and prosperity. We wouldn't have 36 trillion of debt. We wouldn't have two trillion deficits.
▶ 2:30:47We wouldn't be paying 50 cents on every dollar in interest on that debt. more than we pay out now in benefits if we could trust these institutions to to fulfill u their commitments. That's why I prefer the House's uh resolution because it's binding and if you don't bind the politicians in Washington, you uh I think are naive to expect that you're going to get anywhere close to to the uh verbal commitments.
▶ 2:31:18uh which is why I'm imploring in this process to use the House uh uh bill as the north star as the guidepost to a responsible outcome not just for us but for my three children and the children and grandchildren represented here and I think I think that's a reasonable Well, I appreciate your hard work on this.
▶ 2:31:40I think um you know we're far away we're we've come a long way the house particularly with passing what you did on a 10-year balance budget. We did here. So with that and and Madam Chairman, out of respect for you, I I thought long and hard about voting against us in here, but that's really not my right to to deny the this bill to go to the floor and vote on it. So um but anyway, thank you for what you're doing and I yel back. I thank the gentleman. Thank you.
▶ 2:32:11Thank you, Mr. Norman. And I appreciate you're doing that. Miss Fishbach, you're recognized. Thank you very much. And and I don't have any questions. I just want to just sum up a few things. Um I think Mr. Griffith said it. Let's judge the final product. Let's judge the final product. Let the committees do their work. Let the process happen. And we are almost, as Mr. Norman mentioned, we are almost 37 trillion dollars in debt. and we have to deal with it.
▶ 2:32:39I think we can all we all can agree that that has to be dealt with and we have to look at extending the tax cuts because we're not talking about millionaires and billionaires. We're talking about in my district 77,000 families taking advantage of the child tax credit that they will see it cut in half if we don't extend those taxes. 55,000 small businesses in my district that will face incredible tax cuts or excuse me, incredible tax increases if we don't deal with 199A.
▶ 2:33:09And so I just want to bring it back to that perspective. And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you, Miss Fishbot. Miss Hal, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And in the uh spirit of uh being brief, I want to thank Chairman Arrington. I'm proud to serve on the budget committee with you, sir. Thank you for your hard work. and um for being here in defense of this uh budget resolution.
▶ 2:33:33Um one thing is clear I think we've learned is that no amount of spending cuts uh or reforms are are going to be approved by our friends on the left. Um not even four billion uh as we've seen in their rhetoric today. Um I associate myself with um Mr. Griffith and uh Miss Fishbach in their comments and um Madam Chair, I thank you for um your leadership and I yield back. Thank you, Miss Hchin.
▶ 2:34:03That ends the hearing portion of um this rules committee meeting. So, I thank our witnesses for being here. Uh Mr. Bole, um sorry you didn't get enough questions asked of you. I would have been glad to defer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member. fix that the next time, Mr. Bole. So, Oh. Oh, that's that's quite all right. I uh he'll get his he'll get his opportunity.
▶ 2:34:29Seeing no other members wishing to testify on the Senate amendment to H Congress 14, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleoman from Indiana, Miss Hchin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the committee grant a rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H Conres 14. The rule makes an order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on the budget or his designate that the house concur in the Senate amendment to H Conres 14.
▶ 2:34:58The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the motion. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of general debate. Hold on one second. Miss would you please take your conversations out of this room? It is not appropriate. Miss Hchure, will you please proceed?
▶ 2:35:27The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of general debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget or their respective design. Finally, the rule provides that each day during the period from April 9th, 2025 through September 30th, 2025 shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act 50USC1622 with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the president on April 2nd, 2025.
▶ 2:36:09Madame Chair, Miss Ledger Fernandez. Madame Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike section two of the rule for which presents the House from voting on legislation to repeal President Trump's reckless recent tariffs issued on April 2nd, 2025.
▶ 2:36:35U Madam Chair, as we've had in the today, Trump ran on the idea that he would reduce costs for Americans.
▶ 2:36:51And what we are seeing with the tariff wars that he has started and that Republicans are supporting with this rule is that it is a disaster for Americans, for farmers, for manufacturing, for families, for the world order.
▶ 2:37:19There is a threat of a recession and this is all impacting everyday Americans in a way that is disastrous. Republicans through rule are refusing to follow the Constitution which says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
▶ 2:37:46And we only need four Republicans, only four Republicans to vote with Democrats to review the tariffs and stop this madness. But Republicans think that they can stop time, can stop debate, and in that way avoid actually voting on the terrorists, actually debating on the terrorists, which is our job.
▶ 2:38:15The same way that we have debated now, we need a debate on the floor. Do you support tariffs that are throwing our economy into a recession? Do you support tariffs that are hurting our families? And if you believe it is good for farmers and ranchers, then say it. Then get up on the floor and debate that. But don't prevent us from having that debate. We only need four Republicans to vote with Democrats to stop this madness.
▶ 2:38:46so I move to strike that portion. And I now need to remind everybody that when you vote against this motion, you are voting in favor of the tariffs. We were voting to say that Republican leadership and as a whole supports these terrorists despite the fact that your constituents are suffering from the harm from these terrorists.
▶ 2:39:17With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Is there further discussion? Madam Chair, Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. I just want to point uh support the journal lady's amendment. Uh, but President Trump has started a needless trade war that will result in Americans paying higher prices for things that they need to survive, like food. Like food.
▶ 2:39:36And every American with a retirement account is worried because they're watching their savings evaporate before their eyes due to the turmoil in the markets that were unleashed by this uh unnecessary trade war. Farmers are wondering if they're going to be able to continue to farm their land. and a little pain as as the president warned may be okay for Trump and Musk and their billionaire buddies, but it will hurt the rest of America who don't vacation at Mara Lago.
▶ 2:40:01Republicans are doing everything they can, rigging the rules and rewriting time itself to avoid a vote on these tariffs. You know how deeply unpopular they are. So, here's a chance for Republicans on this committee to stand up for the regular people in your districts who cannot afford to pay higher grocery bills. Uh, and I hope uh the general lady's amendment will be made in order. Miss Scan, you're recognized. Thank you. I also want to speak in support of this um amendment.
▶ 2:40:29I mean, to be clear, Congress gives I'm sorry, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to impose tariffs, and in certain circumstances, Congress has allowed the president to do that, but Congress retains the power to end those tariffs. So, right now, the speaker and house Republicans want to have a rule to prevent the House from rescending Trump's tariffs.
▶ 2:40:56The Senate has already voted to resend some of the tariffs, but House Republicans are blocking Congress from doing a constitutional duty, which is to resend tariffs. So, U. Miss. Ledger Fernandez, am I clear that a vote against your amendment is a vote to keep Trump's tariffs? That is exactly what uh that vote would be. It would be a vote for the tariffs.
▶ 2:41:22And in essence, this committee is voting on behalf of all of Republicans so that we can never discuss and debate the tariffs on the floor of the House. It's almost as though our Republican colleagues are trying to hide from a debate about the wisdom and the impact of Trump's tariffs. If they want to debate the tariffs, if they we've heard some of our colleagues say they think it's a good thing, well, we should then be able to debate that on the floor of the House and decide.
▶ 2:41:52Instead, what they are doing is they are actually stopping time. Let's read this. provides that each day during the period from April 9th, 2025 shall not constitute a day. Right? They're saying that there are no days. You have stopped time. Republicans cannot stop time. The damages from the tariffs are happening every day.
▶ 2:42:20The damages from the tariffs are happening every hour. Look at the stock market generations. Look at what's happened to the bond markets. Look at what's happening. Do not believe you can stop time because the real world, the clock is proceeding. It's not stop time. Well, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this amendment. I think it is important.
▶ 2:42:43I'd urge a a yes vote from everyone so that Congress can exercise its constitutional authority and not hide from the impact of what's going on. And with that, I would yield back. Thank you. Well, as you know, we keep good records here in the rules committee, as you've pointed out today.
▶ 2:43:09And while it's well within the minority's right to cry foul on this rule, tolling the days on the latest national emergency announced by President Trump, they should really tread carefully on their arguments. I'd like to repeat some of my statements from the floor yesterday and a reminder about those who live in glass houses. This is a tool utilized by both Democrat and Republican majorities.
▶ 2:43:36Now, once again, during the consideration of 117th rules package, HRES 8, which was supported by every member of the minority in this committee, also quote stopped time end quote for both legislative and calendar days regarding a myriad of processes.
▶ 2:44:01As I detailed yesterday, these manipulations were put in place with no plan to sunset and maintained for 18 months in subsequent rules with continued support by our counterparts in this committee. You heard that right. Under your own rules, one day lasted 18 months in your view.
▶ 2:44:29Talk about time Additionally, the then Democrat majority twice block debating and voting on resolutions terminating the COVID national emergency as filed by Mr. Gosar. The language here today is not indefinite and has a clear end date. Sun setting after the end of September.
▶ 2:44:56unlike the blanket prohibitions on COVID resolutions. Madam Chair, Mr. McGovern, we just believe these tariffs are hurting our constituents. Uh increasing costs, the groceries, and everything else are not what our constituents uh want or what they can deal with. So that's why we're supporting this And Mr.
▶ 2:45:22McGovern, we not only believed at the time that the CO restrictions were hurting the American people, they've been proven to have done that. So, we generally work with proof as opposed to speculation. So, um hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 2:45:51In the opinion chairs, chair the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Miss leger Fernandez request a vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman, no. Mrs. Hchin, Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr.
▶ 2:46:21Griffith, Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Mr. McGovern, I Miss Scan, Scan, I, Mr. Miss Ledger Fernandez, I Mr. Roy.
▶ 2:46:51Madame Chair. No, Madame Chair. No. The clerk will report the total three yays. Eight nays. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there other amendments for discussions? Madam Chair, Miss Leure Fernandez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 2:47:20I move to add a new section to the rule stating that House Resolution 211 is amended by striking section 4. This amendment shall take effect as of included in the adoption of House Resolution 211. And I'll remind uh the public that uh this House Resolution 211 is where they snuck in the provision that prevents us from taking a vote on the Mexico Canada tariffs that were imposed by Trump.
▶ 2:47:51And once again because Congress refuses to even consider House refuses to even consider the impacts of those Mexico Canada tariffs which together with the global trade war that Trump has unleashed on Americans and the world, my constituents, world constituents manu manufacturing,
▶ 2:48:22ranchers, farmers, people's retirement accounts are being destroyed as we speak. Time is moving on and that time is not being good to America's fortune. I would point out that since Republicans stopped time, prices have increased. One dealership increased its truck prices by over 20,000. Groceries are going up.
▶ 2:48:48A planned $1 billion Microsoft investment in Ohio was cancelled because of the uncertainty and the likely recession. This is another opportunity where Republicans have the chance to say they are willing to stand up and vote against these tariffs or even debate the tariffs to so they can explain why they think they are good.
▶ 2:49:18my constituents and in headlines across the country, it's clear that our voters are against these tariffs. It only takes four Republicans in the Senate and four Republicans in the House to stop this tariff madness.
▶ 2:49:38I urge a yes vote on my amendment so that we can restore America's economy, bring down the price of groceries and increase manufacturing because this is not one way to do it. People are fleeing the country rather than coming with that. Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Miss Ledger Fernandez. Any discussion? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 2:50:08All those opposed say no. No. No. In the opinion chair, the nose have it. The amendments not agreed to. The um clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach? No. Mr. Fishbach? No. Mr. Norman? No. Mr. Norman? No. Mr. Roy. Miss Hchin. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. No.
▶ 2:50:41Miss Hchin is not recorded. No. M. Howin? No. Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scan. Miss Scan. I Mr. Negus. M. Ledger M. Ledger Fernandez. I. Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair.
▶ 2:51:10No clerk will report the total three yays, eight nays. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there any other amendment or discussion? Yes, madam chair. I have an amendment. Miss Scandlin, you're recognized. Madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. Will I move the committee make in order amendment 11 to the Senate amendment to H Conres 14 offered by representative the ranking member Mr.
▶ 2:51:36uh because of the limited notice provided by the majority, but it was originally authored by Representative Gyipol of Washington. Um she's listed as a co-sponsor. This amendment prevents the reconciliation bill from cutting Medicaid benefits and creates a point of order against legislation that would cut Medicaid. As uh Representative Griffith noted earlier, he represents the second highest number of people on Medicaid in his district.
▶ 2:52:00Nearly all of us represent over a 100,000 people on Medicaid and what we're hearing is that our Republican colleagues are behind wanting to cut it. So, um maybe everyone in your districts isn't helped by Medicaid, but I promise everyone knows someone who is, and I don't know why this is supposed to be such a great idea. Um if you don't cut Medicaid, Medicare, or CHIP, there's only $381 billion left to cut in Energy and Commerce's jurisdiction.
▶ 2:52:30So even if you cut literally every single other dollar, you're still half a trillion dollars short. So um if you want to prove to your constituents that you're not going to cut Medicaid, a yes vote on this amendment would do so. Back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Madame Chair, Miss Ledger Fernandez.
▶ 2:52:53Uh, you know, I'm going to speak in favor of the amendment which is similar to uh amendment number 23 uh offered by myself which would protect Medicaid services from pun funding cuts. As we've discussed earlier, it only takes four Republicans in the House in order to specifically protect Medicaid services. We saw courage from three Senate Republicans who offered an amendment to specifically protect Medicaid services from cuts.
▶ 2:53:24I'd love to see four House Republicans do the same and I am in support of Miss Scandlin's amendment. The gentleoman yields back. Any further discussion? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion chair of the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Ask Gandlin requests a recorded vote.
▶ 2:53:53The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fitchbach, no. Miss Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mr. Roy, no. M. Howin? No. Mrs. Howin? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Gerrifith. No. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Hi. Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scan. Hi. Scan. I. Mr. Nagus. Miss Ledger. Fernandez. Hi. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. No.
▶ 2:54:24Madam Chair. No. Clerk will report the total. Three yays, nine. The amendment is and the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Any other amendment? Madam Chair, Mr. McGover, I have two amendments. Um, I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 2:54:41I move the committee make an order amendment number 13 offered by myself which strikes the instructions for the House and Senate agriculture committees to reduce the deficit by not less than 230 billion and 1 billion respectively for the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034. My amendment is very simp is simple. It protects the modest food benefits that 42 million people in this country rely on. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, is our most effective tool to reduce food insecurity for families in every one of our districts.
▶ 2:55:10Donald Trump has spent his first three months in office wreaking havoc on our economy. And despite his promises and the promises of Republicans in Congress, they haven't done one thing to lower costs for regular people. The president's new trade war is about to send food prices through the roof. And what's the response from Congress? Cut SNAP benefits, which help regular people afford food. All to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Give me a break.
▶ 2:55:33Republicans voted in a lock step against a similar amendment I offered when we had our our our rules committee markup on the House budget a few weeks ago, but you can redeem yourselves here. You can vote yes on this amendment to help working people, kids, veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities afford food. Or you can vote no to fund more billionaire tax breaks while taking food out of the mouths of hungry people. Are you back?
▶ 2:56:04None questions on the inif. I say no. No. Mr. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Hchin, Mrs. Hchin, no. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith, no.
▶ 2:56:34Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, hi. Mr. McGovern, I Miss Scallan. Miss Scallan. I Mr. Noose. Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Mr. Ledger Fernandez, I Madam Chair, no. Madam Chair, no. Three yays, nine A's. I have a final amendment um to the rule.
▶ 2:56:59I move the committee make an order amendment number 12 offered by myself to prevent tax cuts for people with a net worth of over a billion dollars. During our last markup on the budget of this committee, I offered a series of amendments to prevent more tax breaks for millionaires or billionaires, which were all rejected by my Republican colleagues. Billionaires, quite frankly, don't need another tax handout. They are living large, flying from vacation property to vacation property on their private jets while working people are trying to figure out how they're going to pay their rent and afford food.
▶ 2:57:27So, here's an opportunity for Republicans to show the American people whose side you are on with Elon Musk and other billionaires, or do you care about working people having access to food and health care and school meals? A yes vote on this amendment will prevent tax cuts for the richest people on Earth. A no vote means that you want to reward the rich and powerful with more tax handouts while cutting programs working people rely on to survive. I yield back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 2:57:58Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair of the nose have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Roll call. Madam chair. Mr. McGovern asked for a roll call. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Hchin, Mrs. Howin, no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Lang, no. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr.
▶ 2:58:28Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, hi. Mr. McGovern, I Miss Scallan, Miss Scan, I. Mr. Mr. Nagus, Miss Ledger Fernandez, I Miss Ledger Fernandez, I Madame Chair, no. Madame Chair, no. Clerk will report the total. Three yays and nine. Then the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments or discussions? Madame chair.
▶ 2:58:59Madame Miss Leger Fernandez. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I would point out that the Democrats uh submitted numerous amendments would which would have protected programs that uh many on this committee and in in our districts think are very important and need to be stated. Uh I am going to uh have a motion to make in order a few of those which is amendment number 24 25 and six to the uh congressional resolution 14.
▶ 2:59:29Uh number 24 would uh following on what the ranking member did was say uh let's make sure that the reconciliation bill does not have any sort of selfdealing some self benefits. So it would say that uh the tax cuts cannot go to those making more than 750,000 who are presently working for President Trump.
▶ 2:59:55we should not be passing tax cuts that benefit uh the people who are pursuing those tax cuts. Uh we also uh my amendment would also make sure that we protect programs uh that would benefit Native Americans funding cuts and that the we do not increase the deficit with the with the proposed budget. So those report my amendments would do and with that I yield back.
▶ 3:00:20Madam Chair, any further discussion on the amendment by Miss Fernandez? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion, chair of the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Madam chair, Miss Ledger Fernandez. So, Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 3:00:44I move the committee make an order amendment number three to the Senate amendment Hcon Resolution 14 offered by Representative Ballant and myself which creates a new point of order in the House of Representatives against legislation that cuts Social Security benefits, increases the early or full retirement age or privatizes Social Security. Our constituents are as worried as they are about Medicaid and the tariffs. They're also terrified uh that we will be cutting social security.
▶ 3:01:14We have heard Republicans say that they're not going to touch it. This amendment would actually put in writing that we will not touch it. With that, Madam Chair, I back. Um, is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:01:44The Miss Ledger Fernandez has requested a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Hton. Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott, Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, Mr. McGovern, I miss Scanland. Scanlin, I. Mr. Goose. Miss Ledger Fernandez. Miss Ledger Fernandez.
▶ 3:02:14I madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. The clerk will report the total. Three yays. Nine A's. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Any further discussion or amendments? Hearing. No further discussion. The questions on the motion from the gentleoman from Indiana. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 3:02:44In the opinion chair the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. McGovern asked for a roll call. The clerk will call the role. Yes. Hi I
▶ 3:03:21Sledger Fernandez. Sledger Fernandez. No. Madam Chair. Yeah. I madame chair I the clerk will report the totals nine yays three nays the eyes have it the amendment is agreed to the motion to report is agreed to accordingly I will be managing the rule for the majority
▶ 3:03:52great Mr. McGover look forward to it. Without objection, the committee is