▶ 0:17:02The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Pursuant to committee rule 5V and House rule 11 clause two, the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote or the yays and nays are ordered.
▶ 0:17:26The committee will continue to use electronic system for voting for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills before the committee. Of course, should any technical issues arrive, which I do not anticipate, we will immediately transition to traditional roll call votes. Any procedural or motion related votes during today's markup will be dispensed with by traditional roll call vote.
▶ 0:17:49Before we begin, I'd like to let our departing ranking member Jerry Connley know that everyone here is is is praying for him. Our thoughts are are with him and his family. Um it's been a pleasure to work with Jerry Connley. We don't always agree. Uh but I will tell you I think he is a tremendous legislator.
▶ 0:18:19I think he is sincere about governing. He is sincere about trying to identify waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, which is what this committee is all about. And I think that uh ranking member Connley is a is a role model for what a a good member of Congress should be. Uh he fights for his what he believes in.
▶ 0:18:44Uh he's honest and uh he tries to do what he thinks is best and and we all on on the Republican side of the aisle appreciate and respect Rank Member Connley and wish him a a speedy recovery. Mr. Chairman, Mr. chairman over here. Yes. Yes. Would it be all right if I let us in a word of prayer, Jerry? Yes, please. We'll I'll yield to uh Mr. Burchett for a word of prayer for Mr. Codley. Bow our heads, please. Dear Lord, we ask blessings on our dear brother Jerry.
▶ 0:19:14We ask that your healing hand is upon him and his family. And we ask that you give wisdom to his physicians. And we just ask for his healing. And thank you, Lord, for bringing him into our lives. We don't agree on anything, but I love him like a brother. And I do, Lord. You know that. You know my heart. And I ask all these things in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Uh thank you. Uh now I'll yield to uh Mr.
▶ 0:19:43Lynch for Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Burchett, thank you for your prayers. Uh I want to thank all the members both sides of the aisle for your kindness and and and remembrance and prayers on behalf of Jerry Connley. Uh Jerry Connley is still involved here though. Uh so uh he is whispering in my ear.
▶ 0:20:08He is uh while I am in an interim position in his absence uh he is very much engaged uh on the reconciliation process and and and thereafter um his presence is still here and and I think I think he would have fully endorsed M the part of Mr.
▶ 0:20:33Burchett's prayer that that that called upon God to give wisdom to Republicans. Uh you know, ironically, we are here today on a hearing on federal employees. Mr. Connley has more federal employees in his district than any other member of Congress.
▶ 0:20:57So, I know it pains him greatly not to be part of this this But I I hope that his presence and his love and his longtime advocacy on behalf of federal employees has an impact on on this hearing and and on the votes that we will take during the course of this day.
▶ 0:21:22Jerry Connley was not only an advocate for federal employees, he he was someone who nurtured federal employees. You can see that in his own staff. He has many staff members that that the committee included that came from various parts of government that that Jerry had worked with over over 20 years.
▶ 0:21:47Uh Jerry, as as the chairman said, Jerry was he was a legitimate and is a legitimate legislator in every every aspect of that word. I've been working for with Jerry Connley for almost 25 years. Jerry and I have done codells to Iraq and countless codells to Iraq, Afghanistan.
▶ 0:22:08We've done investigations on uh the the uh Army Hospital, Walter Reed Hospital back in the day when we were fearful that they were not providing adequate uh care uh to to our wounded uh military and veterans.
▶ 0:22:26Um he has he has been a a real example hopefully to to both sides of the aisle and I just ask that uh his presence and his priorities and his spirit uh you know imbue all of us uh during during this process and again I want to thank you Mr. Chairman and and especially Mr. Burchett for his kind prayers on my friend's behalf. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:22:53Our next item for consideration is the oversight committee's fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to uh uh house continuing resolution 14. The clerk will please designate the committee print oversight committee fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14. Without objection, the committee print shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
▶ 0:23:23Without objection, ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the amendment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee print offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the committee print and the amendment.
▶ 0:23:47Today, this committee has a generational opportunity to fulfill its part of the Housemandated charge to enact reforms to benefit the American people. This work is part of a larger effort led by President Trump to fundamentally change how the federal operates. Last November, Democrats offered to provide quote more of the same.
▶ 0:24:13But the American people rejected that and elected President Trump to a historic second term. President Trump promised to change Washington DC and he has delivered on that promise during his first 100 days in office. House Republicans budget takes action to further deliver on President Trump's America first agenda.
▶ 0:24:37It provides the resources needed to secure our border, enforce our immigration laws, and deport criminal aliens. It grows our economy by reducing taxes for American families and small businesses. It encourages investment in the United States to create good paying jobs right here in the United States.
▶ 0:25:01It restores America's energy dominance by dismantling the radical left's Green New Deal scam and empowering American energy producers. Republicans budget restores peace through strength to provide our military with the resources it needs to protect our freedom.
▶ 0:25:19And our budget will make the government more efficient and more Today, we are considering reforms within the oversight committee's jurisdiction that reduce federal deficits by at least billion in 10 years. The cost reduction changes to the federal government, the committee will consider, are part of the president's vision for enacting his legislative agenda and pass significant taxpayer savings into law.
▶ 0:25:48Congressional procedure, precedent, and tradition too often contribute to an everexpanding federal government. While too little is done to shrink the administrative state or make the federal bureaucracy more efficient, the budget reconciliation process, while imposing requirements and some limitations on cost-saving measures this committee is considering, provides a rare opportunity to reverse that trajectory.
▶ 0:26:16The oversight and government reform committee has very limited jurisdiction to help reduce the federal budget deficit. Specifically, the oversight committee is empowered to pursue civil service reforms, including federal employee benefits and reigning in the influence of partisan and unaccountable government employee unions. Such federal employee retirement benefits far outpace the retirement benefits that most Americans enjoy in the private sector.
▶ 0:26:46The Congressional Budget Office issued an April 2024 report indicating that, and I quote, "Benefits for federal workers cost 43% more per hour worked on average than benefits for private sector workers." $43 an hour more.
▶ 0:27:03Furthermore, the CBO notes that quote benefits are also constituted a larger share of total compensation for federal workers, 40%, than for workers in the private sector, which was 30%. End quote. Worldclass employment benefits provided to federal employees are well known which can include 11 paid holidays.
▶ 0:27:25Various incentives and awards, health, life and long-term care insurance, flexible spending accounts, student loan repayment and forgiveness plans, generous leave and workplace flexibilities and child care, professional development and commuter subsidies. The simple truth is that a significant amount of the costs associated with all of these benefits are funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector and increasingly now federal government borrowing.
▶ 0:27:55The legislation before us today advances important budgetary reforms that will save taxpayers money. The proposed reforms also account for some unique employee situations brought to this committee's attention. We have therefore made some changes to avoid unintended consequences contrary to clear public interest.
▶ 0:28:16This includes key exemptions to maintain public services provided by certain frontline federal employee groups such as law enforcement officers, border patrol officers, air traffic controllers, nuclear material couriers, and firefighters who typically have shortened federal careers due to mandatory retirement rules.
▶ 0:28:35Taken together, these reforms will reduce the deficit by billion while moving us toward the more accountable federal government the American people demand and deserve. I now recognize my colleague, Mr. Lynch, for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:28:54The real reason we're here today is because congressional Rep Republicans have instructed this committee to target our federal workforce with approximately $50 billion in funding cuts, regardless of the impact on hardworking, loyal federal employees and their critical services that they provide to the American people. In just 100 days, we've witnessed this administration lay off more than 200,000 probationary employees. And we talk about generational change.
▶ 0:29:25We just fired we just fired the next generation of of federal workers, leading public health experts, veterans, and other critical positions. We've coerced well, the Trump administration has coerced 75,000 civil servants to resign.
▶ 0:29:43They replaced 50,000 nonpartisan civil servants with appointees and illegally terminate nonpartisan independent oversight by federal watchdogs, our inspectors general.
▶ 0:29:57This partisan bill threatens to further undermine the federal workforce by reducing the take-home pay, the benefits, and workforce protections of 2.4 4 million federal employees, most of whom are middle class Americans and a third of whom are veterans. Americans did not vote for Donald Trump to do that. He did not vote.
▶ 0:30:24They did not vote to have Donald Trump cut 80,000 employees at the VA who are taking care of our veterans. This is more the same, an unprecedented assault on a political purge of the civil service.
▶ 0:30:42If this legislation becomes law, almost every federal employee hired in 2013 or earlier under the federal employee retirement system or furs would see a nearly 4% pay cut by forcing them to contribute more to The federal employee retirement system annuity supplement, the monthly payment for retirees before they are eligible for social security at age 62, would be eliminated for anyone not actively receiving the supplemental payment at the time this bill is enacted
▶ 0:31:13or does not meet specific exemptions. Federal workers like letter carriers, VA hospital nurses, and food inspectors who've committed decades to the job and are eligible to retire would not be able to receive this vital payment to make ends meet.
▶ 0:31:29This legislation would also change the annuity formula to base most employees annual retirement payments on their highest five years of earnings instead of the highest three and outright theft of earned benefits that would cost each federal employee thousands of dollars per year.
▶ 0:31:47A particularly egregious provision in the bill would force any newly hired federal employee to accept at willill employment with no protections or face an additional 5% retirement contribution on top of the 4.4% already required.
▶ 0:32:04So firefighters, capital police officers, air traffic controllers, and other federal workers who choose to remain under the merit-based system with with employment protections would be forced to contribute nearly 10% of their paycheck towards retirement.
▶ 0:32:21At the same time that we're actually reducing the amount of that retirement, this legislation would also require current and former federal employees to pay a $350 filing fee for any appeal before the merit system protection board.
▶ 0:32:36So in order in order to exercise your rights as an employee under this system under the merit protection board, employees would have a would have to have to pay $350 to have their rights protected, which would create a financial barrier for employees seeking justice, particularly for low-income or recently separated workers.
▶ 0:33:00Despite the claims of this administration, federal workers are not leeches on the system, but they are hardworking, dedicated public servants who are paid about 25% less than their private sector counterparts. A strong nonpartisan federal workforce is fundamental to the functioning of a democratic government. These dedicated workers deserve our respect and so much more. Like most Americans, federal workers face increased costs for groceries and housing.
▶ 0:33:30And economic uncertainty because of President Trump's reckless tax and tariff agenda is undermining their economic position. The Trump tariffs are estimated to cost American households close to $5,000 per year. That would be the largest tax increase since 1968. And that is coming. That is Republicans are also advocating for a tax regime that will actually increase the federal deficit by more than $4 trillion. You talk about borrowing.
▶ 0:34:00In order to fund the Republican tax cut, they're borrowing. They're borrowing $4 trillion to to give a tax cut to some of the richest Americans. There's no fiscal responsibility in that. Worst of all, they're seeking to offset these costs by gutting 800 billion from Medicaid programs. My Democratic colleagues and I do not support that, nor do the American people. Oversight Democrats stand with struggling families.
▶ 0:34:28We oppose corruption and abuse of power, and we are committed to solving our nation's crisis without sacrificing the well-being of our country's civil servants. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work towards a budget that respects American workers and the vital services that they provide. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Gentleman yields back. Uh Mr. Chairman, chair recognized M. Norton.
▶ 0:34:58Uh I strongly oppose this reconciliation bill, including the committee's portion. Republicans are taking away Medicaid, food assistance, pay benefits, and protections for federal employees and other critical federal funding, and programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
▶ 0:35:23The Trump administration and Congress have launched unprecedented attacks on employees, federal contract workers, federal agencies, federal programs, the rule of law, and the Constitution, among other things. Most recently, the administration stripped federal employees of their collective bargaining rights.
▶ 0:35:47The administration and Republicans in Congress are trying to dismantle much of the federal government, gut the federal workforce, and fill federal jobs with political loyalists in violation of the Constitution, statutes, and regulations.
▶ 0:36:07Federal employees who provide invaluable services to the American people deserve praise, not derision, cruelty, fear, chaos, and illegal firings. These actions would and have deprived the federal government of expertise and experience. This harms the services of the federal government that the federal government provides to all Americans.
▶ 0:36:37Instead of attacking federal employees, this committee should be considering bills to support the federal workforce such as my bills to combat federal pay compression. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Uh chair now recognizes Mr. Turner from Ohio. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:36:59Um I strongly support President Trump's uh efforts and um voted for uh the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation effort in the House. Uh I will be opposing this committee's uh bill today. I gave this committee prior uh heads up prior to this markup of my opposition to this bill and sought changes to this bill.
▶ 0:37:23Uh, I do not believe that this bill represents Republican values and I don't believe that it represents American values. I believe that making changes to pension retirement benefits in the middle of someone's employment is wrong. Changing the rules, especially when someone has already been vested in their benefits, uh, is wrong. Employee benefits are not a gift. They are earned.
▶ 0:37:50When someone goes to work every day, um what they believe that they're earning includes the benefits both that they earn in their wages, but also the benefits that they are told that they are receiving. I have fought to try to get the deli saw retirees uh pension benefits restored that were taken away from them during the Obama administration.
▶ 0:38:13And I'm not going to fight to have one group's pension benefits restored and then vote to take away another group's pension benefits. Now, I understand the need for reform and certainly we can have changes that occur in benefits for new hires. We can certainly look prospectively, but I do think that for current employees to change the rules for people in the middle of the game is is wrong.
▶ 0:38:40Um, I have talked to enough people on the House floor that I do think that this will not be included in the final bill and that this bill ultimately will have to be changed if it's going to be included in the ultimate uh budget reconciliation. Uh, so I will be voting no and I certainly hope that the uh that this process as it goes through will be will be changed because I do not think that it is it is fair and it represents either Republican values or American values.
▶ 0:39:09I think that we as a party stand up for pensions and I don't think that we should say to the American public that we will that we will change someone's pension in the middle of the process of their employment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes uh any any Okay, Miss Crockett. Then Miss Luna is next.
▶ 0:39:31I actually just wanted to say that I agree something that I very rarely have an opportunity to do on this committee and I actually want to applaud um the congressman Congressman Turner for laying this out in a very plain way that is not about partisanship that is simply about right versus wrong. And I think as we go through reconciliation as a whole, we should be looking at what is right and it should not be about what somebody told us we had to do.
▶ 0:40:01It should be about listening to our constituents and doing what is fair and just. I think that that is who we are supposed to be in the house. We are supposed to look after the people that elected us and just do right by Americans. So honestly, because I very rarely get an opportunity to agree with someone from across the aisle in this committee, I just wanted to say that I absolutely agree. And it's not just agreeing, I agree for the same reasons.
▶ 0:40:30A lot of times when you see no votes on the floor, sometimes it's for completely different reasons. But this is about fairness and about doing what's right for people. And I think that we all on this committee should take a step back and as we go through this budget process, we should absolutely think about what is right to do for the people. So, thank you so much, Congressman Turner, for eloquently laying this out and I will yield.
▶ 0:40:59Uh, gentle lady yield to Mr. Would the gentle lady yield to Mr. Garcia? Yes, I will. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Mr Chairman, I just wanted to make some um some opening comments if you as well. Thank you. Um Mr. Chairman, thank you. I I also just want to start today and I want to thank um both uh our um both our ranking member, our interim ranking member and our and our and our chairman uh for the remarks on uh our ranking member uh Jerry Connelly.
▶ 0:41:26I also just want to add and send love and appreciation uh to ranking member Connelly. He's a mentor, I think, to all on this committee, and I know we all wish him a strong recovery and are sending his family a lot of love. Ranking member Connelly, of course, cares about how government works and has been one of the most effective lawmakers in supporting our federal workers here in Congress. And I just want to wish him and his family the absolute best. Now, I also want to start out today by laying out what's happening here today.
▶ 0:41:54Uh it's clear that the majority on this committee, most of them, uh are part of a massive effort to rig the economy against the American people. And I want to spell this out as clearly as we can. Here's the actual deal the majority is offering. 7 trillion in deficitbased finance tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country. Huge giveaways to Elon Musk and his friends. And in exchange, of course, working people will get hit with 880 billion dollars in cuts that will decimate Medicaid.
▶ 0:42:2480 million Americans could lose their health care. Low-income people, the disabled, long-term care for the elderly, substance abuse treatment are all on the chopping block. We also know that Medicaid covers 41% of all bursts in this country. Millions of women would lose coverage, and that's not a deal anyone should support. We should be a country where we take care of each other. Now, my Democratic colleagues and I actually believe in making billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share.
▶ 0:42:52We believe in making sure that hardworking people get healthare and food and an affordable place to live, even if it means standing up to the powerful. But let's be clear, the ripoff isn't the only thing that this bill does. Here in the oversight committee, House Republicans are trying to continue Elon's war on hardworking federal workers. They want to slash pay. They want to slash benefits all for hardworking public servants. Before coming to Congress, I was mayor of my city for eight years.
▶ 0:43:21We had over 6,000 employees. They were hardworking. They took care of their families. And I can tell you from experience, you can't build an effective organization without respecting your employees and providing them opportunities to grow. You can't also keep talent if you don't pay people what they're worth. This committee needs to stop supporting the Doge agenda and the Trump agenda.
▶ 0:43:45We need to say no to Elon Musk and Trump's attempts to sabotage the programs and agencies that people rely on. This committee should be investigating powerful people, not enabling them. We should take on and stomp the Trump agenda, not further it. We should be investigating the impact of tariffs. We should hold hearings on reducing the cost of living and issues that matter to all Americans. And we should stand up for the rule of law.
▶ 0:44:10We should be investigating the people who are profiting off our government, jeopardizing our national security and harming our country. And we need to stand up for working people inside or outside our government. We should defeat this bill and create a government that actually helps people. Thank you. And with that, I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. I now recognize to speak on the ANS, uh, Miss Luna from Florida. Thank you, Chairman.
▶ 0:44:37Um, first of all, I'm extremely proud to have this reconciliation package uh being marked up today. And I'd like to say that the language placed in section 900004 of this package specifically is a provision that I contributed to in the reconciliation package. And it's not about ideology. It's about the budgetary responsibility of protecting American taxpayers from uh spiraling entitlement costs tied to the federal workforce.
▶ 0:45:02So, first and foremost, for those of you who have maybe ever served, there was a point in time when the military had the option of and uh new incoming troops had the option of actually adopting the new retirement program. So, instead of just being 20 years automatic retirement, it shifted to something like a 401k.
▶ 0:45:18What this provision specifically allows is for new uh new hires to either opt into a traditional first protections where they have the option of increasing their personal contribution by 5% or if they choose not to uh having access to more a costefficient personal track. That's important because a lot of people are saying that this is somehow going to impact the current retirement system and that's simply not the case.
▶ 0:45:42This structure is going to incentivize and create actual uh actual um actuary beneficial dynamic changes for the treasury allowing the CBO to reduce the deficit by over $4.5 billion over the next decade. So I understand everyone here is representing their districts, their constituents. And what I can tell you is first and foremost, it's really important that the facts and the evidence is out there. We are not trying to attack people's retirements. In fact, we're doing quite the opposite.
▶ 0:46:06And if you have a runaway runaway train of debt, ultimately understand that that can impact uh everything from social security to these retirement packages. So we have to be phys uh fiscally responsible. Thank you, chairman. And I will also say this um unfortunately right now because of the amount of I think uh partisanship in regard to this topic, I think a lot of people are genuinely scared about Doge.
▶ 0:46:30And the fact is is that Doge is actually doing right by all of the American people by ensuring that future programs, future generations are not left on the fiscal hook of debt, but also to have the opportunity and access to the American dream. So I understand what everyone's um here is trying to do in regards to their constituencies, but it's very important that we have those facts out there. So thank you, chairman. I yield this time and I urge all of my colleagues not just to support this amendment, but also to to support this reconciliation package. Thank you.
▶ 0:47:00And does any other member wish to speak on the ANS? Miss M Miss Thank you. Um, Mr. chair. You know, I as I have said in this committee before, I have the honor of representing 27,000 federal workers who continue to tell me daily and weekly how traumatizing it is to be disparaged by this administration
▶ 0:47:30and congressional Republicans who continue to say that they are looking for waste and fraud and abuse and people who are not doing their Certainly in every uh workforce there are folks who rise above and go above and beyond and there are folks who don't but the the individuals who are serving our country the department of defense at Naval Base Kitap at the intermediate maintenance facility at Puget Sound
▶ 0:48:00um Shipyard are doing an essential service to protect our uh mission and our national security. We also have like everyone else postal workers and we have forest service and we have folks who want to deliver results for the American people but are feeling attacked regularly. And this bill continues those attacks.
▶ 0:48:29This committee is proposing to cut retirement benefits and pay for our federal employees so that folks like Elon Musk can have higher tax cuts. And you know, regarding section 90004 and you know the assertion that is giving individuals options for their retirement.
▶ 0:48:54What it does is use use the carrot of um not lowering your take-home pay to convince employees to to go at will and to lose the benefits that they have to challenge um workforce discriminations and decisions um that they would otherwise be protected from or at least have
▶ 0:49:26um have options to pursue corrections. You know, they're shifting folks from a from a regular employee to atill employee in this change of retirement benefits. And I think we can't let that be swept under the rug.
▶ 0:49:41you know, the stories that I hear from my neighbors, like a Federal Head Start employee for 23 years who got fired, she deserves the ability to pursue um to pursue an appeal, to pursue um being reinstated in her job when we know we have a child care crisis. Another of my neighbors in Shelton, a disabled veteran and the spouse of an active duty Air Force service member, lost her job with USDA.
▶ 0:50:08And the spouse told me the we are real people who are suffering and we just want things to go back to normal. And they're asking me to do everything I can to reverse what she calls a betrayal. I met with Forest Service workers yesterday. We're already having a hard time recruiting folks in to the Forest Service to be able to do the important thinning and maintenance of federal lands to prevent wildfires.
▶ 0:50:34and they have mandatory retirement early because of the dangers of their job as firefighters, but without these supplemental annuity payments, they're just going to lose folks into the private sector and other fields because the the retirement benefits are a big part of how we've been able to recruit and retain workforce into these important timber industry jobs.
▶ 0:51:02federal firefighters who, you know, work for Subbase Banger have the same issue. Under this administration's policies, we're already losing critical and talented workforce. And if my colleagues plow forward with the provisions of this amendment in the nature of a substitute, this bill, we are going to continue losing folks. But apparently the majority doesn't care.
▶ 0:51:31And the cuts to federal workers are just one piece of a larger bill that they're working on. A larger reconciliation bill that would cut $880 billion from Medicaid that will impact folks like my sister born with complex disabilities. I know how important these federal programs are to my neighbors, to my constituents, to my family, and to people like them. And I will do everything that I can to fight this callous and cruel policym.
▶ 0:51:59And I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield back. Gentle yields back. Chair recognizes uh Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ricking member. This committee print advances proposals that would slash pay, eliminate benefits, and undermine long-standing protections for federal employees.
▶ 0:52:27I stand with workingclass families. These are workingclass families and therefore uh I cannot uh support this proposal. It's as simple as that. It's not about a Democrat or a Republican uh talking point. It's about standing with workingclass families.
▶ 0:52:47This administration is systematically gutting the federal workforce and replacing dedicated civil servants with unqualified Doge representatives. Their abrupt and legally questionable um are undermining the great work that um that these employees do every single day.
▶ 0:53:15Um, and I think that as a as a rule of thumb, again, regardless of what letter is in front of your name, we stand with workingclass families. We we stand with um supporting and and um up upholding the values that make this country what it is, supporting our most vulnerable. And I think that's what this this committee needs to keep in mind.
▶ 0:53:46I yield Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition on the amendment the nature of substitute? Mr. Stanbury. All right. Well, good morning everyone. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think these uh markups are complicated and sometimes difficult to explain and understand because they get into technical details.
▶ 0:54:10So, I want to try to break it down a little bit and actually with our current acting ranking member maybe get a little bit into the details. So, let me zoom way out here to talk about the entire enterprise that the GOP is engaged in right now and to uh lay down some facts.
▶ 0:54:28So, first of all, what's important to understand is that over the last couple of months, the president has transmitted to the Hill a list of asks and they really uh uh focus on making permanent tax breaks that were originally put into place in 2017 that are about to sunset. So, these tax breaks are for billionaires, millionaires, mega corporations, and it's going to cost $7 trillion.
▶ 0:54:58And to pay for it, they want to try to offset some of those costs because our friends across the aisle are trying to claim that they're being fiscally responsible. But let's be clear, the math does the math because the offsets that they're seeking only add up to about 1.5 to2 trillion dollar. So if you do the math, 7 minus 2 equals 5. Which is why this bill, the big bill that we're talking about, does not actually reduce the debt or the deficit.
▶ 0:55:27it actually will blow a hole through it by increasing debt spending by $5 trillion. And when you add it all up over 30 years, we're talking over 30 trillion dollars in new spending for the United States government. So, first of all, don't buy the baloney that this is somehow going to balance the debt. This is going to blow a giant hole in the debt. Now, let's talk about what is happening in this committee. So, they passed the instructions out of the Senate, came back to the House, very confusing the Senate and the House.
▶ 0:55:55Republicans couldn't agree on which uh package to go with, so they passed it all. So, here we are now. Those instructions have gone down to each committee, and each committee now has to break it down in its own jurisdiction. So, this committee can only work on things that are in its jurisdiction. We're in the oversight committee. Our jurisdiction is overseeing the federal government. And so this committee has been instructed through those resolution instructions to cut funding to supposedly uh offset cuts.
▶ 0:56:25So where are they trying to find those cuts? They're trying to find those cuts on our federal workers backs. Now let's be clear. Over the last hundred year 100 days, Donald Trump has fired over 200,000 probationary employees. Over 75,000 people have been forced to retire or leave the federal government. And now they're talking about taking away significant retirement benefits and turning the federal workforce over to an atwill workforce.
▶ 0:56:56What that means is that they want to strip away the protections for our federal workers so they can be fired at will at any moment. Okay. So that is actually what is inside this reconciliation piece that's in front of the committee today.
▶ 0:57:15And if you do not as a federal employee elect to be at will if this passes, if this piece of legislation passes, you're going to have your retirement taxed essentially an additional 5%. So that means your pay is going to get cut unless you elect to be Is that correct, Mr. Lynch? That that is essentially correct. Yes, absolutely. Basically, what this package is doing is extortion.
▶ 0:57:44This is called extortion. This is in the vein of trying to say that they're going to balance the budget, which they're not because it's still going to cost the American people $5 trillion to pass this overall tax package for billionaires. And by the way, these these trillionaires are going to get an additional, let's say, 300,000 a year off of their taxes.
▶ 0:58:09While the rest of us are going to actually see prices go up with tariffs, the cost of living expenses, all of these issues, they're going to use this piece of the reconciliation package to further punish the 2.4 4 federal employees who provide your social security, who help with your VA benefits, who make sure that your Medicaid is taken care of.
▶ 0:58:35This is all about cutting federal workers, punishing federal workers, making life harder for Americans, and destroying the federal workforce. And I strongly oppose oppose in every single way every piece of what's in this piece of the reconciliation package. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the ANS? Gentle lady back. Any further discussion? Seeing none, u Mr. Chairman. Yes.
▶ 0:59:04Uh request unanimous consent. I have here a letter from the National Association of Retired Federal Employees in opposition to this bill. Without objection. So ordered. Now the I have an amendment. Yeah. We're going to start with the amendments. Chair recognize Mr. Lynch. Okay. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Yeah. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 0:59:32An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 is offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh first of all, I want to uh thank Mr.
▶ 0:59:53Turner uh for defending federal workers and and his own employees uh as they would be affected adversely uh by this legislation. Every member every member their employees will also be affected in a similar way. Every federal employee in their districts will be affected uh will be harmed by this bill.
▶ 1:00:17In the interest of the federal workforce that remains free of partisan influence and political cronyism, my amendment would strike the section of the bill that seeks to force new federal workers to surrender their due process rights and their employee protections and accept a new job classification as quote at will at will employees subject to termination for any reason.
▶ 1:00:40Now, as as a as a former union president and and as a labor attorney and an employment attorney, I just want to make sure people understand what Atwill means. An atill employee can can be fired for any reason or for no reason. So, so here's the president. He's trying to force everybody. Now, obviously, he would like to have partisans on his his side brought into government.
▶ 1:01:08The sad fact is that all those people can be fired for no reason, for any reason. So, it'll create this massive turnover if if people are even willing to come on to the federal payroll with without the benefits that they're going to get and with the uh with the changes that are being made here made here today. The bill before us presents incoming federal employees with the Hobson's choice.
▶ 1:01:33You can elect to give away all your rights, all your rights, all your basic job protections that prevent you from being arbitrarily fired and have your or have your retirement contribution rate go up by an additional 5% of your your pay. That's on top of the 4.4% that's already coming out of your paycheck. So it approximates 10% of your your pay.
▶ 1:02:00If you if you want your rights, if if you want to have rights as an employee, you you you need to you need to pay all this additional money and that's for the duration of your your employment. Alternatively, uh you can agree to wave your your employee rights. You you you basically uh first of all, every federal employee has to give up their right to strike. So even even if you wanted to stop work, you can't do that as a federal employee.
▶ 1:02:31You you statutoily federal employees are prohibited from engaging in strikes. So if you thought your job was unsafe, you got to keep working. You can grieve well be unless you you do this unless you give up all your your rights, then you need to shut up and keep working for less. and and your employer can just fire for no reason. For any any reason that comes into their head, you're gone.
▶ 1:03:00Considering that entry-level federal workers earn an annual starting salary as low as $30,000, the majority of new employees will essentially be forced to relinquish their constitutional and statutory job protections just to keep more income in their pockets for their families. Mr.
▶ 1:03:15Chairman, the primary response of this provision, excuse me, the primary purpose of this provision appears to be to advance the implementation of schedule F, President Trump's governmentwide plan to strip federal workers of their civil service protections, arbitrarily fire them, and replace them with political loyalists.
▶ 1:03:34This shameless attempt to politicize our federal workforce is already the subject of multiple legal challenges brought by a coalition of federal employee unions and pro-democracy advocates with the strong support of the democratic house litigation working group which I'm a member of the statute excuse me the statute governing the federal workforce the bipartisan civil service reform act of 1978 enshrined the merit system protection that federal employees should be protected against arbitrary action personal favoritism and coercion
▶ 1:04:04for partisan political purposes. Schedule F and the atwill provisions included in this bill fly in the face of that purpose. This provision is also an additional attack on federal workforce that out of duty already sacrifices critical rights enjoyed by their private sector counterparts.
▶ 1:04:20Every new federal employee swears an oath to serve the American people and carry out their public service now knowing that they are expressly prohibited by statute from participating any strike or work stoppages or asserting the right to strike and even belonging to a union that asserts the right to strike against the federal government. A violation is a felony and pun punishable by imprisonment. In closing, Mr.
▶ 1:04:46Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment to strike this egregious provision from the bill and preserve the dignity and the independence and respect that we all should have for our federal employees. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back and uh I recognize myself for a brief statement in opposition of the amendment. I do appreciate the length of the amendment. Just two words and a and a number. I I appreciate that. I'm sincerely do.
▶ 1:05:15I didn't have to spend a lot of time reading it, but uh I oppose the Lynch amendment number one, which would significantly reduce deficit reduction in the committee's legislation by over five $4.5 billion and result in the underlying print conflicting with our reconciliation instructions and comprising the legislative privileges. For that reason, I strongly oppose the Lynch amendment. Does do any other members wish to speak on Lynch amendment number one?
▶ 1:05:44Miss Miss Stanbury from New Mexico. You're recognized. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I would love to just ask Reset the clock, please. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I would love to just ask a few questions about the amendment. So, you know, again, zooming out a little bit. There's a lot to not like about this portion of the reconciliation package.
▶ 1:06:10As we said, I think it's an allout attack on the federal workforce and it kind of cuts at the heart of some of the major reasons why people stay in federal service because it is not only, you know, them serving and doing their duty for the American people, but also you are making sure that you have a good retirement, you're taking care of your family.
▶ 1:06:33Um, and also we want to make sure, especially, you know, one of the things that I think is really important for the American people to understand is that after Richard Nixon resigned, there were major overhauls done to the federal service because exactly because of the corruption and the ways in which Nixon, bless you, used the federal workforce and service to carry out his own personal political vendetta.
▶ 1:07:00There were major reforms in the 1970s to the federal workforce rules and laws because we wanted to protect federal workers from being used as political agents of whoever was in power. And so the idea of trying to convert federal workers to at will undoes all of the good government reforms that were put into place in the 1970s after Nixon to protect the federal workforce. Is that correct, Mr. Lynch? That is absolutely correct. Yeah.
▶ 1:07:30And and so it's really important to understand that that's why those protections are there. And the whole point of trying to convert people to at will is again to make it easier to make the federal workforce your political arm. And we don't want that. We're not an autocracy. We are a democracy. And we want to make sure that our federal employees uh are protected from uh the whatever whims of whoever serving in power. So uh I do want to ask though, Mr.
▶ 1:07:59Chairman, you said you opposed this amendment because of its impacts to the budget. Can you explain to me what how does uh not allowing uh federal workers to be forced into an atill situation affect the federal budget? We have budget instructions. We're following through with the budget instructions.
▶ 1:08:24We've been very transparent about what this committee was going to do within our jurisdiction of uh budget reconciliation. Uh this is our bill and it's self-explanatory. No, but I I don't understand how so Mr. Lynch's amendment is to strike section 9,000 90,0004 which uh is the provision about at will work. How does that affect the budget?
▶ 1:08:58The employees who choose to not be at will have to pay higher contribution Say that again, please. The the employees who choose not to be at will have to pay higher contribution rates. And and how much money are you saying this will generate for the federal or savings? The Congressional Budget Office says four and a half billion over what period of time?
▶ 1:09:30A decade. A decade. A decade. 10 years. Okay. So the idea here is that you Let me let me let me interrupt you. We're trying to No, Mr. Chairman, make savings here and and you all all you do is criticize you act like there's no time there's no fiscal crisis. Mr. Chairman, it's the gentle lady's time. It's I'm just asking the question about about the monetary offset of atill employees.
▶ 1:10:01So the idea is here that you're going to generate a few billion dollars over a few billion dollars. Mr. Is it million or billion? Is it million or billion? In 10 yearsion by taking away federal benefits and making the federal workforce fireable, undoing all of the good government reforms after Richard Nixon's corruption.
▶ 1:10:26I think that we just need to be I just want to clarify that's what saying. Cool. Okay, I think we got it. Thanks. I yield back. Any other members seek recognition on the lynch amendment? Mr. Bell and Miss Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the problem with this bill is that it doesn't offer federal employees a real choice.
▶ 1:10:57It forces them into a situation, which weakens the very protections that ensure fairness and due package is literally a betrayal of the middle class. And and as I said before, I think our litmus test is do our proposals support working families or not.
▶ 1:11:21In Missouri alone, these proposals threaten the rights, health care, and financial security of thousands of federal workers. And let's be clear, in my district, Missouri's first district, over 186,000 people rely on Medicaid. And under Republican budget plans, their healthc care is at risk.
▶ 1:11:43And so again, we need to stand with working-class families, and these proposals are an attack on working-class families. Is is pretty straightforward. Um, I would yield my time back to Rep. Stanbury if she or to the ranking member. I thank the gentleman again.
▶ 1:12:07the the gentleman is is on point with the first of all the impact of this on on federal employees and the the costs that will it this will incur in terms of performance at at the federal level. Right now we are in competition with the private sector.
▶ 1:12:32Uh but through loyalty through patriotism in in the case of the VA you know one about a third of our our workers at the VA are veterans themselves. When I when I go through the the Brockton VA in my district, which I do often, I ask them, I you know, were you in the military? More often than not, the answer is yes.
▶ 1:13:03And then they proudly tell me what branch of the service they they they were in and when they served. and and uh and they also express the spirit, the espida core, the patriotism and the obligation that they they feel towards wounded veterans.
▶ 1:13:22All of that is wrapped up in being a federal employee at the VA and and some of the other departments and agencies where federal employees work each and every day. So what we're doing is we're we're so the the president has proposed that we're going to go back to I think it's 1979 in terms of the number of uh people working at the VA.
▶ 1:13:48So he wants to cut uh people from the VA now because of the high number of veterans we have at the VA. out of that 80,000 people he wants to cut, that's what his his budget anticipates, 27,000 of the people that he's firing at the VA are veterans themselves. So, so this all of this this this bill here today is just in furtherance of that same mission.
▶ 1:14:18And again, I I I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio, uh, Mr. Turner, standing up for his workers at the VA. I just hope every every member here is willing to do that. I I understand the the the the goal of of of of savings and and of balancing the budget, but this is not the way you do it. You don't go after people at the VA.
▶ 1:14:42you know, we we had the inspector general for the VA do a whole survey of of every single so there are like 86 major uh medical centers, the VA medical centers across the country. And and we asked him, give us a give us a report card on how we're doing with our veterans. He came back and he said two things. He said, number one, 80% of the hospitals that I've visited need a medical director. you need to hire a medical director.
▶ 1:15:12He said 86% of the hospitals that I visited, you you need more nurses. They are the backbone of our health care system. So what did Mr. Trump do first day in Announced 2400 cuts, 2400 people laid off at the VA and 80,000 more to come.
▶ 1:15:33So our veterans are waiting longer for there are fewer people caring for them and and this bill this bill is in furtherance of that same mission. So, uh there are we used to agree on on stuff on veterans. We don't anymore and I I I miss the support that we used to have bipartisanship for for our veterans. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Uh any other members seek recognition on Lynch amendment number one? Miss Crockett from Texas. Thank you so much, Mr.
▶ 1:16:04Chair. you know, walking in today, um, I didn't really know how I felt or or what I would do because as people ask me about how I can get so passionate in this committee about certain topics, I recently had an opportunity to talk to a group of people in Las Vegas, actually last weekend, and there was a woman who was almost in tears as she told me about the number of family members that have
▶ 1:16:34been fired from the federal government and she said, "Rep. Crockett, you give us so much hope and I don't understand how people are so callous towards federal workers." And I explained to her, I can't really understand the callousness either, but I can tell you that my passion lies in the fact that my mother has given almost 40 years to the federal government. In March, it would be 40 years that my mom has worked for Department of Defense. She's worked for Navy.
▶ 1:17:04She's worked at Walter Reed. She's worked for the IRS. She has worked for Ariccom. She has worked for the post office. And doing that hard, honest work as as we consistently attack federal workers. We call them lazy. We call them dumb. We try to pretend as if they are not taking care of the very people that elected us.
▶ 1:17:29But my mom graduated from college at Washington University at the age of 19 after receiving a full ride. And she decided that what she would do is dedicate her life to this country. And I wish that we would find an ounce of courage that my mom and so many other federal workers have and just decide that we are going to dedicate ourselves to service and not just say that we are public servants but actually do the work of being public servants.
▶ 1:18:00So let me tell you that this amendment is not going to do anything that y'all claim it's going to do. You claim that this is about money when honestly, as far as I can tell, this is only an admission that what has been done under this administration has been unlawful the entire time.
▶ 1:18:18This is only an avenue to make sure that when and if another rogue tyrant decides that they want to enter the White House, they can go and get rid of as many people as they want to and they will not have any recourse in the courts. The fact that you had to put this in here tells me that y'all absolutely know that these firings of these workers has been unlawful. And honestly, it has been simply inconvenient for so many of you.
▶ 1:18:47But I can tell you that the only people that are going to hurt are the people that you're servicing. Even if you can tell me that the CBO tells us that there may be, they could tell me it's 50 billion dollars or however many billions of dollars over a number of years, what the CBO is not telling us is how many people are not going to get their social security. How many people may die because they don't get the services that they need at the VA? How many people are not going to get their SNAP benefits because there's not going to be anybody there?
▶ 1:19:18As we have had hearing after hearing about people complaining about the post office and not receiving their mail, which so many of our seniors rely on their checks to come through the mail to make sure that they can keep a roof over their head. That's the part of the story that the CBO numbers are not going to tell. And the last time that I checked, no matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican, you've got somebody in your district that is relying on these This is about hurting people.
▶ 1:19:48This is about getting rid of people that are too inconvenient for an administration that doesn't want to keep our food safe at the FDA as they are firing people. This is about an administration that doesn't want to have any oversight or anybody reporting back and telling you that our food is unsafe, telling you about the diseases that are coming through and basically talking about the overall incompetence.
▶ 1:20:15If you don't have anybody that's at work, then yes, you don't have to worry about whether or not people who say are trying to go and get an education whether or not they're going to actually be able to fill out their FAFSA and get that funding that they need. So, at the end of the day, if you can't really explain to me how this is going to help your constituents, I don't understand why we are talking about it. Because again, we weren't elected by Donald Trump or JD Vance or Elon Musk.
▶ 1:20:43We were elected by the people of our districts and those are the only people that we should be discussing as it relates to the policy changes that we bring about in this committee. And I will yield. Does any other members seek recognition on Lynch amendment number one? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No.
▶ 1:21:14In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Roll call vote. A recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Chair, for what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members.
▶ 1:21:33The clerk will designate the amendment an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 is offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the Perry amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three weeks ago, this was passed in this very committee.
▶ 1:21:57So, I'm bringing it back around so we can consider it in the um in the proposal before us. This amendment requires federal employee unions to reimburse federal agencies for their use of agency or taxpayer resources and official time spent each quarter.
▶ 1:22:14Federal agencies will assess public sector unions a fee to utilize their resources such as office space, parking space, equipment, expenses incurred while on union time and any official union time used by labor representatives affiliated with these organizations.
▶ 1:22:34American taxpayers would be absolutely shocked to learn that federal employees are paid for work hours while supporting public sector unions rather than the agency operations missions and programs they were actually hired to support in the first place. They're not doing the work that they were hired to do. They're doing work in furtherance of their own personal and organizational goals. And that's fine. Just the question is who should be paying for that?
▶ 1:23:03According to OPM, official time logged by federal employees can be used for lobbying Congress alongside allowing certain employees to spend 100% of their time handling union representation functions while still being paid by federal agencies to do federal agency work.
▶ 1:23:23In 2019, before President Biden halted OPM tracking reporting of official time, it was reported that employees across the federal government were paid 135 million to do $2.6 million hours of union work while on the clock at their other other government jobs that they were actually hired to do. Forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill for federal union organizing is outrageous and absurd. It's quite simple.
▶ 1:23:53If federal employees and resources are going to be used for union tasks, the union should have to pay for that, not the taxpayers. American taxpayers are paying government employees to do a job, not the bidding and strategizing of their organized bargaining unit. According to CBO, this amendment would generate $130 million in revenue over 10 years.
▶ 1:24:17I'm simply asking the members of this committee to vote at least exactly like they did three weeks ago. And of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they finally seen the light and realize that they've come here to support their constituents and taxpayers as opposed to the special interest in Washington, they can vote with us, too. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and encou encourage a positive or affirmative vote. Gentlemen yields back. Any chair recognizers? Ranking member Lynch.
▶ 1:24:48Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perry's statement uh his amendment rather would would require agencies to assess fees to public sector labor organizations for use of agency resources, including office space, parking spaces, equipment, and other expenses while performing non- agency business. This amendment would also require agencies to charge public sector labor organizations fees for any time an agency employee who is a labor representative spends performing union business while on the job.
▶ 1:25:18The section is substantially similar to Representative Perry's protecting taxpayers wallets act which the committee considered in late March and which I believe every single Democratic opposed.
▶ 1:25:32It's also this also complements President Trump's March 27th executive order that e that even Republicans have admitted is too extreme which ends collective bargaining across 18 federal agencies with national security missions including the state department and department of veterans affairs and even the department of the treasury and department of health and human services.
▶ 1:25:55This amendment is an attack on official time, which is critical for the efficient management of the federal workforce and a high priority for unions that represent federal employees. Official time reduces turnover. It improves customer service. It prevents costly litigation and grievances and leads to quicker and more efficient implementation of agency initiatives. I I I just want to give one example.
▶ 1:26:24So, let's use the post office, United States Postal Service. So, today today we have 200,000 less less postal employees than we did 20 years ago. And the reason that is the case is because the union, the postal unions sat down with the postmaster general and talked about automation.
▶ 1:26:50How how do we how do we make this process move faster with less people? How do we save uh the the postal customer money and and yet how do we do it without without attrition without a lot of layoffs involuntary? So so they worked out an agreement. They brought in high-speed sorting machines, all kinds of new technology into the postal service.
▶ 1:27:15And over 20 years, we've been able to reduce the number of postal employees by 200,000. That happened by sitting down and working things out on the job and and in the workplace. That that was done in a way that that we reassign people who used to sort that mail by hand, but it was sitting down and working it out. And that saved, you know, the postal customer a huge amount of money. Think about it.
▶ 1:27:43200,000 less people doing that job. And it's it's because we have the ability for the unions representing the collectively, representing their interests, making sure they get treated with respect, and that we didn't have mass layoffs when we went to techn we we brought in high-speed equipment and and automation. We worked it out. I'm a former union president.
▶ 1:28:10Your your your mission as a union representative is is to help the business is to help the business make it more efficient. Make sure those jobs are protected. Make sure the company is successful. And that's that's the job of the postal unions. I remember September 11th. Right after September 11th, a bunch of post officers, they had they had threats from anthrax. We had right here at the Brentwood postal facility here that serves Washington DC.
▶ 1:28:40We had somebody some terrorist mailing anthrax to offices in in here on the cap on Capitol Hill. We shut down Longworth. I got elected on September 11th. So I I I I remember this vividly. We had two postal workers, Joseph Kerine and and Mr. Morris. Both of them died.
▶ 1:29:02Those are postal workers that worked at Brentwood died from inac anthrax inhalation because they were sorting mail. Now, if it was a private company, those those employees would have work walked, right? They would have walked. I'm not going to throw mail. Are you kidding me? Bring that anthrax home to my my family, my kids.
▶ 1:29:27the unions, the the postal unions met with their members and they said, "We just been attacked, a terrorist attack. We have to keep the mail going." So, because they took that oath and they served this country, they kept working. I had two sisters with small kids at the time. They went to work. They went to work with their union support. And that's what we're punishing today. that type of loyalty to our country.
▶ 1:29:58That's what you are part punishing today. We should not be doing that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for your courtesy. I'll recognize myself. Uh I want to thank Mr. Perry for his amendment. Uh he and I have been working together for this policy goal and I look forward to pursuing this legislation through regular order. However, for the purposes of this committee's reconciliation efforts, I must unfortunately oppose this amendment from my good friend.
▶ 1:30:27Do any other members seek recognition? Miss M Miss Presley. I'm sorry, M Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett. All right. Uh just briefly, I want to reiterate the words of my colleague, and it looks like um this may go down since you're opposing it, so I will not belabor the point. I will say that as you do go forward, Mr. Perry because I know that this is something that will most likely come back.
▶ 1:30:53Um I would ask I know that in the second to last paragraph there is this definition of union time and um it lays out the term union time means the time an employee of an agency who is a labor representative for a labor organization spends performing non- agency business while on duty.
▶ 1:31:16I would ask for further clarification of what non- agency business would mean because um while you may not believe or I may not believe we we may define what non- agency business looks like completely differently and the reason that I say that is you were talking about people campaigning and the reality is that right now you see those of us on our side of the aisle we are not trying to do things like union busting.
▶ 1:31:46we are trying to make sure that those workers have those protections. And so as far as I'm concerned, campaigning or trying to elect someone who aligns with making sure that you have those protections so that someone like my constituent who passed away because he overheated after serving our country for 40 years as a postal worker, I then had the union coming and telling me about issues as relates to work for sure, but they absolutely felt comfortable coming and
▶ 1:32:16telling me and supporting my candidacy. because they know that when I come to work, I am going to support them. And to be perfectly honest, any candidate that is trying to break up their ability to bargain for contracts, to break up their ability to actually um do things such as make sure that they have worker protections, to make sure that they are not going to be at will, to make sure that they have the ability to unionize.
▶ 1:32:42I would say that that is actually absolutely on par with doing the business of that organization because that is going to be a better way to make sure that people will actually want to work for the post office. I can tell you, I don't know anything about your district, but I can tell you that in my district, we have consistently had a problem with getting people who actually wanted to work for the post office.
▶ 1:33:05And frankly, when we're having conversations like this and when the country, when the United States is leading the way in firings in the entire country, it is the federal government that has fired more people than anybody else. I frankly don't know who going to come and sign up and want to do this work.
▶ 1:33:23Especially to do it at will, especially to do it in a way that says even if you are going out and making sure that you are going to get somebody who is going to serve in a seat that is going to make sure that you can be protected, I'm going to say that that's non- agency business. As far as I'm concerned, that is agency business.
▶ 1:33:41So, as you go forward, I have a feeling of what I believe your intent is, but I think that you're going to need to better define that because you may run into this area of it's up to who is interpreting it. And when I interpret it, I absolutely believe anybody that is going to protect them as a union, that is absolutely agency business. With that, I will yield. Does any other member seek recognition on the Perry amendment? Yes, Mr. uh chairman, if I might be recognized.
▶ 1:34:10Uh yes, chair recognizes Mr. Infume. Um and I believe brief. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your opposition to this amendment. I would urge others to be in opposition. You know, in Baltimore, we've got a simple term for this. It's called union busting and union bashing. And we need to remember that all union contracts are negotiated documents. They're negotiated by the union and the government visav the government agency. And so all the understandings that are a part of that really are legal.
▶ 1:34:41It's a binding document and this has been taking place for years under Democratic and Republican administration. So I would urge uh members of this committee to reject this amendment. Chair Mr. Chair recognized Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I'm going to support my colleagues amendment.
▶ 1:35:00Uh I don't know if it's going to clear uh scrub or not, but knowing that my my chairman does support the language and and yet in his role as as chair has to oppose changes to the underlying bill so that we can move forward with the process. I'm going to say I support Mr.
▶ 1:35:24Perry's uh intentions here and I think it's important that it's on the record that conservative Republicans stand behind that uh legislative language. I'm going to support the amendment. I yield. Gentleman yields back. Any other discussion on the Perry amendment? Seeing seeing none, the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 1:35:53All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Uh, for what purpose does Mr. Infume? Oh, well, okay. Before that, if you if it's okay, uh, the ranking member has some unanimous consent requests. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:36:19I have a few unanimous consent requests on uh a letter from the AFL CIO uh in opposition to this bill, a letter from the leadership conference on civil and human rights in opposition to this bill. Uh the professional managers association in opposition to this bill and the national federation of federal employees in opposition to this bill as well as the National Treasury Employees Union in opposition to this bill.
▶ 1:36:45The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO, in opposition to this bill. The Federal Managers Association in opposition to this bill. The National Postal Mail Handlers Union in opposition to this bill. The National Rural Letter Carriers Association in opposition to this bill. The International Association of Firefighters, Edzo Kelly, in opposition to this bill. The Federal and Technical Engineers AFL CIO CLC in opposition to this bill. Thank you. Without objection. So ordered.
▶ 1:37:15Uh for what purpose does Mr. Infu make recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk distribute the amendment to all members? And now will the clerk designate the amendment? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 is offered by Mr. Hfume of Maryland. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Infume, is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:37:44Uh, in our nation, I think it goes without saying we've always taken a great deal of pride in the idea that government serves all Americans, not just those lined with one political party, ideology, or anything else. This amendment upholds those core principles of fairness and privacy in our federal hiring process.
▶ 1:38:05More specifically, it amends section 90004 to prohibit any questions regarding a prospective applicant's political party membership or activity. Prohibits all such questions. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been rather focused on the concept of meritocracy.
▶ 1:38:24So, I want to point out the fact that uh no one should have any trouble supporting this amendment that seeks to ensure that employment in public service is based on merit and skills, not political affiliation. Allowing an applicant's political party affiliation to be a deciding factor for a job opportunity really opens the door to implicit bias, discrimination, and the erosion of the public trust that we've always had in our nonpartisan civil service.
▶ 1:38:55And frankly, I'm concerned that it's nothing short, quite frankly, of political corrosion. Moreover, leaving politics out of the federal government establishes confidence and trust from our constituents. Federal workers, as has been said over and over and over again, should not have to worry about being punished or fired for expressing their First Amendment right to disagree with this president or any president.
▶ 1:39:22I urge my colleagues upon real consideration of this to really work now to preserve the integrity of our civil service and to protect the rights of all who wish to serve this nation by supporting this amendment. And I would ask unanimous consent uh Mr. Chairman to be entered into the record an Associated Press article uh from January the 13th and it says Trump teams questions civil servants about who they voted for. Without objection to ordered.
▶ 1:39:54I yield back to the ranking member should he choose to speak. I thank the gentleman. I I I welcome the opportunity. So Mr. moment. The gentleman from Maryland's uh amendment here goes right to the heart of of the spoil system.
▶ 1:40:10So early in this country's history back in the 1800s, uh it was openly accepted that each incoming administration would fire all the all the people from from the earlier uh administration. You know, uh Thomas Jefferson did it to uh to John Adams Uh and uh that that carried right through the 1800s until about 1880.
▶ 1:40:37And then there was a movement to get away from the spoil system uh where you know whoever the incoming president was would wipe out all the federal employees and then bring in their own partisans. Uh what drove that was uh in the in the 1880s uh President Garfield was operating under the the old spoil system and uh one of his uh one of his campaign workers uh who had made a couple of small contributions and and and also uh handed out some leaflets for him
▶ 1:41:07uh wanted wanted to be appointed ambassador France and uh President Garfield wouldn't do it. So the gentleman shot him, killed him because of because he had been rejected uh the job and he felt because he had support of the president he was owed that job. Now you know we've we've come a long way from that until today.
▶ 1:41:34And now President Trump would like to get rid of all the people that have been in government and he doesn't care if they were appointed by Republicans or Democrats. wants to get rid of them all and bring in his own people, you know. So, so he wants to go back to the spoil system. And you know, Mr. Mr. Mufum's uh amendment goes right against that and and requires that uh that you know, political interrogation not be part of the hiring process.
▶ 1:42:05Uh and and I think this this amendment, you know, serves serves the American people, serves our our government so that we will have long we won't be we won't be firing all the federal employees every four years when a especially when a new president comes in. We won't be doing that. That's not good.
▶ 1:42:27you know, if you have, you know, federal researchers and, you know, nurses or, you know, uh, people in different agencies, you you don't want a a new employee coming in every four years. And that that's what that's what will happen if we don't accept Mr. Fume's amendment. I I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. I'll recognize myself. Uh, this amendment introduces policy changes into an otherwise budget related matter and honestly should receive no further consideration.
▶ 1:42:56For the purposes of this committee's reconciliation efforts, I oppose the infome amendment. Do any other members recognition? Miss Miss Um, Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that we did have the first amendment that was brought forward um that was seeking by the ranking member that was seeking to actually um delete a portion of what's been proposed, which is 9004, which is introducing a policy
▶ 1:43:26change to change the status of employees from uh their current status and make them all at will. So, we we should consider policy changes if if that's what we're going to do. I want to say that if any of you stood against Project 2025, which so many of you said that you didn't know anything about Project 2025, y'all weren't introducing Project 2025 and acted as if it was this mythical boogeyman that the Democrats were
▶ 1:43:56making up. This is straight out of the playbook of schedule F. This is a schedule F issue in which we are trying to make sure that there are only loyalists within the federal government. And let me tell you why it is problematic. It is anti-American, it is anti-democratic to decide that you are going to do things like this. Because what happens is systems start to fail. Not only do they fail us as the American people because now we're losing skill sets. We're losing experience.
▶ 1:44:25We're losing all those things in name of somebody saying the only qualification that I probably need to have is to say that I love red hats. At the end of the day, if we really care about this country, the only way that we're going to survive is if there is actually a robust debate every once in a while when one needs to take place.
▶ 1:44:49Because right now, one of the reasons that some of y'all don't want to show up and attend uh a town hall is because there has been no resistance because right now it is only about people who will say I will do what my leader says and that is not what America is. So why would we do this to our federal workforce if they are doing their jobs?
▶ 1:45:13If they are going through reviews, which we do have a review process and if there are no issues in their reviews as we saw as it has come out case after case as y'all have sought to fire people and and they lied in the firings of half of them and told them they had performance issues when it was clear that they had just had performance evaluations and the performances were fine.
▶ 1:45:35And listen, I don't even know why we would make this a partisan issue because I can guarantee you that my fight right now is going to save some Republican jobs as well as Democrat jobs. In fact, if you've seen any of the stuff on social media, there have been testimonies about people that never thought that their fearless leader that they were voting for would actually come for their job and he did.
▶ 1:46:00So, if you really don't want to be in a situation where, say, you've got the opposite of Donald Trump and and a a far-left Democrat who says, "You know what? I am going to be the anti-Trump.
▶ 1:46:14I'm going to do exactly the opposite of everything that he did, I'm going to hurt those support supported his candidacy the way that he did that to us." If you don't want to run the risk of that, then I would say that this is just a smart amendment. This isn't a Democratic amendment. It's not a Republican amendment. It is a smart amendment.
▶ 1:46:36And I don't believe that if it's okay for that first section that we dealt with to be in this, which would be an absolute policy change, then I think that we can deal with this policy change as well. And I will yield. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Suberman? Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to speak in favor of this amendment.
▶ 1:46:57We're trying to keep politics out of certain parts of the federal workforce and uh for the reasons people have said this is important, but I also want to add I represent many of the federal workers uh who are losing their jobs and and many of them feel like they're losing their jobs because their work or they themselves have been targeted for their political beliefs.
▶ 1:47:18But but really um what's what's happening is we're we're deciding to choose loyalty over competence. And when you do that, you end up with really poor results. Because in the end, in the theater of war, it doesn't matter who's fighting with you. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican. They just want to do what's best for our country. When you're studying cancer research and trying to cure cancer, it doesn't matter if the cancer patient is a Democrat or Republican.
▶ 1:47:48What really matters is that we have the very best and brightest in our federal workforce. But instead, what's happening with these loyalty tests and with these questions about people's political leanings is we're ending up having a brain drain in our federal government. And that's hurting our country. It doesn't just hurt the federal workforce. It doesn't just hurt my district, although it does. It hurts every single American across this country who is served by the federal workforce. And we are losing the best and brightest now because of this.
▶ 1:48:16This amendment, all it says is that we want to take politics out of the federal workforce. We want to keep politics out of the federal workforce and we do not want loyalty tests when we're trying to hire the best and brightest. And so I look at another sector, technology, and we want I've had many hearings recently on wanting to have the best technology for our national security apparatus and within our federal government to serve the people.
▶ 1:48:40We're losing technologists because they feel like they're being told asked whether or not they're a good Democrat or a good Republican and they're being told that it's not about their skills, it's about their loyalty to this president and loyalty to his party. And so that's going to hurt every single American. I yield back. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, uh the question is now on the infu number one amendment. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 1:49:09All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion share the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Uh for what purpose do does Mr. Infume again seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? The clerk will now designate the amendment.
▶ 1:49:35Amendment number two to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 is offered by Mr. Dvumi of Maryland. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:49:53This amendment in short order would amend section 900006 of the legislation by prohibiting the facilitation of action of purging federal employees from the workforce uh upon their political affiliation particularly when they apply for federal employee health benefits. Those benefits have been embedded in the way we do business and what we guarantee our civil workforce and ought to be protected.
▶ 1:50:22Health benefits are not a privilege that's tied to political alignment. They are a fundamental part of the employment package offered, as I said, to federal employees who serve this nation, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. They are not just in one section of the country. They are in every state and indeed in everybody's congressional district. So, this ought to be just a common sense approach.
▶ 1:50:48And many federal workers rely on the federal employee health benefit program to receive their health care for themselves obviously but also their eligible family members. This benefit cannot nor should it be weaponized as a mechanism to identify to punish to exclude because of a political party that one may or may not belong to. Not only that, it's really none of our business quite frankly.
▶ 1:51:17what party someone belongs to if they are federal worker. Doing that undermines the core values of our democracy and obviously it starts to weaken and eventually destroy civil service as we know it.
▶ 1:51:31Elon Musk and his Doge employees have already fired over 200,000 employees and forced more than 75,000 more to take deferred determination agreements that would pay them throughout the fiscal year as they began to leave the jobs that in my opinion they were forced to quit. Gutting federal agencies is not saving the government money. It is not improving efficiency.
▶ 1:51:58In fact, in just the first 100 days of the current administration, we have seen more money spent on firing people than saving money. Not to mention the money spent to rehire the people who weren't supposed to be fired in the first place. So, this sort of continued attack on federal employee primarily harms the middle class of our country. It hurts people in all communities.
▶ 1:52:24In the state of Maryland, we've got 144,000 such employees that have gone about serving this country with distinction for many, many years. In my own district, that number is 19,000. Federal workers are the heartb blood of the nation. If you just check with any of them in your own districts, you don't have to listen to me or believe what I'm saying is accurate. And so, these mass firings are both unamerican and illegal.
▶ 1:52:50I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, not just for the federal workers that it will protect and their health care, but also the democratic principles that it seeks to uphold. With that, Mr. Chair, I would yield back. Gentleman yields back. I'll recognize myself. This amendment introduces policy changes into an otherwise budget related matter and should receive no further consideration. Furthermore, this amendment does not contain a CBO score as required by reconciliation.
▶ 1:53:19And so we don't know its impact on the committee's net savings budgetary instructions. For these reasons and the purposes of this committee's reconciliation efforts, I must oppose the infume amendment number two. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, uh the question is now on the uh infume amendment number two. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I.
▶ 1:53:47All those opposed signify by saying no no in the opinion chair the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman and I would request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Okay.
▶ 1:54:03We're going to suspend for one Okay, we'll resume. Uh, for what purpose does, Mr. Lynch seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I believe I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 1:54:30Amendment number two to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 is offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. I reserve point order to the gentleman from Massachusetts recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would ensure that retirement benefits for federal employees who are also military veterans are not reduced by the new retirement calculations manu man mandated by this bill.
▶ 1:55:01So currently the retirement benefits of federal workers under the federal employees retirement system and the previous civil service retirement system are calculated based on the average of the highest three consecutive years of salary during their federal careers. The underlying bill would change that and alter this long-standing formula to instead base retirement benefits on an average of the highest five consecutive years of of base federal pay.
▶ 1:55:31Uh so this new formula will reduce a federal workers's retirement benefits by thousands of dollars each year. And while I I strongly support the amendment that will be offered by my colleague Mr. amend uh to strike the high- five formula overall in the bill in its entirety.
▶ 1:55:49I'm offering this additional amendment because I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can at least agree that we should not reduce the retirement benefits of military veterans who have transitioned to the federal civil uh civilian employment. The federal government is the largest single employer of our veterans. In fact, our federal workforce of more than 2.4 4 million employees is made up of 30% of more than 650,000 veterans.
▶ 1:56:16That's who the federal workforce is. 650,000 veterans serve this country, put on the uniform of this country courageously. That is why the Nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service reports that veterans are uniquely impacted and have been exposed to significant risk by the Trump administration's effort to arbitrarily downsize the federal government.
▶ 1:56:43In only 100 days since he took office, President Trump, at the direction of Elon Musk, has already conducted mass layoffs across the federal government that have included at least 6,000 military veterans. The Trump administration has also targeted our broader veterans community by firing at least 2400 VA employees amid a severe staffing shortage of 3,000 healthc care positions at the VA facilities as I earlier and a backlog of more than
▶ 1:57:13250,000 veterans benefit claims. President Trump even fired workers at the Veteran Suicide Crisis Hotline during an epidemic of veteran He's also proceeding with plans to indiscriminately cut an additional 80,000 jobs at the VA at a time when the agency is seeing a 40% increase in veterans healthcare enrollment and a 30 30% spike in veteran toxic exposure claims since the
▶ 1:57:43enactment of our bipartisan Republicans and Democrats pack Act in 2022. We don't need to make matters worse by reducing the retirement benefits of military veterans who proudly chose to extend their public service by working in the federal government. Let us remember that federal statutes such as the Veterans Preference Act of 1944 reflect our enduring bipartisan respect for the placement, protection, and retention of veterans in the federal workforce.
▶ 1:58:13I urge my colleagues to look, I point back to the Brockton VA facility in my district in Brockton, Massachusetts. When I go through there, so many of the nurses in attendance there are are veterans. It's it's uncanny how how many of them have have served our country in the military. And there's a great vibe there.
▶ 1:58:41They love they love caring for their fellow wounded veterans. And there's a I I think there's a holistic and and actually a a a medical benefit by having veterans cared for at a VA hospital instead of in a regular hospital because there's that camaraderie and support and love uh that that is there and I I think it helps them heal.
▶ 1:59:07So, so what this bill would do is especially with my nurses, uh, a lot of those nurses at the VA are veterans. So, there's already competition at the VA for nurses, right? So, I got a bunch of private hospitals that are trying to hire the nurses away from the VA and offer them more money.
▶ 1:59:30So what you're doing here today by, you know, cutting their their retirement benefits, cutting their work worker rights, cutting their their pay is just going to make it easier for those private hospitals to steal away our best nurses. We shouldn't be doing this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I yield back. I recognize myself for uh brief statement. I want to thank uh Mr. Lynch for this amendment.
▶ 1:59:55Recognizing the tremendous work and value provide uh veterans provide in their continued service to our country and the federal workforce. I cannot support this amendment which does not contain a score from the Congressional Budget Office to determine its budgetary impact on our committee's instruction to save $50 billion as required in this budget reconciliation process. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. See Seeing none.
▶ 2:00:23Uh the question is now on the Lynch amendment number two. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman ask for recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be For what purpose does Miss Stanberry seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will please distribute.
▶ 2:00:52The clerk will please designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 is offered by Miss Danbury of New Mexico. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentle lady from New Mexico is recognized for five minutes. Thank you uh Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:01:14Uh, I am offering an amendment this morning here to address the major concern that the vast majority of Americans and especially the constituents in my district have shared with me, which is the unfettered attacks that we've seen over the last 100 days on vital programs that support our communities, whether that's social security, Medicaid, food and housing assistance programs, or just the vital programs that people depend depend on
▶ 2:01:44every day. We were just talking about veterans benefits and in fact uh Mr. Chairman, I'm just coming off of a town hall tour across my district. We did 15 town halls across 10 counties in rural and urban New Mexico. Uh we heard from over 15,000 New Mexicans and the most important issues that we heard in every single town hall and these were not just people of the same party.
▶ 2:02:11these were just New Mexicans across the board from all different ideological backgrounds, all different communities, was that they are afraid right now of what they're seeing with the federal government and cutbacks to social security programs.
▶ 2:02:24the proposals that are in this reconciliation package that would impact Medicaid, the proposals that are in front of this committee that would cut back the federal workforce that provides social security benefits and VA benefits, cuts to housing and food assistance programs, and the general lawlessness that we've seen across the board in the way in which this administration has been carrying out these cuts and have been enabled by the GOP here
▶ 2:02:54now, especially with this reconciliation package. So, I want to read my amendment. It's very It says, "The president or any member of the president's cabinet or any officer or employee of a federal agency may not take any action, including an action related to staffing, office realignments, budgetary, data, or operational changes that would impact the delivery or
▶ 2:03:25timing of vital services that Americans depend on, including Social security, Medicaid, food assistance, housing, income supports, or other programs, or two, to attempt to privatize these services or programs. It's a very straightforward amendment. I would hope that my friends across the aisle, of course, I doubt they will, would support this amendment.
▶ 2:03:51Uh, I hear our friends go on TV daily and say that they have no intent to cut Medicaid, even though their instructions for this reconciliation package say that they're instructing the Committee of Jurisdiction to cut funding by $880 billion. We know that this would impact almost a quarter million New Mexicans and the health care system of our entire state. We know that millions of Americans will lose access to health care if these Medicaid benefits get cut.
▶ 2:04:21We know that over 150,000 New Mexicans, especially our elders, our seniors, and our lowincome families, would lose access to food assistance, whether that's SNAP assistance to buy groceries, or whether that's school lunches if these cuts go through. And we know that this will also impact our communities across the board in just the basic programs and services, whether it's the VA, Social Security, or any of these programs.
▶ 2:04:50So, this amendment says that the administration's got to stop doing that because it's hurting the American people. And with that, I yield back. D recognize myself. Uh, this amendment introduces policy changes into an otherwise budget related matter and should not should receive no further consideration. And furthermore, this amendment does not contain a CBO score as required by reconciliation. So, we don't know its impact on the committee's net savings budgetary instructions.
▶ 2:05:18For these reasons and the purposes of this committee's reconciliation efforts, I oppose the amendment. Does any other member seek recognition? Miss uh yes, Miss Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It's it's interesting um to hear you kind of use the the form language of we don't understand the impact.
▶ 2:05:40The idea that Miss Stanbury proposed an amendment that specifically talks about vital programs literally not extracurriculars but literally what people depend upon to actually survive and live.
▶ 2:05:57And the idea that our retort to whether or not someone will be able to eat, to whether or not someone will have a roof over their head, to whether or not they will have the health care that they deserve. Our answer is, well, we don't know what the cost is going to be.
▶ 2:06:17Well, I can tell you that for those people that may end up losing their lives, there is no cost that you can tell them that will make them feel better or make this feel like a more American bill because they would have lost their life or they would have lost their home or they would have lost their healthcare.
▶ 2:06:40So I I I would ask that at least we engage in the conversation so that even if we are not moving forward on this in the moment, we evidence to all of our constituents that we actually care and believe in these vital government programs. I'll yield. The gentle lady yield uh to me? Yes, I'll yield to the ranking member. Thank you.
▶ 2:07:06uh just in furtherance of I fully support uh the comments just made by the gentle lady from Texas and and I I also want to point out that Miss Stanbury's amendment is is one of preservation.
▶ 2:07:21So, she's she's acting courageously to defend the benefits that she describes in her amendment, which would be the delivery and timing of of of services and including social security, Medicaid, food, housing, income supports, and and other f existing federal programs. So, she's defending the the the current level of benefits. That is known.
▶ 2:07:49that is not that is not something that CBO needs to do a study on. It's what we are spending today. So uh so the objection that we don't know the cost or the impact is is not true. We we know exactly to the penny uh what those what the uh the costs of those benefits are to social security to Medicaid uh to food assistance and housing. Those those are known quantities.
▶ 2:08:16And so I I I I disagree with the assessment that that part of a reason for for denying the uh the uh the propriety of this amendment is because there there are unknown questions on the budgetary side. Uh and I would yield to the gentleman, Mr. Frost. Thank you. And I yield to Miss Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:08:44Now, I want to make clear and build on what Mr. Lynch is saying here. First of all, this is just preserving the existing programs that Americans are already depending on and are speaking loud and clear. In fact, the polling shows this week that twothirds of Americans are completely opposed to the cuts that Doge and Elon Musk have put on these programs. And I hear people in this chamber every single day trying to claim that they're not impacting real Americans, that these are just paid protesters.
▶ 2:09:14Well, let me tell you, I was in community after community in my district over the last couple of weeks, and I had people show up crying. People saying that their cancer treatments could be terminated if Medicaid goes away. People who say they will lose everything. They will not be able to put a roof over their head or food on the table if these cuts go through. people who are frightened by what they see is the absolute attack on their civil liberties and free speech and their freedom.
▶ 2:09:44And I actually went to the Social Security office in my district last week and was denied entry and told to call a regional office after I had an appointment and spoke to people who were waiting who have literally been waiting for days and weeks because Elon Musk has crashed the social security system, firing people. Their computer systems are down. Our call centers are completely overwhelmed and people cannot get appointments for months.
▶ 2:10:12This is what's happening in America right now. And that is why I introduced this amendment to protect those programs and to fight for the American people and to fight for the programs that we know they depend on so that they can survive. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, Miss Green. Hi.
▶ 2:10:33I I I'd like to to point something out that our Democrat colleagues know this because they did reconciliation before when they are in that when they were in charge. And you know, it may be hard for some of the freshman Dems to understand, but this is not a policy debate. That's not what reconciliation is. This is a budget process.
▶ 2:10:55And so for the American people watching at home, our Democrat colleagues are sitting here trying to score points and spread more lies and divisiveness about Republicans uh in order to to spread more garbage across the country. But this is about budget, Mr. Chairman, and this this committee is trying to do serious work and we need to stay focused on budget and that's for the American people.
▶ 2:11:21And it is very serious that that's what we remain focused on here in our work on oversight. And um the Democrats know that provisions must be carefully crafted because they did it before and it has to be scored by CBO to be included in this budget bill. And that's what we're trying to do, Mr. Chairman. Um and I just wanted to to point that out for the people watching at home so they are not um swayed by this entertainment today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:11:51I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Very good, Mr. Chairman. Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I I just want to say our federal budget reflects our values when when we fund the VA. So, it's not just about numbers. It's about it's about the mission and and the purpose of of our budget.
▶ 2:12:17W with all those you you do understand our federal budget is $2 and a half trillion dollar time though. I know but but our value you don't get to just interject Mr. Chairman. I you know what I think you've already spoken so spoken on this I borrowed on somebody else's time. All right. All right. Go ahead. I borrowed somebody else's time and I will speak. Well speak. You all have put You all have put our country in debt. Kids are graduating from college.
▶ 2:12:46You're about to put our country in $4 trillion more. I don't think you all could find a billion dollars in savings. You don't care about the congressional budget officers money. I asked five minutes. You can talk all you want. I want everyone in America to see how much you all have to You're out of order. You're out of order. Your own chairman. You're out of order. Go ahead. Okay. Go ahead.
▶ 2:13:15Now, without interruption, what we decide here in the budget is what I'm the point I'm trying to make is it's not just dollars and cents. It's about where where that money goes and what what purposes and what what priorities it reflects.
▶ 2:13:35And those, you know, governing is about making decisions and and we we choose to fund things that in this country we have we have honored for a very long time and that you know I have to say in my 25 years in Congress we have had very little disagreement on funding veterans benefits.
▶ 2:13:56I have to say that I I don't think I could count on one hand the time we had disagreements over 25 years when we talk about how do we how do we care for our veterans, things like that. And and I miss that because now now we're we're fighting tooth and tongue uh tooth and nail about whether we're going to lay off 80,000 uh employees at the VA.
▶ 2:14:20What what I'm saying is that sure it's about the budget, but underlying that budget is is our priorities as a country, what we consider to be worthwhile. And and I feel that veterans benefits are worthwhile. Veterans health care is worthwhile. The way we treat our federal employees is important.
▶ 2:14:47It is intrinsic to the to the work of of of the federal government and how we we help the most vulnerable as well as you know average everyday Americans on on social security on Medicaid. So I've had layoffs re recently in in one of my big health centers uh community health centers laid off 60 people in a in a in a city that can't afford that. And that's because of the decisions that are being made on the budget, on the numbers on the budget.
▶ 2:15:18We're going to cut over eight 800 billion dollars on Medicaid. I I've got nursing homes. So So I got seniors who are, you know, they they can't go out and get another job. They're in they're in nursing homes. They're their their families are trying to care for them.
▶ 2:15:34We're cutting 40% of of the income for those long-term care nursing homes for elderly are being impacted by the numbers in this this budget and and that's that's very troublesome. So, I'm just saying that this is different. I've been Yeah, the gentle lady from Georgia is correct. I've been through reconciliation before. I know how this process works and it is about numbers and and I and I agree with that that point.
▶ 2:16:05But this is different. This this reconciliation is is going after things that have been long respected and honored in this country. and we are changing our ideals and and our commitments to to people like our own veterans uh to to to you know they want to they want to pull uh benefits from from federal employees and and again the numbers behind this all
▶ 2:16:35the general purpose here as you know Mr. Chairman is is to make a tax cut possible. So, we're going to increase the debt. We are. That's the here. We're going to increase the debt by I think be at least $4 trillion. Um, you know, based on what we're we're looking at right now. And and to justify that, we're we're cutting all this.
▶ 2:17:04We're we're we're cutting people who uh you know, veterans benefits are different. They're They're different and they're special because veterans benefits are for courageous service previously rendered. We owe this. We owe those benefits.
▶ 2:17:28Those those wounded veterans lying in VA hospitals all across this country, your state and mine, we owe them for their service. They have delivered. They every one of them by definition every veteran who's eligible for this has honorably served this country in uniform put their life on the line for the benefit of us all.
▶ 2:17:57We made a commitment to them. We said if you come back with wounds visible or invisible we will take care of you. We made that promise. Multiple generations of Americans have made that promise. And we this budget, numbers, breach that promise. We break that promise in this bill. First time ever, at least in the 25 years I've been here. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy and I yield back.
▶ 2:18:26Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Chair, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, what we're hearing from the Republicans on this committee is laughable in its hypocrisy. They want to hide. They don't want to support the amendment from Miss Stanbury, which I support. And they want to hide behind the CBO and process. You didn't care what the CBO had to say when you pass the last set of t uh tax cuts for billionaires, the ultra wealthy, and corporations.
▶ 2:18:54When the CBO said that it would raise the national debt by trillions, you didn't care. You don't care now. You want to hide behind the CBO because you don't want to pass an amendment that protects social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food, housing, and programs that our constituents support. Then you want to bring up process. If we want to pass the amendment, we can pass the amendment. Don't hide behind process.
▶ 2:19:20If you believe that we need to protect Social Security, then vote yes. But don't come here and tell us that we can't pass it. like we don't have the power to simply press the button that says yes on here. It's hypocrisy.
▶ 2:19:35This is Republicans on this committee trying to cover up for Donald Trump and themselves from the fact that they want to rob our constituents of earned benefits and things we have fought for because they want to give a massive $7 trillion tax cut that will go to the richest people in this country and put more money in their pockets. and they want us and our constituents to pay for it.
▶ 2:19:59They're finding money by stripping for parts the essential services that middle and working class and the large and the fastest growing class of Americans, the working poor, not just depend on but have earned and that we have put forward as part of our social construct that we will take care of each other and we will see this country through the eyes of the most vulnerable. It is despicable. So, if you're going to be about cutting these things to help your billionaire donors and corrupt corporations, then just say it.
▶ 2:20:29But do not hide behind process in the CBO when you haven't cared about it before. I will yield my time to the ranking member. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Um, Mr. Casar, did you desire time? Miss Crockett? Yes, please. cuz Maxwell took us to church. Push the button. Push the button. That is the name of the sermon. Hallelujah.
▶ 2:20:58Uh I I appreciate that because honestly, you know, the one thing that I hear in Maxwell, I appreciate that you have been traveling the country and actually listening to people. I appreciate Melanie talking about getting out listening to people. I've had an opportunity to get out and listen to actual people. And the one thing that I hear is that they ain't following no rules.
▶ 2:21:21That's the only thing I hear is that this administration has not been following any rules and been breaking everything. And so it is weird that we would hide behind process when we are talking about doing good. But to do bad to fire workers, yes, let's do that.
▶ 2:21:39to decide that we are going to try to jerryrig and and and do this situation around um birthright citizenship, to decide that we are going to try to just write out the Civil Rights Act in the form of an executive order that I can go on for days about all the things that really have not been a part of the rules that have only brought about harm.
▶ 2:22:04In fact, I still don't understand how or why Elon Musk was allowed to do anything that he was allowed to do. And honestly, I would argue that he was not allowed to do any of the things that he did. And no one argued for any procedures or rules then. So, um, I applaud you, Miss Stanbury, again, and thank you, uh, Reverend Maxwell for, uh, the sermon. And if you would yield back, I will yield it back to you.
▶ 2:22:33add on because you just brought something up or is in a crocket that reminds me that our colleagues are also saying that we can't vote on this because it doesn't have a CBO score and because the CBO has not told us the impacts of it and as a representative in the United States Congress if you need a CBO score to know the impact of social security in your district if you need a CBO score to know the impact of Medicaid in your district, food in your district, housing in your district, Medicaid in your district, then you need to go back out and speak to the people in your
▶ 2:23:03district. I yield back. Any other members seek recognition? I yield uh to uh Representative Crockett. I I just want to be clear if anybody actually wants to know the impacts. We have it specifically in Georgia 14 as it relates to what's going to happen to Medicaid in 111,000 children under the age of 19 and 20,000 seniors over the age of 65 will be impacted.
▶ 2:23:32um as it relates to those that are dealing with food assistance. It will impact 99,000 people in that district. Oh, sorry. I was trying to help. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Sherman, uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:23:50I just want to speak in favor of the amendment because all all we're trying to do here is say that don't don't reorganize or cut uh a department or agency to where you can't deliver the very services uh that that that department's created to to to give to the American people. And so, you know, I've heard from folks that work in my district office about how they're getting calls about OPM becoming even slower processing case work. Uh the Social Security Administration is requiring people to come in person now because of policy changes.
▶ 2:24:20Yet they cut half the people that worked at the Social Security Administration and closed many offices. So people's appointments are getting cancelled, right? And I have story after story after story about people who used to call our office and be able to get in touch with an agency or get their agency problem solved and now they can't because some of these cuts and some of these firings now make it so that the very agencies that were developed to provide services to the American people cannot do so anymore. That's throwing the baby off with the bath water. That's another way of putting it.
▶ 2:24:50And all we're trying to say is don't do that. Stop the cuts if they don't make sense. If their very purpose is to undermine a program, then just say that. If you're trying to cut the Social Security Administration because you don't like Social Security and want to get rid of it, just say that, right? But don't cut half the workforce who's trying to administer that program. And you know, this stuff about the, you know, cutting the debt and the deficit. I mean, this president is the one that increased the deficit by trillions and the debt by trillions.
▶ 2:25:20last time he said that these tax cuts were actually going to pay down. We're going to start paying down the def the debt like it's water. That's what he said after the 2017 tax cut. What happened? The deficit and the debt both increased dramatically. We're at 36 trillion now. Then he said tariffs last time would pay down the debt and that hasn't happened either. Next he's going to say his golf trips paid down the debt. The reality is this is not about fiscal responsibility. This is about cutting services that help the American people.
▶ 2:25:49all so we can give it to the largest and wealthiest corporations. I yield back. I yield to Miss Stanbury. Thank you so much for pointing that out. I also think uh Mr. Chairman, just being conscious of language, you know, in this room just a few moments ago, our friends across the aisle used the word garbage to refer to our fight to protect your social security.
▶ 2:26:19I am so sorry, but seniors, veterans, children whose parents have died, kids on school lunches are not garbage. The American people are asking us to fight for them. And the fight for their rights, for the funding that keeps them alive. The fight to help the people of this country is not garbage.
▶ 2:26:45I think that, you know, we're sitting here and the debate has taken this bizarre turn where uh it's it's being put forward that somehow we don't care about fiscal responsibility. I'm sorry, that's just bologoney, okay? Like we are all about making the government more efficient. We are all about addressing the needs of the American people. This amendment is about defending the existing programs that keep Americans alive.
▶ 2:27:12And neither them or those programs or the federal workers who provide those programs are garbage. These are the American people. These are who we work for. We don't work for Donald Trump. We don't work for the billionaires. And the entire argument that's being put forward here today that cutting a few little pieces here and there and decimating the federal workforce and these programs is somehow going to save the deficit is literally a boldface lie.
▶ 2:27:40The CBO has scored your reconciliation bill. The CBO says it is going to raise the debt by5 trillion dollars. So if you're gonna sit here and say it's not going to raise the debt, you're just lying. That is factually untrue. So if you want to play the CBO score game, let's talk about what this bill actually does. It's going to raise the debt by$5 trillion. It's going to increase deficit spending by $37 trillion over the next 30 years.
▶ 2:28:09And it's going to give your billionaire donors and all those guys out there that you're trying to help, including these guys serving in the cabinet, the largest tax break in American history. And how are you going to do it? By balancing the books on federal workers and the elders and seniors and children of this country. And that's why we're fighting. And it's not garbage. And the fight is not garbage. And we are here to defend the people who we work for, not the billionaires. I yield back.
▶ 2:28:38Does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, we the question is now on the Lynch amendment number two. Stanbury amendment. The question is now on the Stanberry amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Recorded vote requested. Recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
▶ 2:29:07For what purpose does Miss Stanbury seek recognition? Again, Mr. Chairman, I have one more amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment number two to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 is offered by Miss Stanbury of New Mexico. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleoman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:29:36Well, I'm grateful for the notes that were brought to this debate a few moments ago by my colleagues on this side of the aisle about following the rules because there's been nothing about this administration over the last 100 days that has been about following the rules.
▶ 2:29:53In fact, we've never seen a more lawless administration basically trying to break the rules around the appropriations process, around the constitutional separation of powers, around federal hiring and firing laws, about data mining your data. And in fact, there are now over 170 federal court cases and over 90 restraining orders and injunctions against against this administration for their lawless behavior.
▶ 2:30:23So what this amendment does is make sure that the American taxpayers are not left on the hook and that those who are breaking these laws cannot continue to do so or to financially benefit from the federal government. So I'm going to read it. any individual serving in an advisory or decision-making role to the president or the president's administration, including any special government employee, that would be someone like Mr.
▶ 2:30:52Musk or any of these Doge employees as that term is defined in section 202 of title 18 of the code who has significant financial conflicts of interest or who has been found by a federal court to have violated any federal law while serving in that role shall be barred from serving, advising or interacting with the executive branch and from entering into a contract with any federal agency and shall be held liable able for
▶ 2:31:22any damages to the federal government and the American people. Now, I know that this is all about the budget. So, you want to save the American people money. Now, let let's let's take a quick diversion to clarify one thing. First of all, the whole premise of this Doge exercise was that it was going to save the American people money.
▶ 2:31:43But actually, the report card is out this week, and actually the Trump administration has spent tens of billions of dollars more money in the last hundred days than the last administration did. They didn't save you money, guys. They actually spent more money. And part of the reason is is because Donald Trump is using federal taxpayer dollars to fly down to his golf resort every weekend while he's taking away your benefits.
▶ 2:32:11And Elon Musk is destroying the fundamental programs that provide VA benefits and social security and actually help with programs that you all depend on. And they're not saving money. This whole idea that it's waste, fraud, and abuse, it's a total lie because while they're doing this, they're also giving themselves additional contracts. We know that Elon Musk has already put himself in a position before he leaves in the next couple of weeks to pick up contracts at FAA.
▶ 2:32:40He's going to pick up contracts at DoD. I heard yesterday from some of my constituents that he's actually talking about getting billions of dollars through this Golden Dome uh project that they want to put in this reconciliation package. I mean, talk about grift. We're talking tens of billions of dollars to build a missile defense system that Donald Trump just bought up one day and he wants to give a private contract to Elon Musk to build it.
▶ 2:33:10So this amendment would protect the American taxpayers from people like these special government employees who've been exploiting their role within the federal government, self-deing, stealing from the American people, impacting our services and frankly putting you on the hook for their defense in the courts. So that's what this amendment is all about. And with that, I yield back. Does any other member seek recognition? Miss Crockett? Yes.
▶ 2:33:39I just wanted to thank the gentle lady um for her amendment and I was curious because you already kind of preempted the arguments that would come from the other side um as it relates to saving money. Uh we do know that Elon had a contract that he was planning on entering into as it relates to Tesla vehicles, do we not? Yep. And last time I checked, that contract was somewhere around $400 million.
▶ 2:34:08as I understand it. Yes, with Department of Defense. Okay. And and to be perfectly honest, I think that you were being kind of kind in this amendment. Um because they are only prevented or precluded from service within the executive branch, but we still have other branches of government where they can still do stuff. Huh. Oh, yep. So, you actually left a lot of leeway uh for someone to even do more. So, even if Elon wanted to go somewhere else, he could. just couldn't be here.
▶ 2:34:38Um, in addition to that, there is this thing about liability. And this really excited me as a practitioner because I think people were wondering why is it that Elon isn't being sued because Elon is committing so many heinous issues as it relates to violating and we still don't know and I don't know when we will know because it seems like we're not doing oversight over that right now to better understand how much
▶ 2:35:08damage he has done as relates to our privacy. and our information, but it has this liability portion in here. So, somebody like him who just happens to be the richest person in the world would actually be able to be liable in a personal sense. Correct. Yes. Absolutely. Instead of say him being able to hide behind the shields that normally protect you because you are doing something quote unquote on behalf of the government. Yes.
▶ 2:35:38This would also I mean this committee is supposed to be about waste, fraud and abuse. So if there's any abuse or fraud, this would absolutely preclude that or any abuses that are taking place with people that are say selfdealing and coming in wrecking everything and then selling all our money. Right. Absolutely right. I I think it's an amazing amendment and I support it. Did any other members seek recognition?
▶ 2:36:07Seeing none, the question is now on the Stansbury amendment number two. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. And Mr. Chair, I'd ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is order. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purposes does Mr. Frost seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Now will the clerk designate the amendment.
▶ 2:36:36Amendment to the amendment the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 is offered by Mr. Frost of Florida. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rule of law is fundamental in a functioning country and the only thing that's going to guarantee people's safety and security. Without the rule of law, there's chaos, corruption, anarchy.
▶ 2:37:04And if the president and the government he leads do not follow all laws and ignore the ones that they find inconvenient, then no laws really matter for the general public. So no bills that we file, debate, or vote on matter as long as the president United States is defying Supreme Court decisions and defying the law.
▶ 2:37:24The Trump administration is already undermining the rule of law, spewing out blatantly illegal executive orders, ignoring Americans constitutional rights, and ignoring and even mocking many of the federal judges and judicial decisions that point out and prohibit Trump's illegal actions. our democracy and our rights are still hanging on by a thread because that uh because Trump has lost over and over again in court.
▶ 2:37:52His illegal acts prohibited by federal judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. And now the administration is even ignoring a unanimous 9 to0 Supreme Court decision. This is a Supreme Court decision that includes six Republicans, three of them appointed by Trump himself. Our federal judges have been stunned by this, but slow to figure out on how to react. Congress must act on this.
▶ 2:38:21So far, congressional Republicans have allowed Trump to get away with everything, rolling over and completely surrendering all their power to the Trump administration. Congress has to exercise its authority and defend the rule of law. My amendment will help us do that. If the White House or any executive agency of this administration or any administration violates an order by the Supreme Court, my amendment will nullify this entire legislation.
▶ 2:38:48This amendment is important because the 9 to0 Supreme Court decision that the Trump administration is currently ignoring is in defense of our most fundamental right, the right to due process. Twice in our constitution in both the fifth and 14th amendments it states that the government cannot deprive us of our life, liberty or property without due process. It doesn't apply to certain people in this country. It applies to every human in this country.
▶ 2:39:16Because of that constitutional fundamental due process right, the Supreme Court's 9 to0 uh uh ruling was an order to the Trump administration to facilitate the return of United States uh of the United States uh uh uh Maryland man Kilargo Garcia. Kilmar is the man whom Trump administration sent to a hellish prison in El Salvador by mistake. The administration even said by mistake an administrative error they keep calling it.
▶ 2:39:46The administration also had to admit that Kilmar had no criminal history, but they still casually called him a terrorist, pretending that he has gang tattoos in hope that people will believe them. But here's the thing, that is horrible. But the worst part of this whole thing right now is the reasoning that they're using to not facilitate his return, which the Supreme Court has ordered the administration to do. and they're saying that it is completely out of their hands.
▶ 2:40:16With that reasoning, what's to prevent this administration from deporting anyone in this country, citizens included, and then when ordered to facilitate the return of the citizen or the person, they can simply chalk it up to it is out of our hands. We have to talk about this and handle it.
▶ 2:40:34Now, my colleagues always want to talk about American exceptionalism without protecting the thing that makes this country exceptional, which is the right of due process, not just for citizens, but for all people on our soil and on our land. That is what makes us exceptional. This is just a tool to label anyone Trump wants as a criminal. Strip them of their rights. Trump has said he wants to do it to citizens, too. He said it in the Oval Office. The people he considers his enemies who are homegrown.
▶ 2:41:04If Trump can do this to one person, he can do it to anyone. The government can take you, disappear you to a foreign prison, tweet emojis to mock your family's confusion, terror, and helplessness, or post your wife's address and send her into hiding like the Trump administration did to kill Mar's wife. This is a red line. This is when Congress needs to step up and step in. And so, I ask my fellow members of the committee to support my amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I'll recognize myself.
▶ 2:41:32This amendment would have the effect of potentially repealing the effects of section 90006, the bipartisan federal employees health benefit governmentwide improper payments audit requirement. At any time over 10-year budget window, we are working within the budget reconciliation process. We therefore have no idea how Congressional Budget Office would score the effects of this amendment, which would very likely impact our current savings and put our committee print under $50 billion net savings instruction.
▶ 2:42:01I therefore strongly oppose this amendment. Does any other member Would you would you yield to me? Mr. Chair, I have a question for you. Uh you've already been recognized. So no, my time I yielded back. Any members seek recognition. Chairman, Miss uh Crockett, you can go to Cassar first or Okay, I can go. I uh I'll yield my time to Mr. Frost.
▶ 2:42:24No, I I think something's very interesting because in the chairman's explanation of why he doesn't support the bill, he says there's a possibility or the amendment, he said there's a possibility that the amendment would nullify a bipartisan piece of the legislation in front of us. But all my amendment does is say that if the president of the United States defies a Supreme Court decision, then it nullifies the bill.
▶ 2:42:47Which means the chairman is conceding right here in this committee that the president of the United States could and I would say is right now defying a Supreme Court decision which is dangerous in this country. You should not have to worry about anything being nullified if you truly believe that the administration is following the law. But not even the chairman believes that the administration is following the law. I'll yield back to uh Representative Crockett. Yes. Do you mind answering a few questions for me? Yes. out of curiosity.
▶ 2:43:15Um, you talk about them violating this law and I'm curious if most Americans understand what you and I understand is that in violating someone's civil rights, constitutional rights, we are actually costing this country a lot of money because whenever we get a breako back, baby, they going to get sued. Oh, 100%.
▶ 2:43:38So literally your amendment would actually save us money in the form of listen you either get these savings that are already written in that are going to harm people to the tune of um cutting down 1.8 billion in direct spending and 4.3 billion in discretionary spending over 10 years. But when we look at it though, if we can hopefully hold a rogue administration in check, that will limit how much money we may be on the hook for going forward.
▶ 2:44:09If you have an administration that continues to violate people's civil rights, their constitutional rights, and even now, so many of our workers rights are being violated. And that is risking so much of our treasury because when somebody gets a lawyer that decides that they won't bend the knee to this administration and instead will stand up and do what's right based on what's in the constitution, that's going to cost us money in the long run anyway, ain't it? No. 100%.
▶ 2:44:39And it's that and it's also the fact that this administration is paying foreign governments Yeah. to imprison these these people. And so, you know, on I I remember here on the campaign trail the the the president ranting about sending money overseas, sending money to other places. It looks like he has a problem with us uh expending resources to ensure that we stop the spread of preventable diseases so it doesn't reach America.
▶ 2:45:04But he doesn't have a problem with us sending money to uh imprison people who have been whose constitutional rights have been violated. No, you're absolutely right. And honestly, we also need to make sure that we are conducting effective oversight over that because as we spend money, whether it is with a prison that we have right here on our soil, whether it's a prison that we contract with, we still are the ones that have to oversee and make sure that people's rights are not being violated.
▶ 2:45:33And frankly, I want to say thank you to those of you that spent your own money and went to check up because it doesn't seem like we're getting any reports. In fact, there were a lot of people as we saw Senator uh Van Holland who also went over, there are a lot of people that didn't even know if Abrego was alive. And it's my understanding that when y'all went over, they wouldn't even they didn't even want to let y'all in. So, I don't know how it is that we send money.
▶ 2:45:59And you know, like I know that as it relates to the money that we were sending to foreign countries for USAID, we would oftent times take congressional delegation trips to see what is going on. How are you spending this money? Is this an effective use of our resources? But it seems like we don't want to conduct any oversight over what they doing with these folks that have had their due process rights violated. Thank you so much for this amendment. I really do appreciate it and I will yield.
▶ 2:46:30Does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the uh the question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Frost. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, I'd ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered. is previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does Mr. Casar seek recognition?
▶ 2:47:00Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment number three. The clerk will please distribute the Casar amendment number three. The clerk will now report. Amendment number three to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 offered by Mr. Casar of Texas. Without objection, the move is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. gentleman uh is now Mr. Kasar is recognized for five minutes. Mr.
▶ 2:47:27Chairman, Trump lied when he said he was going to support the American worker. In his first 100 days in office, Trump has raised prices for families across America. He's done devastating damage to the economy. and he has stripped collective bargaining rights away for over 1 million American workers working here in the federal government and in Congress. We can fix this right now.
▶ 2:47:56Republicans and Democrats alike because these workers, they're not political pawns in somebody's game. They're all of our constituents. And I know of no other time in American history where a president has taken away workers rights from this many people just in one single day. It's unprecedented. It's unacceptable. The courts aren't accepting it and the Congress should not accept it.
▶ 2:48:21If we want the services our constituents rely on to be delivered effectively, we need to restore these collective bargaining rights right now. And in this bill, we're talking about stripping away the pensions of so many federal workers while at the same time letting stand Trump's illegal order that takes away the bargaining rights of those very same workers.
▶ 2:48:45So, if we allow this blow to labor rights to go unchallenged, Trump is going to be coming after private sector workers collective bargaining rights next. So, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and support the right of all workers to collectively bargain rather than pass this bill, which strips away workers pensions, and will become part of a bigger bill that strips away workers Medicaid, that strips away workers education funds, that strips away all this money from the American people and the American worker,
▶ 2:49:15all to give it out to billionaires and to their corporate cronies. Chairman, I yield back. I'll now recognize myself uh for statement. The amendment's budgetary effects are not clear. Furthermore, this amendment invokes policy reforms. The committee's directive under the budget reconciliation process is to achieve net savings of $50 billion.
▶ 2:49:40That's a foreign concept to some on this committee, but budget savings of $50 billion. I therefore oppose this amendment. Does any other member seek recognition? you want. Okay. Uh seeing none, the question is now on the casar amendment number three. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr.
▶ 2:50:10Chair, we'd ask for recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Uh for what purpose does Mr. Sar seek recognition. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment number two. Will the clerk please distribute? Will the clerk please report? Amendment number two to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print provided for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 offered by Mr. Canar of Texas. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order.
▶ 2:50:38The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we're now talking about ways we can save the American taxpayer money. And here's an idea. Why don't we say Elon Musk has to follow the law and leave the government at the end of his 130day mandate? Otherwise, we cancel all of his sweetheart contracts. That would save us $3 billion a year just alone on saying Elon Musk needs to follow the law.
▶ 2:51:08Or we could just save the American taxpayer $8 million a day, $3 billion a year. Already, we've heard that Mr. Musk is saying he wants to step back some from his role of robbing the federal government and the American taxpayer blind. But stepping back a little bit isn't what's required under the law.
▶ 2:51:29The law says that if you want to be one of these fat cats with billions of dollars in federal contracts and then be in the White House, look, I don't think you should be allowed to do that at all. But the law says you get to do it for 130 days. Those 130 days end on May 30th. So my amendment is simple. If Elon Musk follows the law and leaves the federal government at the end of 130 days, then that's it. He followed the law.
▶ 2:51:57But if he does what it sounds like he's saying he's going to do and stay involved in the federal government, keep on running cabinet meetings, keep on running the White House, keep on firing veterans and stealing their salaries to give his companies another big contract, then no, we cancel those contracts and we know exactly what the impact to the budget is. We will save ourselves $3 billion a year. We'll save the American taxpayer $8 million every single day. But the choice would be up to Elon.
▶ 2:52:28And if the Republicans think that Elon Musk is going to follow the law and leave the government when he's supposed to at the end of May, then they should have no problem voting for my amendment. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Any other members recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the Casar amendment number two. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. And Mr.
▶ 2:52:57Chair, we'd ask for vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does Mr. Casar seek recognition again? I seek recognition on my amendment number four at the desk. Will the clerk please distribute? Will the clerk please report? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print provided for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 offered by Mr. Cassar of Texas. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I observe a point of order.
▶ 2:53:25The gentleman from Texas recognized for five minutes explaining his amendment. Chairman, the Republicans on this committee just voted no on cancing Elon Musk contracts if he violates the law and stays past 130 days. The Republicans on this committee just voted no on Mr. Frost's amendment that would require the president of the United States to follow US Supreme Court orders. At some point, we've got to at have some shame on this committee.
▶ 2:53:56So, my amendment, I would hope my Republican colleagues would vote for it, is that if a court or the federal government finds that Mr. Musk abused his power to enrich himself here over the last few months, then we would cancel his contracts.
▶ 2:54:11If a court finds that the richest man on earth went in, used the federal books, scraped people's data, steered contracts to himself, then we should maybe stop sending him $8 million a day and save the American taxpayer $3 billion. That's the way that not just Democrats, but conservatives, progressives, independents all across the country want to see us save some money by saying these corporate grifters that use the government to enrich themselves, they should get cut off.
▶ 2:54:42And look, there's a House Republican majority today, but there could be a Democratic majority tomorrow or at least in under two years. And when we are sitting on this committee and if we get a chance to have the subpoena power and look into this and find out that Elon Musk has used his power to enrich himself, the consequences could actually be much greater than just having his contracts cut off. So I ask my Republican colleagues, I know you voted no on Mr. Frost amendments to say the president should follow the US Supreme Court.
▶ 2:55:12I know you just voted no on my amendment that said if Mr. for Musk's days over the 130 days, he should have his contracts canled. At a minimum, I would ask that you vote for this amendment that says if Musk breaks the laws, if he says that he if we find out from a court or from the federal government that he steered these contracts to himself, then we shouldn't keep on rewarding him with billions in taxpayer dollars.
▶ 2:55:36That's the way we should be saving the American taxpayer money, not by kicking kids off of Medicaid or pulling school meals or firing veterans. I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that at least one Republican member of Congress would vote to say, "We will hold Mr. Musk accountable if he stays past the 130-day limit. We'll hold Mr. Musk accountable if a court finds that he's been funneling money to himself." The news is out that he's seeking this multi-billion dollar contract for Trump's Golden Dome.
▶ 2:56:06The word is out that he's out there messing with the FAA trying to get his Starlink contracts at the FAA. The word is out that he tried to get a $400 million contract just recently for Tesla at the State Department and then he got caught doing it. So look, you may not think it's going to come out today, but it will come out eventually.
▶ 2:56:25And it would have been better if you voted yes to say we're going to cut off Musk's contracts if he breaks the law, if he breaks the 130day rule, if he breaks conflicts of interest, if he keeps on using his position to enrich himself. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Any other members seek recognition? Miss Crockett. Yeah, I would say that um Mr. Casar has laid this out really plainly.
▶ 2:56:49You know, there used to be a time in which um one of the mottos of the Republican party was this idea that y'all were the party of law and order. And um I really think that it's very clear that it's anything but when we have amendments that literally just say follow the law. I mean, right now, one of the things that we hear over and over and over about why it makes sense to throw people out of this country without any due process is because you are just saying that they broke the law.
▶ 2:57:19Not that they had an opportunity to defend. Not that we have any proof that they broke the law, but your word is enough to literally exile somebody and send them to a prison where they are doing god knows what. But if we have a court that has found that this man has broken the law, it would be wise if you really believe in law and order to say that we will not continue to enrich the richest person in the world with our tax dollars, especially when we're
▶ 2:57:49talking about the fact that we're trying to find savings when we know for sure that he has broken the law. So I appreciate Mr. Casar because this isn't about partisanship. This is about right versus wrong. And honestly, it's just about good old common sense. I think that's the one thing the American people are wishing that we had right now in government is just a little bit of common sense.
▶ 2:58:11And it only makes sense that we would not continue to send somebody $8 million a day or even more money than that knowing that they literally are breaking the laws that we that we the laws that we wrote. I'll Does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the Casar amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No.
▶ 2:58:39In the opinion chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. I'd ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered. Now, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does Miss Lee Miss Lee seek recognition? Everybody. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Um, my amendment number one. Will the clerk please uh distribute? Will the clerk please designate?
▶ 2:59:02Amendment number one to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 offered by Miss Leah Pennsylvania. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleoman is recognized for five minutes to explain our amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this amendment would end the budget cuts if the consumer price in index increases by more than one percentage point above the annualized rate.
▶ 2:59:27The consumer price index is an estimate of the level of prices uh of goods and services being bought by households. Essentially, it tracks price changes over time. Since my Republican colleagues are always praising Trump's impact on the economy and how low he's going to get prices, this amendment shouldn't be a concern. Trump practically ran on lowering the price of eggs. So this amendment um I think would serve the best interest of all of us. But the reality is that prices have gone up across the board.
▶ 2:59:54Combined the price of meats, poultry, fish, and eggs saw 1.3% monthly increase in March alone. Utility gas services increased 2.5% and electricity prices increased uh.9%. In February, home prices were up 2.9% compared to last year. Medicare insurance uh excuse me, uh clothing prices all went up. This administration has so far failed to make any dent in the cost of living crisis.
▶ 3:00:17Instead, we've gotten erratic tariff policy removals uh excuse me, erratic tariff policies, removals of government watchd dogs, gutting of federal staff, and cuts to critical federal programs like Medicaid and food assistens which only exacerbate this crisis. This is not being caused by some a serious outside force or immigrants or federal workers or whoever else the Republicans feel like blaming on any given day. This is a Trump made crisis entirely. We are gearing up for a recession based on his policies and his actions.
▶ 3:00:47So, let's be clear, working-class Americans will be hit hardest with all of these price hikes and job losses. While the wealthiest are being handed trillions in uh in dollars worth of tax breaks, while home ownership remains a pipe dream for so many Americans, private equity firms are gobbling up those houses instead of rents at skyhigh rates. While people are watching their retirement accounts plummet due to stock market volatility, Trump insiders, possibly even on this committee, are making out like bandits by selling out the right uh selling at the right time.
▶ 3:01:15A recession will only shift more money and more resources to the top 1%. The wealth gap will only grow larger. It's a shame how much these reconciliation bills are punching down and putting the burden on those with the least means and power. In this bill alone, we have pieces that take away from the monthly paychecks of federal workers and reduce their pensions. And for what? Nothing in this bill will do anything to lower cost to make life better for folks. Its only goal is to pay for the trillions in tax breaks for the ultra wealthy.
▶ 3:01:43So whether you live in an urban or rural area or if you're a Republican or a Democrat, the cost of living is a universal concern. And being able to not live just dayto-day, but to thrive is a goal we can all get behind. And nothing in this bill or any of the other reconcil reconciliation bills will make that a reality. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Does any member seek recognition? Miss Briefly.
▶ 3:02:12Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is an amazing amendment brought by the brilliant um, gentle lady out of Pennsylvania because one of the things that we consistently hear every time we start one of these hearings is that the Republicans had a mandate and that that is why we ended up with Donald Trump.
▶ 3:02:33And I can tell you that as I traveled the country warning them that what is happening is was going to happen, people would say things like the price of eggs are so high. And so this amendment specifically deals with issues around the consumer price index. So let's talk about the price of eggs because for whatever reason, we've yet to have a hearing on the price of eggs when that was really the one big thing. And I remember the big guy that's in the White House saying that he was going to reduce the cost of eggs on day one.
▶ 3:03:03But what we see is that the national average price of eggs in March of 2025 was $6.23, a 6% increase from the previous month, a 60% increase yeartoyear. And USDA said egg prices could climb 41% this year.
▶ 3:03:24When we start to talk about things such as our energy in March, natural gas prices increased 3.6% and electricity prices increased 9%. Fuel and oil prices increased 8%. Utility gas services increased 2.5%. The national average for GA for a gallon of gas is $3.17, nowhere near the $1.98 cent that President Trump claimed last week.
▶ 3:03:53I just want to make sure we get the facts out there. And finally, the other area that we typically talk about that really impacts everyday working people is housing. When we look at shelter prices, which measure the cost of housing, rent, lodging, away from home, and owners equivalent rent, it rose 2% in March. In February of 2025, home prices were up 2.9% compared to last year, selling for a median of $424,000.
▶ 3:04:23The number of homes sold was down 5% yearover-year. Listen, we are in a crisis and they are pretending that the solution is going to be cutting everything. That those of us that make this country actually go is the solution. Right now, we're cutting jobs as it relates to the federal government. Right now, because of the failed policies around tariffs, we know that we are looking at losing plants. They said that that was going to bring plants.
▶ 3:04:51They just announced that we had two auto dealers that were going to shut down approximately 40,000 jobs. As they then go after NIH, we know that in the state of Alabama, the largest employer in the state of Alabama is the University of Alabama. They are looking at losing jobs because they won't have research dollars. The only thing that they are doing is hurting us.
▶ 3:05:14It is the reason, if we going to talk about numbers and mandates, it is the reason that the only person in recent modern times to have the lowest approval ratings at their 100 day mark is the same person the first time they were in.
▶ 3:05:29And now this time, it is time for us to get serious and talk about what will grow our economy, what will bring more money in, what will make sure that people can move up from working poor to middle class and maybe even reach this higher level that so many of y'all listen to this upper echelon, this rich level because that is what is supposed to set us apart in this country.
▶ 3:05:54We are supposed to live in a country where everyone has an opportunity to go from rags to literally riches. And so I am asking my colleagues to start looking out for the people that elected them. And this is one way that we can do it by supporting this amendment of Miss Lee. And with that, I yield. The gentle lady yields.
▶ 3:06:16Do any other members wish to speak on this Do any other members wish to speak on this amendment? No, sir. Hearing none. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle lady. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:06:46And Mr. Chair, we'd ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Are there further amendments on this bill? Uh yes. I uh have an amendment at the desk. Uh my amendment Lee, amendment two. The the clerk will distribute the amendment.
▶ 3:07:23The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment number two to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 offered by Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. Uh the gentleoman, Miss Lee, is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:07:46Um this amendment would end the budget cuts if the president or any executive agency deports any person in the United States without due process under the law. And I think that's incredibly important because we can all agree how important due process is um in this country. This amendment is not just about immigration. It's about whether America will remain a nation governed by the laws and freedoms that we value. If due process becomes optional, it threatens all Americans, and we should all be sounding the alarm.
▶ 3:08:15We're seeing people straight up disappear to Al Salvador. 288 men, including teens, have been taken from their homes and families with no notice, no due process, and no information about why, nor any opportunity to challenge it. We're seeing the Department of Justice greenlight warrantless searches of homes by ICE agents. That could mean an agent in plain clothes, busting into homes with no probable cause finding, no sign off from a judge, nothing. That is a terribly dangerous prospect.
▶ 3:08:44It's already clear that Trump is not targeting actual threats, but manufacturing reasons to disappear and deport lawfully present individuals, long-term residents, and families. Report after report have indicated that most of the people being disappeared and deported have little to no criminal record. We just can't sit here and say it won't happen to me because we don't know that. Trump has already defined court orders, including those from the Supreme Court. We are beyond the slippery slope. This is a defining moment of who is on the right side or the wrong side of history.
▶ 3:09:14Due process is such a closely held core principle of this country that it's in the Constitution twice. first in the fifth amendment which says to the federal government that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and then later in the 14th amendment which is applied to the states. This shouldn't be a radical opinion. My Republican colleagues are always speaking about how much they and we love the Constitution, but I'm afraid that they only love it when it benefits them.
▶ 3:09:43Nowhere in the Constitution does it says that these rights are only for American citizens. If you are here, you are under its protection. That means immigrants, too. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a it is an opportunity for us to get our country back on course, and I yield back. The general lady yields. I recognize myself speak on the amendment. I oppose the amendment. I support the executive branch effort to protect our country and preserve the peace of our republic by deporting criminal illegals.
▶ 3:10:13And I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield my time. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Did Miss Crockett wish to be recognized? I can't. I was going to ask you a question though. Miss Crockett, I'm yielding my time, but I'll be happy to recognize you, ma'am. Miss Crockett is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you.
▶ 3:10:35So I I think that where we um differ as it relates to what is going on in our country is that number one, the Constitution as it's been laid out by Miss Lee specifically guarantees the right to due process.
▶ 3:10:57And what we're trying to grapple with is this idea of if you give somebody due process, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would not be deported. They simply would be able to say enter into a defense of whatever allegations are being made against them. And considering the fact that none of us are perfect on this earth and I know you agree with me because I know what you believe, right?
▶ 3:11:27No one is perfect. So people can make mistakes and this gives us an opportunity to catch mistakes. This isn't about Democrats saying, you know what, we want certain lawless bad people in this country. Instead, what it is saying is that we believe in the Constitution. No matter if we're a Democrat, Republican, or independent, we believe in our founding documents and we believe in the Constitution. And this means that you don't have an accident where Abrago is sent out of the country.
▶ 3:11:55This means you don't have an accident where you are incarcerating US citizens. This means you don't have an accident when US children are being deported to the extent that we have a US citizen child who was literally supposed to be receiving cancer treatment being deported. It gives us an opportunity to catch any potential mistakes by making sure that there is a process all due process gives you.
▶ 3:12:24It doesn't give you a get out of jail free card. It doesn't give you permission to stay when you are not allowed to stay. It doesn't allow you to evade the law. In fact, it makes sure that the law works the way that it is supposed to work. It is what every single criminal defendant has always been guaranteed regardless of their status.
▶ 3:12:45So that somebody can't just go out and say this person committed that crime, but instead there would be a process that involve more than just one person's opinion. And so I guess that's my big question is why are we afraid of process? If we know that these are bad people, if we believe that the persons that are seeking to make sure that we rid our country of them, then why wouldn't we? In fact, this gives y'all more time to show. You get to show and tell.
▶ 3:13:15You get to go and lay it all out and and make sure that the entire public gets to see this person did this, this person did that, and this is why we sent them away. It honestly instills some sense of confidence in the entire country in what you are doing and they get to say you know what Mr. President you were right we had too many of those bad people and now we know that this person did this that or the other.
▶ 3:13:41So the only thing that we're asking to do is actually to follow the law and the highest law in the land supposedly is the constitution. Thank you and I'll The gentle lady yields. Any other members wish to speak on this amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentle lady, Miss Lee. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No.
▶ 3:14:12In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. I'd ask for a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will postponed. For what purpose does the gentle lady Lee seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Uh Lee, amendment three. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 3:14:42Amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print provided for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 is offered by Miss Leah Pennsylvania. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleoman is recognized for five minutes to explain and speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really think that this one really gets at the heart of this committee and the work that we are entrusted with with doing.
▶ 3:15:10This amendment would end the budget cuts if the president, a special government employee, or a member of the cabinet violates ethic rules by using their public office for their own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated with in a non-governmental capacity.
▶ 3:15:31Simply put, if President Trump or Elon Musk or any other agency head uses their official position to make themselves rich, their family rich, or to sell some product, uh, then all of these budget changes Republicans are ramming through should end. My Republican colleagues seem to act like no ethic violations are happening. So again, this one really should not be a problem. They won't because they know that Trump has sold out the presidency to the highest bidder. They know that this administration's actions would cause this bill to almost immediately expire.
▶ 3:16:01They are seeing exactly what the rest of us are seeing. So far, Trump has turned the White House lawn into a Tesla dealership. So, while Americans are struggling to afford groceries, he's showing off the features of a car made by his bestie, campaign donor, and employee Musk. Trump has been hawking his official Trump memecoin and gutting crypto regulations. People may not be able to afford healthcare, but if they're a top Trump memecoin holder, they get to go to an exclusive gala with him. He also holds court in his private membersonly club, Mara Lago, his so-called winter white house.
▶ 3:16:30While most people can't afford to buy their own house, Americans are struggling to get by while watching this administration get richer and richer. And it's not just Trump. A Senate permanent subcommittee on Investigations memo out this week estimates that Elon Musk and his company stand to avoid at least $2.37 billion in legal liability through his efforts to gut the federal workforce and exert influence over federal agencies. and that is a quote. He's also made billions in government contracts, none of which conveniently have been touched by Doge or Republican funding cuts.
▶ 3:17:01Trump and Republicans are scapegoating and demonizing federal employees so that nobody is paying attention to the absolute griff that's happening in the executive branch. This is not a monarchy. We do not have to sit by Adalie while an old out-of-ouch billionaire enriches himself and his family. We have a duty as a co-equal branch of government to put a stop to these blatant ethic violations. Our government should be answering to the people, not to the highest bidder and not to the biggest check. We should be working to clean up the corruption that's been allowed to rot from the inside.
▶ 3:17:31And that rot is not coming from our dedicated federal workers. It's coming from Trump and his top officials. We deserve leaders who serve the people, not themselves. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, I yield back. The gentle lady yields. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I oppose the amendment and I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Republicans stand against title five uh violation.
▶ 3:17:59Any violation of the code of federal regulations is contrary to the core principles of our country and Republicans stand united against that. There's sufficient laws and mechanisms for enforcement already in existence uh replete throughout federal law and precedent within our judicial system to protect our country against violations of the code of federal regulations. So I oppose the amendment and I encourage my colleagues to oppose.
▶ 3:18:30I yield the balance of my time. Does anyone else seek recognition to speak on this amendment? by saying I I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No.
▶ 3:18:58In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, we'd ask for a recorded vote. A recorded vote is Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Lee, amendment four. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members and the clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 3:19:25Amendment number four to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 offered by Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleoman, Miss Lee, is recognized for five minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appeal, excuse me, jumping ahead. We didn't have to do that.
▶ 3:19:51Um, the amendment would add additional exemptions to avoid these egregious new filing fees for merit system protection board appeals. Those exemptions would include suitability determinations of federal employment um reduction in force actions, performance-based removals or terminations of probationary employees, and actions related to an employer's denial of reinstatement. The merit system protection board was created to protect federal workers against partisan attacks and other prohibited practices.
▶ 3:20:21So the very things you're seeing in the news like all of these purges of federal employees. When we talk about a system of checks and balances, this is one of those checks on executive branch power. When an employee is fired for, say a doge teenage minion randomly adding their name to a list, they can submit an appeal to the Merit System Protection Board. In that hearing, the agency will then have to prove that that action was warranted. But Republicans don't want those checks and balances.
▶ 3:20:50They seemingly want to revert back to a pre-revolutionary war days when we were governed by an unfettered king. They're definitely not taking up their role as a co-equal branch of government and putting a stop to the illegal firings and funding cuts. And we can see from this bill that they're trying to make it easier for Trump and Musk to do what they want. Just look at the bill we're marking up today.
▶ 3:21:11In one section, they're trying to force new government employees to choose between having workplace uh protections like being able to appeal their firing in the merit system protection board or having more money in their monthly paycheck by not having to pay an additional 5% into their retirement accounts. Then in this section, they want to force a filing fee on those that still have those protections and want to appeal their dismissal.
▶ 3:21:36Republicans are telling a person who feels they were unlawfully fired that while they understand they may be stressed about no longer getting a paycheck and having to pay for an attorney uh to appeal the decision, but now they also have to pay about $350 in a filing fee. The entire point is to discourage appealing at all. $350 may not seem like a lot when we are talking about folks who have billions of dollars at their disposal.
▶ 3:22:01Uh but to the average person that might be a utility bill or uh their monthly grocery budget or their uh children's prescription drug cost. It's a direct attack on lowincome employees and a barrier to justice and due process. This bill is forcing the federal workforce to foot the bill for tax cuts for billionaires while Trump and the Doge crew carry out a fullscale assault against them. It's a shameful tactic.
▶ 3:22:28I urge my colleague to support this amendment which expands exemptions to this harmful fouling fee. It is incredibly simple. Um and with that I yield back. The gentle lady yields. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I'm going to oppose the amendment. Although I appreciate the spirit of the language of the amendment and I avail myself to the gentle lady and her colleagues in a a future legislative endeavor to consider this type of language.
▶ 3:22:57I because although I do acknowledge the intention and the spirit behind the general lady's amendment, the legislation we're considering today is carefully constructed to comply with congressional rules of reconciliation and budget considerations. Therefore, I encourage all my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I yield the balance of my time.
▶ 3:23:24Do any other members wish to speak on this amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentle lady, Miss Lee. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. And the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 3:23:52As previously announced, further proceedings on the questions will be postponed. For what purpose does a gentleman, Mr. Garcia, seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Garcia number one. Thank you, sir. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Mr. Garcia of California.
▶ 3:24:22Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman, Mr. Garcia, is recognized for five minutes to speak on his amendment. Well, thank you, Mr. uh Mr. Chairman. Um, I know that it's very clear for for from all of us that today's debate and discussion has made the House Republican agenda very clear.
▶ 3:24:45It's giveaways to billionaires, huge cuts to healthcare and social security, attacks on due process, and we should not lose sight of course of the other big crisis happening right now that Donald Trump of course is causing. Now, in the coming weeks, every American is going to be impacted by Donald Trump's insane and destructive trade and tariff agenda. Now, we already know that the Trump tariffs are just a sales tax that hits the poor and working people the hardest.
▶ 3:25:11I also represent one of the biggest porch in the US, the second largest container port in the country. And I'll tell you right now that goods simply aren't coming. Last week, trucking volumes coming out of LA collapsed to levels we only see during Christmas and New Year's. Trucking, which is a number one job for non-oled educated men, are seeing huge roll backs. We could also see huge numbers of bankruptcies and layoffs in the coming months as the supply chain freezes up.
▶ 3:25:41Now, small businesses, we know won't be able to buy the goods they sell. Prices will skyrocket for products, and others may simply vanish from the shelves. The uncertainty is just as dangerous. Whether you're in shipping, in trucking, a small business, in the import or export business, all of these businesses are being impacted by the Trump tariffs that are nothing but pure chaos. Businesses and small businesses are going to be hit first, but our consumers will be next.
▶ 3:26:09These tariffs won't bring back jobs because no firm can invest in new factories. There is too much uncertainty and business businesses cannot plan long-term tariff rates and they can't just import machines or construction materials. The job market is just too uncertain. These Trump tariffs won't bring us a better deal because China won't even pick up Donald Trump's calls. And he is beginning to look more desperate every single day. No one benefits from this insane and dangerous trade agenda.
▶ 3:26:38But there is maybe one group that appears to be benefiting and that is connected insiders. We know that prior to these Trump tariff announcements and in between there have been people including members of Congress, maybe some on this committee that have purchased between tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock. By the way, between April 8th and 9th, the day before President Trump caused his sweeping global tariff crisis.
▶ 3:27:06Now, we know that even the day before Trump's announcement, a certain member and maybe others dumped between 50,000 and $100,000 in Treasury bills according to required public disclosures made to the House. Now, of course, there's no direct evidence today that anyone committed has been committed of doing any wrongdoing, and certainly we have no evidence that anyone had any advanced notice of what Trump was doing and his decision to undo some of the tariffs.
▶ 3:27:32But we do know that the day before the announcement, Trump posted, and I quote, "This is a great time to buy." End quote. This should raise concerns to all of us. The public needs to trust us. Who knew about Trump's chaotic tariff announcements? Who invested in the stock market? And what insider information did they know? Now, we don't know specifics of the announcement, of course, and who was in the room and made these decisions and who purchased all the stock.
▶ 3:28:01We also don't know who's getting direct insider information on future announcements and future deals. So, this amendment brings clarity and it's quite simple. It will suspend the implementation of this toxic and dangerous legislation if we determine that the president or the head of any executive agency or any member or employee or contractor of Doge is found to have committed insider trading related to the imposition of the tariffs.
▶ 3:28:28This is a common sense good government measure to ensure trust and honesty and to bring a certainty to our tariff policy. It removes an incentive to fuel chaos in order to profit and will provide much needed certainty. I urge all members to support this amendment and I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I will be in opposition to the amendment.
▶ 3:28:53I'm also in opposition along with all my colleagues, one would hope on both sides of the aisle to insider trading that results in personal benefit for any Republican or any Democrat. Today's today's legislation is is not the venue for that.
▶ 3:29:09I'm going to oppose the amendment, but again, I offer to myself and my colleagues and my office at the avail of my Democrat colleagues to work towards legislation and investigation into uh into any illicit or illegal insider trading that may be found to exist, including within this body, but so of course to include the executive branch. So, I'm opposition to the amendment. I yield the balance of my time. Does anyone else seek recognition?
▶ 3:29:39Miss Luna of Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. Um, first of all, I obviously am supporting what the um oversight Republican committee is doing here for this entire process. But I did want to speak to Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia, please let it be known if you would like to do a discharge petition inside uh banning insider trading for members of Congress, I will happily support that. I think that it is disgusting that people do that. I share Mr.
▶ 3:30:06Higgins sentiment and I think that a majority of the American people want that. So I'd be happy to support that. We can get the ball rolling. Discharge petition away on that. Please. Thank you. Well, I if I can respond to that. I I appreciate that, Representative Luna. I agree with you. Gentle lady to yield her time. Gentleman's right. Thank you. Um I I appreciate that. Representative Luna, I I also agree with you. There should be absolutely no insider trading uh in Congress. In fact, I believe there should be no stock trading uh of individual stocks by members of Congress, period.
▶ 3:30:35and I support legislation to do so and so I'm looking forward to our conversation uh to move this issue forward. So thank you. The gentleman yields. Do any other members wish to speak on this amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Garcia. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. And Mr. Chair, I'd ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 3:31:05As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be Does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. Sana. Oh, yes. Do you seek recognition? Yes. The gentleman is recognized. Uh, thank you. U, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members.
▶ 3:31:34The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print provided for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Mr. Superman in Virginia. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The the amendment is simple.
▶ 3:31:59It would strike section 90001 which would increase federal employees contributions uh to their retirement benefits in its entirety. Uh this provision is not savings. It is a pay cut for our longest serving civil servants who have invaluable irreplaceable knowledge and experience serving the American people. And this is just going to worsen the continued brain drain of the federal government and and folks who serve. Uh, I've heard from constituents all around my district who have already left the federal workforce as a result of this administration's actions.
▶ 3:32:29Uh, there are physicists and technologists, people who keep us safe, people who develop cutting edge research and technologies and make government more efficient and cost less. And many of them are also veterans who choose to continue serving their country after after their time in uniform. And still others might make the choice to leave if these provisions are passed into law. Uh, I'll tell you the story of one federal employee in my district. He said that I have proudly served as a federal employee for over 20 years.
▶ 3:32:56Throughout my career, I've worked diligently, often for sign significantly less pay than my counterparts in the private sector. And to change or take away these promised benefits just a few years before I'm eligible to retire feels both unjust and deeply discouraging. and he and others have noted that a lot of people who the federal government has been trying to recruit for many years now don't want to come and we're losing some of our top people.
▶ 3:33:21In fact, this this amendment is trying to stop this brain drain by showing that some of the senior people who will be most affected by this and some of the veterans and some of the the experts that are be affected by this uh they're they're going to leave. We're going to lose them and we're going to lose their expertise. So, what we're trying to do here today with this provision is to not punish the expertise and longevity of some of these federal employees by cutting the pay of those who have been here the longest.
▶ 3:33:46And while it might raise a little bit of revenue, the costs of this to our federal government and to the American people will be far higher. And there are better ways to make government more efficient without attacking the hard-earned retirement benefits federal employees have been paying into their entire careers. I would be more than happy to work across the aisle on bipartisan solutions, but sadly this is not where we are at today. And so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose this provision. I yield back. The gentleman yields. I recognize myself to speak on the amendment.
▶ 3:34:16I'll oppose the amendment which completely repeals 900001 of our committee print. This amendment would significantly reduce deficit reduction in the committee print by over 30 billion in revenue over the course of 10 years. This amendment further would result in the underlying committee print conflicting with our clear reconciliation instructions of 50 billion in net budget savings.
▶ 3:34:44A component of the larger reconciliation instructions that we are we are compelled to abide by. We have a nation that suffers from almost 37 trillion in debt. Making a minor adjustment in in federal spending is not only an obligation of our Congress, but uh reflective of the oath that we've sworn to protect and preserve our republic.
▶ 3:35:10So, I'm in opposition to the amendment and I yield the balance of my time. Does any other member wish to be recognized? Miss Crockett is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you so much, chair, and I, Mr. Chair, and I do support this amendment.
▶ 3:35:26You know, there's a theme that we keep hearing on this side of the aisle where it seems like we are constantly talking about real people, working people, the people that continue to make this country go.
▶ 3:35:41And the idea that we continue to violate people's trust, people that have dedicated years and years of service to us, whether it was in the form of being veterans or whether it was literally just in the form of being um a dedicated government worker like my mom.
▶ 3:36:00The issue that we have is that we keep pretending in this committee and actually in this Congress that the only way that we can save money is if we go after the people that literally are at the bottom. When I say the bottom, one of the best things that I've seen on social media here recently said that the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%. The bottom 90%.
▶ 3:36:291% own more than the bottom 90%. We are talking about this wealth gap that is just going to continue to widen at a time in which every single policy decision we're making is only making life more expensive and making it more difficult for those that are just trying to survive, especially those that work for our federal government.
▶ 3:36:51The fact is we're saying you know what we're going to take away access to resources that you had because we want to save money while at the same time as has been laid out by Miss Lee and me and others about the fact that the cost to eat is going up. The cost to get to work is going up. The cost to put a roof over your head is going up. The cost to put clothes on the backs of your children is going up. All at the same time, we're saying and we are going to give you less.
▶ 3:37:21We are going to take away from you. This is not this is not what makes us America the beautiful. And so I think that this is an opportunity to do what's right. And if we want to talk start talking about how we get out of debt, we can start with the top 1enters and maybe let the 90enters continue to at least just try to survive in this very difficult environment. With that, I will yield.
▶ 3:37:50I will yield back to uh the author of the amendment. Uh thank you. Um I I want to add as well uh again the if the goal here is to save money, the goal here is to pay down the debt. Um why are you firing the very people who actually save us a lot of money when it comes to some of these programs?
▶ 3:38:13Why are you firing the people who will actually do cutting edge research that will save us money on things like healthcare, on defense later on? I mean, you know, look at what's happening. We're getting having a brain drain in technologists at the Department of Defense now. We're having a brain drain in healthcare uh experts as well at HHS. And some of them have been fired, others have just left.
▶ 3:38:34Uh and I've talked to many people who are managers, who are leaders in the agencies uh who are being told to cut people, the very people that they're begging to try to keep. And so when you're trying to now look at cutting retirement benefits for federal workers, uh you're not going to be able to attract and retain the best talent, uh a lot of these federal workers actually could make a lot more money in the private sector, like the story that I told.
▶ 3:38:59Uh but instead, they're being told that they that we don't care about them, that we don't want to protect their retirement, that it's now it depends on who's president, whether or not they're valued, right? And so what we're doing here could end up being irreversible damage and could put us in a position where we can no longer attract good people. People who actually save the government money. I mean, I heard someone say that this is going to uh save us $30 billion.
▶ 3:39:26But think of all the money some of these folks that we're losing save us long term. Probably a lot more than $30 billion, right? If you if you're in a department in charge of making a trillion dollar program or a multi-billion dollar program efficient and you're fired, who's going to make that program efficient, right? So I again, it's it's we're we're doing things that we think are saving money, but they're actually costing us a lot more money long term.
▶ 3:39:54So this is bad not just for the federal workers, this is bad for every American taxpayer. I yield Does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, uh we will now vote on the which amendment subm amendment. I was pronouncing it right.
▶ 3:40:25Send me the phonetics. I I've got the phonetics and I still mispronounce it. I I'll be honest. But uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We'd ask for a record. Recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. What purposes? Miss Randall seek recognition. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please distribute? Will the clerk please report the amendment?
▶ 3:40:56An amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Miss Randall from Washington. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve point of order. Uh gentleoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you uh Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:41:21You know, in my district, nearly a quarter of my constituents are enrolled in Medicaid. That's around 188,000 people. And I have three community health centers, seven rural hospitals, and 90 rural health clinics. It takes, I don't know, about five hours to drive from one corner of my district to the other. And sometimes one of the roads is washed out because of storms.
▶ 3:41:50and having an option to choose another healthc care facility is not always available to people and Medicaid for not only the individuals who receive those benefits but also for the health clinics and the hospitals is a lifeline.
▶ 3:42:08Our rural hospitals are struggling to keep their doors open as it is and with the potential cuts that might be included in um you know budget instructions uh for this reconciliation package. My rural health system threatens to flounder. And I'm not alone.
▶ 3:42:36It's not just my district or Democratic districts where we rely so strongly on Medicaid. You know, in Arizona 2, 263,276 people are on Medicaid. In North Carolina, 5 20,63 people are on Medicaid. In 265,64 people are on Medicaid.
▶ 3:43:06And though the rural health centers, the hospitals, the doctor's offices that serve those patients rely on Medicaid, And you know, our neighbors, our healthc care providers, our community members are telling me at the town halls we do in our districts, in the emails they send to our office, in the meetings we have, that they are worried.
▶ 3:43:34They are worried that cutting $880 billion from the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee will mean cuts to Medicaid. In fact, uh the Congressional Budget Office has has said that those level of cuts are not possible without significant programmatic changes and benefit cuts to Medicaid.
▶ 3:44:02I know we've talked in um the government operations subcommittee about improper payments and the uh efforts to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. And I I'm speaking for myself, but I think also my Democratic colleagues, none of us want to see a wasteful and fraudulent system that takes away benefits from the people and the providers who depend on them.
▶ 3:44:27But in Washington state, we talked to our healthc care authority and of the two million Medicaid payments, only 30 to 40% of the fraudulent or improper uh allegations were proven credible, which is a 0.002% fraud rate. That's a pretty um satisfying uh rate.
▶ 3:44:52And I've heard colleagues on the other side say that they're not actually trying to cut Medicaid, which I hope is the truth. And this simple amendment says that if the administration makes any cuts to Medicaid or Medicare, it requires the immediate expiration of the Republican cuts. And I ask for support.
▶ 3:45:19And I yield the balance of my time to Representative Simon. Miss Randall, thank you so much. You know, at UCSF Bin Off Children's Hospital in my district um that I just toured, 70% of the children who are being served by that hospital are reliant on these services. heart transplants, stem cell transplants, cancer patients, all under the age of 18.
▶ 3:45:49You know, without us literally saying, "Yes, we will make sure that these families have medical support for their children in their worst, their most harshest times. Really, who are we?" So, I want to thank you for the amendment. Um, families deserve our support, particularly families with sick children. Thank you, Mr. Randall. I'll yield my time. Does see any other members seek recognition? Seek you seek recognition. I do.
▶ 3:46:19Miss Miss Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And you know, I really want to break this down so that people understand what um the general lady is trying to do. She is not only fighting for her constituents, and I do appreciate the fact that she is so in tune and in touch with her constituents, that she is listening to their very real stories. but she's honestly trying to save um all of our constituents, including yours, Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:46:47When we look at your district, which is Kentucky 1, it says that in your district, 235,000 people are on Medicaid and they are at risk of losing their health care under this budget plan. And here's the deal. For those of you sitting at home and watching and wondering what exactly is 2 um 53,000 I think is what I said. 253,000.
▶ 3:47:14That is approximately onethird the size of our districts. So just imagine, Mr. chair, what you what you could do by supporting this amendment is make sure that you are protecting one-third of your own constituents, even if we're not looking at anyone else's district. This is a lifeline for so many people.
▶ 3:47:39And I I just don't know why the theme has consistently been beat up on those that need it the most instead of going and finding the cuts where we know we can do it, which is basically by making sure that we increase the tax rate on certain people, then we'll we'll have all the money we need. We'll be just fine.
▶ 3:48:00But the idea that we are really solving anything, we're not because we know that right now we are going to take resources away from people that literally may be the difference between life and death. While at the same time, we know that um we still have to raise the debt ceiling because there's still so much debt. We know that the last time um Mr.
▶ 3:48:25Trump was in office that by the time he left there was an additional $8 trillion that was added to the budget. And just after this one first budget situation that we're about to go through, we're talking about adding another $5 trillion. And so I think that we need to really get to the heart of the problem. We are a country that is continually growing and that's what makes us fantastic.
▶ 3:48:52In fact, you know, recently they are offering $5,000. I don't know where they're going to get this $5,000 from to give everybody to have a baby, but that's the new thing that's being offered because they want more people. What we can't do is keep saying things like, "Oh, we're pro-life or pro-life or pro-life." But then once the life is here, when it comes to making sure that we can literally just be good Christians if we want to go there with it, we are not.
▶ 3:49:21It's more than just saying that we believe in God. It's more than saying that we study the word of God. It's actually about what are we doing when it comes down to the policies. And let me tell you, there is nothing godly about taking vulnerable people and taking away their health care all in the name of billionaires having more money in their pockets. I will yield. Does any other members seek recognition?
▶ 3:49:49Seeing none, the question is now on the Randall amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, we'd ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Uh, for what purpose, Miss Randall seek recognition? I have a second amendment at the desk. Mr. Chair, would the clerk please distribute?
▶ 3:50:15Will the clerk please A second amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Miss Randall of Washington. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a port of order. The uh gentleoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:50:41You know, we have already talked uh a little bit about um retirement fairness in this committee and I think there is some bipartisan support to retirement fairness to supporting the agreement that we have made with federal workers who have served our country and uh the amendment before us that would it would attach the text of HR1522, the Federal Retirement Fairness Act.
▶ 3:51:10um previously introduced by ranking Connelly. You know, this is a bipartisan bill with 80 co-sponsors and I am proud to be one of them. And this legislation would restore the option for federal employees to buy back their time spent as temporary or seasonal employees to count it towards their retirement eligibility.
▶ 3:51:33And in a lot of a lot of work sites around the country, um a lot of federal jobs, we have folks who begin their work in the postal service, in the forest service as temporary or seasonal and then get hired on as permanent. Um but th those months or years as temporary or seasonal employees don't count towards their retirement eligibility.
▶ 3:52:00This is a costneutral solution since employees um fund their contributions and you know we just deserve to make this promise to a federal workforce who is just getting attacked on a daily basis and who in the uh amendment in the nature of a substitute are getting their many of their retirement benefit.
▶ 3:52:29benefits decreased or eliminated, getting their worker protections um weakened. But this is a way that we could ensure that rural post offices in particular who are struggling to hire workers can continue recruiting temporary or seasonal employees and then allow them to stay by um giving this retention sort of a a retention promise that they are
▶ 3:53:00able to catch up those payments to their retirement service. and I encourage our colleagues to vote yes and I yield the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, uh the question is now on the Randall amendment number two. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A a recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 3:53:29uh recorded vote will be uh dispensed with. For what purposes, Miss Randall seek recognition? Thank you. I have uh Randall amendment number three. Amen. Will the clerk please report the Randall amendment number three? Amendment number three to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Miss Randall of Washington. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I observe point of order.
▶ 3:53:59The gentleoman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, on on behalf of the 27,000 federal employees I represent, I'm working to ensure that we are not incre increasing their costs of employment and and um instituting new cost barriers for them to challenge agency misconduct or wrongdoing.
▶ 3:54:27Um, you know, I I'm incredibly concerned that this bill, the underlying bill, would chill the reporting and appeal process with the Merit System Protection Board by requiring them to pay for the um complaints that they may seek to make.
▶ 3:54:48The um merit system protection board filings already come with costs such as attorney fees, but imposing, as the underlying bill does, additional costs on employees who simply want to see justice creates barriers to justice and due process. This would disproportionately target lower income employees, making them more vulnerable to being mistreated at work.
▶ 3:55:17And that's why I'm filing this amendment to prevent any language that would deter current or former employees from filing an appeal with the Merit System Protection Board. And you know, our countries and our communities can't thrive without safe workplaces and the ability for folks to seek uh relief from being mistreated in the workforce.
▶ 3:55:45And you know, our our strong federal workforce is what ensures that, you know, our democracy is protected and our future is bright and we owe it to them to have their backs. And I um would encourage my colleagues on this committee to also vote in support of this amendment and I yield the remaining uh balance of my time to the ranking member. I I thank the gentle lady.
▶ 3:56:09Let me just try to explain the the impacts of of not adopting u the gentle lady's amendment. So right now if an adverse decision is made initially by an agency or employer um normally uh the person would be able to appeal that directly to the merit system protection board and it's it's not an expensive process.
▶ 3:56:38Um but but absent this a absent that access you you drive people to So you know that which is also expensive both for the government and the agency but also for the for the employee. So by adopting this amendment, we avoid that that eventuality.
▶ 3:57:08We actually can can handle it. That's why the merit system protection board works because it's much much cheaper than any alternative. It is already um the more cost of effective way of doing this. It's also one step removed from from the the workplace.
▶ 3:57:25In other words, you you have you might have a decision being made um as a result of a a reduction in force or a u or a decision made by one individual uh manager that may be uh uncalled for and unjustified and um perhaps illegal or violation of of a a statutory uh protection.
▶ 3:57:53So that next step is the cheapest, most efficient, and most immediate way of resolving that dispute. And I I don't see the as as a former union president and a a union labor attorney, this doesn't save us money. This this actually will will cost us money because of not just the $350 uh appeal fee. That's the small part of this.
▶ 3:58:18the larger cost will be the involvement of multiple teams of lawyers uh much longer more expensive uh uh involvement by by the courts the civil courts.
▶ 3:58:30So, uh I think the gentle lady's uh amendment is is uh is well stated and uh it makes a lot of sense if we are actually trying to trying to save money and and also you know the the primary concern is here is to give full rights to these employees uh in their in their uh role as employees.
▶ 3:59:00and I'll yield back to the gentle lady. Time's expired. Time's expired. Does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the Randall amendment number three. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Recorded vote recorded recorded vote recorded vote has been uh ordered.
▶ 3:59:30For what purpose does Mr. I'm sorry miss Miss Unsari seek recognition. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please report the Amendment to amendment the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Miss Ansario of Arizona. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleoman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:59:59This amendment is to strike section 900002, which would eliminate supplemental retirement payments for the majority of federal employees who retire before age 62, even if they have served the American people for 25 years or more. This entire reconciliation print is a brazen attack on federal workers being used to fund billionaire tax cuts at the expense of working families.
▶ 4:00:26Retirement is already so out of reach for so many Americans. And one of the biggest reasons that people historically wanted to work for the federal government is because of the benefits. While the base pay may not be as high as the private sector, they knew that they were going to get the benefits that support their families, that they could retire one day, and that they had better protections against retaliation and wrongful termination.
▶ 4:00:53Now, Republicans are bowing down to President Trump and Elon Musk, who want to completely dismantle and privatize the essential services that the federal government provides. We already struggled to recruit postal workers to get American families their mail on time. We have a nurse and doctor shortage at the VA.
▶ 4:01:15And yet, Republicans are making it even harder to recruit these essential employees, cutting key benefits, slashing pay by increasing pension contributions, making it easier to fire employees for any reason, and making them pay a fee to appeal wrongful Making it less desirable to be a federal employee means that the most talented, hardworking Americans will seek employment elsewhere.
▶ 4:01:45It means we will no longer be competitive to hire the highquality talent we need to modernize our IT systems to make them run better for Americans who use them. Something that we just had a subcommittee hearing about yesterday. Most importantly, gutting the federal government and chasing away that talent pool will result in a poorer quality of services provided for our veterans, for our seniors, and for our families.
▶ 4:02:11All of this just to cut taxes for the ultra wealthy while still increasing the federal debt. I'll yield back to the ranking member. I thank the gentle lady. This amendment is well stated. the gentle lady from Arizona uh h has identified a an adverse result of of the bill as as is currently written.
▶ 4:02:39Uh up to now the law has been where an employee who is uh is separating from uh federal employment prior to the age of uh would have and who is eligible for for social security would have a supplemental payment to to fill to bridge that gap until they can actually uh collect social security at at their full retirement age of 62.
▶ 4:03:08So, uh, this leaves people in a position where they would either have to, you know, hang in there for a number of more years, uh, you know, just for the the fact that, uh, there would be a severe penalty from doing otherwise. And, uh, you know, that's not that's not an ideal situation. These are employees who are, uh, in government service for 20 to 25 years uh, that are in this situation.
▶ 4:03:37and uh you know it's just one more aspect of this that we are making it less attractive uh to get the talent and uh the commitment that uh the gentle lady from Arizona is identifying. So with that I will uh yield to any other member on the Democratic side that wishes to speak. Otherwise I yield back. Gentleman yields back any other members seek recognition.
▶ 4:04:04Seeing none, uh, the question is now on the Ansari amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. You want to record a vote. Record a vote is ordered. For what purpose does uh Mr. Simon seek recognition? Miss Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have an amendment at the desk. Simon, amendment one.
▶ 4:04:34Will the clerk please designate the amendment? Amendment to the amendment the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Miss Simon of California. Thank you. Uh uh uh without objection amendments considered as read. I reserve a point of order. Uh the gentleoman from California is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. Thank you. Apologize for that Mr. Chair. Thank you for the recognition.
▶ 4:05:00Today, I'm offering a common sense amendment to protect access to critical food assistance for not only my constituents, but families across this country. Simply put, this amendment would restrict the current administration from reducing the budget of or provision of assistance for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.
▶ 4:05:27You know, if the Trump administration cut SNAP any by any means, even at $1, this provision being considered by this committee to cut federal employee salaries, pensions, and labor protections would immediately expire.
▶ 4:05:48My amendment would force the administration to choose between its attacks on essential food benefits and their ongoing attacks on our nonpartisan federal workforce. Mr. Chair, I have mentioned in this committee some 29 years ago when I was a single, yes, teen mom going to college that I was a recipient of a small SNAP aotment of about $26 a month.
▶ 4:06:16I consistently was at the grocery store every other week and I had to foot put food back because I couldn't afford to feed my daughter and I even with those benefits. So I know the critical nature of these benefits. I'm sitting before you today as somebody who not only finished college, finished graduate school and my daughter is an attorney and passed the bar bar on her first attempt because we had a social safety net that got us out of poverty for once and for all.
▶ 4:06:44And that is exactly what programs like SNAP are intended to do. No one deserves no one deserves to be left behind because of an administration being hellbent on destroying our federal government and cutting our social safety nets.
▶ 4:07:00Last week, I visited the Alama County Food Bank where I heard directly from constituents about the devastating cuts, the potential cuts, the current cuts to federal nutrition programs like SNAP and what that would mean for them. I heard time and time again on this v visit about the unfortunate reality that so many folks face. They're one paycheck away from being in line at the food bank week after week.
▶ 4:07:28federal workers, including members of the California Coast Guard, the Federal Coast Guard in operating in California, who've lost their paychecks, who've been fired. They too are in line at our food banks. There are the these are the same federal workers that the bill that we are considering today would hurt.
▶ 4:07:50This bill would make it harder for workers and their families to access food, to afford food, housing, and higher education by cutting their salaries and pension. Mr. Chair, I have made a promise to my constituents and all Americans that I would do everything possible in my power to protect our social safety net.
▶ 4:08:11My amendment today is about the belief that food is a basic a basic human right and that all human rights cannot just be stripped away with a stroke of a pen. This is a promise that no one will be hungry from losing their SNAP benefits.
▶ 4:08:30And any reduction in these benefits or services provided by SNAP would be the difference in being able to buy groceries, pay for rent and utilities, and afford health care that so many vulnerable Americans and families face every single day, including the working people that we're talking about today. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 15% of the households in my district rely on SNAP benefits.
▶ 4:08:58In 2023, 44,000 households in California's 12th Congressional District rely on SNAP benefits. Closing. It's hard to close this conversation because so many folks around the country are relying on us in this moment to save save the social safety net. Mr.
▶ 4:09:20Chair, voting for my amendment is an easy way to demonstrate to our constituents collectively, the full America American public, that the critical benefits that the working poor rely on to put food on their table are not on the chopping block. As my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have already pledged that we would not have cuts to SNAP, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 4:09:50July back. Any member seek recognition. Uh Miss Presley, we use the mic, please. Uh Congresswoman Simon, I'm so glad I bet you're here. I always say the people closest to the pain should be closest to the power. You have been closest to the pain and we are so glad that you were here. Uh you never forget the plot and the plot is the people. I appreciate uh the congresswoman for introducing this amendment.
▶ 4:10:17SNAP is a true lifeline and this is a matter of life and death. If Republicans have their way, this reconciliation bill will increase hunger and food insecurity. More than 42 million Americans, 42 million participate in SNAP each month. This includes 16.9 million children, 4.5 million people with disabilities, and 1.2 million veterans.
▶ 4:10:46Over 1.1 million people in Massachusetts rely on SNAP. Let's talk about economic impact. For every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.50 in economic activity, SNAP dollars help to pay the wages of grocery store clerks, of truckers who deliver food, manufacturers who make food packaging, and the farmer who grows food.
▶ 4:11:15There is nothing efficient about making people hungrier and sicker. Is is there any uh single Republican who is willing to speak out to make sure that children, people with disabilities, and veterans do not go Anyone? Silence. This bill is a shame and a sham.
▶ 4:11:45Any other members seek recognition? I do. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I join in support with the gentle lady from California's amendment. She's identified a a real gap in this legislation that would leave some of our most vulnerable families uh exposed to hunger.
▶ 4:12:06Uh in Massachusetts alone, we have uh 600, excuse me, 62,477 children that are eligible for for mass health and and uh living in households below the poverty line. We've got 29,000 seniors uh as well relying on uh Meals on Wheels and other uh food assistance programs.
▶ 4:12:29We have 1.1 million uh residents in Massachusetts relying on So the the idea that that we would remember the overall goal here is to tr for the Republicans to provide a tax cut for some of the richest people in America.
▶ 4:12:50And in order to do that, we're going to take the food out of these children's mouths and and we're going to cut meals on wheels to seniors uh who may have no other recourse and no other uh source of nourishment. It just shows the the obscene nature o of this measure.
▶ 4:13:14And I'm just hoping that we have members on the other other side of the aisle who who have communities where people are struggling like this. And uh as the gentle lady from California said, this is this is a common sense. This is, you know, food is pretty basic.
▶ 4:13:34uh and and to think about the greatest country in the world and our priorities being skewed now to the point where, you know, we're we're cutting aid to veterans, where we're we're we're cutting meals on wheels, we're we're cutting the Head Start program, too. A lot of these kids, the they're their one meal of the day is when they go to school in the morning at Head Start, but you're going we're cutting Head Start in this in this bill.
▶ 4:14:02So, so you're you're creating a a crisis among these most vulnerable families, these children, these senior citizens. And I think the gentle lady from California's amendment is is well stated. Uh it it it solves this on the matter of food. It carves this out so that that we don't cause the greatest level of harm among the most vulnerable in our society.
▶ 4:14:32You know, it has never been an American tradition to punch down at the most vulnerable people in our society. Punching down at wounded veterans, punching down at seniors who are relying on meals and wheels, punching down at at kids who are going to head start, taking the food away. I mean, is that really where America is today? Is that why people voted for Donald Trump?
▶ 4:15:02I don't think so. I don't think so. And uh I'm hoping that in addition to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Turner, there will be other colleagues on on the Republican side here who recognize the wrongfulness and the the the obscene nature of what this bill proposes. Ranking member, will you yield? I will yield to the gentle lady from California.
▶ 4:15:33Thank you, ranking member, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, for all of us, again, to to summarize what this amendment is saying, do what you will. Don't cut SNAP. for foster parents throughout this nation who are relying on SNAP as they do literally the most beautiful work in taking in children who have been wards of the court.
▶ 4:16:00For young parents who are working two and three jobs and their rent is over the amount of what they're making. for the young college student who has two babies, who is desperately trying to get out of poverty, working two jobs and going to school at night. That was me. I know that life. All we are saying as a collective, if we vote yes on this amendment, do what you will. We don't want to have a hungrier America. It's plain and simple.
▶ 4:16:28For the poorest among us, for the poorest among us, the ones who work with their bodies and their children are suffering because we're saying food banks go to hell. Working people who have hungry children, we're not going to worry about you. All I'm saying in this amendment is please with all that we have, don't touch the stomachs of poor children. And I yield back. Any other members seek recognition? Miss Stan, Miss Stanbury.
▶ 4:16:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say thank you to the gentle lady from California for bringing this amendment forward and for highlighting the cruelty of what the GOP is trying to do right now with this entire reconciliation package.
▶ 4:17:15And I want to just point out once again that in the name the name of balancing the budget, but in the reality of actually blowing a hole through the budget and the deficit, these guys are proposing to give seven trillion dollar in tax breaks to billionaires, millionaires, and their corporate donors by taking away food
▶ 4:17:46from children. It's it is that simple. And it's not even that much money that's going to save them on the tax breaks for rich, but it is literally going to take away food from Literally. Now, I've been back in my district meeting with our food banks and people who are advocates for our families who are struggling. And I think like others on this committee, I grew up in a household that struggled.
▶ 4:18:16I grew up in a household that when the worst did occur, when my mother did lose her job, we were on assistance. And I would not be sitting here as a congresswoman today if it was not for the grace of God and for those programs that are designed to catch people when they need it. To help people when they are their most vulnerable. To help moms who have kids. To help the elderly who are barely scratching by right now.
▶ 4:18:46To help people when they have disabilities. To help people when they end up with a medical emergency and there's nothing else to help them. That is what these programs exist for. That is why they are there. Now, I know that my friends across the aisle like to allege that there's some sort of widespread waste, fraud, and abuse happening. But let me just tell you this. If you've ever been on SNAP, you get a EBT card. This is like a a credit card to go grocery shopping.
▶ 4:19:16You know how much money you get? Six bucks. You can't even buy a single carton of eggs for six bucks right now. Donald Trump's on television literally saying right now that the price of eggs is down. That dude has probably never been grocery shopping in his life more or less in the last week. And these guys want to steal food from children. And that is what this amendment would prevent.
▶ 4:19:44Now, my food banks in New Mexico, the food banks that serve my population in New Mexico are telling me that if these SNAP cuts go through this reconciliation package, there will not be enough funding or food in the supply chain to meet the need. It will be not only worse than it was at the height of the pandemic, it will be many times worse than it was during the pandemic.
▶ 4:20:10So, I want all of you guys to remember what it was like at the height of 2020 when literally our shelves were empty because there was a supply chain crisis and the cost of food went through the roof and people couldn't leave their homes and there was this huge financial crisis.
▶ 4:20:30Literally, that's what we're hurdling towards right now between the tariffs, the cost of living, between what's happening to the cost of food, and now they want to cut the most basic program that helps to stretch the gap for our most vulnerable people in our community.
▶ 4:20:50If you think the lines that were long during the pandemic were difficult to see, if you cut these food assistance programs, that's what you're going to see all across America. How can we claim to be the wealthiest country on planet Earth and we've got billionaires in the White House who are literally talking about taking money out of the mouths of children. This is it. It is not only unconscionable, it's disgusting. It's disgusting.
▶ 4:21:20How do we live in a society where we're even debating this? We are a country of plenty and yet these guys want to give tax breaks to billionaires by starving children. It's ridiculous. In New Mexico, one in five children are on food assistance. That's who your bill is going to hurt. And we will vote no. I yield back. Does any other member seek recognition on the Simon amendment? Seeing none, the question is now on the Simon amendment.
▶ 4:21:50All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Recorded vote. Recorded vote has been ordered. The vote will be postponed. For what purpose does Mr. Bell seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please report the amendment?
▶ 4:22:12Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Mr. Bell of Missouri. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I observe a point of order. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking member. As a former public defender and elected prosecutor, I recognize when systems are being manipulated to suppress rights.
▶ 4:22:42And this provision sets a dangerous precedent. And so I rise to strike this section because it represents not only an unjust financial burden on our federal workforce, but also a direct attack on their access to due process. And when we talk about households that are struggling, as as my colleague so articulately pointed out, well, we were a level under that when I was growing up.
▶ 4:23:11We were just broke. Syrup sandwiches and fried baloney were like fine dining for us. And so I think there's a disconnect when people think that things such as a $30050 uh $350 filing fee is inconsequential.
▶ 4:23:31When the average household income in my district is about 50 to $55,000 where there's a lot of people that are making 40 and 30 and even less than that. And when you do the math and you've lost your job, the math gets a lot easier. You're just broke.
▶ 4:23:52So imposing a $350 filing fee and adding new restrictions for appeals sends the wrong message to workingclass federal employees and folks and and it tells them that their rights are negotiable.
▶ 4:24:09The text makes clear that this fee would apply to meals not involving prohibited personnel practices, including matters such as OPM, suitability determinations, performance-based removals, terminations of prob probationary employees, and denial of reinstatement. So, to be clear, we are already witnessing the consequences of this administration's workforce reduction agenda.
▶ 4:24:37An estimated 200,000 probationary employees have been terminated and over 75,000 have been pressured into resigning. This isn't costcutting. It's an attack on the civil service. Federal employees deserve the right to challenge unjust actions without facing financial obstacles.
▶ 4:25:01By forcing workers to pay hundreds of dollars to defend their employment, we are telling them to choose between fighting a wrongful termination and paying for groceries or paying for the rent. These cuts should not come at the expense of our public servants, the very people who keep our government running. Now more than ever, we must uphold and strengthen the protections available to our federal workforce.
▶ 4:25:30Which is why I've introduced this amendment to protect workers rights, defend access to due process, and stand up for the values of fairness and justice. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and standing with federal workers and with workingclass families. I yield back. Children yields back. Did any members seek recognition? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lynch. Yeah, Mr.
▶ 4:26:00Chairman, uh, in support of of Mr. Bell's amendment, I would like to use my time on this amendment as as a point of personal privilege. Uh today, oversight Democrats are issuing more than a hundred letters to the Trump administration demanding documents and information related to the chaos, the corruption, and the cruelty that has defined its first 100 days.
▶ 4:26:27In that short period of time, the American people have already endured unprecedented threats to democracy and repeated actions undertaken by Donald Trump and Elon Musk to commercialize government and public service into a for-profit venture. The Trump administration and Doge have unlawfully slashed funding of public programs as we have discussed here today.
▶ 4:26:50They have illegally fired hardworking federal workers, exposed Americans private data to foreign actors, and have deliberately defied congressional oversight. This administration has been unresponsive to Congress. It has been un been unaccountable to the public, defiant of federal court decisions, and ignorant of Constitution. Oversight committee.
▶ 4:27:14Democrats are committed to holding the government of Donald Trump accountable and demanding transparency in government. Since January 20th, oversight Democrats have sent the Trump administration nearly 200 investigative letters, including over 1500 requests for for information and documents. The vast majority of those letters have gone unanswered.
▶ 4:27:41That is why today we are escalating our investigation of the Trump administration gross abuses of power and we are asking for our letters to be entered into the record by unanimous consent. Without objection to ordered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I y I yield my additional time to Miss Ansari, gentle lady from Arizona. Thank you. And I yield to Mr. Bell.
▶ 4:28:09Again, I want to reiterate, we're asking federal workers to pay for due process. And again, as a former prosecutor, as a former judge, as a former public defender, that is not the values that our American system of government believes in. That's not how we do things in this country, in the greatest democracy on earth.
▶ 4:28:33And so everyone should have the right to to say something is wrong and not have to pay for the access to be able to to to make that claim. And and um and and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time. Back to the ranking member. Miss Presley. Miss Presley on Would you like additional time? Are we good? All right. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:29:04Any other members seek recognition? Seeing not seeing none, uh, the question is now on the bell amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Request a roll call vote. Mr. Roll call vote has been requested and um, as previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does Mr. Presley seek recognition? Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 4:29:34Will the clerk please report the amendment? Amendment to the amendment the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 is offered by Miss Presley of Massachusetts. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve point of order. The gentleoman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her This should be a simple and unanimous addition to this bill.
▶ 4:29:56It directs the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to study how this bill will impact people across our federal workforce. It's about transparency. Specifically, we need data on who is impacted, how many women, how many older Americans, how many workers of color, veterans, workers with disabilities. And something I know my colleagues across the aisle will really appreciate, we need to know where they live.
▶ 4:30:27Because despite the myths, most federal workers don't live in Washington DC. They live in your districts. They live in your communities doing essential work for your constituents. My colleagues across the aisle argue that this bill is a good thing. They're advocating for a bill that cuts paychecks, eliminates earned benefits, and rips away health care from federal employees and their families.
▶ 4:30:50Make no mistake, this legislation is how Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Republicans plan to give away even more tax cuts to billionaires by making workingclass folks fit the bill. Already, co-presidents Trump and Musk have attacked, fired, and intimidated federal employees. So, it's no surprise that this plan continues that reckless assault. That's what it is, assault.
▶ 4:31:15Targeting the public servants who safeguard the health, safety, and economic well-being of our communities. For decades, we have fought to build a civil service that reflects the diversity of our country. Still, workers of color disproportionately serve public service roles that are physically demanding, lower paid, and often fewer pathways for advancement. Older workers who have dedicated their lives to serving this country are now nearing retirement.
▶ 4:31:42They are counting on the pension rules and benefits that this bill aims to tear apart. Veterans, many of whom transition into civil service careers after military duty. They will see their protection stripped away under new so-called atwill employee employment schemes. So yes, let me make it plain.
▶ 4:32:04This bill will hit our most vulnerable, our most dedicated, and our most essential workers the hardest, all while making billionaires richer. My amendment simply demands transparency.
▶ 4:32:19It ensures that if my colleagues across the aisle go down this path of taking away people's livelihoods, if Republicans want to strip away their healthcare and retirement security, we have the data, the data necessary to understand exactly who is being harmed. This is the bare minimum that people deserve from their representatives. So we understand exactly what we are doing and whom we are doing it to.
▶ 4:32:49I have thousands of constituents in my district, the MA7th, who are federal workers and are seeing their lives upended. To my Republican colleagues, think about the male carriers in your hometown. Think about the VA nurses caring for veterans in your district. Think about the food inspectors ensuring that your constituents are bringing home safe groceries to their children.
▶ 4:33:14Why are you so desperate to ruin these people's lives when all they do is make better? If you truly think this bill is good and fair for everyone, then you should have no fear about a go report confirming that. But if you can't support even a simple report, if transparency is too much to ask, then maybe it's because you know exactly who you are hurting.
▶ 4:33:39And perhaps you're worried that yet another piece of damning evidence will show what people already see, that you are attacking workers who have dedicated their lives to this country, all in the name of making more money for the wealthy and well-connected. But if I'm wrong, vote for this amendment and prove it. I urge adoption and yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on the press amendment? Mr. Lynch? I do. Mr. Mr.
▶ 4:34:09Chairman, I just want to support uh the gentle lady from LA Massachusetts amendment. Uh we we're always striving to make factbased decisions here in government and uh and this this amendment provides data that that will allow will will guide us hopefully and and also since there is a disagreement about the the measure of pain that this is going to visit upon the American people, this is one way that
▶ 4:34:40we can have usable data as as the gentle lady has suggested. Uh it will identify location. It'll it'll it'll identify veterans, disabled, other classifications that will be it'll be actionable uh intelligence that we will be able to measure the negative impact on on the families that we all represent. So I want to thank her uh for her her wise amendment and uh I ask members to support it as well.
▶ 4:35:10And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the Presley amendment number one. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, no. No. In the opinion, chair of the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested. Please go on the vote. That vote will be postponed. For what purpose does Miss Presley seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have another amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please report the Presley amendment number two?
▶ 4:35:37Amendment number two to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to house concurrent resolution 14 offered by Miss Presley of Massachusetts. Without objection, the amendments considered as read. I recognize myself for a point of order. The gentleoman from Massachusetts is recognized. Thank you. My amendment adds a basic measure of decency to a bill that has none.
▶ 4:35:58Under current law, when a federal employee retires before they are eligible for Social Security, usually around age 60, after 20 or more years of service, after 20 or more years of service, they receive a monthly benefit to help bridge the gap until Social Security kicks in. It's called uh the FURs annuity supplement. It is not a bonus. It is not a handout. It's a bridge.
▶ 4:36:25something that workers earned that helps career public servants, especially those in physically demanding or early retirement roles, make ends meet after dedicating their lives to this country. In my district, the Massachusetts 7th, it quite literally keeps them out of poverty. Shamefully, on page four of this bill, they eliminate this benefit entirely for every federal worker.
▶ 4:36:50My amendment simply says it's a carveout that veterans and employees with disabilities can keep this earned benefit. Every year, thousands of veterans transition into federal jobs after completing their military service. They become postal workers. They become TSA agents, maintenance crews at national parks, clerks at VA hospitals. You're nodding your head, so you know that. inspectors um at our ports.
▶ 4:37:20For many, this is a second career taken on later in life, again after military service, and they don't have 40 years to work in it before hitting retirement age. Without this benefit, they'll face a cruel gap. Retired, unable to work, but still too young to receive social security. We owe our veterans better than that after a lifetime of military and civil service. I'm sure you agree.
▶ 4:37:46In the same vein, federal employees with disabilities often retire early under the same system their colleagues use. And for them, this benefit helps them to make ends meet. It pays the rent. It fills a prescription. It keeps the lights on. Ripping this lifeline away from workers with disabilities is not only cruel, it is unnecessary. These aren't the people driving up the deficit.
▶ 4:38:11They're doing what Republicans often accuse them of not doing, working, working when they are able to, and instead they're getting punished for it. With this administration, the cruelty is the point. This is just void of common sense and compassion, attacking, intimidating, and purging federal workers. So, it's no surprise that co-presidents Trump and Musk are turning to them to pay for more tax cuts to billionaires. We should be striking this section, hell, altogether.
▶ 4:38:40Instead, we should be putting forth a bill that affirms federal workers as the essential workers they are. Instead, here we are. Republicans are gutting their benefits. All my amendment does is protect our veterans. Good patriots across the aisle, I'm sure you want to join me in protecting our veterans and those with disabilities, our most vulnerable from these reckless cuts. Now, if we can't agree on that, then we are truly lost.
▶ 4:39:09We ask our veterans to serve and they do. We ask our community members with disabilities to work if they can and they do. When their service ends, the least we can do is honor it with dignity. And that's what my amendment ensures and I urge passage of it. I yield back. Did any other member seek recognition? Mr. Pledge. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I rise in support of the gentle lady's amendment.
▶ 4:39:37uh she's correctly pointed out that the way the bill is currently drafted it it penalizes military service. So uh we have we have many many veterans even excuse me many uh sons and daughters who serve in the military uh and and that length of service can be 10 or 15 years in some cases 20 even longer.
▶ 4:40:00Uh but as the gentle lady has correctly pointed out, many many many of them end up in service to the federal government. Either the post office or defense department just the the entire spectrum of our our federal government is is full of those who have served the country uh in uniform.
▶ 4:40:20what what this would do what this amendment would do would be to provide that bridge so when someone completes their military service uh and and goes on to serve the federal government even though they may retire choose to retire at an earlier date where they are not not eligible for the full benefits that they might receive this this supplemental payment closes
▶ 4:40:51that gap that they would have otherwise received. It's a temporary bridge as well until they reach uh age 62 when they would receive their their full social security benefits. So, u it's a good amendment. It it provides fairness and it removes the the penalty that would otherwise be visited upon those who engage in military service on behalf of this country. And I I yield back. Does any other member seek recognition on Presley? Amendment number two.
▶ 4:41:18Seeing none, uh the question is now on the Presley amendment number two. All those in favor of supporting signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the PD, the chair of the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Request a roll call. A recorded vote has been requested. Uh for purpose does Mr. Lynch seek recognition? I believe I have an amendment at the desk number three.
▶ 4:41:47Will the clerk please designate the Lynch amendment number three? Amendment number three to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14 is offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:42:07This amendment would serve to protect the retirement benefits of federal workers who entered federal service prior to the enactment of this bill and its implementation of a revised retirement formula. Currently, the Office of Personnel Management calculates the retirement benefits of a federal worker based on their average highest three consecutive years of base paid during their federal service.
▶ 4:42:34An attempt in an attempt to unload the cost of proposed Trump tax plan on the backs of federal employees. The underlying bill would unfairly revise the formula to base retirement benefits on the average highest 5 years of federal workers earnings.
▶ 4:42:54As reported by the American Federation of Government Employees and other federal employee unions, this new formula will reduce the retirement received by virtually all federal employees by at least thousands of dollars per year over the next decade. It will also severely impact federal workers whose retirement benefits have already vested.
▶ 4:43:17I offer this amendment with the expectation that if my Republican colleagues cannot agree to strike this unfair formula from the bill in its entirety, we can at least hold harmless our current employees and find common ground in a commitment to preserve the retirement benefits that federal employees have already earned.
▶ 4:43:39According to the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the high- five calculation would particularly reduce the value of earned retirement benefits for individuals on the brink of retirement. Such individuals have fulfilled their service to this country with the expectations that retirement would be based on the high three.
▶ 4:44:02And now this committee is aiming to roll back that promise, reneg on that promise and and take back a portion of the compensation that was promised to them in exchange for the services already rendered. Uh moreover, these pending retirees have already relied on these benefits in planning for the retirement.
▶ 4:44:23In the 100 days since President Trump took office, this administration has engaged in an unprecedented attack on the federal civil service in the form of mass layoffs, forced resignations, hiring freezes, and replacement of nonpartisan federal workers with political appointee loyalists. We simply cannot continue to target dedicated federal employees who have already sacrificed earned pay and earned benefits in consideration of their commitment to public service.
▶ 4:44:53In fact, since 2011, federal workers have contributed almost $300 billion to deficit reduction in the form of mandatory frozen pay, increased pension contributions, and higher health care premiums. and still they are on the job providing critical services to the American people. Members on both sides of the aisle also have long-erving staff who are affected by this legislation.
▶ 4:45:21Think about the best of your staff, especially those who have long service. staff who are approaching retirement and whose retirement benefits would be greatly reduced if this provision becomes law. Think about your own employees and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and I yield back the balance of my time. Back to any recognition.
▶ 4:45:46Seeing none, uh the question is now on the lynch amendment number three. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have the amendment is not agreed to. Request a recorded vote. The recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
▶ 4:46:08Uh before we recess, I ask unanimous consent to enter in to the uh record the following statements of support from the following organizations. Uh these are letters in support of our oversight committee budget reconciliation bill. will be voting on in a few hours.
▶ 4:46:28The Americans for Limited Government, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, America First Policy Institute, Foundation for Government Accountability, and the National Taxpayers Union. Without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We will reconvene at 3:30 p.m. Then we we should be able to get our votes in electronically before the House floor vote.
▶ 4:46:58So, uh, the committee stands in recess until 3:30 p.m.
▶ 5:53:15We can go. The the committee will now resume consideration of the fiscal year committee will be in order. Uh the committee will now resume consideration of the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant uh to HIA resolution one uh continuing resolution 14.
▶ 5:53:38Uh the the question is now on the postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Lynch from Massachusetts. Uh this is the Lynch amendment number one. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment in the committee.
▶ 5:54:03This is the Lynch amendment one and I cannot see that. What does that say?
▶ 5:54:34Can anybody can anybody read that? Oh, Have all members been recorded. Who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change a vote?
▶ 5:55:08The the Yeah, Mr. Chairman, how how am I recorded? I can't see that screen. I can't see it either. Mr. Chairman, how how how am I recorded? I can't really see that far. Can the clerk tell me how I'm recorded? Is Mr. Lynch recorded? Mr. Lynch is recorded as voting I. How is how is Mr. Frost rep recorded? Mr.
▶ 5:55:36Frost is recorded as voting I Okay. All right. How about Miss Stanbury? How is she recorded? Okay. Mr. Chairman, they can see this. Uh the clerk uh the clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nazs are 23.
▶ 5:56:02The uh the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The uh question is now on the Perry from Pennsylvania amendment to reconciliation committee print ANS. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment of the committee print committee. The chairman votes no.
▶ 5:56:47Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote. Total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 16, the nays are 27. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Infume from Maryland.
▶ 5:57:16Members will record your votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of the committee print by Mr. Infume. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
▶ 5:57:48Mr. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the nature of the substitute offered by Mr. Infume from Maryland. This will be the infome amendment two. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 5:58:06The clerk will now open the Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nas are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 5:58:37The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Lynch. This will be the Lynch amendment two. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system on the Lynch amendment two. Clerk, please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote.
▶ 5:59:07Report the vote total. Clerk report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The questions now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment and nature of substitute offered by Miss Stanberry from New Mexico. This will be the Stanbury amendment one.
▶ 5:59:34Members will record their votes using electronic voting system on Stainsbury amendment one. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish change the vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23.
▶ 6:00:02The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Miss Stanbury from New Mexico. Members will record the vote using electronic voting system. This is on the Stanbury two.
▶ 6:00:30Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20. The nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Frost from Florida. Members record to vote using electronic voting system.
▶ 6:00:54on the amendment. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Mr.
▶ 6:01:22Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Mr. Casar. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system on the Casar amendment number three. Have all members been recorded and wish to be recorded?
▶ 6:01:50Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment nature of substitute offered by Mr. Casar from Texas. Uh members record their votes using electronic voting system on the Casar amendment number two.
▶ 6:02:25Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Mr. Casar from Texas. Members will record the votes using electronic voting system on the CASAR amendment number four.
▶ 6:03:05Have all members been recorded wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will cut uh close the vote and report the vote Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the naysay are 23. The naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of a substitute offered by uh Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. Members record the vote using electronic voting system.
▶ 6:03:31This is on the Lee amendment one. Have all the members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and reports vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it.
▶ 6:04:00The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment nature substitute offered by uh Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. Members required to vote using electronic voting system on the Lee amendment number two. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
▶ 6:04:31Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. Members will record their vote using electronic voting system on the Lee amendment number three. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 6:04:58The clerk will close the vote and report the vote Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. Members will record to vote use electronic voting system. This is on the Lee amendment number four. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 6:05:28Does any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the naysay are 23. The nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Mr. Garcia from California.
▶ 6:05:44Members will record their votes using electronic voting system on the Garcia amendment. Have all members been recorded wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change a vote? Seeing none, will the clerk uh report the vote total? Mr.
▶ 6:06:14Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of the substitute offered by Mr. Suberman. Members are required to vote use electronic voting system. The Subman amendment. Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 6:06:48The clerk will close the vote and report the vote. Total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the naysay are 23. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Miss Randle. Members will record a vote use electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the Randall amendment number one.
▶ 6:07:18Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change vote? The clerk will please cut the vote uh close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Miss Randall. Members record to vote using electronic voting system on the Randall amendment number two.
▶ 6:07:48Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will please close the vote and report the vote title. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature substitute offered by Mr. Randle. Members will record the vote using electronic voting system.
▶ 6:08:19This is the Randall amendment number three. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 6:08:46The question is now on the previously postpone amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Misssari from Arizona. The members will record a vote using electronic voting system on the Ansari amendment. Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 6:09:14The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the naysay are 23. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment nature of substitute oper Simon. Uh members record to vote using electronic voting system on the Simon amendment. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote?
▶ 6:09:44The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bell from Missouri. Members record your vote using electronic voting system on the bell amendment.
▶ 6:10:11Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the naysay are 23. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment nature of substitute offered by Miss Presley from Massachusetts.
▶ 6:10:31Members will record your vote on the electronic voting system on the Presley amendment one. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment the nature of a substitute offered by Miss Presley from Massachusetts.
▶ 6:11:02Members are required to vote using the electronic voting system. This is on the Presley amendment number two. Have all members voted who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 23. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 6:11:29The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment the nature of substitute offered by Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts. Members will record a vote using electronic voting system. This is on the Lynch amendment number Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded?
▶ 6:11:58The clerk will close the vote and report the tally. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the naysay are 23. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation uh pursuant to uh house resolution 14 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 6:12:28All those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it. the amendment the nature of substitute to fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation print uh is agreed to Mr. Chairman but we got it's Dr. Fox yes chair recognizes Dr. Fox uh thank you Mr.
▶ 6:12:54Chairman, I move the committee do now transmit the recommendations of this committee and all appropriate accompanying material including minority additional supplemental or dissenting views to the House committee on the budget in order to comply with the reconciliation directive included in section 20001 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2025 Honres 14 and consistent with section 310 of of the Congressional
▶ 6:13:24Budget and Empowerment Control Act of 1974. The motion has been made. The question is on transmitting the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation to it to the House Budget Committee. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 6:13:44The clerk will now open the vote on transmitting the fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation committee print providing for reconciliation.
▶ 6:14:07Have all members been recorded who wish to be does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 22, the nays are 21. The motion uh the eyes have it and the bill is considered.
▶ 6:14:35The bill is ordered transmitted to the House Budget Committee. Without objection, the motion to consider is laid on the table. lastly, pursuant to notice, I now call up the following onblock postal naming bills which were distributed in advance of this markup. HRS 323, 397, 1372, and 1830. Without objection, the bills are considered read. If any member would like to speak on any of the measures, they may do so now. Does any me chair recognize Mr. Perry?
▶ 6:15:06Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. I'm just going to say I'm going to call for a recorded vote. vote no. And the reason for that is I oppose HR 397. I don't think we should name a post post office or any federal building after a person who was kicked out of his uh his minister's conference for encouraging violence and bloodshed. So, I will be voting on no on HR 397 for that reason. A recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 6:15:34Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting the onblock postal naming package. What is the point of what? Okay. What's the question? We don't know what it is. This is the this is the onblock postal naming bills. We were going to he objected to uh 397, but this is the onblock. We're voting on everything. He he objected because of 397.
▶ 6:16:04So he's voting against all the postal naming bills. Am I correct on Do do you want to this is an onb block. So it Republican and Democrat bills. Mr. Chairman, can can the question be divided? He said he's Do you want to I would like to move to divide the questions. Yeah. Mr. Perry, would you mind? Is everyone okay if Mr. Perry explains his opposition? Is that okay?
▶ 6:16:36I would rather Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd rather not vote no on all of them because they're unblocked. I have little choice. So, I would rather them not be unblocked. So, I can vote no on HR 397 because I don't think it's appropriate to name a federal post office after an individual who was uh kicked out of his minister's conference for encouraging violence and bloodshed. I I second that, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I yield. All right, the the vote is up.
▶ 6:17:08State your point. I That's true. I was The vote The vote has been open. This was a courtesy for Miss Stanbury and Mr. Perry. I try to I try to make everybody happy in this committee. Ain't everybody happy? Everybody happy? Everybody looks happy. Has has everyone voted who wish wishes to vote?
▶ 6:17:37Does anyone wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote tally a and report the tally. If it fails, it fails. I'm not going to Mr.
▶ 6:17:52Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 23, the naysay are 15 with four voting The uh The eyes have it. The package is ordered, favorably reported. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table. Pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 2.
▶ 6:18:17I ask that committee members have the right to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental additional minority and descending views without objection. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the committee print subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.