▶ 0:15:02morning. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any Today, the rules committee is convening to consider HR1, the one big beautiful act. Before we discuss the legislation that's before us, I want to respond to a letter I received earlier today or yesterday from the Democratic leader and the ranking member of the committee.
▶ 0:15:31The letter calls the decision to hold a hearing at 1:00 a.m. quote unprecedented end quote. However, let's look at the record. In the 110th the Congress, Democrats held a meeting beginning at precisely the same time 1:00 a.m. on August 2007 on the Children's Health and Protection Act.
▶ 0:16:00I was there when this was discussed on the floor earlier to yes or yesterday. Mr. McGovern responded that this was decades ago. However, we've looked back and observed that you did indeed convene a hearing at 1:30 a.m. only a short time ago in 2022.
▶ 0:16:25It was for an omnibus in addition to a shortterm CR. Once again, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Secondly, the letter asked, "What else are you hiding?
▶ 0:16:44I want to be clear." I have been as open and transparent as possible throughout this entire process, as has the speaker and everyone else involved. We posted the text of the rules committee print late Sunday night after the budget committee ordered the legislation reported and we posted a comparative print at the same time showing the changes between the
▶ 0:17:14reported bill and the rules committee print. There have been many complaints from my friends on the other side about not knowing about whether there will be a manager's amendment and what will be in it. There will be a manager's amendment. It is how reconciliation has operated under both Republican and Democrat control.
▶ 0:17:37I certainly can't control the time that it will be ready, but I can assure my Democrat colleagues that they will certainly have more time than than we were given in 2009 when a 309page manager's amendment was dropped on us when the ranking member began reading the motion to report a rule for HR 2454.
▶ 0:18:07Four 300 page 309 page managers amendment was dropped on us when the now ranking member began reading the motion to report a rule for HR 2454. The record is there. Our friends on the other side of the aisle love to cherrypick the facts about how this meeting is taking place in the dark of night.
▶ 0:18:35They've done it for several committee markups thus far. Never mind the fact that the only reason the hearings went as long as they did was because Democrats engaged in the legislative process, which is their right. But here's the thing, they can't have their cake and eat it, too.
▶ 0:18:57They cannot complain about reporting legislation in the dark of night when the only reason it went so late was because of their own actions. Now, in the case of the rules committee, the same holds true.
▶ 0:19:11The rules committee has a long tradition of meeting late into the evening and reporting legislation long after most of America has gone to It is our duty to advance the agenda of the House of Representatives, the People's House. Let's roll the clocks back to when Democrats held the majority in the 110th and 111th Congress.
▶ 0:19:37They reported legislation out of the rules committee well into the twilight hours. I know of what I speak. I was on the rules committee then. For example, HRES 587 347 a.m. HRES 40481 209 a.m. HRES 597 3:43 a.m. HRES 9003 225 a.m.
▶ 0:20:07and HRES 445 in the 116th Congress 12:20 a.m. I don't do not think there's anything wrong with this. It is how the committee has operated when necessary. It has occurred under Democrat and Republican control. In this case, I do believe we'll be reporting not in the dark of night, but after the day has dawned. I encourage my colleagues on the other side to prove me wrong. Now, to the business that's before us this morning.
▶ 0:20:38There'll be a lot of commentary from our friends across the aisle about what is not within this legislation. will experience adnauseium, a lot of granular level grievances, legislative indigestion, and I'm sure considerable hypoallerg allergic reactions to everything under the sun. It'll be the same song and dance routine that we've seen and heard for months, likely with more drama than Shakespeare on the Hill.
▶ 0:21:09Despite their misleading rhetoric and talking points, Democrats had their opportunities to deliver when they had full control and passed their own reconciliation packages. They did nothing to make the middle class centered Trump tax permanent. Despite the existence of the expiration of these tax cuts within their 10-year window, they refused.
▶ 0:21:38They even refused to raise the top income tax bracket despite all their campaign talking points. Instead, they passed the so-called inflation reduction act and the so-called American Rescue Plan Act that led to reckless spending and record inflation. But Republicans are here to do our jobs. And our jobs in this case isn't out of discretion. It's grounded in statute.
▶ 0:22:09We're considering legislation that executes the instructions given to the committees pursuant to the budget resolution, one that passed both chambers and is binding on this body and the Senate. And our express purpose is this, to ensure that our federal spending, taxation, and other revenue generating concepts align with the current needs of the American people.
▶ 0:22:35The American people and this government by extension cannot afford in action. Americans need this legislation to ensure our economic survival and the sustainability of this Republican government. Americans cannot afford the largest tax hike in our nation's history. Americans cannot afford the runaway, endless spending machines that Democrats have enshrined via their policies.
▶ 0:23:04Americans cannot afford the inflation caused by the Democrats in the last four years. Americans cannot afford a soft, fragile embrace of President Trump's successful policies on the border, national security, and growth. Inflation has fallen to the lowest level in more than four years as April's consumer price index smashed expectations for the third straight month.
▶ 0:23:32Workers real wages are up 1.9%. Increasing each of the last three months. Encounters with gotaways, the top threat to public safety, are down by 95%. In March of 2025, fentanyl traffic at the southern border fell by 54%. Compared to March of 2024.
▶ 0:23:55Lastly, Americans and the government and this government cannot afford to ignore the specific progrowth provisions that President Trump campaigned on. Our bill delivers on the specific acute policies American workers embraced. We end taxes on tips. We end taxes on overtime. We boost tax deductions for seniors.
▶ 0:24:18We expand family centered tax incentives like the child tax credit, the standard deduction of family leave. The one big beautiful bill is our answer to the American people's mandate from November. It is a clear fullthroated response to the millions of hard-working men and women across the entire nation who demand a serious course correction from the last four years and the setting of our fiscal situation on a sustainable footing.
▶ 0:24:49The committee within the house, the committee within the house, the committees within the house have all completed their respective parts and all the pieces have come together. I commend all the committees, chairman, members and staff who worked for months, often well into the night and early hours of the morning to craft the one big beautiful bill act. We're here to finish the job and ship this legislation to the House floor.
▶ 0:25:19With that, I look forward to the discussion. I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make. Well, that's a lot to digest. Thank you. Um, Madam Chair, uh, before we get into the substance here, I've got a simple question. What the hell are Republicans so afraid of? What the hell are you so scared of that you guys are holding this hearing at 1:00 in the morning? It's a simple question that speaks to the heart of what's going on here and one that I'm going to keep on asking.
▶ 0:25:48If Republicans are so proud of what is in this bill, then why are you trying to ram it through in the dead of night? If you guys are so proud to kick 14 million people off Medicaid, if you guys are so proud to rip food assistance out of the refrigerators of moms and dads and their kids, if you guys are so proud of shutting down rural hospitals and and hurting our farmers, if you guys really think these are such great, awesome, beautiful things to do, like Trump keeps saying, then why not hold this hearing at 100 p.m. and not 1:00 a.m.?
▶ 0:26:18Why not debate this bill in prime time when most of the American people can watch? It's one o'clock in the morning. I think it's prime time in in Guam. Um, and I think it's crystal clear. It's crystal clear to everyone. Uh, what this is all about. Now, the chairwoman wants to pretend like meeting at 1:00 in the morning is business as usual around here. It is not. This is not normal at all.
▶ 0:26:47She had to go back 20 years into the arch archives to dig up a single example of rules meeting at 1:00 a.m. Um, and is and I I guess is that supposed to be some kind of gotcha? Uh, I'm actually glad she went back two decades to bring it up because in 2007, Democrats convened the rules committee at 1:00 a.m. to protect people's healthcare. You guys have us meeting at 1:00 a.m. to rip it away. Now, look at the record. George W. Bush was president and the children's health insurance program was about to expire.
▶ 0:27:18That's an actual emergency, not a fake emergency like this. He vetoed not one but two of the bills that we sent him because he didn't want to cover those additional kids. So you guys caught us doing what exactly? Trying to protect coverage for uninsured kids. Great. We're proud of that. There is no comparison here. This is a 1,000page bill for God's sake. A thousand plus pages.
▶ 0:27:46And you want to shove it through in the dead of night because Trump said, "Close your eyes and vote for it." You're using emergency procedures to jam this through Congress to meet an artificial deadline that you created yourselves because the billionaires just couldn't wait for their tax cut. It's astonishing really. It It takes my breath away. It's just over a hundred days and you guys have gone from promising to lower costs to ripping away people's healthcare.
▶ 0:28:14Now, of course, you don't want anyone to know what you're doing here. It's because you know that this bill betrays the people who voted for you. You have the most ineffective uh Congress in a century. You've passed almost no legislation into law. And this this is how you want to roll out your big centerpiece legislation at 1:00 in the morning. This isn't just incompetence. It's much more nefarious than that. You are intentionally hiding uh what you are doing.
▶ 0:28:44What an insult to the people of this country. What disdain you guys must have for the people who voted for you. You know, people are so so tired of getting screwed over by a system that doesn't work for them. America is fed up with this BS and people want change. And I don't blame them. I'm fed up, too. They want us to make things better for regular people. And what your big ugly bill does is the exact opposite.
▶ 0:29:13You guys and Trump are per perpetuating the exact broken system that people hate. You're rigging things for the rich and powerful. More tax breaks for billionaires while while regular people get screwed. More giveaways for those at the top while moms and dads struggle to get by. more loopholes into the tax code for Wall Street CEOs and bankers while working families fall further and further behind. That's the Republican agenda. That's what you guys think is is big and beautiful.
▶ 0:29:43Greed, corruption, and tax breaks for billionaires. You want to steal from the wallets of workingclass people. Steal from their ability to buy food and get healthcare. And then you have the nerve to claim that this bill is about cutting costs and reducing waste. Give me a break. This bill raises the debt limit by $4 trillion. $4 trillion with a T.
▶ 0:30:06Even your own members, budget hawks in the House and Senate, weren't happy with the latest version of this bill because they know it will blow up our deficit. And the true cost is likely trillions of dollars higher, a cost shouldered by the American taxpayer. So you want to cut taxes for the rich and pay for it by exploding the debt and stealing from the American people. stealing from people with the least so you can give so you guys can give more to those with the most.
▶ 0:30:35And I just fund I I I just find that fundamentally wrong, fundamentally cruel, totally out of touch and totally and fundamentally immoral. Now, let me walk through your what your bill does since you guys are so eager to sweep it under the rug. First, you are making the biggest cuts to Medicaid in American history. As a result of this bill, nearly 14 million Americans will lose their health care, and millions more will pay higher premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.
▶ 0:31:05That's just a fact. Hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down, and people will die. And not a single one of the proposals in your bill is about making Medicaid work better. Not one. Your bill doesn't save Medicaid. Your bill destroys Medicaid. We can, and we should make Medicaid work Absolutely. Instead, your bill creates more red tape, more hurdles, and kicks struggling people off their health insurance. Now, who asked for this garbage?
▶ 0:31:35I mean, more red tape. Oh, boy. When I talk to people back home, that's exactly what they want their health with their healthcare. More red tape. I mean, come on. And then if that's not bad enough, you're you are making the biggest cut to food assistance in American history. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, at least five million five million Americans will lose food assistance under your plan. Five million more hungry Americans because of this bill.
▶ 0:32:06And that's probably a lowball estimate, by the way. You're slashing benefits from children, from seniors living on fixed incomes, from veterans who served this country and now rely on food assistance just to get by. And why? And why? so that the top 0.1% people making over $3.5 million a year can pocket $314,000 a year in new tax giveaways.
▶ 0:32:32I mean, you are literally taking food off kids plates to buy Elon Musk another yard. I guess he's getting a good return on his campaign donations, but I just find this whole thing disgusting. And look, at the end of the day, this is simple. It is simple. It's about whose side you're on. You guys wrote this bill for the top 0.1%. You wrote it for the billion-dollar corporations who offshore jobs and dodge taxes.
▶ 0:32:59You wrote it for the big oil and big farmer CEOs who rip people off. You wrote it for the rich and famous. For the people who never ever have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or how to take care of their elderly parents. So you guys pick a side. Okay? You pick the billionaires. I get it. You want to betray the people who voted for you. You want to sell them out because Trump told you to. But guess what? Democrats are picking a side, too.
▶ 0:33:24And we are siding with the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans who you are going to screw over with this bill. We are siding with the 14 million parents and grandparents who are going to get kicked off healthcare if this monstrosity passes. We're siding with struggling families who are already having a hard time buying groceries and the farmers whose incomes will drop because you're gutting the nutrition programs to create demand for the food that they grow.
▶ 0:33:50And the rural grocery stores that they support and the nurses who will lose their jobs when you start closing down rural hospitals. That's who we're siding with and that's who we choose to fight for. Now, I've seen a lot in my time in Congress. I've seen my fair share of bad whip bills, but this one, this one, this this takes the cake. This is not policy. This is theft. It is a direct transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the ultra wealthy.
▶ 0:34:21And it's being done on purpose and under the cover of night. Republicans have had every opportunity to make life better for the American people. You guys have a unified Republican government. You have the House. You have the Senate. You have the White House. You could have invested in housing, in child care, in clean energy, in community health. You could have closed tax loopholes and make sure that billionaires pay what they owe. Instead, you chose to side with those at the top.
▶ 0:34:51You chose to line the pockets of your rich donors and the and and the health and security of the of regular people be damned. This is not a governing philosophy. It is a scam. It is a scam. A scam. And I wasn't sent here to vote for trash like this. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you were doing this. Why the hell did you choose a career of public service just to do this?
▶ 0:35:19Just to rip away the health care and food assistance and security of working and middle class Americans. Is that really what you came here to do? I don't understand this. I don't understand the cruelty. And let me say this to every Republican member who votes for this. You own it. You own it.
▶ 0:35:36You own every hospital that closes, every child that goes to bed hungry, every senior who loses care, and every American family forced to choose between groceries and rent, between their heating bill and their child care, between their kids' birthday party and their parents' long-term care. So you guys can force us to debate this bill in the dead of night.
▶ 0:35:58Uh, you can do it while the country sleeps, but the American people will wake up tomorrow morning and I guarantee you they will wake up to how terrible your agenda is. They will remember this moment. They will remember who stood with the billionaires and who stood with them. We will make sure they remember. And I'll be damned if we let this pass quietly. I'm going to fight like hell. And I know I won't be alone.
▶ 0:36:23This is a farce and outrageous insult to the people of this country to bring up a 10,000page bill at 1:00 in the morning. A bill that's still being written, by the way, by Republicans as we speak in a back room somewhere for God's sake. And then to try to jam it through Congress in the middle of the night when nobody is watching is just unbelievably cynical. This is why people hate Washington. So, if you guys think this ugly bill is so damn beautiful, like Trump keeps saying, you should have the courage to debate it in prime time.
▶ 0:36:53Madam Chair, we should reconvene at a reasonable hour and debate your bill in full view of the American people, not in the middle of the night like cowards. And for that reason, I move that the rules committee do now adjourn. Um the gentleman the question is on the motion to adjourn. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No.
▶ 0:37:24In the opinion of the chair. The nos have it. Ask for a roll call. Madam chair. The gentleman has asked for a roll call Um the clerk will call the role.
▶ 0:37:37Why don't you just let Miss Fishbach? No. M Fishbach. No, Mr.
▶ 0:38:07Norman. No, Mr. Norman. No, Mr. Roy. No, Mr. Roy. No, Mrs. Hchen. Mrs. Hchin. No, Mr. Langworthy. No, Mr. Langworthy. No, Mr. Scott. No, Mr. Scott. No, Mr. Jack. No, Mr. Jack. No, Mr. McGovern. I Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scandlin. I scandlin. I Mr. Negus, I. Mr. Nagus, I Miss Leggy Fernandez, I. Miss Leggy Fernandez, I Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Griffith, no. Madam Chair, no.
▶ 0:38:38Madam Chair, no. Clerk will report the tally. Four yays, nine nays. The nose have it. We will move on. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record.
▶ 0:39:01I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Rogers and Representative Smith from the Committee on Armed Services, Chairman Arrington and Representative Bole from the Committee on the Budget, Chairman Hill and Representative Waters from the Committee on Financial Services, and Chairman Comr and Representative Lynch. There he is.
▶ 0:39:29Chairman Lynch from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statements in five minutes. Chairman Rogers, I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern. I appreciate the opportunity to present the Armed Services Committee reconciliation title.
▶ 0:39:50The HS title provides 150 billion in mandatory funding to modernize our military military, revitalize the defense industrial base, and improve quality of life for our service members. The time for this level of investment is long overdue. The threats we face from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others are much more complex and challenging than at any point in our history. We are being outpaced by our adversaries in the development and deployment of critical capabilities.
▶ 0:40:19Our defense industrial base has atrophied to the point where we may no longer be able to sustain prolonged conflict. And it all stems from a chronic underinvestment in our national security. Defense spending is not keeping up with inflation. In fact, we are currently at the lowest level of defense spending as a percentage of GDP since before World War II. That anemic level of investment is endangering our national security, and it must change. Reconciliation gives us the opportunity to do just that.
▶ 0:40:50It forces the department to start building uh the future of American defense now. It invests billions to accelerate deployment of new lowcost attraitable autonomous systems. These unmanned air, surface, and underwater systems are the key to victory on future battlefields. The HAS title will go a long way toward restoring American deterrence and building our ready capable and lethal fighting force that President Trump has promised. Finally, I'm very pleased to be able to report that the committee reported this out on a bipartisan basis.
▶ 0:41:20I think that demonstrates the underlying bipartisan consensus we have to increase investment in our national security. Thank you for your opportunity to testify and for your help in moving this critical bill forward. Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Really just have two points. I mean, certainly I agree with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee that we face a very complex threat environment and a need to modernize our military in a bunch of different directions.
▶ 0:41:45I'm not sure I agree on what the total number of the budget should be for the House Armed Services Committee, but two crucial points. If you believe in that the Defense Department needs more money, that we need to spend more money on defense, you cannot vote for this reconciliation bill. This reconciliation bill is going to cut taxes over 10 years by somewhere between five and 7 trillion dollar depending on, you know, how you guys all finally decide what you're going to put in there and what you're not going to put in there.
▶ 0:42:15It is going to increase the debt and the deficit by three and a half trillion or thereabouts. So whatever we cram into this bill, whatever $150 billion dollars I guess they're going to try to throw at defense will be irrelevant a year or two or three or four years from now because $35 trillion debt will continue to grow. Our $1.8 trillion yearly deficit will continue to grow.
▶ 0:42:44You won't have money to make an investment in anything, not not even defense. So we are not going to see an increase in defense spending over the long haul because we are giving away all of the money. If in fact you believe that defense is that important, then you have to be willing to pay for it. We simply cannot continue to borrow money forever. So it's not going to help defense. If you are a defense hawk, you cannot vote for this reconciliation bill.
▶ 0:43:14Which leads into the second point. I have heard for a very long time from my Republican colleagues that the reason they have to pass their budget is because of the existential threat that the debt and the deficit pose for our nation. I I wish I could replay all of the incredibly passionate speeches that I've heard on the floor and elsewhere from my Republican colleagues about how terrible this is. And that's what the reconciliation bill was going to do.
▶ 0:43:42And I can picture all of your constituents who you made these promises to. And then you get back here and you put this reconciliation bill up there and they say, "Well, how'd we do?" You know, how'd we do on getting the the debt down? Well, you know, it's difficult. It's complicated, but we actually added added $3 trillion to it. So, I just the budget hawks in the Republican conference. I mean, are you going to stand up tomorrow and say we were lying to you? You know, we never really meant it.
▶ 0:44:09I mean, it's just ridiculous that you would consider passing a reconciliation bill that's going to add $3 trillion to the debt after, you know, my gosh, the speeches I heard would have made you think that not getting the debt under control was going to kill us all in like a year. So, this reconciliation bill is an utter disaster for the country for a lot of the reasons. I associate myself with bunch of many of the remarks that Mr. McGovern made on all the things that are being cut.
▶ 0:44:37But if you care about defense and you care about the debt, how in the hell can you vote for this? I mean, I I I look forward to someone making that argument at some point. So, I I I hope that the Republicans who care about the debt and care about defense will vote this bill down. And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
▶ 0:44:58Chairman Hill, you're Good morning, Madame Chair and Ranking Member McGovern. I've never considered myself much of a morning person and and this takes it to a whole new level. A few weeks ago, the House Financial Service Committee completed work on the assignment to us under the budget resolution from Congress adopted early in April.
▶ 0:45:24The resolution asked us to decrease the deficit by at least $1 billion over the 2025 to 2034 period. We've done that. We've rescended the remaining unobligated balances with the Department of Housing and Urban Developments Green and Resilient Retrofit Program created under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
▶ 0:45:47We ended the public accounting oversight board's authority to collect regulatory fees and transferred any unused balances to the Treasury. Audit oversight will continue without disruption. We put a firm cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's budget, setting its funding at no more than 249 million for fiscal 2025 with an annual adjustment for inflation going forward for the CFPB civil penalty fund.
▶ 0:46:16Once direct victims are compensated, remaining funds will be transferred to the Treasury's general fund. Finally, we cap the assessment collected by the Office of Financial Research at the Treasury, aligning them with the average annual expenses of the Financial Stability Oversight Council over the past three years. Any surplus will once again be returned to the Treasury.
▶ 0:46:39I'm pleased to report that the financial service committee exceeded our instruction by the budget committee and that the CBO estimates the deficit would decrease by 5.2 billion from the efforts of our committee. During our markup, we spent over nine hours debating our portion of this reconciliation bill. We considered all 40 amendments that our Democratic colleagues offered and did not limit the minority's ability to propose modifications to the underlying legislative text.
▶ 0:47:08After this long comprehensive process, we favorably transmitted our committee print to fulfill our obligations to the reconciliation bill before rules today. I want to thank all my colleagues. Uh I want to remind all my colleagues to recall why we are here. The American people voted for fiscal responsibility. They voted for change. Our country is currently $37 trillion in debt, paying billions of dollars in interest each day on that debt.
▶ 0:47:37This year alone, we'll spend almost a trillion dollars on total interest. If Congress fails to get our fiscal house in order, our debt will continue to grow exponentially and our grandchildren will pay the consequences. For too long, government spending has been on a one-way ratchet up. So, we're here today to finally do the difficult work of extricating our nation from this fiscal predicament. Financial Services Committee portion of the concurrent resolution does more than its part to reduce the deficit.
▶ 0:48:05I'm eager to finish our work and finally tackle these issues. I ask the committee for your support in advancing this bill to the House floor. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Representative Waters, you're
▶ 0:48:36Well, I can't let that not be heard. Well, here we are. Republicans have dragged us here in the dead of the night under the guise of having a productive hearing about the GOP tax scam bill. But the truth is that Republicans couldn't care less about how bad this bill is.
▶ 0:48:57They're going to sit here and ignore every single thing that I and my Democratic colleagues have to say about this bill and how it will harm hardworking American families. And it's all because they are afraid of Donald Trump. They're so afraid of Donald Trump that they will gladly allow the American people to serve as collateral damage to the five trillion handout.
▶ 0:49:25Five trillion dollar handout to billionaires in this bill. They're so afraid of Donald Trump that they're okay with him getting richer while their constituents are getting poor. This isn't hyperbole. This is real life. This bill cuts programs that will literally make American families poor and make Donald Trump and his billionaire donors richer.
▶ 0:49:48I was there at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after Trump and Elon Musk illegally attempted to shut down the bureau. I heard from consumers about what shutting down the agency means for them. This is the very same agency that following the 2008 financial crisis, which many of us in this room remember, was created to stop predatory financial institutions from ripping off our constituents.
▶ 0:50:19The same agency that has saved American families $21 billion by returning to them funds that was swindled out of them. Trump failed to shut the agency down in court. So now they're trying to soliciting the help of Republicans. This bill, this budget scheme will slash the bureau's budget by 70%.
▶ 0:50:46And put the AY's crucial work like cracking down on illegal junk fees, tackling discrimination and housing, and protecting service members and students from scams to a grinding halt. This is all to cut taxes for billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.
▶ 0:51:06Republicans are also pushing to gut the Financial Stability Oversight Council and Treasury's Office of Financial Research agencies that are designed to prevent another financial crisis like the one in 2008. They're eliminating funding for affordable housing construction despite a national homelessness crisis.
▶ 0:51:32I also showed up at HUD because I know the harm this will pose to families. They're also so desperate desperate to do Trump's bidding that they're eliminating another agency that doesn't cost taxpayers anything.
▶ 0:51:48the public company accounting oversight board which oversees auditors to prevent frauds like Enron and ensure that companies control by the Chinese Communist Party are on the up. What's even more sinister about Republicans dismantling our financial institutions that they're doing this in the middle of an economic crisis.
▶ 0:52:14Our economy is falling behind Europe, China, and Canada. Americans are so economically anxious that they're holding off on starting a family and buying a home. The so-called pro-f family party is making it harder for Americans to have kids and ripping away the American dream of home ownership. Inflation is rising, the dollar is down, yields are up, and borrowing is getting more expensive.
▶ 0:52:45And just this past Friday, Moody's lowered the United States credit rating because of Trump's reckless tariff policies and growing concerns about how this bill would jack up our debt by giving a massive unnecessary handout to billionaires. Don't forget he is all carrying out the most egregious crypto scheme in history.
▶ 0:53:11A scam that is enriching himself and his family while average investors lose money. But nothing in the bill addresses this crisis. Trump has thrown the US economy. He's put us in this position. Republicans, let's face it, you're not serious about helping your constituents. You only care about kissing up to King Trump. This isn't what the American people elected us for.
▶ 0:53:40I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Miss Waters. Mr. Arrington, you're Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the rules committee. Only in the mind of a Democrat could a 22 uh% tax hike prevention be a a bill that's characterized as trash.
▶ 0:54:05Only in the mind of a Democrat could giving our soldiers, our sons and daughters in uniform, what they need to be ready to protect us, to keep us safe and free, be a scam. Only in the mind of a Democrat would keeping illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer funded social services so that we could sustain those programs for American citizens now and into the future could be a scam or trash.
▶ 0:54:34And I got a whole lot of other talking points but and I look forward to the reconciliation bill under consideration today is the principal legislative vehicle for advancing the full America first agenda to realize President Trump's vision and House Republicans unwavering commitment to making America safe and prosperous again. Our goals were as follows.
▶ 0:55:00to strengthen our military and secure our border, to reignite economic growth and unleash American prosperity, and to reign in in wasteful Washington spending, and begin the process of restoring the fiscal health of our great nation. The one big beautiful bill act contains the largest cuts, security investment, federal energy asset deployment, and spending reduction in the history of the United States of America.
▶ 0:55:31This is an historic moment. We believe it's a generational opportunity to reclaim the American promise to renew the American spirit and restore America's greatness. The American people gave President Trump a mandate and unified Republican leadership in Congress to reverse course on the failed policies of the last four years. Their message to Washington, Madam Chair, I believe was crystal clear.
▶ 0:55:57They want competent leaders, common sense policies, and a commitment from everybody in this room, all of the lawmakers and leaders of our great country to be committed to putting America and Americans first. Let's give the voters what they what they got, what they asked for today. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Hearing to Mr. Bole. You're recognized.
▶ 0:56:23Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, ranking member, and thank you to all the members who uh go above and beyond by serving on the rules committee. Um when I was a teen, uh my late mother would often say, "Nothing good happens after midnight." Now I know what she meant. Um this big bill for billionaires will truly hurt working Americans. Let me highlight some of the major points.
▶ 0:56:51First, it will bring about, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the greatest loss of healthc care coverage in American history. It does it in several ways. First, by providing and instituting the biggest cut to Medicaid in American history. Second, by launching devastating cuts to Obamacare.
▶ 0:57:18Those two combined will result in a loss of health care for about 14 million Americans. But that's not all. Just tonight, a few hours ago, the bombshell came out. The nonpartisan CBO's official numbers show this bill will bring about an over $500 billion cut to Medicare.
▶ 0:57:46one of the largest cuts to Medicare since the program was created, 1965. So, the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, devastating cuts to the Affordable Care Act, and one of the largest cuts to Medicare in American history. And why? To help subsidize tax cuts that mostly go to the top 1%. And of course, those cuts I highlighted to healthcare aren't the only cuts that are in here.
▶ 0:58:14We also have included the largest cuts to nutrition assistance and food programs in American history. Cuts to all sorts of education programs. And the list goes on and on on. And does that in the end mean most working Americans will be better off? No. Because also out from CBO just tonight are the distributional effects of this bill. It's in its in its entirety. And what does it show?
▶ 0:58:44The bottom 10% of Americans will actually be poorer as a result of this bill with the biggest benefit going to the top 1% of What is also quite clear is that this bill is not entirely paid for.
▶ 0:59:05Even after all of those cuts to Medicaid, all of those cuts to Medicare, all of those cuts to the Affordable Care Act and nutrition assistance and on and on, they don't come close to paying for the cost of the tax cuts. So, how is the rest paid for? It isn't. Just tacking on more and more to our national debt. No wonder just on Friday evening Moody's delivered the third credit downgrade this nation has ever received.
▶ 0:59:34This is truly I think all sides will agree with this a significant piece of legislation. Frankly, I think one of the most consequential in our lifetimes. Sadly though, I believe the consequences for my constituents and most working Americans will be absolutely devastating. I urge you to reject it. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Bole. Chairman Comr, you're recognized. Thank you, Dr. Fox and Ranking Member McGovern.
▶ 1:00:03Today, I'm here to talk about a generational opportunity to realize reforms that address the budget deficit. The provisions proposed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Title Nine of this bill are part of President Trump's larger effort to improve the fiscal health of the federal government. Last November, Democrats offered to provide more of the same, but the American people instead elected President Trump to a historic second term on promises to change Washington, DC.
▶ 1:00:31The deficit reductions in Title 9 of the reconciliation package codify part of President's vision for enacting his agenda and achieving significant taxpayer savings. Congressional procedure, president, and tradition too often contribute to an everexpanding federal government. Meanwhile, too little is done to shrink the administrative state and make the federal bureaucracy more efficient. The budget reconciliation process provides a rare opportunity to reverse that trajectory.
▶ 1:01:00Fundamentally, Congress instructed the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to advance policies that reduce the federal deficit by at least $50 billion. Despite our committee's limited jurisdiction over mandatory spending programs, we passed a package of budget reforms that save a significant sum. We are in a fiscal crisis. The reforms we moved out of the oversight committee met the moment in terms of addressing that fiscal crisis.
▶ 1:01:28We did the job we needed to do on behalf of the American taxpayers and future generations. The simple truth is that federal employee retirement benefits significantly outpace those of the private sector. To this point, the Congressional Budget Office issued an April 2024 report that I requested stating that quote, "Benefits for federal workers cost 43% more per hour worked on average than benefits for private sector workers." End quote.
▶ 1:01:56CBO stated further that quote benefits also constituted a larger share of total compensation for federal workers than for workers in the private sector. End quote. Most of the costs associated with these benefits are funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector and federal borrowing. I understand that our conference includes members that represent different constituencies.
▶ 1:02:19I support leadership's work to combine our package with the provisions reported by other committees into one bill that can gain the support of our conference and I thank my colleagues for working with leadership to represent their constituents and reach an agreement on a package that advances significant budgets saving reforms. I fully support our collective efforts to advance a package that works for the House and supports President Trump's agenda. Title Nine of the legislation before us today advances most of the oversight committee's important budgetary reforms.
▶ 1:02:49These reforms will save taxpayers money while protecting current retirees as well as law enforcement officers, border patrol officers, air traffic controllers, nuclear material couriers, and firefighters who serve a clear public interest and typically have shortened federal careers due to mandatory retirement rules and early retirement incentives.
▶ 1:03:10Taken together, the reforms now being considered in Title 9 will reduce the deficit and move us toward the more accountable federal government and the American people demand and deserve. I ask the rules committee to promptly advance this legislation for consideration by the House. And I welcome the committee's questions. I yield back. Thank you, Chairman Comr. Representative Lynch, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 1:03:47tax cuts onto the backs of American workers, families, and dedicated public servants. And because this bill is so disgraceful, it can't stand the light of day. In just over 100 days, we've witnessed the Trump administration lay off more than 200,000 probationary federal employees, including leading researchers, public health experts, veterans, and other critical positions. Trump has coerced 75,000 civil servants into resigning.
▶ 1:04:17Trump has replaced 50,000 nonpartisan civil servants with political appointees. and Trump has illegally terminated nonpartisan independent inspectors general and federal watchd dogs. This partisan bill threatens to further undermine the federal workforce by reducing the take-home pay benefits and workforce protections of 2.4 million federal employees, most of whom are middle class American workers and a third of whom are military veterans.
▶ 1:04:48This is more of the same. an unprecedented assault and political purge of the nonpartisan civil service. And the people who pay most for these attacks are the veterans, children, seniors, and other Americans who rely on our federal workers to deliver those to deliver those life-saving services.
▶ 1:05:06The federal employee retirement system annuity supplement, a monthly bridge payment for retirees before they're eligible for social security at age 62 would be eliminated for anyone not actively receiving the supplemental payment by January 1st, 2028 or who does not meet a specific exemption.
▶ 1:05:27Federal workers like letter carriers, VA hospital nurses, food inspectors who have committed decades to the job are eligible to retire would not be able to receive this vital payment to make ends meet. That's $18,000 per year in retirement income for the average beneficiary eliminated because billionaires need another tax break.
▶ 1:05:48This legislation would also retroactively change the annuity formula to base most employees annual retirement payments on their highest five years of earnings instead of the highest three as they were promised when they were hired. This is an outright theft of earned benefits that would cost federal retirees thousands of dollars annually.
▶ 1:06:09and my Republican colleague, Representative Mike Turner of Ohio, was exactly right to speak out and vote against this provision during our committee's consideration of this bill, making the rejection of the oversight bipartisan. Another particularly egregious provision of this bill would force any newly hired federal employee to accept at employment or lose 5% of their take-home pay to increase retirement contributions.
▶ 1:06:38Federal workers who choose to remain under the merit-based system would be forced to contribute nearly 10% of their paycheck towards retirement. CBO estimates that 75% of new hires in the federal government would now become at will employees subject to political purges of the federal workforce with little to no protections.
▶ 1:06:59I'll be introducing amendments to strike this bill's atwill employment provisions and to exempt veterans and federal workers who enter the workforce prior to the bill enactment from the changes in the annuity formula. Despite the claims of this administration, federal workers are not leeches on the system, but hardworking, dedicated public servants who are paid about 25% less than their private sector counterparts.
▶ 1:07:25A strong nonpartisan federal workforce is fundamental to a functioning democratic government. These dedicated workers deserve our respect and our support. Like most Americans, federal workers faced increased costs for groceries and housing and economic uncertainty because of President Trump's reckless tax and tariff agenda. The Trump tariffs are estimated to cost American house polls $4,900 per year, the largest tax increase since 1968.
▶ 1:07:54President Trump and congressional Republicans are also advocating for a tax regime that will actually increase federal deficits by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years. And worst of all, they're seeking to offset their tax cuts for billionaires by gutting $800 billion from Medicaid programs. My Dem Democratic colleagues and I strongly oppose that motion. Oversight Democrats stand with struggling families.
▶ 1:08:20We oppose corruption and abuse of power, and we are committed to solving our nation's crisis without sacrificing the well-being of our civil servants. I urge my colleagues to reject this reverse Robin Hood legislation, which robs from the poor to give to the rich and instead work towards a budget that respects American workers and the basic needs and services they provide. I welcome the committee's questions and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
▶ 1:08:50Chairman Arrington, we keep hearing a constant refrain from the Democrats that the tax cuts were driven to the wealthy. The Washington Post fact checked what they referred to as Democrats quote zombie claim end quote that 83% of the benefits from Republican tax reform in 2017 went to the wealthiest 1%. They fact checked this multiple times.
▶ 1:09:17The Post gave the claim three Pinocchios, saying, quote, "The tax bill has been in place for more than three years, and it's clear from the available data that the top 1% did not end up with most of the tax benefits.
▶ 1:09:36Do you agree with me that the Democrats have a credibility problem when they discuss President Trump's tax they have a major credibility problem because the facts u are contrary to their mischaracterization. Uh the top 1% actually pay a higher share of their taxes than it they did prior to TCJA. So in that respect it it became a more progressive tax code.
▶ 1:10:04Uh but every other income level saw a tax break. Uh in addition to that we had record wage increases. Um, in fact, the bottom 10% of wage earners uh grew their wages at twice the top 10%. And it's three times the income increase of the bottom 50% relative to the top 1%.
▶ 1:10:31So, I would just add that um it it couldn't be a scam on working people and poor people when we achieved the lowest poverty rate in the in recorded history. So people got better opportunities and paychecks and the people at the lower income spectrum got the biggest benefit TCJA.
▶ 1:11:01Um so mischaracterization may be an understatement for how um they describe tax cuts for the rich. And let's remember the top 10% of income earners are paying 70% of our salary, the lights and the entire freight of the federal government. So when we talk about tax fairness and equity, they have an interesting perspective on that. Thank you.
▶ 1:11:30I think the word mischaracterization of what they're saying is a kind way to say it. Uh there's there's a three-letter word that characterizes it better, but we'll leave that alone. When President Biden stated the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1% and not ordinary people, didn't check.org have to debunk him?
▶ 1:11:59And didn't the liberal liberal tax policy center even have to correct President Biden? And didn't even the New York Times state that quote studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. That's correct.
▶ 1:12:28Doesn't this constant refrain we're hearing from Democrats now match exactly what has been categor categorically debunked? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
▶ 1:12:43And nobody knows that better than the average uh family of four who saw about a $5,000 um increase in their take-home pay because of their tax relief, which which was almost the opposite effect of the uh the inflation tax they paid over the last three or four years. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
▶ 1:13:12Um, I think we're we're what you're talking about is not what we're talking about here today. Um, uh, we're talking about the Republican reconciliation package that, uh, is going to be jammed through uh, this committee and rushed to the floor. Um, and if I am understanding the numbers correctly, the latest version of their tax scam, the top 0.1% stand to gain $255,000 on average in 2027 alone.
▶ 1:13:41That's $700 a day every day. Million uh people who make over a million dollars a year will also get their pockets lined. On average, these mill millionaires will have an additional $81,500 per year. Uh but pennies for everybody else, for those earning less than $50,000 per year, the average benefit is $265. That's less than a dollar per day.
▶ 1:14:07And that's laughable when you begin to look at the gaps that are going to be created by these cuts and other programs. But Mr. Boil. Um I I I have a letter here that you received um along with the Democratic leader Hakeim Jeff from um the director of um the Congressional Budget Office. Um and I'm looking at this chart here above who benefits from this bill. It doesn't seem to match what uh Chairwoman Fox and Mr. Arrington are just talking about right now.
▶ 1:14:37You want to comment on this? What that chart shows? And by the way, not that's not my chart. I know that's not your chart. PBOS's that is the official scorekeepers chart the nonpartisan congressional budget office and if you can show that chart uh again what it shows is the poor get poorer while the rich get richer and so let me um quote again from the CBO specifically their numbers for people in the bottom 10% they will
▶ 1:15:08experience a 4% loss of household wealth meanwhile for people in the top 10% they will see their household resources increase by 2%. It is as simple as that. And I ask unanimous consent that this be entered into the record. Madam Chair, without objection, um I my view uh on legislation is that if if you believe in the legislation, you ought to vote for it. If you don't believe in it, you ought to vote against it.
▶ 1:15:38So I would say to my friend Chairman Arrington, if if you believe the stuff that's contained in this reconciliation bill, if you if if you think these priorities are the right priorities and if these represent your values, then by all means vote for it. I I won't I I'll disagree with you. I mean, I could spend all day here uh because I'm also on the agriculture committee and we had a lengthy hearing on the impact of the nutrition cuts on average people and on states, too. There's an unfunded mandate here as well. Um, and it's going to be significant.
▶ 1:16:08Um, and uh, but if if the if this bill represents your values, I'll just say for the record, it doesn't represent my values. And so, you know, we just we're just going to have to agree to disagree. But, you know, um, let me ask you a question though, Chairman Arrington. I mean, I I this is the rules committee print of of what we're talking about. Um and and um is this rules committee print in front of us?
▶ 1:16:38Is this the final version of the bill or a change is going to be made? Uh sir, it's the final version of the bill until uh the manager's amendment uh is completed and then and then we'll know what those definitive changes are. So are negotiations still ongoing? Um and if so, with whom? Where are they? And and in what room? Uh shouldn't you be in that room um uh instead of being here right now because you're the budget chair?
▶ 1:17:06Uh I mean during the markup uh during the budget markup on Sunday night, you said that you weren't aware of any changes being made and then my colleague on the rules committee, Mr. Norman on this committee followed up saying he was happy with the direction with the changes that were being made. So so which is it? So changes are going to be made. Well, I'd say there are a lot of there have been a lot of conversations and discussion and healthy debate within the conference.
▶ 1:17:31Um, and uh, but as far as I'm concerned, um, my job was first to make sure that the budget targets were achieved and they were. So, we had a budget balance budget reconciliation bill. That was that was our job to affirm that in the budget committee. As to what changes, I don't know of any definitive changes until I see it on paper. Lots of things change as you know in this process.
▶ 1:17:55But in the budget committee markup, you said that we would have an official score from the nonpartisan budget experts at CBO before we vote on this bill. Um and uh and when will we get that score? I believe we will still have a score on the final bill. So you think we'll get the score before we we vote on it? Uh that's my expectation. And if we don't, would you recommend that we hold off until we get to I think we got a lot of the bills scored at this point.
▶ 1:18:23My expectation is that they'll have the bill scored. Yeah. But but the changes Yeah. I mean, one of the things about CBOS, it it talks not only just about the, you know, the impacts on the deficit and the debt, but also on like how many people will lose health care benefits or, you know, and other benefits. So, so you know, any change will impact our constituents differently.
▶ 1:18:45And so I I I guess I just want to I mean, do you think it's okay for us to vote on this bill without knowing how much it will cost the American taxpayer or how many people will get kicked off of their healthcare? And I mean, if if you're saying we should we should, you know, we we should absolutely have a a final CBO score before we vote on this, I I'm I could live with that. I'm just I I just don't I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're committing to or not committing to.
▶ 1:19:14I'm committing my expectation is they'll have all the scores, Mr. McGovern, but I I think they know the uh various machinations and what that will do to ensure a certain number of people who receive, for example, Medicaid who are in this country illegally under the policies of President Biden.
▶ 1:19:35and what that will change when we put prohibitions against taxpayer funding uh funded uh uh services going I'm not looking for a pred prediction I'm looking for kind of certainty about what we will be Mr. Boil. Uh, as you know, statutory payo, which stands for pay as you go, is a law that requires tax cuts and spending increases to be offset, meaning that they do not add to the deficit.
▶ 1:20:00If at the end of the year, congressional legislation collectively violates PIO, those deficit effects trigger across the board cuts to programs like Medicare. Does this bill trigger statutory PGO? Yes. And it's not me saying it. It is the Congressional Budget Office confirming it as of a couple hours ago.
▶ 1:20:22And look, this is really the breaking news because when the budget committee kicked off this process approximately 3 months ago, there was a commitment by President Trump that there would be no Medicare cuts in this piece of legislation. And indeed, over the last several months, there's been no discussion of Medicare at all. There has been of Medicaid, but not of Medicare.
▶ 1:20:44Well, here we are tonight because, as you explained, because of the size of the deficits, because of the pay go or pay as you go act, that would trigger sequestration of Medicare and it would total over $500 billion. The official figure that CBO confirms is $535 billion in cuts to Medicare. And and and this bill doesn't wave statutory pay. No, it does not.
▶ 1:21:14So, so this will have a direct impact on Medicare and the federal budget. Uh, which is again I I I think a lot of people who are, you know, who are not following this as closely as you are probably are not aware of and will be surprised to learn about uh tomorrow. Chairman Hill, um, as you know, uh, military service members and veterans are disproportionately targeted and endangered by financial fraudsters.
▶ 1:21:42And CFPB, whose funding Republicans are aiming to cut by roughly 70%, received nearly 85,000 financial complaints from service members and veterans in 2023. and the CFPB has provided 363 million in monetary relief from enforcement actions that involve harm to service members and veterans. Uh, our colleague from Connecticut, Mr.
▶ 1:22:06Heim, spoke on an amendment in your committee that would prevent funding cuts to the CFPB from harming veterans um and service members. I mean, this seems like a common sense amendment to me. Um, yet not a single Republican spoke in favor of it.
▶ 1:22:24and no one on your side even um spoke up to explain why they were in favor uh of not moving u this amendment forward um which again I think threatens the financial safety of our service members and our veterans. So um at the end of the day I mean this amendment was voted down.
▶ 1:22:42So, I just I just want to give you an opportunity to explain why cutting an agency that protects the financial well-being of our service members and our veterans um is a priority um in this bill. I I don't I don't I don't quite understand it. Well, thank you, Mr. McGovern.
▶ 1:23:00uh the the plan uh that Republicans advanced in this reconciliation plan was to save mandatory spending and it's our judgment going back and looking at the history of the CFPB since its inception in the DoddFrank Act that it could continue its core function and meet its statutory obligations at a 5% cap of the Federal Reserve's budget which would be about $249 million this year.
▶ 1:23:27uh and that it could meet all of its statutory obligations in meeting uh what DoddFrank directed them to do, which is for large financial institutions uh and non-banking companies uh comply with consumer compliance, and we believe they can do that. Yeah.
▶ 1:23:43I I I I you know I mean I'm I'm hearing great concern about um about the impacts of these cuts and and some and what I worry about in a number of areas with regard to this bill is that cuts are being made not necessarily on the merits but just because cuts have to be made. Um uh ranking member Waters the CFPB has returned $21 billion to consumers over the last 14 years.
▶ 1:24:08If Congress proceeds to slash 70% of the CFPB's budget, a vital agency whose sole purpose is to protect American consumers in the financial marketplace, would the CFPB be still be able to fight for consumers and seek remediation when when they are harmed with this kind of cut? Absolutely not.
▶ 1:24:36The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is extraordinarily important for consumers. I sat on the conference committee of the DoddFrank Reforms when we created uh the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A lot of work had been done uh by Senator Warren and others. But I want you to know prior to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the consumers really had nowhere to turn.
▶ 1:25:04they had nowhere to really lodge their complaints. And this is very important because now uh with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the excellent work that has been done, they've been able to return $21 billion over 14 years to our consumers. I want you to know that our consumers, the victims are mostly the least of these.
▶ 1:25:30These are people in poor communities and not only in inner city but in rural communities. They are the victims of everybody with a kind of a broad scheme uh that see them as vulnerable and uh target them.
▶ 1:25:45I want you to know without the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we would not have been able to deal with the big fines that we had to do some of the largest banks uh in this country that were literally in many ways had less risk management that they should have and all kind of errors and mistakes and fraud was taking place.
▶ 1:26:06And so this proposed cut of 70% literally would kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And I want you to know that even and I'm recalling when acting Mick Melaney was acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He basically said, "I'm bound to execute the law as written." When he first went in, he did not request any money.
▶ 1:26:35And then in one quarter he and I think one other Kathy Cranger when she was there requested almost the maximum amount in one quarter of 249 million. So this is extraordinarily important. All of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, should care about our consumers, about our voters, about the fact that they need the money that they earn.
▶ 1:27:02Hardworking people to put food on the table to pay the rent getting ripped off in so many ways and nowhere to turn uh would be uh absolutely disastrous. Thank you. The oversight portion of this bill would reduce pay, pensions, and protections for current and future federal employees.
▶ 1:27:22The bill would force the federal workforce to foot the bill for tax cuts for billionaires and comes as the Trump Musk administration is carrying out a cruel full-scale assault on on the federal workforce. The American people and the life-saving services they rely upon will suffer the most as a result of Republicans's efforts to purge the federal government of its dedicated high performing public servants and politicize the delivery of basic needs and services to our veterans, our children, and our seniors.
▶ 1:27:51Republicans also want to extort future civil servants into giving up their protections. Protections which serve the interest of the American people who want good government uh workers not completely subject to the whims of whoever occupies the White House. Representative Lynch, what would the approximate financial impact of these provisions be on the average federal worker? Okay, if you just you got to press your mic if you add everything up.
▶ 1:28:18So, uh, the FURs annuity supplement, uh, would cost the average employee, uh, $54,000 in the retirement income when they average it out over the three years that the average employee uses that for. Then, uh, the, uh, changing the high three to the high five costs them $16,560 over over 20 years.
▶ 1:28:46And then uh finally the uh converting new employees at will unless they accept and plus the the added money that they have to have to pay for their pension if they want to uh come under the merit service protection board that it brings everything to over $16,000 uh over a 20 year uh career. Yeah. And I I I just and m Mr. Mr. Ranking member, I I just want to add your previous question about service members.
▶ 1:29:16This bill eliminates the Office of Service Member Affairs, which is the CFPB department that really watched after. If you go to any of these uh army bases, you get on to Fort Hood, outside the bases are all these uh uh money services and and and uh you know, their their uh short-term loans, things like that. uh payment systems that are exploiting uh these young service members and their families.
▶ 1:29:44That office that used to protect them is being eliminated in this bill. And what would the effect on our nation's nonpartisan civil service be of effectively extorting new hires to become at will employees? I mean, will we see the same level of nonpartisan excellence? it would gut it.
▶ 1:29:58So the the estimate is that 75% of our federal employees, remember these are new people coming into the workforce, they would they would reject paying the extra money for their pension and instead become uh they they would become at will employees. though because they have no pension at the end, they're probably going to be relying on, you know, public assistance instead of being allowed to build a a pension for their for themselves during their their working lives.
▶ 1:30:28And Chairman Comr, is it correct that under this legislation, your pension contributions don't increase, but a newly hired VA nurse or Department of Defense education activity teacher who wants workplace protections from political purges would pay 5% more of their salary towards their pension than they would under current under the current law? Well, they would have a choice. They would have a choice. The answer is yes. Right.
▶ 1:30:56they would have a choice to be an atill employee and and make more money or or be a government employee like like what you all there's something that that to me is inherently wrong about all of this. I mean we should want a a a federal civil service that represents the best of the best. I I disagree. I think that you may disagree with that. That's fine. No, I don't disagree with that. I think it's okay to give people a choice, right?
▶ 1:31:23give federal employees a choice. They can make decisions. The the government doesn't have to make every decision for everybody, including all the government employees. Government employees can can have a choice here, right?
▶ 1:31:37But it but but but the incentives here are are are are backwards which um which that that's the point I'm trying to make is that u I think there's an attempt by this administration and you may agree with it to basically politicize our federal workforce to make everybody just say whatever the administration wants and that's it. Um and I think this is about in incentivizing that.
▶ 1:32:01But uh let me just say my final to ranking member Smith, from your time on the armed services committee, it is clear that you understand the value of defense spending and investing in our military. Um, do you believe that an increase of $150 billion for defense over the $848 billion provided to the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2025 and with few guard rails makes sense when the when the pay for when the pay for is devastating cuts from essential
▶ 1:32:31programs for the American people like Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is SNAP, and student loan and grant programs at the Department of Education. I do not. And then that's why I voted against it in committee and opposed this. I mean, adding $150 billion dollars to defense is debatable in and of itself. But where it's coming from, as I think a number of people have articulated, it's coming from all these other programs, is also coming from just borrowing the money.
▶ 1:32:58Um, and I will also say we do not yet have a national security plan from the Trump administration. We've heard that they want to cut 8% from certain aspects of it. We haven't seen what that is. So, we don't know what the plan is for this $150 billion. It is spread out over four years, by the way. Um not not all in the first year. And let me just add my final point here.
▶ 1:33:22I mean, many have expressed concerns with how Secretary Hegs has managed the Pentagon, prioritizing loyalty over competence, decimating the military and civilian workforce, and undermining the effectiveness of the Department of Defense. Given that chaos, um, uh, is now an appropriate time to gift the gift the Department of Defense an additional $150 billion on top of the $858 billion that they already received in FY 2025. I mean, do you have any concerns about this? I I do and and I don't believe so.
▶ 1:33:52And that was a central argument that uh has Democrats made during the markup. We have seen uh Secretary Hass struggling to run the department well. Um I think it's up to like five of his employees have quit or been fired in the first three or four months. They've had highly critical things to say about the way the department is being run. Obviously they don't know how to control secure information securely and again they don't have a plan in terms of where they're planning.
▶ 1:34:20We don't even have an FY26 full budget yet. So no I I don't think this department can be trusted with that. I want to thank all the panel for being here. Um, again, as I said before, this bill doesn't represent my values. Um, and um, I'm going to be part of an effort to fight like hell to defeat this. This is this is bad for our country. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Chairman Rogers.
▶ 1:34:46I'm going to come to you in just a second to talk about the investments through DoD, but I just want to make sure um my understanding of the current tax law is that the top tax bracket starts for married couples filing jointly at $731,200 and that rate is 37%. Is that correct, Mr. Arrington? Yes, sir.
▶ 1:35:11Now uh in our piece of legislation, do we reduce that 37% tax bracket for people making above that level? Do we reduce that bracket? That is the reduced bracket that we extend. It is that is 37% going forward though. Yes, that's correct. It it is an extension. So we're we're going to the tax rate is going to be the same. That's correct.
▶ 1:35:36And there's a far cry from someone who's $731,000 and someone who's who's a billionaire. Uh and so I think there's a little as my grandfather would say on those hot summer days as we pulled in the cow pash a little bit of smells like money uh in the argument that this that this is billionaires when um we're simply extending the bracket and that bracket starts at 731,000 for married filing jointly.
▶ 1:36:03And while those people are certainly doing quite well, um it's a far cry from being a billionaire. Mr. Rogers, as you know, I returned from the border um on Saturday and I got an opportunity to meet with some of our troops down there as well as the um men and women with the border patrol who are doing an exceptionally good job now and could have been doing that job over the last four years as well.
▶ 1:36:24One of the things that amazed me is that um this was actually border patrol that told me this that uh they were by default parrolling people into the country even if they had visible gang tattoos if they ran the scans on them or ran the system on them and they did not have an interpole head. They were they were told to parole them into this country uh even if they had visible gang tattoos. So So we've got five billion for border security.
▶ 1:36:50That's a that's a huge investment for the people of this country that I think will go a long way and pay tremendous dividends for us. We've got 7 billion for air superiority. Uh 11 billion for Pacific deterrence, 12 billion for readiness, uh 13 billion for nuclear deterrence. Can you speak to these issues and what they mean to every American citizen and our ability to uh protect them uh from our ad adversaries both at home now more so than ever and abroad? Yes, sir.
▶ 1:37:20Uh on on the first issue with the border, I would make the point that every administration going back to President Clinton has had to send um National Guardsmen to the border to supplement border uh patrol efforts. Uh that has been a higher demand right now because of the policies of the last administration that basically opened our border for four years.
▶ 1:37:42Uh the problem that generated for us though is we already are spending at the lowest level of on defense that we have as a percentage of GDP since before World War II for over 80 years. So that money had to come out of Hyde. This supplement, this reconciliation is going to help backfill some of the money that we've had to spend to send our guardsmen down uh to help uh secure that border. Uh and you know you talked about just one leg of the triad.
▶ 1:38:11You know we have a a a real problem with our nuclear triad which is the most important deterrent we have to aggression in our arsenal. The Sentinel which is going to replace the Minute Man 3. The ICBMs is way over budget behind schedule. These are 1970s missiles that we have got to replace and we've got to have the money to do it. This reconciliation goes a long way toward that.
▶ 1:38:38Our nuclear submarines, which are the most valuable element we have in the triad. Uh we're behind on both uh the Virginia class and the Club me class. This puts uh a lot of money toward getting them caught back up. We just have a lot of elements. You've heard about the the the Golden Dome, which is really uh a a layered level of defense against attack that we have been needing for a long time. just pushed 25 billion against that threat there.
▶ 1:39:07I can go on and on. There are many threats. Uh I I really disagree with the the argument that the 150 billion isn't needed. The fact is this is just the first installment of what we need to start to get our defense back to where it should be so that we deter aggression and stay out of wars. Mr. Rogers, thank you. I want to be respectful of other people's time. There's an additional nine billion investment for service member quality of life.
▶ 1:39:3334 billion for ship building which will be a lot of jobs uh that we need in this country. Uh the 25 billion for golden dome you know our our nation's defense systems uh a lot of those systems are old. They were built for uh to defend us from systems that are significantly slower uh and significantly larger than uh the weapons that we face today.
▶ 1:39:57And if we do not uh invest in that u that defense system, then I'm afraid we're putting ourselves at risk for hypersonics and other other weapons that are that are extremely fast, extremely small. And I appreciate you, Mr. Rogers. I want to say this. Uh Chairman Smith, it's always uh good to have uh two members who for the most part are are able to work together. I I appreciate your professionalism on the Armed Services Committee and this is one we just um respectfully disagree on.
▶ 1:40:27With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Miss Scandlin, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our chairs and ranking members for joining us at this extraordinary hour. Um I also want to welcome our dedicated C-SPAN viewers and rules afficionados. You know who you are. um for our special edition of DC After Dark.
▶ 1:40:51Uh we're meeting in the dead of night so that House Republicans can try to jam through their disastrous reconciliation bill with zero transparency or scrutiny. This meeting began at 1:00 a.m. because our Republican colleagues know that a bill this bad can't be exposed to the light of day. 1:00 a.m. is when you work on bills that you want to hide from the public. Why would they want to hide this bill?
▶ 1:41:18This bill is going to enact the biggest cuts to Medicaid, the primary health insurance for uh nearly a quarter of Americans in our nation's history. This bill is going to enact the biggest cuts to SNAP, which prevents Americans from going hungry in our nation's history. And this bill is going to enact the biggest tax cuts for billionaires in our nation's history.
▶ 1:41:41Not only that, but the Congressional Budget Office has just released analysis showing that this bill is going to result in a wealth transfer, not from the rich to the poor, but from the poor to the rich. It's a bill for which there's still no agreement to guarantee its passage. That's why some of our members here aren't here right now. They're out there trying to uh cut some more deals with the speaker in the White House.
▶ 1:42:06And these deals aren't just tweaks, but if our colleagues tweets are to be believed, they're so significant that those deals are going to determine whether or not this bill passes at all. Although, if it does pass, it's going to be a strict partyline vote. So, after months of debate and deliberation in the Republican caucus, certainly not bipartisan debate with Democrats, House Republicans still don't have an agreement. What have you been doing all this time other than lying about whether or not you were going to cut Medicaid?
▶ 1:42:37You've had multiple member meetings, meetings with the president, committee markups that went for dozens of hours, and you still haven't ironed out disagreements. Not only is it sloppy, it's disingenuous. We're meeting in the dead of night to consider a terrible bill, and you haven't even drafted or shared some of the most critical parts of the bill. Haven't shared them with your Republican colleagues. haven't shared them with the other half of Congress. And most importantly, you haven't shared them with the American people.
▶ 1:43:06As the chairwoman acknowledged when she gave us in at 1:00 a.m., uh, if Republicans are able to pass their rule tonight, it will include a magical manager's amendment that will allow them to change the bill before it goes to the House floor. A manager's amendment that none of us have seen, that we won't be able to review or debate or change.
▶ 1:43:27And when we do get that magical amendment, it's likely to be dozens of pages long and include significant changes to the underlying text to make lastminute changes. Changes that will move around hundreds of billions of dollars. These deserve transparency. These deserve scrutiny and these deserve debate. As some Republicans have suggested, y'all should probably go home for the long weekend, collect yourselves, and come back to rules when you actually have an agreement.
▶ 1:43:54We're here in the middle of the night, of course, because the speaker and president are trying to rush this bill through by July 4th. A timeline that doesn't seem plausible, even if Republicans manage to jam their BS version of this bill through the House this week. It's clear they don't have the votes. The deadlines are made up just so they can jam the bill before anyone really knows what's in it.
▶ 1:44:15And for all your consternation over this or that provision of the bill, no matter what agreement the House reaches after this tortured process, you all know that the Senate is going to rewrite the bill anyway. Senators, Republican senators have said this bill is a non-starter. And in addition, since the bill has not yet been finished, we don't have a CBO score how much this bill will cost. We don't have any score except on prior versions of the bill.
▶ 1:44:43All we have are some back of the envelope um estimates cobbled together by Republicans in their backdoor meetings. Mr. Roy and Mr. Norman have long been big advocates for making sure that we have a CBO score. So, it's hard to believe they're going to think it makes sense to pass a bill that doesn't yet have a CBO score where hundreds of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers money is penciled in by staff with a calculator, maybe a slide reel, possibly an abacus.
▶ 1:45:13um or you know, are they going to, as seems likely, throw caution to the wind and cave again because the president told them to? Of course, business leaders and economists are calling this bill an economic disaster that will add trillions to our national deficit by extending the tax cuts for billionaires at the expense of American families, just like the 2017 tax cuts did. We've seen this play before.
▶ 1:45:40the rich get richer and the American people, working families get left holding the bag. It was confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office just a few hours ago with a damning report that shows that this bill is going to increase the deficit likely by $3.8 trillion. It's going to cut billions from Medicaid and SNAP.
▶ 1:46:05And it's going to reduce household income for poorest Americans and raise household income for the richest Americans. We can't emphasize enough how insanely rushed this bill is. You're proposing major health care changes that will impact every American whether they get their health care through Medicaid or Medicare or some other source.
▶ 1:46:32The impact of those Medicaid cuts will reverberate throughout our health care system. Cuts to Medicaid will push hospitals, nursing homes, and health clinics into bankruptcy. And when those places close, it's going to be harder for everyone else to get healthcare. Now turning to the panel before us. Um, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Bole, I assume you both saw last week's news, uh, that Moody's downgraded the United States credit rating.
▶ 1:47:01And I'm I'm sure you've read about it because one of the biggest reasons for the downgrade was extending these unfunded tax cuts for billionaires. Uh Moody's explanation is is as follows and I quote, "If the 2017 TCJA is extended, which is our base case, it will add around 4 trillion to the federal fiscal primary excluding interest payments deficit over the next decade.
▶ 1:47:28And as a result, we expect federal deficits to widen, reaching nearly 9% of GDP by 2035, up from 6.4% 4% in 2024 driven mainly by increased interest payments on debt, rising entitlement spending, and relatively low revenue revenue generation. We anticipate the federal debt burden will rise to about 134% of GDP by 2035 compared to 98% in 2024.
▶ 1:47:59So, doesn't it worry any of you on that side of the DIS? It certainly seems to be what you've been talking about. Um, it seems like a pretty damning indictment of the fiscal situation the Republicans are putting us in and one that is going to become worse if they pass this bill. There's also this tidbit from that liberal journal, the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.
▶ 1:48:20and I quote, "Inves investors sold US government bonds and the dollar on Monday after Moody's ratings late last week stripped the US of its last AAA credit rating, citing large budget deficits and rising interest costs, adding to the nerves about America's debt trajectory.
▶ 1:48:38The House Budget Committee approved a tax and spending bill Sunday that is projected to add trillions of dollars to that deficit." Uh, and another Wall Street Journal article this week was entitled, "The stark math on the GD the GOP tax plan. It doesn't cut the deficit." That article put it this way. The plan won't reduce federal budget deficits and would make America's fiscal hole deeper.
▶ 1:49:07While Republicans who vowed to reduce Red Inc say higher economic growth will fill the gap, budget analysts across the political spectrum have panned the Republican plan, warning that it worsens the US fiscal picture. So there's no way around it. Your math ain't mathing and the consequences are going to be disastrous for the entire country.
▶ 1:49:28Now, as we've been looking at this bill over the last few months, as it has been clear that it was going to require drastic Medicaid cuts, we do have this breaking news this evening that it's also going to impact Medicare. Um, Mr. Bole, this is a major revelation and it's exactly why this bill is not ready for prime time, barely ready for the 1:00 am time.
▶ 1:49:57Um so can you talk about how this is a backdoor cut to Medicare um which is going to cut for seniors and and what's going to happen if the bill passes? Yes.
▶ 1:50:10uh as CBO short showed because of uh the deficits that are baked into the Republican bill for billionaires that would because of something called the pay as you go act or pay go that would trigger sequestration of Medicare and it would again according to the Congressional Budget Office be to the tune of over $500 billion dollars to Medicare. one of the biggest cuts to the program.
▶ 1:50:40Uh indeed, I would say the largest outright cut to the program in American history. Uh there are some who might want to argue and rebut that by saying, "Well, we'll just go ahead and wave PGO." It's actually impossible in reconciliation because it would not uh meet to the requirements of the bird rule. So, you cannot wave payo. these cuts to Medicare will happen if this bill becomes law.
▶ 1:51:11Thank you. That's obviously really concerning. Now, we've talked a little bit already about the fact that there isn't a CBO score for whatever the current version of the bill is, but we also know that there are ongoing negotiations about this bill. Um, one of the things we've heard is that there may be an agreement on this salt uh deduction, which has been so concerning to some some of the Republican members.
▶ 1:51:36Um, is that agreement with respect to salt likely to increase the deficit or decrease the deficit? Well, I mean, obviously if if um the salt cap is raised even further than what was in the bill that was uh voted out of ways and means and passed um out of budget when we uh basically put all of the component parts into one, then basically one of two things would happen.
▶ 1:52:07either um the majority would have to find even more cuts uh in order to pay for the loss of revenue or you would simply see these deficits increase by even more. Okay, that's what I thought. Thank you. Um the prints from oversight and financial services aren't too great either. It's in in these committees that our Republican colleagues snuck in some really bad stuff.
▶ 1:52:34stuff they're hoping will get lost in all the headlines about taxes and and Medicaid. I'm really concerned by the oversight committee's contributions to this bill because the proposed changes to the federal employees retirement system amount to a major pay cut for our nation's civil servants. It's a cruel policy. It takes earned compensation away from millions of hardworking people just to make a poultry dent in the staggering cost of their tax giveaways.
▶ 1:53:02So, I know we're going to talk about the tax cuts later, but this is a multi-t trillion dollar handout to millionaires, billionaires, and Fortune 500 uh companies. It's the biggest government handout of all time. And to shave some dollars off the cost, Republicans are going to cut 13 million people off their health care and it's going to force a punitive pay cut on federal employees. Mr. Lynch, I think he said 2.4 million employees.
▶ 1:53:30Um, these are the public servants who work for you and me and our families and neighbors all across America. And they often do so for less pay than they would receive in the private sector, not because they're dumb, but because they're committed to public service. They give us tomorrow's weather forecast and tell us whether we need to shelter from tornadoes and floods. They prevent crop blight and the spread of dangerous diseases like bird flu.
▶ 1:53:59They make sure that the respirators used by coal miners and surgeons actually work. They make sure our food is safe to eat and our water is safe to drink. And these people whose pay is being so casually cut are FBI agents, Coast Guard employees, and doctors and nurses at VA facilities. So, at a time when the FAA is struggling with staffing shortages that are impacting air travel, Republicans are going to make that problem worse by cutting the pay of air traffic controllers.
▶ 1:54:29These provisions are an unmititigated mess. I'd like to think that we can all agree, no matter the size or shape of the federal government, it should be effective and responsive to the needs of the American people. It should be able to efficiently carry out these core responsibilities. and the provisions in this bill are undermining our ability to do that. So, Mr.
▶ 1:54:51Lynch, can you speak to how the oversight provisions in this bill are going to impact federal employees, including those serving in roles that are critical to our national security, our health, and our transportation Absolutely. Uh thank you for the question. Your your reference to the VA is is is very astute.
▶ 1:55:11So, uh, in a city like Boston, uh, our VA nurses probably earn between 25 and 30% less than the nurses at the private hospitals, and there are a bunch of them, right? So, now what we're seeing happening is that because of the shortage of nurses that occurred after COVID, a lot of nurses just retired. Now, they're pulling nurses from the VA. They're leaving the VA and they're going to work because they're they've got less hours.
▶ 1:55:40They got more pay, more benefits. So, we're competing now. And and you know, this is going to make it much more difficult to retain those nurses. And the ones that have been there a while are the most valuable, right? Uh it takes a while to get a nurse trained up uh you know, and and fully skilled. It takes a few years. And uh you know, so that that's created a huge shortage in in that that uh that whole metropolitan area.
▶ 1:56:07And that's happening all over the country where nurses are are leaving the VA, doctors in some cases as well, therapists. So we we're creating this real shortage at the VA. Our our case load. So right now we have a 250,000 backlog of cases at the VA because we don't have the personnel to respond to that need. So we're really in a crisis.
▶ 1:56:31you know, obviously the, you know, the suicide hotline, we've laid off people there, which is ridiculous because we've got we've got a crisis on our hands right now. So, all of this will exacerbate the problem. You you've you've you you've hit on that in your your remarks already, but this just amplifies the problem uh you know, tenfold with with these cuts. They'll be leaving in droves.
▶ 1:56:56you your remarks about the VA are are very well taken because I've heard the same thing from the VA facilities in in my region that the staffing cuts and the potential for pay cuts, the uh standards that are requiring nurses and doctors at the VA to see so many patients that they feel that they are not only not helping um the veterans who they're trying to serve, but in some cases the standard of care is
▶ 1:57:26is becoming harmful. Um, and under those circumstances, we are starting to see an exodus of doctors and nurses from the VA, which this bill is only going to put on steroids, I'm afraid. Absolutely. Um, the Financial Services print, of course, is is no better. Um, what Republicans are trying to do here is deeply alarming. It guts the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
▶ 1:57:49I mean, if you want to talk about a bureau that's had a fabulous return on investment, as you mentioned, billions of dollars returned to American consumers, um, it's this bill defunds the only federal agency dedicated to making sure consumers aren't getting scammed by credit card companies, payday lenders, mortgage servicesers, and shady fintech operators. It's returned over 19 billion, 21 billion, I think he said, to consumers since its f founding.
▶ 1:58:18And that's money that was stolen or unfairly taken through illegal fees, abusive practices, or deceptive marketing. And the bureau was able to get it back for American consumers. And now Republicans want to defend it, not because it defunded, sorry, not because it's ineffective, but because it actually works. And we know why. Because the Trump administration has already started dismantling the agency from within.
▶ 1:58:44In the last two months alone, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has quietly dropped nine lawsuits it had brought against companies like Capital One and Rocket Homes. Years of investigation and enforcement work has been tossed in the trash with no accountability and no restitution for consumers. It's also frozen dozens of ongoing investigations, many into companies with long records of abuse.
▶ 1:59:11These companies have been accused of everything from improper loan servicing and unfair interest charges to failure to protect sensitive consumer data. And now, thanks to new political leadership handpicked by the Trump White House, those investigations are dead. Investigators can't call witnesses, issue subpoenas, or even talk to company lawyers unless they get direct political approval. And that approval isn't coming.
▶ 1:59:37Meanwhile, these very same companies, it's so such an amazing coincidence, have given generously to Mr. Trump's campaign and especially his inauguration fund. Meta, the parent company of Facebook under investigation for allegedly misusing consumer financial data, donated a million to the inaugural committee. Greenlight, a fintech company accused of misleading families about debit card access, is backed by a Trump aligned venture capital form firm.
▶ 2:00:06And Elon Musk, whose company is launching a new mobile payments business, posted delete the CFPB on his social media after Trump's election. And of course, we've heard quite a bit about how much he's donated. So, this isn't policy, it's payback. This is what happens when you let billionaires and campaign donors write the rules. And now House Republicans are trying to finish the job by defunding the CFPB entirely.
▶ 2:00:33So, uh, Ranking Member Waters, can you speak more about this apparent corruption happening at the CFPB? Well, let me allow me to say to you, Miss Scallan, you aptly described what has been happening with the Consumer Financial Protection is one of the most needed and effective uh agencies of government
▶ 2:01:04that have done everything that you said they've done uh to assist our consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been hated uh by the Republicans ever since it came into its existence. They've tried to kill it and we've been in court all the way to the Supreme Court on several issues and we keep beating them back.
▶ 2:01:31Uh but now um Trump and this administration want to cut them even though we tried to protect them uh when we created them by having their financing come directly from the Feds rather than going through the appropriations uh committee. uh and they tried to attack that and other ways by which they thought they could get uh to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
▶ 2:01:58They're finally coming up with ways by which they can they think they can do that. But the way that uh we have been in the courts uh with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they're still would be alive after a huge cut, but they would sit there and not be able to do anything. They wouldn't be able to do the investigation.
▶ 2:02:22They would not be able to protect those very consumers that the law created them to take care of. And so um there are many in this country who fight very hard and are very disgusted with what is happening uh in an attempt uh to basically undermine them and get rid of them. Uh this is a terrible thing uh that this administration is doing.
▶ 2:02:49It would you would think that both Democrats and Republicans would care enough about the consumers that they would protect this one agency that has demonstrated that they can do the work and the investigations to help get rid of fraud and ripoffs as you have uh identified. And so um this is what we should be fighting. I'm going to continue to fight.
▶ 2:03:16Uh like I said, I was there uh at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and uh we're all worried so very much about what is going to happen if in fact the administration has its way. Um and again, you have correctly identified it and talked about it in ways that everybody should understand.
▶ 2:03:40It it's really stunning that an agency that has been this successful in protecting American consumers is is being zeroed out um when the only folks who are going to benefit are going to be large corporations and folks who are taking advantage of Americans. And I would apparently we don't. But I would hope that we would have bipartisan agreement that an agency like that should remain in place.
▶ 2:04:06Um I'll yield Thank you, Miss Scandlin. Mr. Jack, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Chairman Comr. Given that I serve on the oversight and government reform committee, I will focus my line of questioning on you. Um, and I'll just note from the outset, too, that you've done an incredible job uh with your leadership uh with the committee. You do a great job for your district, for the Commonwealth of Kentucky and our country.
▶ 2:04:34Uh you referenced this in your opening testimony, but could you just clarify for the committee your legislative jurisdiction over mandatory spending? It's pretty narrow, is it not? It you're exactly right. Let me say you're a good member of the oversight committee, Mr. Jack. We're glad to have you have you on there. But uh our jurisdiction was very limited uh to mandatory spending. All we had that would fall in uh the legislative jurisdiction would have been the federal employee benefits. Fair enough.
▶ 2:05:01And it's my understanding that federal employees get a hybrid pension that consists of both a 401k type defined contribution plan known as Thrift Savings Plan or TSP and a defined benefit annuity known as a federal employees retirement system refers. How do these benefits contrast with those offered in the private sector? Yeah, you're right.
▶ 2:05:21the the private sector employers have shifted away from defined benefits towards defined contribution retirement benefits programs in recent years and unlike what's provided in the federal service, few private sector employers actually maintain both such benefits for retirees. In fact, a recent Department of Labor report indicates that only 15% of private sector civilian workforce had access to both defined benefit and defined contribution plans.
▶ 2:05:51And a question many of my constituents ask is, do taxpayers fund pensions for federal employees that are generally more generous than the ones they themselves receive? And are there any credible recent studies on that? Yes. According to a 2024 CBO report that I requested, CBO found that in 2022, uh, federal employee benefits cost about $31 per hour worked and $22 per hour worked for private sector employees.
▶ 2:06:19That's benefits for federal workers cost 43% more per hour worked on average than benefits for private sector employer or private sector workers. Fair enough. Uh, one thing that you've mentioned in your testimony and I've heard you speak over and over about more than two million federal retired employees currently receive federal pension benefits costing more than 100 billion annually with taxpayers showing most of the expense. I just want to repeat that for the committee.
▶ 2:06:452 million federal retired uh employees that currently receive over 100 billion uh in benefits from taxpayers um combined together. And just to be abundantly clear to those who spread disinformation, the changes your committee print makes to the federal retirement system do not affect the benefits of those retired employees. Is that a fair statement? That is 100% correct.
▶ 2:07:07That is uh that is uh opposite of what some of the uh Democrats in Congress have have been saying. uh it does not uh affect those uh th the benefits of those are already retired are not impacted and the change we make to the first benefits the supplemental retirement benefits takes effect for those retiring after 2027 so that's a two-year delay exactly and just to clarify for those future employees people that may not be hired for
▶ 2:07:37years from now I think they're given a choice when they're they're hired it it changes in that aspect but for those retired it does not but could you just walk us through what happens as it relates to those who may be hired in the future. Yeah. In in the future, uh they're going to have a choice. They can be an atill employee or they can they can be the traditional government employee that that Mr. McGovern cherishes. And if they're a an Atwill employee, they they would receive a higher benefit.
▶ 2:08:08uh if they want to be a traditional employee that's uh protected uh with the you know very generous uh federal employee uh you know personnel laws that that are that are on the books then then they can they can do that. So I think this is you know our proposal saves billions of dollars and I think it gives federal workers a choice. Well one thing I want to focus uh on as well as you know my district I'm just south of the Atlanta airport.
▶ 2:08:37I represent an enormous amount of air traffic controllers and heard a lot from the air traffic controllers throughout this entire process and would just love for you to walk the committee through uh how air traffic controllers are treated as it relates to some of these changes. I know we've worked at great lengths to ensure that we're recruiting the best, enabling the best system for air traffic controllers to thrive so we can keep our skies safe. Yeah. And and Mr. Jack, you've done a a great job advocating for them on the oversight committee.
▶ 2:09:04And I want to be uh correct a statement that was stated by a Democrat on the rules committee earlier. Uh the air traffic controllers are exempted from any changes in this bill. That's in print. So that needs to be clarified. Uh they're completely exempted from any changes. And law enforcement officers, federal firefighters. That's right. Border Patrol. Wonderful.
▶ 2:09:30Um, and as it relates to Border Patrol, just a helpful point as as I round out my time. Um, you also achieve savings by removing ineligible dependents from the federal employee health insurance program. I applaud this provision. Taxpayers should not bear the cost of fraud and error committed by federal employees. And did not, just correct me if wrong. Did this provision get bipartisan support when it was taken up by the committee last Congress? It it did. And and that's something that we should all be u applauding here.
▶ 2:09:57This is an audit uh to ensure that there aren't people on the the benefits plan that are ineligible. And that's kind of what Brett Guthrie done with with Medicaid. Uh we're not cutting Medicaid. Uh we're not cutting the these benefit. We we're with with that provision. We're trying to uh ensure that uh people who are on the system are truly eligible and to remove those that are ineligible.
▶ 2:10:22GAO report estimated that if we do this audit, it'll save $1.5 billion dollar taxpayer money. So, I think that's a pretty good deal for the American taxpayers. Well, I appreciate your leadership. I very much am grateful for yourself and uh all that that worked on the committee to help support air traffic controllers. It's very important to my district. And with that, Madam Chair, I respectfully yield back. Madam Chair, thank you.
▶ 2:10:47Madam Chair, um I I just um I just want to point out you you called this meeting. Um and I'm looking at who's here. There's four of us and only three of you. Um and um and your members can't be bothered to even sit here and listen to the witnesses. And I I just say that because um if that continues, we're going to move to adjourn.
▶ 2:11:09So I I I hope that your members will since you called this meeting will actually be here present and listening to the I being in the other room is not being here. So um I just point that out and say that we will feel obligated to move to adjourn again if that continues. Thank you. Um Mr. McGovern, our members are in and out just like your members are in and out.
▶ 2:11:37you were gone for about 30 minutes and so we always allow people to move in and out. There are more of us here right now and we're in the minority. Well, our members, this this has been a tactic in in in the agriculture committee. I don't know about the other committees where Republicans just get up and leave. Um and um and so I think people ought to be present here. Um at least you ought to have more of you here than us here. Thank you.
▶ 2:12:07There are more of us here than than you. So there's no reason to delay this meeting any longer than it is. Mr. Noose, what I'm saying is there's no no need to to delay this meeting any longer than we have to. Thank you. Recognized. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh good morning all the chairs and ranking members. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your testimony.
▶ 2:12:34got a lot of questions, but I guess first I want to uh maybe if the chairwoman would indulge me, give her an opportunity uh to say a word. And that is my assumption and I think the assumption for most Americans is that the reason Republicans have decided to notice this hearing and proceed in the dead of night is because this bill is indefensible. It sounds like maybe you have a different reason. And so I guess I'm I'm trying to understand why was this meeting scheduled for 1:00 a.m.?
▶ 2:13:04Why are we meeting at 3:00 a.m.? What was the rationale? Or is there a rationale that I'm Am I mistaken? I think my opening statement stands for itself, Mr. Okay. Well, I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I would just say I mean your opening statement essentially, as best as I could tell, were ruminations about, you know, what happened in 2007 uh 20 years ago. I wasn't here. Uh most of us weren't here.
▶ 2:13:27I don't know that that is a cogent rationale to say 2022 two two and a half years ago and so the basis for scheduling this hearing in the dead of night is that you've decided that this is just the way things should work and that this is I mean I I I'll just proceed. I I'll just say this, Madam Chair. It does not take more than a cursory review online to find quotes from just about every member on the other side of the discluding you, Madam Chair, back in 2009.
▶ 2:13:57Uh again, it's a long time ago, regarding a stimulus bill that you described as rush legislation that was thrown together, quote, who threw together the final stimulus bill in the dead of night. Another bill that you quote said, the bill that was finalized in the dark of night.
▶ 2:14:13So I I don't I think it's uh an unfair and unreasonable uh mischaracterization of our position uh and with respect to the disagreement we have about this process unfolding in the dead of night. And it makes no sense to me why House Republicans didn't notice this hearing for 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m.
▶ 2:14:36It would not have been a difficult thing to say, "Yeah, instead of meeting at 1:00 a.m., we're just going to meet in the morning." and the American people are going to be able to watch and hear this wholesome debate and be able to reach their own conclusions. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable position to take. And I I suppose I maybe I'll I'll start with Chairman Arrington. So I know him to be a reasonable person. Welcome back to the committee. I don't know. Now I'm nervous.
▶ 2:15:04Well, I I don't think you were here in 2007 either. Maybe you were. I don't think you were. Is this I mean, you can't possibly agree that it is a prudent thing to do to have this hearing at 3:00 a.m. I mean, is this how you imagined legislation would be made in Washington when you were running for Congress, Mr. Chairman? Really? I imagined that we would have the sense of urgency to complete the task in a in in the time frame that we set. And so, the five hours between doing it at 1:00 a.m.
▶ 2:15:35and doing it at 6:00 a.m., that that's the urgency you're describing. What deadline is there on Thursday or to I guess tonight getting this bill done? What what is the Well, there as you know there are time frames associated with each phase of the process when you are conducting regular order. I'm very proud that this has been bottom up committee and member-driven and it's and it's been a regular order process. Mr. Arrington and and the goal was to have it done by memorial.
▶ 2:16:02I was hoping I could um I'm not saying you would give me an intellectually honest answer. the kind of answer I think that that your constituents and my constituents uh in Colorado and your constituents in Texas would expect, which is to say, obviously, this isn't reasonable. It does not make sense. This isn't transparent to hold hearings at 3:00 a.m. on a bill of this size and this scope and this scale. That's not in the best interest of the country.
▶ 2:16:30You could just as easily delayed it 5 hours. let the American public have an opportunity to listen to this debate and then vote on the bill on Thursday and all of you could go home for the district work period. So I I don't this false sense of urgency for five or six hours makes no sense. It's clear and and again I I understand that's your rationale. I I think the American people are smarter than the House Republican caucus are giving them credit for. They know what this is about.
▶ 2:16:59And when they wake up invariably later this morning and they find that this bill was reported out of this committee in the dead of night, I think they'll reach their own conclusions about House Republicans commitment or lack thereof to transparency. And just for the record, because I want to be a a equal opportunity um advocate here with respect to some of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle who serve on this committee who apparently have decided not to attend the very hearing that they demanded we hold in the middle of the night.
▶ 2:17:29But they have spent years years condemning late night uh rule committee markups and bills that are reported out. Mr. Norman, I'm just going to read some of his greatest hits. This is uh from 2019. 2,300 pages, less than 24 hours to read, debate, and vote. Oh, and $400 billion added to our national debt. That's a expost. Another one, new swamp minibus dropped at 2:00 a.m. actually earlier, I guess, than uh where we find ourselves today.
▶ 2:17:59We're expected to vote on $1 trillion in spending tomorrow. It's 1,000 plus pages. This won't be good. Diving in now. Uh, another one. You never be expected to sign a 1,000page document to buy a new car in a day. Why should Congress be expected to sign off on 1,000 plus pages resulting in $1.2 trillion in spending in a day? That's our colleague, Mr. Norman. I'll be very interested to what he has to say when we wrap this hearing up at 101 a.m. later this morning. Mr.
▶ 2:18:30Arrington, I want to talk about the I've known you historically to be I I thought somewhat of a deficit hawk. At least that's that was my is that a fair characterization? That is fair. At least prior to this bill. Um even even with this bill, let's get into that. I'll ask you a couple questions on that front. Okay. So there's here's a press release. This is from March 25th of this year. A gentleman by the name of Ray Dallio, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him. Says Ray Dallio to House GOP.
▶ 2:19:00This is on the House Budget Committee's website. cut the budget deficit to 3% of GDP. This was his admonition to you and to your Republican colleagues that it was a laudable goal to try to get the the deficit to 3% of the GDP. Do you agree that that's a loudable goal? Yes. Is that something you're passionate about? Absolutely. What's fascinating is that the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget just issued a press release today. You might have heard it. You might have read it. I'll read you the headline.
▶ 2:19:27House bill would put 3% deficit far out of reach. So this goal that you have that you seem to be particularly passionate about is one that is not embedded in this bill that you're asking your colleagues to support according to the committee for a responsible federal budget. You're familiar with that organization. I am and I think they've featured you at different times. I think they've applauded you if I'm not mistaken in the past. They're good people and good people can disagree. Let me read to you what these good people have said about your bill.
▶ 2:19:56They have said, and I'll quote, "Unfortunately, the House reconciliation bill, the one big beautiful bill act would increase significantly. The House Reconciliation Bill would put the 3% deficit target further out of reach. This is these are your allies. I mean, these are people who are fighting for a responsible federal budget who've been imploring the Congress to take deficits seriously.
▶ 2:20:25A month ago, you had folks coming in saying, "Mr. Chairman, get to that 3% target." And now you have these experts that you've praised in the past telling you you're way off the mark. Make it make sense, Mr. Chairman. Well, to get to a 3% deficit to GDP, which would stabilize the debt, you've heard the Secretary of Treasury establish a similar metric, um would take seven plus trillion dollars in spending reduction.
▶ 2:20:56Um it's a it's a great goal and it's a clear one and it's measurable. Um but just like coming out of the uh World War II uh um 120 roughly percent debt to GDP, we're comparable to that today. Actually have exceeded it.
▶ 2:21:17It took time and I would say this is a um effort and step to begin bending the curve on debt to GDP. Oh, my analysis is different from from my uh my friends in the organization that you mentioned. Different different isn't the word I would use. I mean different is it is when different is one opinion you know is a bit of a deviation. They are saying you are wrong. I didn't quote at length. I mean I'll I'll just keep reading here.
▶ 2:21:47In 2022, uh, excuse me, in 2027, we estimate the House reconciliation bill would boost deficits to about 7% of GDP, which is more than double percent. The Treasury Secretary that you referenced, proposed fiscal target, uh, 1.8% of GDP above current law and 7% of GDP higher than a simple extension of the Tax Cut and Job Acts individual provisions.
▶ 2:22:13What they're saying, I think, is that if you just simply extended the tax bill and didn't do anything else, you would reduce the deficit more uh you would than what you've done here. I don't know how that could be even possible because I don't I'm reading but but we red just let's think through this.
▶ 2:22:32We reduced spending by $1.7 roughly trillion dollars and they're suggesting by extending the tax cuts without that reduction in spending we would be better off. I think I can tell you why and I'm I'm happy to give the ranking member of the budget committee opportunity.
▶ 2:22:50because of the tax breaks that you have given to the richest Americans embedded in this bill such that at the end of the day the savings that you've described ultimately don't put the dent into the deficit uh that you proclaim. Ranking member Bole, you can correct me if that if I'm mistaken about that. I like you both, but has the better side of the argument. Um I think quite clearly I would point out a few things.
▶ 2:23:14The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget uh is, I have to say, admirably independent and at times they are an equal opportunity afflict of of both sides of the political divide depending on the piece of legislation that's coming down the pike. Um they their credibility is quite clear. They have been consistent when it comes to deficit and debt and they are calling out the intellectual dishonesty in this piece of legislation.
▶ 2:23:43There's actually a conservative think tank called the Manhattan Institute which indicates that the Republican bill is actually the most expensive piece of legislation since the 1960s since Lynden Johnson's Great Society. So, it's no accident that Moody's chose this past Friday to for the first time in American history downgrade our debt.
▶ 2:24:10um they finally they've been withholding joining the other two credit agencies, one of which had downgraded our gr uh debt back in 2011 when uh the Tea Party Congress drove us right up to the brink in terms of whether or not we would have a debt sealing crisis. And then there was another credit downgrade by a different credit agency a couple years ago, which was also related um to another potential crisis in terms of the debt ceiling.
▶ 2:24:38Though that credit downgrade a couple years ago did also reference the future trajectory of our debt. And now here we are with Moody's for whom the trajectory because of this legislation of our deficits and debt was finally what prompted them to be the last of the three credit agencies to downgrade our debt. So finally, as you pointed out, what we're seeing in the bond market, that can't be spun.
▶ 2:25:05That can't be papered over with a gimmick like current policy baseline. The reality is these markets are charging us more now for our debt, which means higher mortgages, higher auto loan rates, higher costs for the American people. Yeah, I I couldn't agree with you more, Ranking Member Bole.
▶ 2:25:26And as I go through the constellation of the entities and the individuals that have opined as to the impact of this bill on the deficit, it's pretty clear to me the conclusion. Uh apparently, you know, the CBO, the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, I was unaware of the Manhattan Institutees uh conclusions. I guess we'll add them to the list. By the way, Republicans also, Republican senators, right?
▶ 2:25:56I mean, we've chairman, you're aware of, we don't have to go through the litany of the statements. I mean, I'm happy to read them to you, but you're aware of what Senator Ran Paul and, you know, other colleagues of yours in the upper chamber have said about this bill and about their concerns regarding the deficit. Well, my it's 3:00 a.m. Why not? I'll just offer a few of these. Um, may as well. Uh, this was Ran Paul today. Apparently, the speaker, I guess, met with the Senate Republicans, and this is Ran Paul's quote.
▶ 2:26:24Quote, the speaker basically said that conservatives just have to live with raising the debt ceiling 5 trillion or 4 trillion, which is a historic amount, and I'm one conservative who won't live with that. Senator Ron Johnson, this is a week and a half ago, quote, "The one big beautiful bill, I never thought I'd be quoting Ron Senator Johnson, but anyway, I digress. The one big beautiful bill that Congress is working on is certainly big, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
▶ 2:26:50Too often the reality of these budget debates get obscured in details uh politically charged issues and demog uh demagoguery. Under every scenario now being considered, federal debt continues to skyrocket from its current level of almost 37 trillion. And I could go on.
▶ 2:27:08So, Republican senators, the CBO, the Committee for the Responsible Federal Budget, my Democratic colleagues, everyone who's looked at this bill seems to conclude it is going to blow up our deficit. Everyone but you, Mr. Chairman, and I just can't understand why. Would you like me to explain? Yeah, sure.
▶ 2:27:30Well, I don't know if you know what the annual average GDP was during Trump's tenure prior to to uh co and I'm not going to ask you the questions. Um I appreciate that but uh it was close to what the annual average GDP rate was for President Biden actually if you control for CO um around 2.8. It was 1.8 8.
▶ 2:27:55Uh when President Trump took over in his first year of his first term, he was able because of the progrowth policies including the tax cuts and jobs act, but also uh massive deregulation efforts, America first trade, etc. Good energy policy was able to move the needle by an entire 100 basis points, which over the budget window is about $3 trillion.
▶ 2:28:21So just to be conservative, we locked in an assumption that was lower than both 2.6. So ironically, CBO projects the annual average uh growth rate at this point, which I think it's actually pretty aggressive uh given that they assume the tax cuts would expire is 1.8%.
▶ 2:28:42So So to have a conservative assumption of 2.6 six plus the $1.7 trillion in spending reduction actually not only balances but in 10 years it reduces the deficit and more importantly it brings the debt to GDP down which I think is the best measure of the fiscal health of our country by 10 percentage points when does that ever I've given you some room to respond on that thank you for the time of course can I tell you what the committee for responsible federal budget
▶ 2:29:12I wish you I wish you would I'd be happy to because they actually looked at this exact issue. Yeah. It's important. And they said, and I'll quote, "Most analyses have found that the House uh bill or uh excuse me, yeah, that the House bill would have either a modest positive or modest negative effect on output and would not meaningfully change the annual growth rate.
▶ 2:29:35Yet, even with the concurrent budget resolutions assumptions of 2.6%, 6% the very percent that you just identified average real annual growth which is quite optimistic in the near term and highly unrealistic over a decade deficits would remain well above the 3% target. Mr. Chairman I I look I get it. You know we we've been through uh this routine previously.
▶ 2:30:01I know when you testified in front of the committee before, I recognize you're you're here selling a product that I I honestly don't think that you agree with, but you know, I I understand the assignment and so I will just simply tell you I don't think that this bill uh is in the best interest of the fiscal health of our country and there's a reason why virtually every expert has reached the same conclusion. I want to uh ask some questions of Chairman Hill if he might indulge me.
▶ 2:30:30So, can you just describe to us, Chairman Hill, the impetus behind the public company accounting oversight Public company oversight board. U what we've done is we've trans No, no, not not what you've done recently. I'm asking what why do we have it? How did it how was it created? Was created uh at during the crisis around the failure of Enron. That's right. Right.
▶ 2:30:57So it's in the wake of Enron, in the wake of WorldCom, in the There was an assertion by the Congress at that time that all public accounting firms needed an independent regulatory body. Correct. And that assertion, you probably are aware, was supported by an overwhelming majority of the Congress. Mhm. It was. And so we're continuing that overight public. You know how many members of Congress voted for that bill to create the public accounting oversight board? The vast vast majority. Very few people voted. 431. Yeah. 431.
▶ 2:31:28Signed into law by President Bush. Right. And you all have chosen to eliminate it. Right. Not true. You're not eliminating it. No, we're transferring the authority to oversee the public accounting from the PCAOB to the SEC. To the SEC. Got it. But you're not allocating any funding to the SEC to actually perform these duties, right? There's no money in this bill for that. We are taking the fees that were being charged to the companies and eliminating those fees.
▶ 2:31:57I understand you're luding the fees. Yeah. So, my point is you you've said you said I'm not dismantling the agency, but we're moving it to the SEC. Well, we're not giving the SEC a dime to do any of these critical accounting functions that virtually every Republican in the United States Congress supported a mere 20 years ago. We're cutting the mandatory spending that is in this uh currently in the budget for the PCOB. We're transferring those authorities to the SEC and I'm sure they can come to the Congress for appropriations.
▶ 2:32:27Got it. So in the interim there will be no public accounting oversight activities. Right. Yeah. That's not true. The work of overseeing the public accounting firms will continue. How? By who? We've contemplated that in the bill in the terms of the phase out. It's in the in the reconciliation bill. describe it to us. I mean, I guess I'm trying to understand. You're saying it it gets moved over to the SEC. There's no new funds.
▶ 2:32:52There's no mandate that there's a phase out period in the reconciliation bill and that will afford the SEC the opportunity to seek appropriation. So, does the bill for it gives the SEC the opportunity to seek appropriation. So, until that agent and of course, we have no idea as to whether or not the Congress will ultimately consent to that appropriation request.
▶ 2:33:13There's also no language in this bill that mandates that the public accounting board, the personnel who work for this entity now that's been in existence for 20 some odd years are rehired by the SEC. That's true. Okay. Um this is coupled with obviously we've we've gone to great length and you know ranking member articulated well the cuts to the CFPB and I know you don't contest that the 70% cut obviously to the consumer financial protection.
▶ 2:33:40We're taking the the the cap of the amount of money the CFPB can I mean can request from the Fed from 12% to 5%. It's not being cut as the gentleman from Pennsylvania asserted to zero. It's also not the only agency does consumer compliance in the financial services sector.
▶ 2:33:58I understand your rationale with respect to that secondary part, but I just want to zero in here on the financial piece because I guess I my read of the bill was that it will significantly reduce the the funds that are available for the CFPB to be able to perform the duties that it's responsible for executing under federal.
▶ 2:34:17CFPB is often lost in federal court time and time again for exceeding its authority, proposing regulations that are not statutoily approved, proposing new functions that are not statutoily approved by Congress. And we believe that the money that is in the 5% cap is adequate for them to do their compliance responsibilities under the act. Yeah. Again, I'm not I got your question. I I hear your rationale for opposing the CFPB. I was just trying to get a better sense. I didn't say that.
▶ 2:34:46I said we think this is the adequate that's adequate for them to perform the function but that it is a significant reduction in the resources that they have and I understand in FY209 it was exactly around $250 million this year in FY25 they're proposing $800 million in spending and yet in our view the spending is adequate to be at $250 million doing a looking at their own analysis of their own personnel compared from when it was at its full initial
▶ 2:35:16operating phase in 2012 and comparing it to today, we believe it's adequate. Okay. Um Financial Stability Oversight Council Mhm. reducing funding by 90%. No. No. What we've done is the uh fees that are the budget for the financial stability oversight council which is supported by bipartisan members in the Congress. We're simply saying that it's the actual expenses. So the office of financial research where that revenue takes place.
▶ 2:35:42We've looked at the three years average use to support the FSOC's operation. We've start kept it kept it at that three-year average level for the actual functioning expens expenses of FSOC. We're not eliminating FSOC. We're not eliminating the funding for ES FOC. I want to give the ranking member an opportunity to respond and perhaps she can clarify with if I'm misunderstanding the uh the nature of the way in which FSOC's funding will be implicated.
▶ 2:36:11So I I it's I'd like to have that clarified. Uh first of all, I want to go back to uh the microphone.
▶ 2:36:34I want to say a word about the uh PCOV uh that is being um uh being transferred. Um uh you talked about um the fact uh that um PCAOB was being transferred to the Uh and you wanted to know whether or not there were any funds that followed that.
▶ 2:37:04And uh the answer uh by Chairman Hill was that uh they could come and ask for more money. But it is really a lot more serious than simply whether or not they have the money. They had a hard time uh getting an agreement with the Chinese that are in our financial markets. But under the Biden administration, they were able to work out an agreement uh with the Chinese. Uh that was very very important.
▶ 2:37:33Now that agreement does not extend to the SEC and so that means that the SEC uh that um the auditors won't be able uh perhaps to deal with China, Germany and a lot of the other places. So this is very very serious and I just wanted to say that.
▶ 2:37:53Uh uh next you were talking about um the uh council ESOChm about why it is so important and what is happening to it. Well, the council is very important because we are at a time when all of these crazy tariffs are being initiated uh by the president of the United States of America and we have rising inflation also.
▶ 2:38:22This means that the cost of loans are going to be much more expensive. I want you to know uh that investors around the world are freaking out, unsettled about what is happening. And so uh what you have is not only the unsettlement but the uh that is being created by these tariffs. And we haven't talked a lot about tariffs here tonight.
▶ 2:38:47And the president is given all these excuses why he wakes up in the morning and decides that he's going to change the amount of the tariffs. And he said that the reason that we're having all these tariffs is they aren't paying their fair share. Uh and he's going to use the new money that he's going to collect for manufacturing, etc., etc. He's going to do all of that.
▶ 2:39:09However, I want you to know uh that these tariffs are being uh placed on bananas and coffee and that has nothing to do with what he's saying he's going to use the uh the money for.
▶ 2:39:24So the the council is so very important as we take a look at what needs to be known uh with this um crisis that's being created and how the federal government could get involved much sooner uh than what happened in 2008. And so we need it.
▶ 2:39:45If you just take a look at what happened with AIG, which is one of the biggest problems uh that had to be corrected, uh they got in charge of that and they were able to uh not only uh give new oversight, but it was restructured and it was no longer a threat. So it's very important to have the council and the research that goes along with it. Well, I I would thank you, Madame Ranking member. Uh and I would just say, Mr.
▶ 2:40:12Chairman uh Chairman Hill, uh I respect your expertise. I know you've worked on these issues. I know you you've uh served in the Treasury Department and I understand the policy reasons that you might have uh and we were directed and believe it wasn't a question that that you believe with respect to some of the changes that you're seeking to make.
▶ 2:40:38My simple suggestion is that the changes you are making to the accounting board, to the CFPB, to FSOC, taken together in the aggregate, all of these agencies, these entities were created for a reason, right? And they were in the wake of very serious financial crises that engulfed our country. And I I just don't I don't think that it's in the best interest of American consumers to pursue these kinds of changes.
▶ 2:41:06I also think they're policy changes and that you know ultimately if the parliamentarian uh in the Senate is abiding by president that they they shouldn't make it through the bird bath. But that's a different uh inquiry. So in any event I I will move on. My final question to chairman uh comr. Mr.
▶ 2:41:23Chairman, so with respect to the exchange we were having with one of my colleagues earlier about the exemptions that you all uh crafted into the bill regarding air traffic controllers that that's in relation to the atwill this distinction essentially between giving federal employees the choice of choosing the atwill employment versus nonatwill employment federal protections but a higher retirement
▶ 2:41:53contribution. Is that am I right that that's that's what the exemption is applying to? What's mean I don't understand your question. Why don't you describe to me I wanted to better understand the new lang the language that you all have adopted regarding air traffic controllers and law enforcement.
▶ 2:42:14They're they're exempted from uh any changes any of the changes that you all are making with respect to the federal benefits system. Mhm. That's correct. Yes. Okay. That didn't exist in the original bill or am I or is that was that not the case?
▶ 2:42:34There were exemptions for uh border patrol and was were partially Yeah, they were they were I guess you could say partially exempt. Yeah.
▶ 2:42:48And this was that's the genesis of my question was I'm really drilling down on and you your staff director, you know, I think can probably attest to this this issue around the provision that I would say compels you would say offers federal employees this choice to choose at will employment and uh a higher contribution for their retirement benefits, right? or to stay within the federal protected system and have to pay a higher contribution on their end.
▶ 2:43:16That provision did not have the exemptions that you all have added now for law enforcement, for border patrol, for air traffic controllers. That wasn't in the bill that you all marked up a few days ago that the Republican majority on the bill approved. Or am I wrong about that? That's correct. Okay.
▶ 2:43:37Um what I am interested in is was there a discussion and are you willing to have a discussion particularly as you consider a manager's amendment to draw out a similar exemption for veterans.
▶ 2:43:50So veterans who have rights under the mer, you know, in the current system, if you're a veteran and you work at any of our federal agencies, right, but you don't fall into this particular uh job classification exemption, you have rights before the Merit Systems Protection Board that you can adjudicate, right, as a veteran.
▶ 2:44:11And my point is to simply say why wouldn't you draw out this exemption to include veterans irrespective of whether or not they fall into this classification or Look the the bill can be amended through the process. I mean this is uh we we passed out we were given instructions to say $51 billion. We met that uh and look there during discussions there's going to be uh minor changes made here and there with respect to at will.
▶ 2:44:41I want to make the make it clear there are certain states uh that have at will civil so uh civil service employees uh some of those states are Georgia, Texas, Florida and Utah. So I don't think there's anything groundbreaking or or unique here. No, I'm not. What I'm what I'm suggesting is you crafted this exemption over the course of the last 72 hours. You added a very large exemption to this bill.
▶ 2:45:09That's an exemption I support by the way with respect to the what you've drawn out here. Clearly, you have the capacity to just add veterans. You could do that now. We there's negotiations apparently happening somewhere in this building. you ranking member Govern and uh ranking member McGovern and Chairman Arrington's colloqui I think established that. So I I don't really understand why you wouldn't just make the case to the leadership respectfully Mr.
▶ 2:45:36Chairman to say okay if this exemption was worth pursuing. Let's add veterans as well so that we're not forcing veterans into this Hobson's choice that we've decided we did not want to force upon firefighters, uh, air traffic controllers, and other law enforcement officials. I think that's a reasonable request to make on behalf of our nation's veterans. And as you know, a large portion of the federal workforce are veterans. So, I think that this would be the least we could do.
▶ 2:46:05And I would just I would implore you, I don't know if you have further thoughts on that, but I mean you're you're the chairman and I assume we've already we've already passed our bill out of the committee, so it's not uh but this this amendment happened after the you marked up the bill. That's my point. You passed the bill. It included no exemptions for police officers, for firefighters, for border border patrol. Was a limited exemption as your staff director noted.
▶ 2:46:28You've added that in the last couple of days because there were stakeholders who made clear their outrage which by the way was expressed by Democrats I understand during the markup and ranking member Lynch can comment on that if he'd like but I think Democratic members of the committee made the case that this ought to be they want obviously we believe it should be well Democrats want to spend you know into oblivion. I mean if if it were just Democrats there wouldn't be any cuts just keep spending money. I mean, you know, somebody has to step up.
▶ 2:46:59This is we're on an unsustainable path. Mr. Chairman, respect not here. I would respect You ask a question. Mr. Comr was attempting to answer your question. Okay. You know, Mr. Neoose, there is no prize here for talking the longest. Well, Madam Chair, I had intended to finish, but I've got about seven more questions. I guess I'll proceed with Mr. Comr. Mr. Comr, go ahead and finish your question or your answer. I uh look, I've stated the obvious.
▶ 2:47:27We we are trying to uh do the best we can uh to to be fiscally responsible. Uh it's no fun when you have to make cuts. Uh you all don't know what that's like. You've never cut anything in your life. You just continue to spend, spend, spend. We're on an unsustainable path. We have limited jurisdiction on the oversight committee. We're very passionate about eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government.
▶ 2:47:52With respect to this bill, we had a limited uh portion of jurisdiction and I think that we've been very transparent with uh with the process. We passed out a committee, a bill that saved the taxpayers $51 billion. There have been changes made as there always is uh once the bill passes committee before it's uh voted on on the floor. So, I don't know what else there is to say.
▶ 2:48:15So I would say to you now that you've uh apparently concluded your answer that my question was really simple, really simple. I didn't ask I wasn't asking you to draw out exemptions for this category of folks and other categories of folks. It was very simple. a simple question which was, are you willing to consider carving out an exemption for our nation's veterans in the same way that you drew out an exemption after the committee marked up this bill?
▶ 2:48:44I don't think that's spending into oblivion to say that our nation's veterans should be exempted in the same way that our law enforcement and border patrol agents and air traffic controllers. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Ranking member Lynch, do you think that's an unreasonable request? No. Oh, as a matter of fact, one of the amendments I have is is to exempt them from the change uh in the uh calculation going from the high three to high five.
▶ 2:49:12We would we would maintain the veterans at uh at at the high three. And uh and just to be clear, they could do that right now. They could and and the and and the cost and they've done it as you pointed out they've done it for a a narrow subset of u uh employees and that you know the the high three instead of the high five was uh about $16,500 uh per employee
▶ 2:49:43over 20 years of retirement. Not a huge sum of money, but definitely appropriate given that a veteran must have served honorably and discharged honorably for them to be eligible for these benefits. Yeah. Yeah. I I couldn't agree more, Mr. Lynch. And I just I again, Republicans are negotiating right now as we speak on salt deductions and uh tax credits and all any host of issues that members of your caucus have.
▶ 2:50:12And I would think that the least they could do is entertain and or at least not treat it so gingerly that it the response of oh this is spending into oblivion because we have a simple request was the only question that I asked you Mr. Comr and so I I just was I'm taken it back by your answer but anyway I will yield back amounts of my time. I thank the ranking members and the chairs for being here. Thank you Mr. Noose.
▶ 2:50:35Miss Hatchin you're Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here this evening. Um, and uh, particularly to our committee chairs for their hard work on this reconciliation bill. Many hours have gone into this. Many hours of debate outside of tonight in broad daylight have gone on on this bill. I want to make a few points before I get into questions and uh, that is in response to a few of the things that have been said by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
▶ 2:51:04One of the things that's been said is that this is a transfer of wealth. What I would say to that is that the only transfer of wealth, resources, and protection of the American people that is occurring right now is a transfer from uh the American people on behalf of illegal immigrants. That's what's been happening over the last several years under the Biden administration. This bill's also been called a scam, but the only scam that's being played is this a scam by the Democrats on the American people for fear-mongering about what this bill is actually doing.
▶ 2:51:34Once again, and I'm going to go to um my former chair, my former committee of financial services, and go to chairman uh Hill on questions about the CFPB. We've heard a lot about the CFPB here this evening. Um and the thing that I think strikes me most about the CFPB's creation is that um only in Washington would we create a federal bureaucracy to fix something that we broke.
▶ 2:52:02And um I'd like to just submit uh for the record, Madame Chair, an article by the American Enterprise Institute, October 30th, 2017. A crisis caused by housing policies, not lack of regulation. Thank you.
▶ 2:52:23uh because we have the CFPB as a result of um a a reaction to uh the the banking crisis of 2008 um which was driven by housing policies, not by any lack of regulation. And now we've got the CFPB that we live with. Uh and as Chairman Hill, you noted that their budget has been expanding.
▶ 2:52:50Um, notably their budget expanded um during the Obama years and declined during the first Trump administration and expanded again during the Biden years now to $823 million in fiscal year 25 direct from the Treasury uh transfer without um having any oversight by the Congress.
▶ 2:53:12So, we've heard that consumers are going to be left without any protection if we get rid of the CFPB or if we could if we decrease their funding to uh roughly the 200 $250 million that we've set in this budget. Um, is the CFPB the only federal agency, Chairman Hill, that um uh provides consumer protection? Uh, no, Miss Hchin, it's not.
▶ 2:53:39uh each of the bank supervisory agencies has a robust continuous exam process for all the consumer compliance requirements. The CFPB's focus uh in DoddFrank was to focus on depository institutions meaning banks that were larger than $10 billion.
▶ 2:53:59Um basically there's 5,000 banks or thereabouts that are smaller than that and they are having their compliance uh for lending purposes or deposit purposes fully uh supervised by the existing bank supervisors. Also the SEC the securities and exchange commission is deeply involved in consumer compliance responsibilities under the securities laws.
▶ 2:54:24uh and we can't forget the Federal Trade Commission which is very involved in consumer compliance and those are the principal federal agencies for consumer credit consumer deposit issues uh both for banks and and non-banks and then we cannot forget that the states also regulate non-bank consumer finance and the state's attorney generals enforce those laws.
▶ 2:54:49So there's no lack of oversight and consumer protection in the financial services space. Uh and and therefore that's why in in my judgment since we're here talking about a reconciliation bill that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can complete its statutory tasks under DoddFrank with the 5% cap of the Federal Reserve funding.
▶ 2:55:13And the two other changes that we made there was simply saying that their civil penalty fund where they uh charge uh wrongdoing and collect funds for the benefit of victims once that fund is uh the victims are repaid throughout the adjudication process. If there's any surplus money instead of them being able to keep it that it go back to the treasury to benefit the the federal budget.
▶ 2:55:38And likewise, we say that while they're a unique agency because they have no oversight, they have no congressional appropriation, they have no inspector general, they have no real uh uh compliant full compliance with administrative procedures act, for example, in their rulemaking. They they've been struck down in the federal courts for overreaching uh their statute. We also uh they have a unique position that once they take their money at their request from the Federal Reserve, they get to carry it over.
▶ 2:56:08I don't know a lot of federal agencies that can carry over spending and pile up cash on their balance sheet after September 30 each year. So, we cap that in this bill at 5% of that annual budget that they can have. And in fact, the CFPB has a civil penalty fund sitting on about $2.5 billion according to my uh uh account.
▶ 2:56:32Uh $1.7 billion of that was a fine levied against one entity, but they can sit on that cash too. Is that correct? They can. Uh what we argue is that they that money should be allocated to settle victim's claims and that can take some time during the legal process. So that money can certainly sit there. But the money that's not dedicated to paying a victim claim should be returned to the Treasury. So, um, you mentioned the FTC.
▶ 2:56:58I'm glad you mentioned that because the motto of the Federal Trade Commission is protecting American consumers. Uh, in fact, the United States has 12 separate federal financial regulators and state regulators for securities, banking, and insurance. And it is duplicative of that we do have the CFPB.
▶ 2:57:17Um, we certainly don't need to be funding the CFPB at the uh extent that we do because as you mentioned, not only uh do we have states attorneys general who are also protecting consumers, but we also have plaintiffs lawyers who can uh take class action suits as well. Uh, Madame Chair, I would like to submit for the record an article uh dated February 18th, 2025 by the KO Institute. Consumers will be safe without the CFPB.
▶ 2:57:46Without objection, uh, in the remaining time that I have, and I've I've gone over, uh, five minutes, but I do want to go to my budget committee chair, uh, Mr. Arrington. Um, just with really one question. Has the CBO ever been wrong? Well, in in my short tenure, they actually um were off in their estimation of the deficit, and their excuse was it was hard to keep up.
▶ 2:58:16If I'm paraphrasing, it was hard to keep up with the trillions of dollars in spending uh would be 8 trillion total in deficit spending of the last administration. Two trillion by executive actions. That was what was hard. So, let's consider all things. They were off by a trillion dollars. Uh which that's that's a big uh miss. And so, yes, they've been wrong.
▶ 2:58:42They were wrong in their projections on uh revenue to the treasury post TCJA. We had record revenue, record corporate revenue. So they are wrong uh often and sometimes they're wrong uh uh in in an order of magnitude in one case by a trillion dollars. And if if I'm not mistaken um sorry I went past my second I went on to a second question and I'm gonna be wrapping up.
▶ 2:59:12um they underestimated the cost of the IRA and they underestimated the benefits of Trump's tax cuts and jobs act. Is that correct? Along with underestimating the cost of Obamacare uh and a whole list of other things, but that is correct.
▶ 2:59:31I will say that JCT was the initial uh scorekeeper uh or administered the score for the IRA tax credits, green energy tax subsidies and they were uh off by almost four times uh the the the actual cost.
▶ 2:59:54So all this conversation about how uh reliant we should be on CBO scores to tell us uh what you know the cost of of what we're doing is going to be um CBO has not been all that reliable and as history has shown. Is that correct? That's correct. And if I may miss Hin, I'd say the best predictor of the future is past performance.
▶ 3:00:15And what we tried to do is be conservative about a growth assumption at 2.6 six, which was under the annual average of both President Trump and President Biden. I thought that was the responsible thing to do, which forced us as a conference to put these gentlemen in the position among um authorizing chairman to to dig deep on rooting out waste uh in this uh the people's government.
▶ 3:00:46I'm very proud that in the end it's reducing the deficit uh by about 175 billion. We need to do more. We need to rinse and repeat future reconciliation bills. But the debt to GDP going down by 10 percentage points is um in this environment uh and over the last couple of decades is is just probably unfathomable. But we we've achieved it. I'm convinced we will achieve it and then some because we're not adding tariff revenue.
▶ 3:01:13who are not adding other things that I believe will happen because of the iron will of uh of this president on that front if if not on others. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much to the uh witnesses for your long hours of testimony. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Hal. Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I don't know whether to say, you know, buenos, good night.
▶ 3:01:40You know, we don't really have a word in either Spanish or English when you start at 1:00 a.m. and when you finally start asking questions at 4 a.m. But it is still nighttime and Americans, some of them looking I mean, we have 150 people outside standing in the rain asking us to do the right thing. I want to do a shout out to them. But, you know, Americans might have just woken up and they don't know what's happening. But, let me tell you, it's a nightmare, right? We are living through a nightmare.
▶ 3:02:09And if you are a veteran, if you are a pregnant mother, if you live in rural America, this is a Republican nightmare because this bill that they are going to be pushing through in the dead of is the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor, working families, and middle class to
▶ 3:02:39the wealthiest, right? And CBO put it out. Now, they don't want to pay attention to CBO because they don't like the facts, right? They don't like what it actually looks like. But we know that these numbers are horrible. And we'll get into them in a bit. But when we think about this transfer of wealth, especially this chart here, it gets me, you know, it really gets me. Uh there we go.
▶ 3:03:08Uh you know from the lowest docile to the highest that CBO out. And many of the people in this room are people of faith. And they might have heard when John the Baptist actually said that if you have two tunics, you should give one away.
▶ 3:03:34And if you have wealth, you should help feed the hungry. What we are seeing here today with the Republican bill is the opposite. Republicans are taking from the poor and giving to the rich so they can buy more tunics. The wealthy don't need any more money to buy any more yachts.
▶ 3:03:59But when you take away that $6 a day that the poor and the working poor are receiving to put food on their table, you are taking away from the poor to give to the wealthy. The exact opposite of what John the Baptist told us what we should do.
▶ 3:04:24And no matter how you slice this, it is raising the deficit, right? We don't know exactly how much because they keep changing the bill. 2 trillion, 3 trillion, you know, 5 trillion, 7 trillion. It keeps going up and down and backwards because they keep tweaking it, keep negotiating, adding more, but it is raising the deficit.
▶ 3:04:47And so this bad billionaires bill, it's not beautiful, it's bad and it's for the billionaires, is going to be paid for by you, the American people, because you're going to have to pay back the debt that they are borrowing to give to the wealthiest among us. So Trump is betraying you. He's betraying rural America. He's betraying veterans.
▶ 3:05:16He's betraying working families. But you know, the the ranking members and the chairman, I really need to give it to you. You've sat in your chair even have well, most of the Republicans have been absent. You have all been here and so I I I appreciate you. You know, um let's start with the idea and this concept of the deficit. Our colleagues talk about it all the time. Representative Roy uh uh who isn't here who hasn't been here much tonight. Well, he's not here.
▶ 3:05:45The hearing is here, right? Um Representative Massie, who used to sit out there, he has that little ticker. Why everybody sees this ticker, you know, that goes on. I'm so worried about him because once you guys pass this bill, that thing is just going to go so fast. It's going to burn a hole through his soup. And Representative Norman, he's often rallied against increased deficits. Uh, in fact, you know, Congressman Roy uh said, who's not here, but since he's not here, I'll quote him.
▶ 3:06:16Open quote. I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side of the aisle. This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits. You know what? I agree with Representative Ory. It doesn't do what they say. It increases the deficit. Um, so Chair Arrington, it sounds like you are in favor of reducing deficits. Correct.
▶ 3:06:46Um, would you repeat that, please? I apologize. Do Do you Do you favor reducing deficits? Yes, I do. Which is why I support this bill. Which is why I support the bill. So the problem is that you're saying we want to reduce the deficits, but any outside analysis of this bill, any independent analysis of this bill actually increases the deficit.
▶ 3:07:11Uh so you know, ranking member boral um they keep saying it doesn't increase the deficit. How can they get to that when we've had all these independent analysis of a deficit increase? Yeah. Well, I mean, uh, CBO, which of course is not infallible, but it's not just CBO.
▶ 3:07:32is literally every uh organization that I've seen from nonpartisan to center to center right committee uh or center for responsible federal budget CBO Yale budget lab uh Wharton budget model Manhattan Institute uh the list goes on and on. Um so for the other side to be right all of those organizations uh I've mentioned would would have to be wrong. I think that is highly uh highly implausible. Right.
▶ 3:08:02And we also heard the White House press secretary yesterday say this bill does not add to the deficit. Right? Quote unquote. So what we are hearing is basically trust me. Don't trust any independent analysis. Trust me.
▶ 3:08:19And I heard uh uh Chair Arrington, a lot of what you're basing your thought on, if I'm correct, is you're looking at growth projections, and that's why we're not going to have the deficit that all of the other ones are talking. It's a combination of of revenue from growth and the uh deepest spending reductions in the history of the country by two twofold. So, it's a combination of the two. So, so I agree with you.
▶ 3:08:48These are the deep We agree these are the deepest spending cuts I think ever. Right. But which is ironic because it only represents a a very small like 3% of the entire federal budget. Isn't that incredible? Right. Right. So I think that that's where we we dis we we agree, you know, I kind of agree that deficits are a problem. Right.
▶ 3:09:10But what you are doing is instead of saying there are different ways of cutting the deficit, you are saying we're going to cut the deficit by going after the people who rely most on the programs to feed the hungry, to make sure that Americans have health care, to make sure that veterans who rely on Medicaid and these uh programs to make sure you're not hungry, disabled people like you
▶ 3:09:40are cutting the programs that Americans need the most and that is something that we can't agree on and you're doing that so that we can benefit the wealthiest among us. So this chart here that the CBO put out is just the top 10 percentile. But you know when you go down to the rest of them it is actually the richest 20% get 67% of the benefit.
▶ 3:10:10So the billionaires representative Scott said well you know I know say some billionaires the billionaires are doing really well by this bill. The billionaires richest 1% get the biggest benefit 24%. Let's make clear this is a transfer of wealth from working class families from those who work for a living those who are disabled to the billionaires.
▶ 3:10:40Now, now Chairman Arrington, you know, the Institute, which is and then, you know, it's not a left-wing institute, right? They they actually to your point of this is going to this is going to lead to a lot of job growth says as to the raise and means committee and this was it's gotten worse since then.
▶ 3:11:07Uh uh I'm going to quote um madam oh Mr. Chair u I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the KO Institute Republicans one big beautiful tax bill needs a makeover without objection and so I'm going to quote for it it said the raise and means committee's one big beautiful bill uh falls short of delivering serious progrowth tax reform.
▶ 3:11:33admisses the opportunity to make the most important incentives for long-term growth permanent and includes at least 20 new or expanded tax subsidies dramatically increasing the complexity of tax code. It says that's going to be a minuscule minuscule vote. So you're going to put Americans through all this pain for very little growth. for very little group.
▶ 3:12:00But you know, we've also heard everybody talk about the issue of deficits and who actually does a good job of that. Republicans seem to always talk about deficits uh when they want to like hurt working families.
▶ 3:12:22Uh, Ranking Member Smith, I really appreciated your comments about the fact that these deficits are really a national security issue. Uh, and and when you talked about this national security issue, it made me think about um a review of Democrats and Republicans like who's increased the deficit and who's decreased the deficit.
▶ 3:12:50And we can look at those numbers and it looks like Reagan and HW Bush, you know, they kind of like the deficit didn't move too much under them. There were those tax cuts, there were things, there was a slight rise. Under Clinton, the fell. He actually ran into negative territory where he brought down the deficit. He spent less. He balanced the budget. And then we had President George W. Bush.
▶ 3:13:21He just makes that deficit go up again. Another Democrat comes in and they lower the deficit. And then Trump comes in and he just blows the deficit of the water. Biden comes in, he lowers the deficit. So now we're going to see Trump is going to make this deficit go up again.
▶ 3:13:51So there's a pattern here that we are seeing. Democrats bring down the deficit. We're fiscally responsible. Republicans make it go up, Democrats bring it down, Republicans make it go up again. Uh Chairman Smith, how do you see this kind kind of pattern with regards to looking at it from a national security issue? Who's better on the deficit, Democrat presidents or Republican deficit presidents?
▶ 3:14:14Well, as I said, um you know, if you believe that the Department of Defense needs more money to meet the challenges that we face, and we do face an incredibly complex threat environment um and a lot of challenges there, then you're going to need resources to do that. And if you significantly reduce the amount of revenue coming in, you're not going to have the resources to do that.
▶ 3:14:38And I do want to point out there was some conversation about how the Trump tax cut was such a wonderful thing for fiscal responsibility and yet the chart shows that under President Trump the debt went up by more than it went up under any other president in the history of the country and that started before co.
▶ 3:15:01So it is I know it is the holy grail of being a Republican that you can cut taxes and somehow increase the amount of revenue and reduce the deficit. It's a nice theory. It just never actually works. And I could get into this whole complicated where our tax rates are right now and where they've been frankly ever since Reagan. They're not high enough that you can cut them and really get that type of a boost. And that is reflected by the numbers.
▶ 3:15:32And I know this is what the Republicans have decided to tell themselves to get through passing this bill is that somehow there's going to be this magic wand and growth is going to appear and it's going to solve all of our problems. It's just that that's literally never worked. And it's not going to work this time. We are significantly reducing the amount of money coming into the federal government.
▶ 3:15:56So, if you want to spend money on anything, and I understand, I mean, if you don't want to spend as much money on entitlements or whatever you want to call them, that that's a policy argument. And if you're going to say, "Look, um, I don't want the taxes, so I'm not going to pay for that." But if you really want to meet national security needs, that's I don't know what is roughly 12% of the budget, I think, is defense, and you're going to significantly reduce the amount of revenue available. You're just you're not going to get there.
▶ 3:16:21And again, it's this myth that if you cut taxes, you're going to get more money than you would have gotten if you hadn't. Now, by and large, revenue goes up year-toear because population growth and all of that, but it goes up by less if you reduce the amount of revenue that you're collecting. And that leaves you in a weakened position to fund absolutely anything that you want to fund. And that certainly includes defense which again is about 12% of the federal budget.
▶ 3:16:52Thank you uh ranking member and you know uh chairman Arrington uh you actually said earlier the best predictor is past performance and and I think that the chart which shows that deficits have gone down during Democrat presidents and gone up during Republican presidents is an incredible uh predictor of future performances. Except it's not true. I mean, if you want me to respond, I can, but if not, that's okay.
▶ 3:17:22But it's not true. So, I you you mentioned my name. I just want to get that out. By the way, President Biden under his tenure uh increased the deficit by almost twice as much when you look at the partisan, not bipartisan legislation in an unprecedented pandemic. Okay, we all voted for the trillions of dollars in that uh time frame, but the $2 trillion in additional spending purely true.
▶ 3:17:51We we all have contributed. I mean both parties have. There is no question. And there are structural problems in the budget that are promises made that uh uh that we have not uh been willing to fund uh by either saving money through cuts or raising revenue. So what we've done is we've deferred the tax on our children and we're going to stick them with the bill.
▶ 3:18:19So there's not a profile and courage in this town on either side in terms of the parties. But but to be clear, uh uh President Trump and President Biden there there if you if you add it up, it's uh and again, nobody should get a Gold Star Nobel Prize for it, but it it's that I don't believe that to be true. Okay, with all due respect, thank you. Thank you very much. I think that uh for the indul once again uh the the numbers speak for themselves.
▶ 3:18:48Uh uh and uh ranking member Borl, do you want to add anything to regards to what's going to happen with the deficit and what we've seen in the past? And then I want to move on to financial services because I think that there is some serious issues. I I don't think I need to uh especially given the hour, I don't know whether to say how late it is or how early it is. Uh but as I said before, I mean it's a pretty long list.
▶ 3:19:13In fact, when I mentioned the list of organizations from left, right, and center, and nonpartisan who all say that this adds considerably to our deficit and our debt, I actually didn't include the uh uh right of center Kato Institute. That's obviously another organization that has also attacked this legislation because of its adding um trillions to our national debt.
▶ 3:19:37And I think that comes back to, you know, there are different ways in which you want to uh attack the deficit. Republicans just want to cut programs that Americans rely on. Democrats actually look at there is a revenue source. But another thing because you know Republicans always fiscal responsibility and then they always use this term regulations. Regulations are bad. The reality is regulations is how we keep people healthy so that we don't have contaminated food.
▶ 3:20:06It's how we make sure workers stay safe and it's also how how we make sure that consumers are protected because the reality is the biggest corporations, the biggest banks, the biggest manufacturers, they are motivated solely by profit and that's their job. So it's government's job to make sure we come in and regulate the worst ex excesses. And you know what? Americans don't feel like anybody is fighting for them.
▶ 3:20:36They feel like they are being left behind. And the reality is what Republicans are doing to those organizations that are supposed to be fighting for the working families, for the consumers. They're getting rid of them. They are getting rid of them by starving them. And that's what they're doing to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let's see what that says. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
▶ 3:21:01They are protecting the consumers and they've done so uh by bringing back $21 billion. That wasn't $21 billion that came back to the federal government. That was $21 billion that went to American consumers. And they're the ones who are speaking for the little guy.
▶ 3:21:18But administration doesn't like the idea of organizations that go after fraudsters, that go after scammers, that go after, you know, uh, the auditors that are cheating, right? They want to get rid of that.
▶ 3:21:35Um so Maxine Rogers when they say that oh by you know not giving enough funding and starving something like the consumer financial protection bureau is that saving us any money or who's really getting hurt when they do that. Thank you very much.
▶ 3:21:54Um, lot has been said about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and I said something that I stand by and that is uh the Republicans have hated it ever since it was initiated and they have attacked it in so many ways. We've been in the courts even before this big bill.
▶ 3:22:17Uh we've been in the courts at various times when they've tried to eliminate the way that they get their funding, who sits on the board on and on and on and they never give up. And now with this bill, uh what they have found ways to do is to actually cut the funding that's going to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
▶ 3:22:40I was reminded that the CFBB is the only federal agency to examine the big banks and non-banks for compliance with consumer financial laws. And so here you have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dealing with the big banks and understanding uh why uh we should be concerned about them and the lack of risk management in some of those banks.
▶ 3:23:07And the bigger they are and the more we allow these mergers to go on, the more they end up harming um you know our consumers and the consumers need this protection. And without it, even though it was attempted here this evening to say consumers have protection in all these other ways, that is not true.
▶ 3:23:30And that is why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau uh was initiated and founded with the uh DoddFrank uh reform bills that we did. You're talking about not only the big banks, but you're talking about uh all of the fraud uh that goes on in so many different ways.
▶ 3:23:50Whether you're talking payday loans or rent to buy, all of these ways that the most vulnerable people are undermined and attacked in order to rip them off from the meager funds that offer they have. And so the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is very important to all of our constituents, whether they're in urban areas or rural areas.
▶ 3:24:20And for the rural areas, sometimes they get treated even worse with no protection from that side of the aisle who do not consider the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as important.
▶ 3:24:33And so everything that's been said here that have identified not only the 21 billion over the 14 years but the way uh that people have had somewhere to turn to get these investigations and feel as if the government cares about them. Thank it's absolutely true. Thank you so very much.
▶ 3:24:54And then the last point is I did, you know, as we were talking about federal employees and what they're doing to federal employees in this bill, you know, and the fact that we happen to have sitting right next to each other uh uh the oversight concerned about federal employees and uh the defense by House House Armed Services because it is or members of the who serve in the military then go on
▶ 3:25:24serve in our country in a different way. 30% of our federal employees are veterans and the idea that we would not support the amendment that uh Representative Lynch has brought that was suggested by my colleague of let's make sure we protect veterans as well.
▶ 3:25:51And you know, one last question, uh, uh, Ranking Member Smith, why do you think that so many of our military end up serving America in our federal government? Because they believe in public service. It's part of why they joined the military in the first place. They believe in service above self. Um, you know, they could do a number of different jobs in a number of different places, but public service appeals to them.
▶ 3:26:20I think that's that's very obvious. It's one of the things I've always loved about working with the military. Um is you see the the ethic um that that's what it's about. They are trying to serve something larger than themselves and they want to continue doing that after their service in the military has been completed and we've seen them do so many many places.
▶ 3:26:40uh quite a I think this idea of public service and service I I I often say that service is an act of love whether you're serving in the military even in this chamber and the idea that you are going to demonize and penalize those veterans those federal employees who've already done so much for this country is really shameful and you know I I am going to just say that it is now 420 and I think it is important that we on this
▶ 3:27:10day is asking the question and taking the time because this is a,100 and something page bill. Americans don't know what's in it. And I do think that it is important that we end up going into and bringing light and maybe even sunlight uh by the time we get through all of these panels. But with that uh Madame Chair, I yield back. Thank you um Miss Leisure Fernandez.
▶ 3:27:39Um, Mr. Norman, any questions? No questions, Madam Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Langworthy. I just uh thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just take a moment and thank all the committee chairs for the countless hours and all the staff and the ranking members uh on both sides. This was a an incredible legislative exercise.
▶ 3:28:04They have 11 committees produce this much work and the hundreds and hundreds of hours that have gone into the construction of our reconciliation. Uh so I just want to show my gratitude there. I'd also uh like to yield a moment to the gentleman from Georgia, Scott. Madam Chair, I just ask unanimous consent to add an an article to the record. The title of the article is Clinton signs welfare to work bill August 22nd, 1996.
▶ 3:28:32And um without objection, I would just um point out to my colleagues that the same complaints about that piece of legislation came from people on the left, including from uh the Clinton administration where he had people actually resign in protest.
▶ 3:28:50And the article ends with a statement, "Welfare and poverty rates both decline during the late 1990s." However, leading some observers to view the legislation success and certainly the welfare to work signed under Bill Clinton was a success and we believe that this one will be as well. With that, I yield. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. And I and I yield back. Oh, sorry, Mr. Langworthy. Thank you. I don't have any questions of these Thank you very much.
▶ 3:29:20Um, seeing no discussion or questions, our panel is dismissed. Thank you very much. And I also want to add my thanks to the staff. I appreciate Mr. Langworthy bringing that up. Our We can't do our jobs without our staff and I appreciate all of them being here, You want to make another one? Save it for me, though.
▶ 3:30:16said goodbye. Right. Got it.
▶ 3:33:45I now welcome Welcome our second panel, Chairman Green and Representative Thompson from the Committee on Homeland Security, Chairman Jordan and Representative Raskin from the Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Westerman and Representative Huffman from the Committee on Natural Resources, and Chairman Graves and Representative Larson from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Your full statement will be submitted for the record.
▶ 3:34:14We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Green, I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the rules committee. I'm pleased to be here with you uh this morning.
▶ 3:34:29From day one of their administration, former President Biden and Vice President Harris systematically and intentionally dismantled America's border security and gutted Interior Immigration Enforcement, sending a clear message to the world that our borders were wide open. The consequences were staggering. US Customs and Border Protection recorded roughly 13 million encounters of inadmissible aliens and gotaways, not counting the unknown gotaways.
▶ 3:34:57That number four times what happened in the first Trump administration. Border Patrol agents were overwhelmed and demoralized and they were tasked to process release tens of thousands of illegal immigrants every month. Apprehensions of individuals on the terrorist watch list illegally crossing the southwest border spiked from 11 during the four years of the Trump administration to 385 between FY21 and 24.
▶ 3:35:24Illicit narcotics, especially fentinil, surged across the southwest border, contributing to a national overdose crisis. ICE agents were effectively prevented from doing their jobs and deportations plummeted to historic lows. But the tide has turned. President Trump was decisively elected in large part because he promised to fix the self-inflicted crisis created by the prior administration. Now, Border Patrol agents have returned to the front lines, empowered to enforce the law.
▶ 3:35:55Scores of criminal aliens are being detained and deported, and law order law and order is finally returning to our communities. The numbers make it clear. President Trump's approach to actually enforcing our laws works. Apprehensions at our borders have plummeted to never-beforeseen levels. For example, monthly encounters at the southwest border dropped over 97% from a record high of over 301,000 in December of 23 to less than 8,400 in April of this year.
▶ 3:36:24The Trump administration is keeping its promises. And now we in Congress need to keep ours. Just like the president, every Republican ran on securing our border and enforcing our laws. If we fail to provide the necessary funding to the Department of Homeland Security to secure our border and restore law and order, we will show ourselves to be unworthy of the trust placed in us. Every budget recommendation that my committee advanced for inclusion in this bill is critical to maintaining the momentum that we have achieved so far.
▶ 3:36:54title six of this bill provides over 46 billion to finish construction of a strategically placed border barrier system. This system includes not only just steel and concrete ballards, but a full suite of technology and infrastructure such as lights, sensors, cameras, and access roads, giving agents the tools they need to secure the border and do their job safely and effectively. 90% of Border Patrol agents agree that a strategically based border wall system is a key part of their toolkit.
▶ 3:37:23Who are we to as politicians sitting in our aironditioned offices to deny them this invaluable resource they say they need? Our reconciliation package also provides 5 billion to improve and modernize Customs and Border Protection checkpoints and facilities. These checkpoints are critical to the border security mission.
▶ 3:37:43Reconciliation funding will also be used to invest in frontline personnel by providing more than 7 billion to increase the number of Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, air and marine agents, support staff, and eligible retired agents and officers. Without immediate and sustained investment in workforce expansion and retention, CBP risks further erosion of both effectiveness and morale, endangering not only border security, but also the well-being of those sworn to protect it.
▶ 3:38:11Title Six also invests in cutting edge technology to help agents and officers interdict elicit contraband and drugs like fentanyl. As cartel tactics evolve, Congress must provide CBP with the cutting edge technology they need to carry out President Trump's successful border security agenda. Our bill invests over 5 billion in modernizing and enhancing our border security and surveillance technologies, drones, ground sensors, enhanced communication systems, and surveillance towers at and between ports of entry.
▶ 3:38:43The bill will also provide 450 million to Operation Stone Garden, a grant program designed to help border states and local communities enhance their own security. Republicans are focused on what actually matters, providing proper funding so that DHS law enforcement can carry out their border security mission, protect our country, and secure the homeland. We have a historic opportunity to make the country we love safer and more secure. Let's keep our promises and get reconciliation done. I yield.
▶ 3:39:12Thank you, Chairman Green. Mr. Thompson, you're recognized. Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the rules committee. I normally use this time to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this bill, but this dead of night hearing is one of the most shameful games I've ever seen played on the American public.
▶ 3:39:36In my nearly 60 years of public service, the Homeland Security title of this scam of a bill was developed without any of the standard oversight and discussion with the Department of Homeland Security that would normally go along with funding numbers so big.
▶ 3:39:56The bill recklessly throws an enormous amount of taxpayer money at the border to buy the votes of Republicans who are reluctant to support the massive billionaire tax giveaways and devastating healthc care cuts that really motivate this piece of legislation. In other words, the Homeland Security title of the bill is like putting lipstick on a pig.
▶ 3:40:23But in many ways, the reality of these nine pages of legislative text is even worse than that because it steals money from the American taxpayer and gives it to the Trump administration to decimate DHS and attack the Constitution. President Trump and Secretary Non are unconstitutionally dismantling DHS and making us less safe in the process.
▶ 3:40:51They are firing hundreds of civil servants, freezing grants, eliminating the watchd dogs who protect Americans, and failing to respond to natural disasters across the country. Several of you have natural disasters ongoing in your district and you have weekly requests for approval of other natural disasters.
▶ 3:41:17Under Trump and Gnome, DHS is detaining and deporting American children with cancer, punishing students for engaging in protected First Amendment activity, and denying the due process to individuals, including those in the country legally.
▶ 3:41:35When the Trump administration spends its resources harassing, rounding up, and deporting American citizen, legal permanent residents, and international students in the name of border security, it is ignoring real threats from terrorism, domestic violent extremism, and gun violence. Just last weekend, a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California, was bombed in a domestic terrorist attack.
▶ 3:42:04Domestic violent extremism represents one of the biggest threats to the homeland and this bill doesn't spend a dime on it. It does however spend 46.5 billion on Trump's failed border wall, which I may remind this committee, Trump originally said Mexico would pay for it.
▶ 3:42:27That amount for the failed border wall is 10 times what the bill spends on customs and border protection personnel and it nearly doubles what the armed services title of the bill dedicates to the technology complex so-called golden dome domestic missile defense program.
▶ 3:42:49If the Trump administration's cruel policies alone have been as successful as Secretary Gnome and Chairman Green like to claim, why are billions and billions of additional funds necessary at all?
▶ 3:43:04We got some insight into that question last week when Secretary Gnome took a break from her costume changes and photo ops to ask the appropriation committee for a new $50 million private jet. See, Rolexes are not enough for our made for TV Secretary of Homeland Security. She needs a new Gulfream 52.
▶ 3:43:32Never mind that the Coast Guard has much older equipment in service they use daily for lifesaving missions. Those aircrafts should be replaced first. This reconciliation package allows the Homeland Security Department to create a slush fund that enables the worst excesses of this administration, like private jets for the Secretary and securing the president's multi-million dollar golfing
▶ 3:44:02vacation at his branded properties. This bill may be big, but it's far from beautiful. In fact, it's beyond irresponsible. Earlier I described sec homeland security portion of this bill as putting lipstick on a pig. I come from an agricultural district uh as well as a part of the country. So let me use another farming analogy to wrap up.
▶ 3:44:31We may be here in the dead of night but you do not need the light of day to smell manure. The American people are not going to be fooled by any middle of the night manure slinging here. As my dear friend, Congresswoman Dena Titus once said in a Homeland Security Committee marker, you can't shovel and call it sugar.
▶ 3:44:57The American people are constituents and they won't make mistakes what is being shoveled in this room tonight because it stinks to high heaven. I yield back. Thank you, Representative Thompson. Representative Jordan. Uh, thank you, Madam Madam Chair. Thank you, Member McGovern, members of the committee. Thank you for a chance to speak today.
▶ 3:45:19Four years and four months ago yesterday, the Biden administration made a decision, made three decisions that led to the situation we saw unfold over their administration. They decided on day one, intentionally, deliberately, in a premeditated fashion, they said, "No longer will we remain have remain in Mexico policy. No longer will we build the wall." And when a illegal migrant gets here, they will not be detained. They will be released. And as a result of those three decisions, 8 million individuals came into our country in the course of the Biden administration.
▶ 3:45:48This legislation that we put together working closely with Chairman Green, his committee, we think will help uh alleviate and correct the situation that they deliberately intentionally allowed to happen back uh four years ago. Uh I won't read through mine. I will just test. I would just say this. I think we focused on sort of three things. First of all, I I'm proud of our committee's work in that the budget committee tasked us to spend $110 billion over the over the time frame.
▶ 3:46:16Instead, we wound up spending uh allocating resources of about $80 million, 81 uh excuse me, billion dollars over that uh over that time frame. And we initially weren't tasked with raising any revenue, but we did in our bill with 66 billion in revenue raised. So we net it out at a better much better position than what we were initially allocated to do or instructed to do I should say by the budget committee.
▶ 3:46:40Uh the resources we have in this bill in short will allow for 10,000 new ICE agents, 100,000 new detention beds and the uh resources for the repatriation of a million migrants uh over the over the over the course of the Trump administration.
▶ 3:46:55And finally, I would say we adopted a principle with the revenue which said instead of the American taxpayer footing the bill for migrants and aliens who come to our country, we think there should be fees on those individuals to help deal with the processing and the security of our border. So a simple kind of a fundamental change in thinking I think that that we adopted at the judiciary committee. Let's have the individual applying for the visa, the person who wants to come and enter the greatest country in history.
▶ 3:47:25We think they should pay the cost for the processing and for the security of our border. And that's why we were able to uh raise the revenue that we did in the legislation. And with that, I would yield back and look forward to questions. Thank you, Representative Jordan. Representative Raskin, you're Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. McGovern, distinguished members of the committee.
▶ 3:47:49In the House Judiciary Committee, which is supposed to protect the civil liberties and the civil rights of the people, House Republicans want to hand Donald Trump a blank check to keep violating the Constitution, supporting criminals like the 1600 insurrectionists and riers he pardoned and trampling the rights of the American people.
▶ 3:48:08In the first 120 days, we've seen federal courts all over the land issue an astounding 155 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders against the administration's matchless onslaught of lawless executive orders and executive actions. That's more orders than have been issued against all other presidential administrations in the same period in American history put together. And I'd love to take you through all of them, but we obviously don't have the time.
▶ 3:48:37But, you know, last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument on President Trump's first executive order purporting to nullify birthright citizenship in America. That's been struck down by four different district court judges. An Obama judge, a Biden judge, a Reagan judge, and a Bush judge. And the Reagan judge wrote the most blistering opinion of all.
▶ 3:48:58He said um that it that of his four decades on the bench, this was the easiest case he'd ever seen because it was such a blatantly unconstitutional executive order. It collides with the very first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. So you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that. You just have to know how to read.
▶ 3:49:25And so all of these courts across the land, Republican judges, Democratic judges, appeals court judges, district judges are striking down the lawlessness of Donald Trump and his emerging gangster state. They disappear people to the torture goolog of the self-proclaimed dictator of El Salvador with no due process.
▶ 3:49:47They sacked tens of thousands of professional civil service workers, air traffic controllers, food and drug inspectors, cancer researchers, and forest service firefighters with no due process in outrageous violation of the civil service laws. They strip college students of their student visas for writing opeds in the campus newspaper that the president disagrees with in direct violation of due process and the first amendment.
▶ 3:50:13They lawlessly invoke extraordinary wartime powers from 1798 to deport people in peace time without any due process. And they lose in court every single day. It's been 120 days and they've already suffered 155 losses in court. Nothing's ever been seen like this before in American history. Administration says, "Well, it's just focusing on the worst of the worst." No, that's not who they're targeting. They're arresting judges. They're arresting members of Congress.
▶ 3:50:40Now, one of our colleagues is going to be arraigned later today uh in uh a completely fraudulent prosecution by the new US attorney in New Jersey. They're deporting children with cancer who are US citizens. They're rounding up law-abiding members of our communities, parents and wives of American spouses who pose no threat at all to public safety.
▶ 3:51:05They're sending masked agents with no identification to snatch students out of their neighborhoods, hauling them away in unmarked cars, and sending them to detention centers in other parts of the country. And they're making serious mistakes every day, just as they admitted it was quote an administrative error to put Mr. Abero Garcia on an airplane to a torture dungeon in El Salvador with no due process at all.
▶ 3:51:30The president is threatening media entities and shaking them down for private settlements in bogus lawsuits. He's threatening law firms and shaking them down for free proono hours. He's threatening colleges and universities. They've jettisoned the rule of law as we know it. And they don't seem to mind having the most judicially invalidated policies of any administration in history. So this bill is just a blank check for more chaos.
▶ 3:51:58It hands more than $80 billion in new money to the administration to do more of what we've already seen. And they rejected every single amendment we brought to say that they should not be deporting US citizens. Our colleagues didn't speak against it, but they voted against it. We said nobody should be deported from the country without due process to follow the Supreme Court's 90 decision. Our colleagues didn't speak against it, but they all voted against it.
▶ 3:52:24and they want to give really extraordinary unseen amounts of money to ICE. There's there's a line item in there without any further explanation for $858 million in bonuses for ICE employees. That comes to $42,000 for each ICE employee. Nobody could explain how that's going to be passed out. Uh we had other witnesses come in and say they've never seen a bonus of more than 1500 or $2,000.
▶ 3:52:54$858 million. Meanwhile, we discover, Madam Chair, that one Doge employee countermanded all the work of the House of Representatives, the US Senate, the President of the United States, and the Department of Justice, which set up grants to go to local police departments across the country and victim assistance organizations. The money was appropriated. It was programmed. It was awarded to local police departments across America and other organizations.
▶ 3:53:21And one Doge employee sent an email saying, "Get rid of all of it." And they did. And our colleagues refused to restore that money. And the same amount of money they want to put into bonuses for ICE employees to get $42,000. They're literally defunding the police. Doge is defunding the police. And our colleagues are going along with that. And so the Republican party is now defunding the police across America.
▶ 3:53:47So we would urge you to accept our amendment restoring that money that was deleted by one Doge employee who spent his entire career working for Elon Musk and at Tesla came here without knowing anything about Congress or how government works and he deleted all of that money going to local uh departments. So, uh, this bill is a monstrosity. Uh, and it just further swells a bloated the immigration bureaucracy.
▶ 3:54:17It nobody can even really say where the money's going and we're not dealing with the real justice problems America. Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Rascin. Chairman Westerman, you're recognized. Chairman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee.
▶ 3:54:35Good morning and thank you for the opportunity uh to testify today on the House Committee on Natural Resources Reconciliation title which far exceeds our committee's instructions by kickstarting a golden age of American energy and wisely stewarding our natural resources. Madam Chair, there's been an attack on American energy that goes back to the Biden administration where political science versus real science has ruled the day.
▶ 3:55:01And uh Washington's been playing games with our energy security, uh with our energy production here at home. And we're in a a tough position right now because of the increased demand for energy resources.
▶ 3:55:17But thank goodness uh Republicans, President Trump has made energy dominance a priority of the Republican party and that's outlined in the uh uh the House on NA House Committee on Natural Resources uh part of the reconciliation bill.
▶ 3:55:34And according to preliminary estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office, our committee uh will generate over $20 billion in savings and new revenue for the federal government by putting the wealth of our natural resources to work and doing that cleanly, safely, responsibly, and reigning in wasteful spending.
▶ 3:55:54But that's really only part of the story because we've received outside scoring from the Energy Policy Research Foundation that projects that our title will generate as much as 91 and a half billion dollars of new savings and revenue. You see, the CBO only scores u development of natural resources based on things like royalty rates that come into the federal government. They ignore the economic impact that you get when you develop resources.
▶ 3:56:21They ignore that if you drill a new uh well platform, it takes a tremendous amount of supply chain to to build that. They ignore the fact that it's going to employ people. They ignore the fact that the for 50 years the the uh tax revenue to the federal government's been about 17.5% of the GDP. So if you grow the economy, you're also growing the revenue coming in to the federal government.
▶ 3:56:49Uh but again, we had a $1 billion instruction and we're we're 20 times that. Uh you another example, an economic study by the Energy and Industrial Advisory Partners examine the impact of holding just two offshore oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of America per year and semianual lease sales in Alaska's Cook Inlet. This this is a plan that's similar to provisions included in our legislation.
▶ 3:57:13They project that these cells alone would increase revenue by $230 million annually, boost our GDP by 1.3 billion each year and create nearly 16,000 jobs. That's the kind of economic growth uh that our country needs and at the same time we can become energy dominant.
▶ 3:57:30While we're doing that, we've worked very closely with our dis with fellow members of Congress, state and local leaders, stakeholders, and our colleagues in the Senate to create a new revenue and savings for the federal government by answering the call to unleash American energy dominance. And as we know, global demand for affordable, reliable energy is rising at an exponential rate. This presents a fiscal opportunity for the United States to generate immense wealth for our nation by being an energy provider to the world.
▶ 3:58:00Uh President Trump has made it clear that America will rise to meet the occasion and we're happy to help support those efforts with uh with our language in the reconciliation bill. Uh as I mentioned, demand for energy resources is increasing exponentially and we can develop our own energy and our mineral resources right here at home. Our country has been blessed with abundant resources, but we have this not in my backyard mentality that's hurting the American economy.
▶ 3:58:30It's hurting the federal budget, and it's hurting uh maybe more importantly our national security. This just isn't an issue of economic growth and prosperity, but it's also critical to our national security. Um our committee's legislation creates new revenue sources for the federal government. It establishes a process for project sponsors to pay a significant fee to ensure delivery of environmental reviews in under a year and guards themselves against frivolous lawsuits.
▶ 3:58:59In addition to raising nearly a billion dollars in new revenue for the federal government that will restore common sense to federal permitting processes that often lag for years, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, delaying muchneeded development and innovation, and doing absolutely nothing for the envir environment. these these uh processes actually hurt the environment by delaying these projects and making the world depend on uh energy from places like the Middle East and and Russia and Venezuela.
▶ 3:59:29U additionally we're investing $2.5 billion dollars in water storage and conveyance infrastructure projects across the West. U we've directed the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to utilize long-term timber cell contracts. Uh we've CBO has estimated our forestry provisions would generate more than $157 million, but that's just a fraction of the economic benefit that will happen if we start utilizing our resources because we're going to have to build uh mills and infrastructure.
▶ 3:59:59It's going there's going to take uh workers to uh to do these jobs that are highpaying jobs in rural areas. And again, we're going to get that economic impact of uh of growth and development from developing our resources. Uh there's a lot more to talk about. I'm sure there will be a lot of questions, but I urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so that our reconciliation legislation uh may be considered in the House. Thank you. I look forward to your questions and I yield back.
▶ 4:00:31Thank you, Mr. Westerman. Representative Huffman, you're recognized. Good morning, Madame Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, colleagues. Um, appreciate this opportunity to testify um here at 5:00 a.m. on uh the big billionaire boondoggle uh bill. Uh we know that it rips off millions of Americans by taking away vital services um in order to finance billionaire tax cuts.
▶ 4:00:58But there's another part of this bill that we need to discuss, and that is uh the fact that it is the most extreme anti-environment bill in American history. Powerful groups that underwrite the GOP have decided that now is the moment to strike. To auction off millions of acres of pristine public lands to industry, to mandate a massive expansion of offshore drilling, putting communities from Alaska to Florida at risk of catastrophic oil spills.
▶ 4:01:27To lock up millions of acres for new coal leasing. to make it impossible to challenge or even question unlawful polluting projects and to give wealthy developers a new golden age of grift apparently um a pay-to-play permitting process where they can write their own environmental reviews and buy legal immunity from lawsuits even if their projects are dangerous and violate the law.
▶ 4:01:54And of course, uh, at the tail end of that late night markup, there's a little bit of a pattern here in the Natural Resources Committee, uh, a provision was added to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres uh, of land in Nevada and Utah. Most Americans hate all of this. They cherish our public lands. They value clean air, clean water, and wildlife, and they reject billionaire giveaways.
▶ 4:02:19That's why Republicans have had to jam all of this stuff into budget reconciliation. That's why we're here in the dark of night. Republicans are doing everything they can to avoid scrutiny, to avoid even talking about what's actually in this legislation. This dark of night approach is the only way that these extreme and toxic policies can pass. But Americans are going to see this for what it is, and that is a betrayal.
▶ 4:02:48We all remember Donald Trump promising to deliver the cleanest air and water. And when Republicans say things like that and then jam through a bill like this, Americans rightfully feel betrayed. It's the same with Trump's promises to lower costs, grow the economy, protect Medicaid.
▶ 4:03:07I mean, he must have had his fingers crossed because he's crashing the economy, driving up costs for American families, and pushing House Republicans to jam through this bill that makes all of it worse. Across multiple committees, this bill doubles down on dirty fossil fuels of the past and crushes the growing clean energy economy of the future, increasing electricity costs for families and factories.
▶ 4:03:33The CEO of Next Era Energy Company, John Ketchum, recently said this. If you take renewables and storage off the table, as this bill does, we're going to force electricity prices to the moon. To the moon. His words. You know, when Trump promised a mission to the moon, that was supposed to be astronauts, not your electricity bill.
▶ 4:03:57The natural resource title of this bill, which we call the Environmental Liquidation for Billionaires Act, is a massive betrayal of anyone who values clean air and water, wildlife, outdoor recreation, pristine public lands, sacred tribal sites, or anyone who wants affordable electric bills. That's why my Democratic colleagues and I have been sounding the alarm because this is much more than just bad policy. It's a seismic shift in who our government is even working for.
▶ 4:04:26This bill gives away billions in subsidies, new subsidies to the coal industry, corporate irrigators, and to big oil. And at the same time, it rescends billions from programs that actually serve our communities like funding for our national parks, coastal res uh restoration, and healthy fisheries for coastal communities.
▶ 4:04:46Now, when Democrats offered amendments to protect tribal sovereignty, to hold polluters accountable, to ensure fair returns for taxpayers, Republicans rejected every single one. And then they slipped in that late night provision at midnight of our markup to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah without maps, without notice, without any explanation.
▶ 4:05:10Only after the markup did we learn from media reports that this bill is a thinly veiled and corrupt water grab. The through line across these provisions is clear. Prioritize short-term profits for billionaires and corporate polluters over clean air, clean water, and a livable planet for everyone else. We've seen this playbook before. Cut taxes for the rich. Gut public services and protections. Hope no one notices until it's too late.
▶ 4:05:40But, Madam Chair, people are paying attention even now at 5:00 a.m. They see a Republican majority that won't defend this bill in the light of day and won't explain why polluters deserve a free pass while families lose health care and food assistance and get stuck with higher electric bills.
▶ 4:05:57And the American people are going to see Democrats continue speaking out and standing firm on the idea that public lands belong to the public, not to big oil, not to foreign mining companies, not to billionaires or corporate polluters. I urge this committee to reject and strike this title. It doesn't serve the American people. It serves the people who already take too much and want even more. I yield back. Thank you, Representative Huffman. Chairman Graves, you're recognized.
▶ 4:06:28Uh, thanks, Chairman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern. So, the Transportation Infrastructure Committee produced recommendations to meet our instructions by combining critical investments in border security, our national defense, and needed modernization of air traffic control uh with cuts to wasteful spending and some other deficit reducing measures. For more than 20 years, the Coast Guard, for instance, has received less than half of the capital investment necessary to successfully carry out its critical missions.
▶ 4:06:59To support the Coast Guard, we've provided more than 21 billion to recapitalize Coast Guard assets, including the acquisition of cutters, aircraft, ice breakers, while it also uh funds the construction of facilities needed to support their new assets. With more than half of the total funding going towards maritime assets, we're also aligning with the president's recent executive order to strengthen America's ship building capabilities.
▶ 4:07:24Additionally, following the tragic aviation accidents in recent months, this committee has heard directly from stakeholders in the administration about the need to improve the safety and reliability of our nation's aviation system. The FAA FOC faces some serious operational and financial challenges due to its aging infrastructure and workforce shortages. In response, the committee provides a 12.5 billion down payment for the air traffic control modernization efforts.
▶ 4:07:52This down payment allows the administration to immediately begin replacing critical communications infrastructure, radar systems, and also invests in runway safety and airport surveillance uh surface surveillance projects. It also replaces air traffic control towers and tracons and funds our air traffic controller recruitment, retention, and training issues. Finally, we address the chronically chronic highway trust fund shortfall in a meaningful way for the first time in more than 30 years.
▶ 4:08:21The Congressional Budget Office projects $142 billion cumulative shortfall in the highway trust fund over the 5-year period following the expiration of the current authorization. So, put simply, the system for funding our federal surface transportation programs is broken. And our recommendation is to implement a $250 annual fee on electric vehicles and a $100 annual fee on hybrid vehicles and deposit all of those collections in the highway trust fund.
▶ 4:08:48For too long, EVs operated on our nation's roads without paying into the system, which is primarily funded by federal taxes on gasoline and diesel. Plain and simple, this is a fairness issue and it's time these uh roadway users directly pay into the system that supports the very highways that they drive on. We want all want to invest in the Coast Guard. We all want to rebuild our air traffic control system and finally address the broken highway trust fund.
▶ 4:09:15And I believe our recommendations deliver on those objectives. And thank you for the opportunity to testify and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Representative Larson, you are recognized. Thank you, Chair Fox and Ranking Member McGovern and members of the committee. Uh, Chair Graves and I appear today with conflicting views on the TNI committee title, a departure from our regular work on the committee and our preference of working together.
▶ 4:09:42And Democrats stand ready to advance bipartisan solutions to support the Coast Guard, to improve our air traffic control system, and to shore up investments in surface But Republican leadership has not gathered us here in the middle of the night to invest in job creating infrastructure. This morning is about jamming through a fiscally reckless package that provides a gut punch to working families.
▶ 4:10:04This bill makes the largest cuts to healthcare access and food assistance in American history, ripping away health care from 13 million Americans and taking food assistance away from millions of families, not to reduce the deficit, but to hand out tax breaks to billionaires. Democrats support job creating infrastructure investments. We use the GAVL to enact historic levels of funding for all means of travel, to promote clean energy, to support supply chain improvements, to modernize water infrastructure, and to build and connect stronger, healthier communities.
▶ 4:10:35Democrats want to keep these investments going, and I'm deeply concerned that the Republican budget will cut our committee off at the knees as we're trying to address bipartisan priorities for the rest of this Congress. Next September, the TNI committee has to reckon with $200 billion in investment that investments that will end, including 66 billion dollars to improve and expand rail service and improve rail safety. $47 billion to fix or replace aging uh and deficient bridges.
▶ 4:11:03$2 billion to upgrade airports and control towers. $21 billion to give more people access to safe, affordable transit. $13 billion for clean water in more communities. and $2 billion to boost the supply chain through safer and more efficient ports. The budget resolution that underlines the reconciliation bill does not continue these investments beyond fiscal 2026.
▶ 4:11:27In addition, the highway trust fund faces a shortfall of over $140 billion over the next five years that Congress will have to address. Communities in every state and county uh rely on these investments that the TNI committee provides through the bill. Unfortunately, this budget resolution provides little comfort that job creating in infrastructure investments will later materialize for transportation for water infrastructure or disaster preparedness and response.
▶ 4:11:55The investments that Tni committee provided keep people safe in the skies, on the roads and bridges, and when traveling by bus, boat, or train. We can't afford to skimp on or to delay safety. The funding for air traffic control that the committee provided in this reconciliation bill is only a down payment on a much more expensive and urgent problem that we have to address. And it's been well documented by the committee and by multiple aviation safety experts that our current ATC infrastructure is becoming unsustainable.
▶ 4:12:25In the wake of the deadliest one of the deadliest aviation accidents in the last 20 years and with a rise in near misses at airports across the country, increased investment in our air traffic control system is needed. And similarly, the Coast Guard badly needs fleet modernization and funding for new ice breakers, shoride infrastructure, and aircraft. And the funding for this for the Coast Guard in this bill is a welcome and a bipartisan a bipartisan priority. But we also have to meet the needs of the members of the service.
▶ 4:12:52Whereas the funding for CO's healthcare, including mental health, for Coastg Guard housing, for child care, Coast Guard cutters and aircraft do not operate by themselves. And we can't forget the needs of the women and men who serve in our Coast Guard. The TNI portions also contain substantial funding cuts to inflation reduction act investments. Cuts that are unnecessary to comply with Senate reconciliation instructions. Targeting these locally selected projects for recision is a direct attack on communities we represent.
▶ 4:13:21In particular, the recision of neighborhood access grants clause back 80 grants that have already been awarded to many of our districts, including the 41 Republican held districts. Chair Fox, represent Norman, Represent Scott, represent Scandlin. Grants in each of your districts are up for recision. Constituents in many of our districts have spent time and resources applying for these grants, and they're relying on the announced funds in their budgets. This unnecessary clawback after communities have secured grants makes no sense.
▶ 4:13:52Finally, I want to commend Cher Graves for firing the opening salvo and addressing the revenue gap in the highway trust fund. The legislation establishes fees on on EVs at 250 per year and hybrids at 100 per year. Fees are fees that are frankly out of proportion with what the average gasp powered vehicle pays, about $90 a year. But these new fees represent a marked change in how we tax highway uh users and deserve a full vetting by members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capital by governors, mayors, and other stakeholders.
▶ 4:14:20Uh and to date, the reconciliation process hasn't offered that needed debate. The surface transation reauthorization that's due next year is important and finding the funding to pass that bill is a major priority. The lack of parity among types of vehicles and the proposed fees and the lack of consensus among members means we have a little more work to do. But I look forward to a future bill when members of the rules committee get to see us work together in this Congress. But this big ugly bill is not it.
▶ 4:14:49Yield Thank you, Mr. Lson. Thanks to all of you for being here this morning. Chairman Green, Democrats spent all of last Congress telling us that we needed comprehensive immigration package to fix border. But it simply wasn't the case.
▶ 4:15:11After only five months in office, President Trump has ended the worst border crisis in history by simply enforcing our current laws and empowering our law enforcement officials to execute their duties to ensure his successes aren't short-lived. Shouldn't we continue to provide sustained resources to invest in our border security infrastructure and personnel? And that's what the legislation from your committee delivered.
▶ 4:15:42Correct. Hard resources. Yes, Chairwoman. This is pretty much hard resources in addition to uh you know the personnel stuff. We're we're increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and things like that. So there's some human resources pieces of this, but the vast majority of it is hardware. So would you agree that the Democrats have a credibility problem when assessing the problems at our border?
▶ 4:16:08After all, we didn't need a single change in authorizing statutes to make this sampling. We simply needed a president who was willing to enforce the laws on the books. Yes, ma'am. The the the excuses that were shared were many uh from uh you know, increased poverty and and uh other parts of the of the world that were driving people to the United States. Those things didn't change uh at inauguration.
▶ 4:16:38What changed was a president willing to enforce the law. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Yeah, I I I don't even know where to begin. It's um it's 5:11 in the morning. And for those who are just tuning in, uh the rules committee began meeting um on this reconciliation bill at 1:00 a.m. Uh and you may ask why do the Republicans want us to meet at 1:00 a.m. and not 100 p.m.
▶ 4:17:05is because they don't want anybody to know what the hell's going on here. Um and let me repeat as I did in my opening statement. Um so so people understand uh the impact of this bill on the American citizens. This bill um uh will throw 14 million people off of healthcare. I mean 14 million people. It will throw millions and millions and millions of people off of food assistance.
▶ 4:17:32Um and those savings I guess will be used to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Like I mean who does this? Who does this? I mean I mean on what what planet does this make sense that you rob from the people with the least and give to the people with the most? That is the heart and soul of this legislation. And as we're learning from the current panel, this bill also um is not kind to the environment.
▶ 4:18:02Uh it is not kind to civil liberties. Um, and there are all other u kind of negative things that are associated uh with this bill that I think most Americans quite frankly don't agree with. Yeah, Americans want to get the our immigration system under control. Yes, they they want to make sure that uh you know that there's law and order and things are are safe for everybody in this country. Uh but they care deeply about the Constitution. They care deeply about due process. They they care deeply about the environment.
▶ 4:18:32Um and um and you know as I'm listening to the first panel and now the second panel and I say this um you know with all due respect to my Republican colleagues but I we just don't share the same values. Um I think it comes down to that and um let let me ask ranking member Huffman a question.
▶ 4:18:51The part of of this Republican tax scam that falls under the natural resources committee appears to auction off America's public lands to corporations and oil companies uh to pay for even more tax breaks for the wealthy and the well-connected. And even though more than 70% of the American people oppose selling off our our nation's public lands to the highest bidder.
▶ 4:19:16So my my question is how does this title sell off and sell out public lands? Yeah, thank you ranking member McGovern. So uh several ways. First of all, several hundred,000 acres in Nevada and Utah are sold outright under a dark of night uh amendment that Mr. Ammedday and Miss Mallaloy added at the tail end of our markup.
▶ 4:19:39So after weeks of being assured by Republicans that they would not sell off public lands, they turned around and are now selling off public lands, much to the dismay of some of their own colleagues, including Mr. Zinci uh in Montana.
▶ 4:19:52But then the even bigger giveaway is in the form of auctioning off vast areas, millions and millions of acres of public lands including pristine areas, the Arctic wildlife uh refuge and mandatory offshore leases covering millions and millions of acres in the ocean. Uh they're doing all of that while lowering royalties for big oil and uh for big coal.
▶ 4:20:20They are offering up an area the size of Connecticut that they propose for new coal mining. Uh and also opening up areas very sensitive in the in the Boundary Waters uh watershed, the most visited wilderness area in the United States for a particularly toxic form of new mining. So the House Natural Resources Committee was instructed to raise money to help offset the tax scam, but the committee's provisions also spend significantly.
▶ 4:20:49Uh can you tell us a little bit more about the big oil giveaways in this bill? Absolutely. Um well, in addition to giving big oil all these vast areas, far more than they could ever need or want in places like the Cook Inland mass inlet in Alaska, massive mandatory offshore leases in in the Gulf of Mexico, even though 80% of existing leases are sitting there idle and are not even being developed. It's just more more being offered up to big oil while lowering royalties.
▶ 4:21:19and giving the secretary the authority to go to non-competitive leasing uh if the market doesn't yield enough interest, which it won't in many of these cases. And then additional discretion where the secretary can lower royalties even further, practically giving away these public resources. And so one provision of this bill will allow companies with polluting projects to buy their way way out of judicial review of their environmental review documents. So what could this mean for communities impacted by these projects?
▶ 4:21:49It means they have no voice whatsoever uh in projects that could have terrible impacts on their public health and their environment. All a developer has to do is pay 125% of the estimated cost of the the NEPA review. Uh and they are guaranteed a fast turnaround on their approval and then completely insulated from all judicial review. None whatsoever.
▶ 4:22:11So, I mean, I I think this is an example like I think most I think a overwhelming majority of Democrats and independents and I even think probably a majority of Republicans in this country uh would probably not think that we what we just talked about was a good idea. Um, which kind of explains why you want to have this meeting at 1:00 in the morning uh so that people are not paying attention to those kinds of details. Let me talk about Homeland Security.
▶ 4:22:35Now, as President Trump and Secretary Gnome obliterate due process by locking up immigrants without providing a reason, depriving detainees of legal counsel and deporting US citizens, Republicans are pumping money into DHS with blatant disregard for the administration's desecration of our most sacred democratic values. This bill does nothing nothing to lower costs for American families. In fact, it does the opposite.
▶ 4:23:02Republicans take this disastrous plan further by paying to deport kids with cancer through healthc care cuts to other kids with cancer. So, Homeland Security was one of the few committees given instructions to increase spending and and the committee ran with and the committee ran with this creating $69 billion in new spending. All this including 300 million to pay for security while the president plays golf.
▶ 4:23:28And yet there is no money for FEMA to implement natural disaster prevention, mitigation, or relief. I mean, I don't know who thought that was a good idea. Uh, since January, the Trump administration has held FEMA grants hostage over $1 billion blocked from supporting wildfire prevention, flood mitigation, and disaster preparedness. I mean, as discussed in the markup, natural disasters do not see red states or blue states.
▶ 4:23:55They don't choose their impact based on politics and they often hit more than one state. Blocking funds to FEMA hurts all of the 95% of communities with recent disaster declarations. This should not be a partisan issue. Ranking member Thompson, can you tell us more about the the detriment to FEMA that this is?
▶ 4:24:18Well, as uh most of you know, uh FEMA has been re recommended to be basically right uh abolished and given to the states and and and localities. Well, if that was the case in the chairwoman's district, uh without FEMA's help, uh North Carolina would be in serious jeopardy.
▶ 4:24:43uh Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, Missouri, other states right now have disaster declaration requests pending before the president. Some of them are almost two months. Uh I've never seen it take so long for disaster declarations to be approved. Well, uh, we had the secretary before us and her testimony is that we need to get rid of it.
▶ 4:25:14I asked, "Okay, what's the plan?" Well, we working on it. Well, you want to get rid of it? Surely you've pulled some people together uh and and talked about it. Well, we've set up a council. How many times have they met? We have met. So clearly uh we are being told certain things but in action it's not there.
▶ 4:25:39Uh in support of what what what I'm saying we offered certain uh over 30 amendments during uh uh our our section of the bill. Not a single Republican uh voted in support of the bill, didn't speak. It was just absolutely against.
▶ 4:26:04And let me just tell you uh some of the uh thing we we said no funds would be used to deport citizens. My Republican colleagues voted against that. But they think it was a radical idea and we said uh sending American citizens to foreign prisons. They voted against it.
▶ 4:26:33Uh defing lawful present immigrants without any due process voted against that. The one that bothers us most is ignoring Supreme Court And so we were trying to basically uh with our amendments some basis that most Americans already agreed to uh
▶ 4:27:03in law and and so uh we couldn't get uh a support for due process uh for hearing. So, you know, it's chilling. It's chilling that that's the direction that that this Congress is moving in. I mean, I think I think Trump is is basically telling people what he wants and uh and we have too many members of Congress that are going along to get along. Uh and quite frankly, um it is chilling.
▶ 4:27:30And I think not just I'm saying that not just as a Democrat, but I think most Americans who respect the rule of law, who respect the Constitution understand uh that u this is not the direction they want us to go. Let me let me ask let me ask you, Ranking Member Thompson, Republicans are 46.5 billion more for Trump's border wall. 46.5 billion dollar.
▶ 4:27:57The bill also spends 4.1 billion for C CBP personnel and two billion for hiring and retention bonuses. So, if I'm doing the math, the Republican reconciliation bill spends 10 times the amount on Trump's stupid border wall as it does on CBP personnel. Not only that, the bill gives local police in Trump's hometowns $300 million to provide support so we can spend even more time golfing.
▶ 4:28:27So we ne we we we never stop hearing from you about uh about this being the most secure border ever. So now you need billions for this stupid wall. I mean, give me a break. Uh what better purposes could be served by this money instead of a giant wall and time for the president to golf? Well, clearly uh DHS funds should not be spent for recreational activities.
▶ 4:28:54Uh especially activities spent at properties you control or own. And so again, this is part of creating the ability to to make money at government expense. And reason I say that is our Secret Service and other personnel would end up having to stay on the property while you playing golf.
▶ 4:29:23Uh we understand that, but you know, we have a lot of golf courses if you want to play play here and and people can go home. So, uh it's not good. More importantly, so much of the other thing we're addressing is we're not providing training for our law enforcement personnel.
▶ 4:29:45When PE when you pause a grant, that means you've stopped the money and and so the language is confusing to a lot of cities and counties in this country because they said we were approved and then we were told we were paused. We were trying to buy a firet truck. Now we can't buy the fire truck. We need it. Uh we need to train our personnel.
▶ 4:30:10And so all those efforts have pulled us back and make us less safe as a country. And I go back uh to the FEMA um you know natural disasters don't pick party, right? And so I encourage uh uh the committee to look at this notion that we take care Americans in that time of distress and danger.
▶ 4:30:38Normally when FEMA comes is because state and local resources have been overrun. And for us to to move uh in a a direction with no plan at this moment is not in the best interest of of any American citizen. Look, I think all of us have had natural disasters in our districts at some point.
▶ 4:31:01Um and I will tell you I have had in in my district and FEMA has been extraordinary and I don't know what we would have done with with without them. Mr. Raskin, I don't know if you wanted to add anything. I um thank you uh Mr. McGovern, but I wasn't aware of this provision. Would you just tell me that number again? Did you say there were $30 million for $300 million?
▶ 4:31:28Yeah, $300 million security for golf trips for for basically the help of you know the I I would just say from a judiciary perspective you know we've been talking a lot about the foreign government emaluments clause because of the very risky and dangerous idea of accepting a $400 million jumbo jet airplane from the dictator of Qatar which is categorically forbidden by the constitution without congressional consent but we also have a domestic amongments
▶ 4:31:59clause which says that the president is limited to his salary in office and cannot draw other money from the federal government, other agencies and departments. And uh I mean it sounds to me like what you're raising really uh implicates the domestic monuments clause. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars following the president around for him to play golf. And I I like the the chairman's point here, which is that there there's a golf course not far from the White House at Hayne's Point.
▶ 4:32:28We're throwing people off their healthcare. We're taking away people's nutrition assistance. I mean, we are we we we are hurting people in this country and yet it's $300 million to provide support to make it easier for him to golf in his hometowns. Any the final thing I'm going to say, Madam Chair, you brought it up. You know what? Um, please don't diss uh the notion of the importance of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
▶ 4:32:54Uh, the Senate in a bipartisan way came together and actually constructed one because we do need a to help make it easier for people to have a legal pathway to become citizens. We need to regularize the status of many people who have been here for many, many years, including the dreamers. We need to make their status permanent. Um, they came together in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, you know, Donald Trump in the heat of the campaign told Republicans of the House to walk away from it, and unfortunately, you all did.
▶ 4:33:21Uh, and uh, and I hope we at some point get back to it because quite frankly, we need that. I yield back. Um, thank you, Mr. McGovern. I said in my opening statement that we were prepared for um, hearing a lot of things tonight, today, and tonight or whenever we finish up. and one of our colleagues called them misleading statements. They they really are.
▶ 4:33:48And I I want to point out um the comment you Mr. McGovern just made that we don't share the same values. That is an understatement. Um then we agree. We agree. Good. Okay. Yeah. No debate. Good.
▶ 4:34:05We know that national security is the number one issue for the federal government and that's what members of this panel are talking about and you talked about taking care of Americans in time of disaster and we don't think that a border wall is stupid. A border wall is necessary to take care of Americans. I I do, but I also point out that homeland security is hometown security and unfortunately I think you guys have lost sight of that.
▶ 4:34:35So, Mr. Langworthy, you're recognized. Uh, I have no questions for the panel at this time. I just also want to reiterate to to this panel, you know, thank you to all the chairs and the ranking members and for the staff of the committees for all of the hard work that they've put in and the hundreds of hours going into this reconciliation process. Uh this is uh quite an exercise and and I really want to salute you all for the work. I yield back. Mr. Langworthy, Miss Camplin, you're recognized.
▶ 4:35:02Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all our ranking members and chairs for getting up so at an ungodly hour of the morning to to join us. And thank you again to our C-SPAN folks who are up way too early. You know, the question I've been asked most since about 36 hours ago when this hearing was noticed for 1:00 a.m. um is why on earth would anyone try to hold a congressional hearing at 1:00 in the morning? And of course, the obvious answer is because the bill is so horrible. No, they want to hide it from the public.
▶ 4:35:33So, just, you know, to do a little bit of no spoiler alerts or anything, but to catch up from the last episode, the last hearing, we had a little bit of breaking news. Couple um CBO letters that came out after 5:00 yesterday. One uh demonstrated quite convincingly that this bill will cause the household incomes of the lowest uh 10% of uh the the poorest 10% of Americans to decrease.
▶ 4:36:01and it will cause the household incomes of the richest 10% of Americans to increase. So, it is a wealth transfer. I know our Republican colleagues say that they don't like to transfer wealth between different groups, but apparently if it goes from the poor to the rich, it's okay. Uh the second piece of breaking news is that this bill will um violate the PGO provisions and induce sequestration, which will then lead to a $500 billion reduction in Medicare.
▶ 4:36:30Now, we've been raising the alarm for months that this bill was going to impact Medicaid, but it's also going to impact Medicare. So, I think that's something people have to put in their pipes and smoke. Um, I want to thank all of our many colleagues for being here to do what is the purpose of hearings, to try to make a bill better, to try to expose what is in it.
▶ 4:36:50Certainly, there are more of our Democratic colleagues here waiting their turn to testify at amendments than there are of the Republican members of this committee who I guess are taking their naps off camera for a change. Um, I want to focus um some of the most egregious parts of the judiciary section of this bill.
▶ 4:37:09Uh unlike most of the directions or the reconciliation directions for most of the committees, uh judiciary decided to add tens of billions of dollars to support this administration's lawless and ultimately counterproductive immigration agenda. So under this White House, we've seen mistaken and illegal deportations. We've seen wrongful arrests, including by masked men in unmarked cars.
▶ 4:37:37We've seen outrageous attacks on due process and first amendment rights. And this agenda has made the United States government complicit in the false imprisonment of people in an El Salvador jail that is notorious for human rights violations. Our government is now complicit in this.
▶ 4:37:58And it's shameful that the US government is refusing to lift a finger to return these people home to their families, even when the government has admitted that they were sent there by mistake and in violation of a US court order. This White House's lawless immigration agenda has seen people ripped off the streets and detained not for a crime, but for exercising their First Amendment rights. This isn't immigration enforcement. It's calculated cruelty.
▶ 4:38:26is this isn't keeping our communities safe. It's an unamerican attack on the truth, on the First Amendment, on fundamental human rights. It's a campaign of fear and lawlessness being carried out on the American taxpayers's dime. And no one should kid themselves. If you don't support an immigrant's right to due process, then you don't support anyone's right to due process.
▶ 4:38:51Because without due process, who's to say if the next person in shackles being loaded on a plane to El Salvador or South Sudan is a citizen or not? To say if they're a gang member or not, to say if they're an actual threat to national security or just a political threat to this White House.
▶ 4:39:14So, you know, in addition, we've got buried in this bill a provision that would prevent US courts from being able to enforce their rulings when government officials violate court orders. This bill would prevent the courts from using their most powerful tool to uphold the law, the power to hold government officials in contempt.
▶ 4:39:34So, of course, it's being written so that it would apply to pending cases impeding a court's ability to enforce orders against, you guessed it, the Trump administration. And this is important because, as ranking member Rascin mentioned, this White House has been sued more than any other administration, hundreds of times in just its first few months, because it's violated so many laws in such a short time.
▶ 4:40:00So basically, our MAGA friends want to create a financial hurdle too steep for most plaintiffs to overcome by putting an enormous price tag on Americans right to access justice in our courts in order to challenge these White House power grabs. Federal courts rarely require bonding cases alleging unconstitutional actions by the government. And the decision to impose a security bond is properly within a judge's discretion depending on the circumstances. This bill would change that.
▶ 4:40:30It would kneecap any avenue for the courts or the American people to hold an administration, any administration accountable for unlawful or unconstitutional actions. Have our colleagues forgotten that we do not elect kings, we elect presidents and for a limited time period?
▶ 4:40:47Have they forgotten that a president, his administration, his allies, including Elon Musk and his Doge brothers, don't have the right to do whatever they want just because congressional Republicans, don't have the backbone to stand up and stop them. These efforts to undermine our constitutional order would destroy the very rights and liberties that have made America strong and a beacon to the rest of the world. So, this bill doesn't serve my constituents. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 4:41:13One of the things that my constituents have been most concerned about, they're horrified that the White House and Department of Justice canled over $800 million in community um grant funding, which we tried to restore, but but our Republican colleagues voted no. Um we saw funding for community violence prevention, crime fighting, support for law enforcement, gun violence prevention.
▶ 4:41:39using that funding, evidence-based programs have reduced gun violence in communities like mine, Philadelphia, by over 50% in the last couple years. So, can my constituents think that this is an a danger to public safe safety? Can you comment on this? Well, it's extraordinary that they're wanting to spend tens of billions of dollars on the border wall while they're cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from grants going to local police departments.
▶ 4:42:09victim assistance organizations, anti- rape and sexual assault groups that are actually on the ground in all of our communities. Now, this is something where I really thought we could have a bipartisan consensus because nobody knew about it. We all voted to appropriate that money in the House of Representatives. The Senate voted to appropriate that money. Went through the entire legislative process. It was signed into law by the President of the United States. The money goes to the Department of Justice.
▶ 4:42:37They program it in their office of justice programs and then the various police departments around the country and local groups apply for the money and there were 365 grants that were actually awarded. They were planning on it. A lot of them started to spend money that hadn't even come in yet from other sources. And this one Doge employee, we've got the guy's name.
▶ 4:43:03we found out who it was, sent an email, and he just went down a list of them and said, "Get rid of all of these grants." So, I said to our colleagues, "You didn't know about this. We didn't know about this. It doesn't have to be a partisan thing, but that's not how our system works. We don't have a fourth branch of government called Doge or Elon Musk." And yet, when we introduced an amendment to restore all that money, alas, our colleagues didn't have anything to say in defense of what DOA had done.
▶ 4:43:32But they all voted against restoring the money. And so we've got the same amendment before the rules committee. I beseech our distinguished chairwoman, Miss Fox, Mr. McGovern, please look at this. We're hearing about it all over the country. I think it's more than 38 or 39 states that are involved in this. These are groups and these are police departments that were depending on it and we're literally defunding local police departments and local crime fighting programs.
▶ 4:43:58One of the pieces that seems most egregious is they have defunded programs to address fentanyl abuse. They've defunded um programs that address um all of the um opioid abuse issues. Well, yes, indeed. There's a lot of opioid efforts that have been undercut or eliminated because of this. But I'll tell you one interesting story which tells me that this isn't over yet. Okay?
▶ 4:44:26because when we started to raise this in the judiciary committee um there there had been no changes. Well, we began to talk about one specific program called the officer Robert Wilson preventing violence against law enforcement officers and ensuring officer resilience and survivability initiative. It's called the Valor Initiative and it's for mental and physical health uh engagement with police officers.
▶ 4:44:54Um, we began to talk about that. We advertised it. We showcased it. And mysteriously and quietly, the program was restored by the Department of Justice, but nobody explained why. Everybody's refused to talk to us about it. And this is so much the pattern of what we've seen with Doge where they come in with Elon Musk's chainsaw. They have a personnel massacre. They get rid of everybody.
▶ 4:45:22And yet, if you know somebody and uh you know, as a Democrat, I don't know a lot of people in the Elon Musk world, but I know Republicans who've been able to get a phone number for this person or that person and get somebody restored. Well, if it's waste, fraud, or abuse, they shouldn't be restored. But it's not waste, fraud, and abuse. But none of us should be subject to this kind of treatment. And that's why I talk about the fourth branch of government. This is not contemplated in our system of government.
▶ 4:45:50Now, I don't know whether or not Elon Musk has been run out of town or he's just no longer popular. I don't we don't hear a lot from him, but there are still tons of people suffering the repercussions of what he and Doge did. And so again, I would just beg the rules committee to look at this because we've heard from people all over the country about that. And unfortunately, the logic of what they did has carried over into the president's budget proposal.
▶ 4:46:18They want to cut a billion dollars out of Department of Justice programs in the next budget. Uh, you know, half a billion dollars from the FBI, uh, the ATF. Uh, there's this cyber security and infrastructure security center. Uh, President Trump got mad at a guy who worked for him named Chris Keb Krebs, who was the director of it because he contradicted Trump over the 2020 election. He said it was the most secure election in American history.
▶ 4:46:48As a conservative guy, he told the truth about what happened. President Trump has issued an executive order against him now to deny him security clearance and all this stuff. Meanwhile, they cut hundreds of millions of dollars from our cyber security and infrastructure security efforts against Russia and against other enemies of the United States. So, please, like, we've got to bear down on the details here. All of the money is being sucked up for immigration, the border wall, and away from local police.
▶ 4:47:17They are defunding the police in America. Well, and what you've described here that in the course of a hearing, it was raised that this elimination had occurred of a program that people actually supported. So, the hearing process, the legislative process actually works.
▶ 4:47:35And that's what we should be doing now instead of trying to ram this crazy bill through in the middle of the night because we aren't able to get to all of these issues where the Doge brothers came in and it appears that the way they decided what should be cut was they just hit controlf delete and just wiped out huge sections of the the federal government. Honestly, for the life of me, I don't understand what would the problem be with saying Doge made a mistake here and let's restore that money to our communities across America.
▶ 4:48:02Well, Doge was the mistake, but um I just had one more question for you. Um during our judiciary markup, uh isn't it the Republicans voted to allow immigration agents to use taxpayer dollars to arrest, detain, and deport US Yes. Um we had a whole series of amendments again that we thought would create a bipartisan convergence on the committee.
▶ 4:48:28We basically were looking at things that the administration had done unlawfully where the courts had struck them down repeatedly and categorically and clearly judges on all sides of the political spectrum. And we said let's put it in the legislation that the government cannot deport US citizens and detain them uh under ICE under immigration authorities.
▶ 4:48:52Let's say that nobody should be deported from the country without a due process hearing, which is what the Supreme Court uh has said. We said, "Let's not uh do immigration raids in churches. Let's not do immigration raids in schools." We had a whole series of those and our unfortunately rejected all of them just voting on a partyline basis.
▶ 4:49:16And as I was saying, the the frustrating and sometimes amusing part of it was they did not engage in any speech with us. It was like uh you know a mega mime troop because they wouldn't say anything to us about why they were voting no. They were just voting no. We've seen similar things here. Well, thank you for your clarity on the underpinnings of our Constitution and why defending those fundamental freedoms is part of what actually makes America great.
▶ 4:49:45I yield Thank you, Miss Scan. Mr. Scott, do you have any questions or comments? M M Madam Chair, I I don't have any questions for this panel. I'm uh I'm just glad President Trump is using his authorities to secure the border.
▶ 4:50:03I was here this past weekend and I was uh shocked to hear that our people that work at the Border Patrol were ordered to parole people into the country even if they had visible gang tattoos and it was obvious they were threat to the citizens of our country under the Biden administration. With that, I yield. Thank you, Mr. Deuce. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Welcome to our chairs and ranking members and appreciate your testimony.
▶ 4:50:33uh this morning. I want to start with maybe a fairly simple question. We just by way of context, as you all know, we started this hearing at 1:00 a.m. and I have been on a a journey, I guess, or a quest for a very simple answer to what I think is a fairly simple question. Uh but it has been a it's been proven elusive thus far. And the chair was unwilling to engage with me in a colloquy earlier on it.
▶ 4:50:59And really the question is why was this hearing noticed for 1:00 a.m.? Why have we spent the past 5 hours debating this bill in the dead of night? Of course, I have a theory and it's that this bill is indefensible and that House Republicans uh know that full well and decided that it would be in their interest to hold this hearing in the dead of night rather than in the daylight. But I wonder if uh my Republican colleagues uh the chairman have any thoughts on that front?
▶ 4:51:30Chair Chairman Green, any observations you might offer as to do you do you think it was prudent for this committee to convene in the middle of the night? I don't have any opinion on when the uh committee is is called. I I I'm an ER physician. I work day and night. I'm an ex Army Ranger. I work day and night. It was three o'clock in the morning when we flew into Baghdad. Time doesn't matter to me. Okay. Uh, how about this? How long have you been chairman of the Homeland Security Committee? I'm in my second term. Second term. So, how many years is that?
▶ 4:52:00Four, three years. That would be two plus this year, which I guess is two plus. Couple years. A year. Two years and five months. You've held a lot of hearings, right? I have. Yeah. Have you noticed any of them at 1:00 a.m.? We've had some markups go past. Not if they went past. Have you noticed any hearings at 1:00 a.m.? I have not. No. What time was the markup for your committee on this bill? On this bill, I think 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Interesting.
▶ 4:52:29Yeah, I'm pretty sure Chairman Jordan's markup was around 10:00 a.m., too, cuz I'm on his committee. The same goes for Chairman Westerman. The question I have is why the rules committee decided to deviate from the protocols that the chairs have apparently established, those who are testifying in front of our committee. why this committee, the speaker's committee, decided to gavel in in the middle of the night to take up this bill.
▶ 4:52:52It's an interesting question and I've yet to get a good answer, but maybe the third panel will perhaps uh provide some clarity. Uh Chairman Jordan, I was going to say when you got a great product, you want to get after it and get it passed. Oh, is that right? This thing cuts taxes, secures the border. Cuts taxes. Let me talk to you a little bit about the product, Chairman Jordan. So, I want to talk to you in particular about the contempt provision.
▶ 4:53:19So, this is section 70302, a restriction on enforcement. You're familiar with this provision, right? Is that you know the provision I'm talking about? I'm waiting for you to explain it. Okay. Well, I'm you're testifying. I was going to ask you to explain it.
▶ 4:53:37So I my understanding of the provision, you can tell me if I'm wrong or incorrect, is that this provision would bar any federal court from enforcing a contempt citation in a case in which an injunction or a temporary restraining order has been issued if security, that is to say, money, has not been provided or ordered by the federal court in that particular case. Is that right? That's right. Okay.
▶ 4:54:05I think that's that's existing law. It's not existing law. I I'll clarify. As you know, this is under the federal rules of civil procedure, it is discretionary as it relates to cases against the government, right? That's the whole reason for this provision. Otherwise, you wouldn't include this provision in bill. This is meant I'm asking a question. I don't know if is that is that right or am I I didn't hear the question. Say the question again.
▶ 4:54:34What was I didn't catch I didn't hear the question in there. The question is whether or not this provision is as I stated it to be that essentially it would preclude any federal court from enforcing a contempt citation in a case in which an injunction or a temporary restraining order has been issued if a security has not been provided. That last clause is the key. If that security has not been put up, right? Correct.
▶ 4:54:59And you're aware that the way in which you've written this provision, it would apply to any plaintiff in the United States visav a case against any entity within the federal government. I can look at the drafting, but my understanding is it applies to the cases we're talking about with immigration cases. Yeah. No, you're incorrect. So, yes, those what you're saying are incorrect. I'm just saying how I believe it was written. You think it's written different.
▶ 4:55:26Let me explain to you what this provision I can't wait for your wisdom. Go right ahead. Chairman Jordan, this provision would bar any plaintiff in the country from being able to obtain a contempt citation from a federal court in a case in which an injunction or a temporary restraining order has been issued if security has not been provided. It is not limited to the cases that you've identified. So, let me give you an example.
▶ 4:55:54Let's say there's a citizen in Ohio, a constituent of yours who believes that their private data has been improperly released, right, by the IRS, and they file a lawsuit against the IRS. If this becomes law, your provision, that individual would have to provide security, whatever security the court would deem reasonable. That is not something that has existed up until now. Do you understand that? Got it. Okay.
▶ 4:56:24So, I'm trying to understand why you think that's in the best interests of the people represented Ohio. Courts judges were waving this. Our understanding is this would prevent enforcement of a contempt order if security was not provided. If the security was not provided in accordance with the federal rules of civil procedure 6S, that's what we put in in the legislation. Yeah. This provision.
▶ 4:56:48So you're saying that essentially the way that you read this language is that it's not compelling the federal court to require security of a plaintiff. That's a situation now the judge can wave it. We're saying it that should compel the court to have the security there. Correct. Yeah. We're saying the same thing. I Let's go back to my core example. All right. Just walk we'll walk through it together here.
▶ 4:57:13a constituent in Ohio who believes that their information was improperly released by the IRS. I remember I you've served on the judiciary committee for many years. Hold on. We're talking about in the context of of immigration cases. This is all cases. This is not immigration cases. The plain language of this statute that you have written applies to every conceivable case brought in a federal court. Period. IRS cases, patent cases, immigration cases.
▶ 4:57:43If you have a constituent that sues the ATF, this provision applies to them. This is the point. And I don't you can visit with your lawyers and maybe they can provide you with this the clarity, but it it is unquestionably the case that this provision applies to every Oh, okay. Yeah, that's correct. I think we're on the same page now. The the judge can the judge can set the security at whatever level he wants. What is what's typically happening in these cases? He's just waving it. No one's putting it up and they're getting this injunction that applies nationwide. Correct.
▶ 4:58:13Which is the concern. You think are you okay with the nationwide injunctions issued by one single federal judge? We'll get to that part, Mr. Jordan. Let's just let's complete the the analysis on this piece because to your point, as you said, this particular provision doesn't require a specific amount of security. It's it's essentially saying to the federal court, it has to require some security. And my point is that this is a deep deviation from existing federal law. This has never been the case. We've never said to constituent Hold on, Mr. Jordan.
▶ 4:58:43I'll give you a chance to respond. We've never said to American citizens and constituents that in order to vindicate their rights in federal court, they're going to be required to provide a security when their constitutional rights have been violated by their government. And I I find it astounding. I'm not sure that many of your colleagues understand the full import of this. They will by the time this gets to the floor.
▶ 4:59:08I imagine there will be a lot of limited government advocates who will find deep reasons to be concerned about this type of provision because as you could imagine it will preclude folks from being able to vindicate their constitutional rights. Now I would also say the way that you have written it as you've noted it's retroactive right.
▶ 4:59:29So this applies to any the well I just I just want to say the situation we're trying to address is what's been happening around the country and you can write it that way as you know the there a single federal judge gets uh case is brought to the judge they wave the security and then issue a decision that applies nationwide to all immigrants who are in that that why didn't you put nationwide in this language well we can look at the language I I I mean 6 a.m.
▶ 4:59:59You're voting on this thing in like 10 hours. What What are we talking about? I you we've had weeks. You could have put nationwide in here. This that's not what it says. This applies to every one of America's 33. Again, the judge has discretion on what that what that amount can be. Sure. So, a judge could say, you know what, and judges are right now waving it. And that was the concern we had. Sure. And I think a judge and you don't think that's a problem. Even even Supreme Court Justice Kagan has said there's a problem with these nationwide injunctions being issued from one single federal judge.
▶ 5:00:29That's what we're trying to get at. Okay, the Supreme Court's considering that question right now. I will just conclude here. All I'm saying is let me even more liberal justices have said this is a problem. I understand. We've actually passed standalone legislation. Mr. Noose, please let Mr. Jordan speak and then he will let you speak. my question and then he can answer. Okay. But but you're not asking a question. Okay. You're asserting a statement.
▶ 5:00:59Madam Chair, Mr. Goose controls the time. Yes, sir. But I'm trying to ask him to ask a question and then let Mr. Jordan answer. I will I will conclude my statement and then ask a question of of Mr. Jordan since um he I don't think wants to engage in this constructive dialogue to try to actually address the purported problem that he is trying to solve.
▶ 5:01:24So I will simply finish the hypothetical that I offered any constituent in Ohio who believes that their private data has been disclosed improperly by the IRS.
▶ 5:01:38any citizen of Ohio or Colorado for that matter who believes that their constitutional rights have been violated in some way, if this becomes law, they would be required to pay the court money in an amount that the court deems necessary to cover the costs of the potential damage in order to proceed in federal court. That has never been the law of the land in our country.
▶ 5:02:04And I cannot believe that Freedom Caucus, so-called Freedom Caucus members would support that kind of principle. Secondly, the way that this is written, as you noted, Chairman Jordan, yes, this would apply to the 93 94 different injunctions that have been issued against the Trump administration. It would also apply to any existing injunction that is in effect today.
▶ 5:02:33I I don't know what that number is. A thousand 10,000 desegregation injunctions that are still operating today in different federal courts in the country. A variety of different litigation that's pending in different courts across the country that would be implicated by this provision. So I I don't I don't think that ultimately it's going to survive the you know the bird bath in the Senate because it's clearly changing uh policy. I also think it's patently unconstitutional.
▶ 5:03:00There's no world in which the Supreme Court would ever deem this and we could go through the the Supreme Court president that establishes that. But I I just also would encourage you to to take a perhaps the legal council on the Judiciary Committee can take a deeper look at this paragraph because as it's written now, it is uh deeply problematic for civil liberties in our country.
▶ 5:03:23Ranking member Rascin I can see uh has been uh jumping at the opportunity to Well, I mean I think you did a pretty masterful job of addressing it, Mr. Duce, but I would add just two things. One, it's worse than you say because it doesn't just apply to cases against the government. It applies to private cases as well. There's nothing in the language here that would uh exempt a case between two private parties, two commercial parties. And so, but your your final point, I think, is the key one. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
▶ 5:03:53It's because the power to hold someone in contempt for a court is an inherent judicial power and has always been deemed to to say that. They don't need to wait on Congress to give them the power to hold someone in criminal or civil contempt for refusing compliance with a court order any more than we do when we or we at least used to engage in the inherent powers of contempt that Congress has against people.
▶ 5:04:23We don't need to wait for another branch of government to give us that power. So, it is unconstitutional. It's uh ridiculously broad and and it's a very ham-handed approach to what their real issue is. They don't like the fact that Judge Boseberg, who was a Bush appointee when he first got on the bench, he was justice uh uh which he was some one of the justice's roommates at Yale, I think.
▶ 5:04:52Uh well, anyway, heav he's a Yeah. Yeah. He's a He's a Kavanaaugh. Yeah. Kavanaaugh. He was Justice Kavanagh's roommate. He was a pillar of the conservative bar, right? Well, they don't like his opinion because he said, "Turn the planes around and give this guy due process." And then he they laughed at him. I mean, the president of El Salvador was tweeting, "Oopsy, we made a mistake." Like he was mocking the judge. And this is a judge who doesn't fool around.
▶ 5:05:21He's a stickler for the rule of law. And so he said,"I think there's probable cause to believe that the whoever in the administration disregarded my authority and didn't turn the planes around and didn't guarantee due process is in contempt of court." And he said, "And I'm going to get to the bottom of it. And I'm and I don't even need to rely on the marshals of um that you know report to the attorney general. I can appoint my own people to go get them.
▶ 5:05:49And I can also use civil contempt and slap fines and leans on people. So this whole provision is really targeted at him and other judges who are saying a judicial order is not something that anybody including the president of the United States or people who report to him can defy with impunity because under article six of the constitution we have a supreme constitution. We don't have a supreme dictator in America.
▶ 5:06:16The constitution is what governs us all and it's emphatically the province and the duty of the courts to say what the constitution. We I agree ranking member esque and I think you articulated it well and maybe my hypotheticals earlier were a bit too obtuse. I I'll give a a tangible example. There was a case a few years ago ranking member Rask and you probably familiar with this. Missouri versus Biden, right? This is a case chair Jordan. I know you're familiar with this case as well because you led an amicus brief in this case, right?
▶ 5:06:46This was a case initiated by the Missouri Attorney General against the Biden administration for their perception that the Biden administration was engaged in censorship of conservative voices on social media. And Chair Jordan, you led an amicus brief on behalf of judiciary Republicans in that case. A permanent injunction was issued in that case against the Biden administration. The state of Missouri was successful. Chair Jordan, do you know if a security was issued in that case? Don't know. It's up to the judge.
▶ 5:07:16It was not. There was no security in that case. It's up to the judge. Well, no. This is the point. There was no security in that case because under existing rules, it is not the case under rule 65 subsection C. Generally speaking, as a matter of just general practice, security is not issued or rather required in cases involving the government. And that is the point. If this provision became law, it could be required. The judge waves it. That's what happens. If this provision became law, two things would happen. Two things.
▶ 5:07:46One, the permanent injunction that I suspect remains in place in that case would no longer be enforceable. So, just for the record, you know, the the permanent injunction that you worked so hard to secure against the Biden administration, that's gone. You can't enforce it anymore because of this provision.
▶ 5:08:03And then secondly, as we've uh, you know, probably belabored here at this point, it would make it very difficult potentially for similar types of lawsuits to be initiated in the future by prospective plaintiffs against the federal government if they feel as though their constitutional rights are at risk. So anyway, I I will close there, but I think it's a deeply problematic provision. It ought to be I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Noose. Do you feel properly instructed now? Fine. I'm fine.
▶ 5:08:33You're properly instructed. Thank you. Mr. Griffith, do you have any questions or comments you'd like to make? Uh, yes, Madam Chair, I do. Um, First, I I want to respond to Mr. Nigus's question of why we started this meeting at 1:00 in the morning.
▶ 5:08:52And and I there may be different opinions, but I when the chair lady was out and I was sitting in the chair in our meeting on Monday, I said to members of the other side of the aisle, I don't remember who was in the room or not, but there were Democrats in the room. I said, "Look, reason we we want to start is that you all will have a lot to say.
▶ 5:09:14we want you to have time to say it in and and if we don't start early and we want to get done, we have to start early. And I said, "Now, if y'all want to put a restriction on the time, we could start later in the morning, perhaps." And and then there was there was no response directly to that, but there was a response that something along the lines of, "We're glad you're not going to try to limit our time as has happened in some other committees." Um, so I mean we we could have worked out
▶ 5:09:44a different time, but and and it's true that we have set the clock as to when we want to try to get this bill across if we have the votes to do so. And that's within the majority's prerogative, but the reason we're meeting at 1:00 a.m., Madam Chair, in my opinion, based on that discussion was the Democrats did not want to restrict themselves to two hours or three hours of discussion on this. We've already been at it over six hours.
▶ 5:10:11And that's appropriate, but it it it just strikes me as just one of those oddities in life. You complain that we start at 1:00 in the morning when what we're trying to do is to accommodate the ability for members of this committee on the other side of the aisle to speak their mind. And now hang on, I get to say my piece.
▶ 5:10:34If if that was not the case and if people were willing to say each panel is only going to have an hour, we could have started later. And that was not the case. And I and I respect that. But I just don't want to be whipsaw by saying we all started in the middle of the night for some other reason. The reason was so there'd be plenty of time so we can get through this thing. Let everybody have their chance to say their peace and then we can move forward. So that said, I will ask this question of Mr. Jordan.
▶ 5:11:04Uh, Mr. Jordan, is there anything that you didn't have an opportunity to say uh in the discussion that's occurred thus far that you had great desire to say? Well, I was just going to say I I think that the overall legislation is good legislation. Cuts taxes, secures the border, requires work, and gives moms and dads the ability to pick the school that they think their kids going to get the best educ. Those are four fundamental principles that I think vast majority of Americans agree with.
▶ 5:11:28I that's why I I think the bill is so good overall and I think what we were able to do in our committee particularly proud of and that the fact that we were charged with just spending allocating resources to keep the border secure uh but also were able to bring in revenue to help uh this that help offset the cost to secure uh to keep our border secure. All right, I thank the gentleman. I have no additional questions and yield back.
▶ 5:11:56If you'd yield just a moment to me, I I I was going to answer a bit ago. I I agree with what you were saying about why we started so early. Mr. Noose had said uh we'd be on the floor at between 11 and 12, I believe today. Uh and so starting at at 6 o' I mean at 1:00 am. And if hopefully we'll be on the floor by that time.
▶ 5:12:23So, we won't be passing bills in the dark of the night, but I want to quote President Obama saying there's a fierce urgency of now. Um, so it we're not the only ones that have felt a fierce urgency of now. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, I yield I yield my time back to you. Thank you. urgency.
▶ 5:12:43Yeah, Madam Chair, Madam Chair, I I just I just want to respond respond by by simply saying there's no urgency uh to pass this bill tomorrow or on Friday or I mean, we could easily do it when we come back. Um and so nice try by saying that it's our fault that we're meeting at 1:00 in the morning. I appreciate that. But you know what? Um this is important stuff. Um and it's going to impact a lot of our constituents, yours included.
▶ 5:13:14Um and this debate should happen in the light of day. Um and um and the fact that it isn't basically I believe is because you guys don't want people to know what is in this bill. Um so I thank the chair lady. I yield back. Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I really did appreciate uh when Representative Griffith sat on the chair because he did answer questions.
▶ 5:13:43He you know it was a lot of well we don't really know there's tweaks, right? He kept saying there's going to be tweaks in these bill and the tweaks haven't even started. But the reality is we could have started this at 7:00 in the morning and still had all day long to talk, right? still had all day long to explain to the American people what we are doing here where we could have maybe not forced every chair and ranking member to sit as though they're on a cheap airplane or something.
▶ 5:14:13Look at them. They can't even open their hands. They are crushed in here. There's no reason to be doing this in the dark of night. I've been calling it the vampire committee because it seems like they're going to just suck all the health care away from Americans in the middle of the night. I think it is a good thing that we are asking questions because it's over 1,100 pages and not everybody has seen it.
▶ 5:14:38And we still haven't seen the last pages that might blow a lot up. And so the American people do deserve to have this set at a time when we are not coming in in the dark. And yes, if we went, you know, I'm looking at chairman Westerman. It turns out our meet our hearing wasn't very long compared to the rest. But you started at a reasonable time and we kept going.
▶ 5:15:03The ad committee reasonably said there's a lot here and those they said it for two days. There is no reason we needed to come here at 1:00 a.m. except for that you want to push this through. You then passed a rule that Representative War had to walk out so he could not vote no, but you then rush everything. You want to get everything done in one day. You want to get everything done in one day.
▶ 5:15:31You're going to have the biggest transfer of wealth in American history and you're going to do it in one day. That's your goal. And I don't know if it's because you're worried that maybe some Republicans won't be here to vote. Well, if this is that important for them, they should show up and vote. They should be at this hearing, right? We know you have to step out. You know, we've been here since 1:00.
▶ 5:15:56Democrats have pretty much been here except for we step out and grab a little quick something to refill our coffee bottle. But Republicans aren't even showing up. Republicans aren't asking questions. They're not willing to defend what they're doing in this bill. That's a reality.
▶ 5:16:15But I wanted to, you know, I had thought I would follow up a little bit on the conversation uh with Chairman Jordan because I need to say, chairman, you know, last Congress I sat here and I saw you and ranking member Jerry Nadler like being in great I mean it was great. I felt like I was in an intern alternate reality. I told you it's like, "Oh my god, that's amazing." FISA. That was FISA. That was FISA. Yeah. It's it's coming back. We'll get to do that again.
▶ 5:16:45I'm working on Mr. Ras. Yeah. But what you were concerned about and what united you and the top Democrat on the committee was a belief in constitutional principles. Is that right? Yeah. I don't think the government should be spying on Americans. But but if you believe in that constitutional principle, shouldn't you believe in all of the constitutional principles? I I do. Yeah.
▶ 5:17:10Well, thank you because you actually even wrote a a Washington Post article about that and I'm going to quote it because it says we can balance this is your Washington Post article. We can balance First time I've had an op-ed in the Washington Post. You did write an op in Washington Post. I I'll send it to you.
▶ 5:17:30It was a Washington Post editorial and your words were, "We can balance the need to protect Americans fundamental constitutional rights with the need to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools to fight those who want to do us harm." You still agree with that? Yeah, I I I don't recall if you voted for our warrant requirement amendment last year.
▶ 5:17:53I hope you did, but you'll get a chance uh get a chance in 10 months to But this issue of believing in due process, I think means you need to believe in due process. You need to be believing our constitutional rights even when it's dealing with due process. And Chairman Jordan, is there anything in this bill that protects Americans due process? Nothing that harms American due process.
▶ 5:18:22Supreme Court harms Americans due process. Maybe I'll ask ranking member uh you know part of the problem of why we're so worried about due process right now is we have a president who is violating due process who is sending citizens deporting citizens with their children who have brain cancer. They are deporting that's not citizens.
▶ 5:18:46They are deporting they deported citizens They deported citizen children who needed medical care. They have said oops numerous times. And in fact, I'm I'm I'm sure Chairman Jordan, you know what the meaning of habius corpus is, don't you? Do you know the meaning of habius corpus? What is the meaning of habius corpus? Yeah. Release of the I mean, I think in technical release of the body. It's like you there's a process you can't just be detained.
▶ 5:19:14There's a process you have to be able to to access in order to be released. that that's it's critically important. But well well secretary you know the thing is secretary gnome thinks that habius corpus means you get to just deport people right that's that's what she testified ranking member uh what are some of the reasons why we should be concerned about due process in this moment and why it might have been a good thing to actually put some protections in this bill.
▶ 5:19:40Well, the the provision that we were just discussing about the court's authority to hold government officials in contempt is a provision that's all about due process, right? Because what's happening is you get judges like Judge Boseberg who says uh no, this person uh cannot be deported from the country uh without due process. The whole Supreme Court has now agreed with that.
▶ 5:20:05Justice Scalia, by the way, was a great champion of the idea that the due process liberty protected by the Constitution applies not just to citizens, but to non-citizens. It doesn't apply exactly the same way, but the rudimentary elements of it are there. What are the elements of due process? the right to see evidence against you, the right to aduce evidence on your own behalf, the right to be represented by counsel, the right to appear before a neutral factfinder who's going to impartially make a decision.
▶ 5:20:35That's all the Supreme Court is saying. And then the answer, you know, that that Donald Trump and his administration been making and unfortunately some of our very smart colleagues have followed along with this is, well, that guy's really MS-13. Well, maybe or maybe not. Maybe he's Proud Boys. Maybe he's Oathkeepers. who knows, bring the evidence against him. But the point is, you don't send somebody with no due process to a torturer's dungeon in El Salvador and then say things about him after he's gone. That's not how it works in America.
▶ 5:21:05And that's why Judge Boseberg, again, a very conservative judge, says, "Bring him back. You want to charge him with 50,000 crimes, charge him with 50,000 crimes. You want to deport him. Do it according to the law." And not the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 because we're not at war. Guess who decides whether the there's war? Congress decides. We declare war, not the president, right? And you can't fabricate an invasion of the country that doesn't exist. Consult with the Supreme Court about it.
▶ 5:21:32So, you know, I I I think that the role of the Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives in the Congress uh has got to be to uphold the rule of law and the framers really expected us to advance the rule of law even if the uh president was violating it. In fact, they expected us, especially in that case, to be defending the prerogatives of Congress. We've got the power to declare war.
▶ 5:21:59We've got the power to regulate commerce internationally, which means tariffs, right? I mean, President Trump invoked AIPA, which doesn't mention tariffs and has never been used for tariffs before, right? So, they're invoking a whole series of emergencies that usurp congressional lawmaking power and end up violating due process, right? So, I, you know, I agree with you. And when you have when you have a president or any leader just constantly saying there's an emergency, there's an emergency.
▶ 5:22:29uh when there isn't one, there's an invasion when there is not war and then saying we can do whatever we want and who doesn't even seem to know what the constitution is. The worry is that that is a march to fascism if we have if we aren't already there. Well, you've got it. I mean, the key trick of authoritarians is to invoke an emergency exception whether or not it actually exists in the constitution or not.
▶ 5:22:54And Carl Schmidt, who's, you know, a famous fascist theorist, wrote about that, that you want to try to occupy the space of emergency. So all bets are off. You can trample free speech. You can trample free assembly. You can trample due process rights.
▶ 5:23:09So much of what's taken place during this first 120 days is the people and those of us in Congress who are willing to stand up and those law firms and colleges and universities and newspapers willing to stand up defending the idea of the normal constitution and not that we're in some kind of emergency which allows the president to do whatever he wants. And we have a president who has used the Department of Justice to attack the free press, to attack education, to attack members of Congress.
▶ 5:23:39And what we are doing by asking the questions tonight by doing the amendments that Republicans keep voting down is saying no. We are saying no to the concept that you can do away with what Americans hold dearest. Every time we Where is our American flag? Well, there's one.
▶ 5:23:58where every time we pledge allegiance to the American flag, it's to the constitution and the rule of law that is represented there and people have lost their lives defending it and in judiciary they chairman Jory said we haven't deported any citizens but we know we have children who needed healthcare but just to make sure that won't happen again it's my understanding that there There was an amendment
▶ 5:24:29that would have prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement from using funds to detain and deport United States citizens. What was the vote on that amendment? Uh, Chairman Jordan, I would just point out there's nothing in existing law or this package that authorizes the deportation of US The Democrats amendment would have uh related to US citizen would prohibit homeland security investigations from arresting US citizens who engage in human
▶ 5:24:59trafficking, child exploitation or narcotic smuggling. Nothing in our bill, nothing in current law allows for the deportation of US citizens. The problem is that right now we have an administration who is doing that. So we wanted to protect the American citizens from such detention and deportation. And the question was what was the vote?
▶ 5:25:26And the vote was ranking member uh well I don't remember the exact numbers but it was a party line. It was a party line vote. that a single Republican was willing to vote to say citizens should not be detained and deported. So, uh I wanted to uh note that there is money in here for 46 billion dollars for a border wall.
▶ 5:25:56There's a whole lot more money for jails and many, you know, right now I think that there is a concern of the American public about issues of corruption that we are seeing billions and billions of dollars being funneled to private corporations, right? We're seeing a lot of stuff that is funneling money. They're getting rid of competition.
▶ 5:26:23They are saying that Musk's you know Starlink and other other companies get to get these contracts without competition and I you know I think I wanted to sort of turn to uh our homeland ranking member and say are there concerns about the number of private prisons that going to be constructed the num the amount of money that's going to go into this
▶ 5:26:53border wall. You know, I look at that and I think, God, how many kids could actually get a meal who are hungry now with 46.5 billion? But then there's this other aspect to it as well regarding potential corruption. Do you have any concerns about that, ranking member? Well, yeah, we do. But let me uh uh support uh ranking member Rascin.
▶ 5:27:21Uh we offered several uh amendments to the legislation relative to funds being used for deporting American citizens and said no funds in this uh bill can be used to deport American citizens. Well, we lost it on a partyline vote.
▶ 5:27:42But also the only thing we said was another amendment that our committee would prevent DHS from removing US citizens except for legal extradition and treaty obligations and it we lost it on a party line vote which basically we thought was a reaffirmation of what was already law.
▶ 5:28:07Uh so we tried hard uh to pre prevent American children from being deported who was sick. Secretary told us well her mama wanted to take her with her and but the lawyer wanted to represent based on what the father said.
▶ 5:28:30So there were a lot of of references uh about children with cancer uh being deported. And so we just think as a lot of people have said that as a nation of laws we have to stand uh on those principles. And it's not a person's guilt to innocence. It's the due process that everyone should go through regardless of status.
▶ 5:29:00Uh yeah, we've heard people say, "Well, they had a tattoo." I said, "Well, okay. If you going to charge that person for a tattoo, then present whatever evidence that this person has broken the law.
▶ 5:29:16Um you know, we have a secretary of defense with all kind of tattoos on him." M so this notion that you can just just do anything just because you don't like it is not who we are as Americans.
▶ 5:29:34And so uh I think part of what we tried to do uh was to reaffirm uh existing law and not leave it to interpretation based on what the president wants to do or what the secretary wants to do. We want to follow the law and in every instance we offered uh 30 odd amendments in support of that and we lost all of them on a party line vote. That's really sad.
▶ 5:30:04And I I want to something was said earlier about this is what the American people want. Um there was there have been lots of polls about that about what's happening with regards to this bill. And I would say I'm going to just quote the Kaiser Family Foundation poll that found that at least three quarters of the public opposed the key things we're doing in this bill and that is oppose the cutting of Medicaid 76%.
▶ 5:30:33The public doesn't want this bill. We now heard that this is going to affect 79% of the public opposed the cuts to Medicaid. What is really happening in this bill is an attack on working families and the education cuts, you know, that chairman Jordan rep, you know, mentioned education as well.
▶ 5:31:01We're going to deal that with in the next panel, but you know, those are going to be hard on folks. And you know this concept that uh my colleague from Colorado was going to about who is now having to pay the idea that Americans now have to pay to be able to access our courts. I think it's very problematic uh that we are turning on its head what we're doing.
▶ 5:31:30And uh I think that my I'm going to yield to my colleague because she wants to talk in this vein of it. Just with respect to that this provision that would limit the ability of the courts to enforce their provisions. I just wanted to request unanimous consent to enter into the record an article published in Just Security on May 19th by Professor Edwin Shimmerinsky. It's entitled a terrible idea and it provides a very thorough rundown on just how bad that provision is.
▶ 5:32:00Without objection. Thank you. And I would yield back to Michael. Thank you. Uh you know in in natural resources uh we also I think uh are limiting uh people's access to the courts. Uh and that is really problematic. Uh and and one of the reasons that I think it's incredibly problematic is I have a lot of tribes in my district. They sit as the ranking member on the subcommittee on Indian affairs.
▶ 5:32:28And we know that tribes uh much of the federal lands were once tribal lands uh and that the tribal lands are also subject to federal oversight. So that when we remove uh access to the court for a tribe, we are it's not like it's private property. It is federal land. and and rank, you know, Chairman Restman, I know you've been a great supporter of of tribal lands uh and and of tribes in general.
▶ 5:32:58We had that wonderful meeting in Oklahoma on on self-determination. Uh, I I guess I I don't understand why you would support removing tribal access to the courts when the federal government is going to be doing something that's on their land sometimes or that's on land where they have cultural resources and sacred sites.
▶ 5:33:23I really because I know how great you are usually on tribes and I you know I offered an amendment to make sure that tribes could get access to the courts and I believe you voted against it. Well, thank the gentle woman for her her flattery and madam chair. It is it's a new day in America, not just um metaphorically but literally. The the sun's been up for quite some time now. So, uh, for quite some time. Have we been in here? We can't tell.
▶ 5:33:54Uh, and it appears we'll be in here. Maybe when the sun sun goes down at the rate that things are going, but the reason you probably can't understand why I would want to deny tribes access to the courts is because I don't want to deny tribes access to the courts. And we talked about this in the in the markup that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs received no instruction from uh uh the the budget committees.
▶ 5:34:21So we didn't get into any tribal jurisdictions and uh you know again our focus was about energy and I know that there's talk about it was even mentioned energy prices going to the moon but it must be because they're going to start at Mars because under the Biden administration electricity prices went up 32%. uh gas prices in 2022 under Biden went over $5 a gallon.
▶ 5:34:52And and there's also this argument about um handouts to big oil companies. Well, you know, when oil companies profit the most is under administrations. Actually, an oil company set a I believe it was a world record for profits in 2022 and 2023. The most profits ever, $247 billion in profits. It wasn't Exxon. And it wasn't Philip 66 Kico or Shell or BP.
▶ 5:35:20It was a Ramco, the Saudi oil company that uh had world record profits under under the Biden administration. So, um there's a there's a lot of things that get said in these hearings, but not a lot of them are based on on fact. And uh again, I don't want to deny any any American citizen access to the courts. So, I'm I'm glad you mentioned profits because oil and gas companies, I think, was it $200 billion worth of profits.
▶ 5:35:49Uh, but we are going to be reducing royalties for oil and gas companies. Uh, because it's not enough that we're going to be giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. We are actually going to be giving money back to oil and gas companies who had uh 200 billion dollars worth of profits. But the when you limit judicial review for everybody, you are also limiting judicial review for tribes. Uh uh ranking member Huffman, do you want to uh explain how that happened?
▶ 5:36:20Well, I I thank you for the question and you're right. in the markup. We tried to fix this problem in the Republican bill with a number of amendments. And even though in provision after provision in this bill, uh they are going into policy, they are earmarking specific projects with billions of dollars. They are running roughshod over parliamentary rules in every possible way.
▶ 5:36:45And yet when it comes time to fixing their little problem with tribal access to the courts and judicial review, suddenly they were sticklers for the rules. So I think it comes as pretty cold comfort to Indian country that they're the ones that get targeted for this rigid interpretation of budget rules and parliamentary uh procedures uh while everything else is out the window when it comes to giving billions of dollars away to big oil and coal and to
▶ 5:37:15central valley irrigators in California for their$2 billion dollar dam and any number of other things. um it just does it doesn't hold up. So, but once again because they are curtailing judicial review, it applies to tribes on projects on tribal lands. Absolutely. There is no exception. What happened? There are no exceptions. If you write a big enough check, there is no check on your project and there's no exception for tribes.
▶ 5:37:43My god, people need to know that that what they said is basically if you give us a lot of money, you don't have we're going to fasttrack it and we you you can't question it. It's that is one of the things that's hidden in this bill. It's always like it's a it's a pay for pay for you can pay to get out of court. You know, you can pay to get out of court in this bill.
▶ 5:38:06Um and you know the the you know it's it's it it is very sad that For people who do want to come and and challenge, you now are charging a fee. Yes. This we've never seen this before. You have to pay per page.
▶ 5:38:24Now, if you are participating in the protest provision for one of these oil and gas lease sales, and this could be tribes, uh just to engage in the protest procedure, you now get hit with a fee. Um it's just remarkable. So, cutting royalties for oil and gas, giving away millions and millions of acres uh at fire sale prices to the industry, but if you want to protest any of it, you pay a fee.
▶ 5:38:53And by the way, no judicial review if it's a wealthy enough developer that they can pay the the special uh golden age of grift uh fee for permitting. Uh thank you for that. And uh I think with that I might want to go see that there actually is some sun out there because we're trying to bring light to what's actually happening for the American people so they can see some of these provisions.
▶ 5:39:20We don't have time uh because it's 1,100 pages long that they are ramming through in a single day and we haven't even seen all of the provisions. Uh but I am very grateful. I see so many of my colleagues here in the off and in the room. They are here because they have amendments to try to make the bill better. Hopefully, we'll consider some amendments.
▶ 5:39:43We haven't been doing that much lately, but it'll be good to hear what they are uh so that we can talk about uh the unique aspects of what could be fixed in this bill if we only had a a chance. And with that, is there anything else anybody wants? Um, any any other comments from I'm the last Democrat, so this is when you I don't know, Republicans might want to say something. Actually, I do have a question on this tattoo thing.
▶ 5:40:09I have and two of three of them have tattoos. How many of you guys have kids? It's all guys. Yeah. How many of you guys have kids? I got We got four kids and we got four kids and eight grandkids. How many of our kids have tattoos? None of mine. None of yours. Wow. Wow. That's really, you know, I thought it was good with two out of three. But, you know, our kids have tattoos, right? So many people have tattoos. You cannot go anywhere without seeing tattoos.
▶ 5:40:37So, the idea that we're using a tattoo as an indicator for you get kicked out of the United States without due process is really scary. Uh, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Miss Fishbach, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And there's so much I would love to unpack from the last 25 minutes, but I I recognize that we are um that we are trying to make sure that we limit our time.
▶ 5:41:07But I do want to just say first of all, the sun is up. It's a little overcast. So um if Miss Ledger Fernandez wants to see the sun, it's a little overcast. So yeah, little overcast. And and we are not and I just have to address the fact we are not ramming this bill through. Every one of these bills went through committee. They were put together in committee process. They've all been through budget.
▶ 5:41:32They've all been out there and and so ramming something through is, I think, an inappropriate way to discuss this bill. This has been through the process. Yes, we are sitting in committee and we are working this through and we are hearing testimony and allowing people to ask questions, but um I think it is a it's a um it's a disservice to the American people to say that this has been ramped through because it has been through various committees and with that I am going to yield back but I just wanted to make sure that
▶ 5:42:02someone said that this is not accurate. Thank you, Miss Fishbach, for saying that because even one of our colleagues said earlier these bills had been months in the making. And someone did need to say that and I appreciate very much what you're saying. I also sit on the agriculture committee and I should say on that committee they actually uh did we did not have a full and open process.
▶ 5:42:28They they cut debate off and they prevented dozens of dozens of amendments from even being offered. Um, and yes, we'll have the the ram ram through this is being rammed through uh because we don't we don't even know what the text of this bill is going to look like and there's going to be major changes and we're hearing about them bits and pieces in the news media. Um, and none of them have been vetted, but u Yeah, I I do because I know you're you're struggling for votes.
▶ 5:42:55So, um you're making all kinds of deals right now and they're going to hurt my constituents. So, I yield back. Um, I too will resist saying more. Uh, no no no sense in prolonging this. Uh, if Miss Hen, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just like to ask um Chairman Green, how long was your markup on your section of this bill?
▶ 5:43:26I think we started at 10:00 a.m. and ended like around 4 or 5, I think. 4 p.m. Yes. Uh, Chairman Jordan, how long was your markup on your section of the bill? Eight hours. And, uh, Chairman Westerman, uh, we started at 10:00 a.m., I believe, and at 12:42 a.m. So, um, or was it 1:42? It was a long time. Long time. several hours.
▶ 5:43:54Uh, and 12 to 14 hours, something like that. Chairman Graves, how long was your markup? So, uh, and were these markups Yes. Yes, they're televised. The whole the whole kitten kaboodleoodle. Our 206 hour and 28 minute hearing in energy and commerce was uh live on C-SPAN for the whole time. So, uh, the thought that this is being done, uh, in darkness is, um, absurd.
▶ 5:44:24I yield back. There are negotiations going on in the back room right now that none of us know anything about. So, please, let's not talk about an open process. Um, again, let me um let me resist. Okay. Anyone Anyone else have comments um that you want to make? Nope.
▶ 5:44:52Well, I thank our witnesses for being here this morning and uh appreciate the time and all of the comments that were made. And you're Just save your question. I don't even know again.
▶ 5:45:26that's fine. Okay, here.
▶ 5:49:59I now welcome our third panel, Chairman Thompson and Representative Craig from the Committee Agriculture, Chairman Wahberg and Representative Scott from the Committee on Education and Workforce, Chairman Guthrie and Representative Palone. from the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman Smith and Representative Moore from the Committee on Ways and Means.
▶ 5:50:28Your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Thompson, I welcome your testimony. Well, thank you, Chairman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come be before you today concerning the agriculture title of the one big beautiful bill.
▶ 5:50:51The agriculture committee was tasked with $230 billion in net deficit reduction and I'm proud of our product and proud to report that we exceeded our instruction. These savings are achieved through necessary changes to restore integrity to the SNAP program and preserve the program's ability to serve the most vulnerable long into the future.
▶ 5:51:12These reforms ensure SNAP works the way Congress intended it to by re reinforcing work, rooting out waste, and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach. This program is in dire need of reform. Just since 2019, SNAP costs have skyrocketed from 60 billion to 100 billion 110 billion dollars annually. That's an 83% increase.
▶ 5:51:40while enrollment has grown from 36 million to 42 million. And in 2023, over $13 billion in erroneous SNAP payments were sent out. This is disgraceful not only to the taxpayer, but also the SNAP recipient.
▶ 5:51:56The rules committee print includes several improvements to the SNAP program, including preventing future administrations from unilaterally increasing SNAP benefits beyond uh focusing on a core principle that everyone receiving the benefit that can work should work and modernizing the work requirement and closing loopholes that allow for widespread waiverss.
▶ 5:52:20Closing various loopholes that states exploit such as gaming the system to artificially increase SNAP benefits and increasing incentives to ensure states run the program more efficiently and more effectively. SNAP is the only federally funded state administered entitlement program where the state has zero skin in the game on the benefit. It is a human nature to be more careful with your own money than you are with others.
▶ 5:52:46That is why we put forward a cost share structure that requires all states to pay a minimal 5% cost share of SNAP the benefit beginning in fiscal year 2028. However, for states with high payment error rates that is over 6%, the cost share scales up. In exceeding our instruction, we also were able to make several vital and time-sensitive investments in rural America. It's imperative for Congress to rebuild the farm safety net.
▶ 5:53:16These investments mitigate further unbudgeted ad hoc spending and prevent a full-blown financial crisis in farm country that could devastate the food and egg supply chain. and quite frankly the the national economy. Finally, on the investment front, we take care of a few other important items like investments in trade promotion, animal disease preparedness, especially crops, dairy research, and some programs with outstanding baseline.
▶ 5:53:43In closing, I'm proud to deliver a historic amount of savings to the taxpayer and to do so in a way that will all may have positive outcomes for low-income individuals who get back into the workforce while also standing by our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. That's a win-win. I have a great respect for the chairwoman, the ranking member, and the members of the this committee, and thank you once again for the opportunity to come before you today. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
▶ 5:54:13Um, Miss C, Representative Craig, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern. You know, I had hoped that for my first appearance here before the rules committee, the chairman and I would be coming to you arm in-armm in support of a five-year 12 title bipartisan farm bill.
▶ 5:54:33Instead, we're here discussing the Agriculture Committee's contribution to a partisan bill that decimates the most successful anti-hunger program in our nation and destroys the coalition that has always been able to get a farm bill across the finish line. And why? Not for middle class tax cuts, but to move to the wealthiest Americans money from the least wealthy.
▶ 5:55:00In addition, this is expected to increase the national debt and deficits. This is a shameful process that we're involved in here today. And this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. How do I know? Because Senator Chuck Grassley told us so. It puts a huge burden on the states by forcing them to pay for anywhere from 5 to 25% of food assistance.
▶ 5:55:23Chair Fox, the governor of your state said, and I quote, "If Congress goes forward with these plans, our state will be forced into perilous budget decisions should North Carolinians lose access to food, or should we get rid of other essential services." End quote. North Carolina's on the hook for up to 700 million per year under this proposal. That's the equivalent of 8,900 public school teacher salaries in North Carolina.
▶ 5:55:53Republicans want states to do their dirty work and take food away from people. And it doesn't end there. This budget does something else incredibly egregious. It changes the definition of dependent from children under the age of 18 to children over the age of six. Once a kid turns seven years old, their parents could lose food assistance unless they meet new paperwork and work requirements.
▶ 5:56:20I wonder if the people who came up with that policy have children or understand that there are summer breaks and their spring break. I have several and let me tell you, they eat more as they grow, not less. It's truly beyond the pale what this budget would do to children in our country. And let's be clear about what we're talking about here. The average person receives $6 per day in food assistance. Let me say that again. $6 a day.
▶ 5:56:51No one chooses to sit at home and not work for $6 a day. $6 a day doesn't build you a life. It can though build you a bridge to the next paycheck, the next opportunity, the next moment of stability. CBO estimate estimates that the new work requirements, paperwork requirements alone will take food away from at least three million people. They didn't say that three million people will receive a little less food.
▶ 5:57:20They say three million people will receive no food assistance. So much for claiming that you won't cut benefits. Hunger is a policy choice. Republicans in this room are choosing to allow children to go to bed without dinner. Seniors skipping meals so they can afford their medicine. Parents sacrificing their own nutrition so their kids can eat.
▶ 5:57:43single mothers having to choose between leaving their seven-year-olds at home or to let them go more hungry. Everyone in this country is struggling with higher costs already. And instead of addressing that problem, Republicans are choosing to make it worse, and it's shameful. You claim you're rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse or holding the states accountable for high error rates.
▶ 5:58:07This bill does not tackle fraud and does not include any common sense policies that help improve program efficiency and for what? To fund tax breaks for large corporations and the superw wealthy. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, Miss Craig. Chairman Walder, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 5:58:35The student success and taxpayer savings plan saves nearly $350 billion dollar to help advance President Trump's agenda, the common sense agenda, and ensure taxpayers, students, and schools are better served. The current system is effectively broken and littered with incentives that push tuition costs uh upward.
▶ 5:58:59Schools have no reason to lower costs or ensure degrees align with employers needs, all while students and taxpayers pay the price. The Biden Harris administration compounded this crisis and attempted to spend an additional $1 trillion in taxpayer funds on so-called forgiveness by executive decree. Dumping more federal money into a broken system doesn't mean that system will work.
▶ 5:59:28In fact, government spending on higher education has reached record highs. Yet, millions of students supposedly benefiting from those funds will ultimately end up with a degree that doesn't pay off or fail to finish school. This bill not only saves taxpayers nearly $350 billion, but it also brings much needed reform in three key areas.
▶ 5:59:55simplified loan repayment, streamline student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers. The bill cleans up the Biden created repayment mess by streamlining repayment options and providing targeted assistance to struggling borrowers who need it rather than blanket bailouts for those who don't. These reforms will encourage responsible borrowing and timely repayment.
▶ 6:00:23Colleges have exploited the availability of uncapped federal lending and generous forgiveness programs to raise prices. Streamlining loan options as done in this bill will increase affordability for students and families as well as curtail the extent to which schools use taxpayer dollars to line their pocketbooks by loading students up with debt they can't repay.
▶ 6:00:51Most importantly, the bill ensures that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars no longer flow unchecked to low-value institutions and programs by holding colleges accountable for student outcomes through skin in the game.
▶ 6:01:07Colleges will be financially accountable for the loans they give out and schools that go above and beyond to provide highquality, affordable, and accessible uh education opportunities will be rewarded. What's more, through these reforms and others, the bill protects and strengthens the Pell Grant, the cornerstone of our financial aid system.
▶ 6:01:33The bill closes the funding shortfall that would otherwise result in students being unable to afford college as early as next year. Additionally, it expands student choice by allowing students to use PEL uh on highquality short-term credentials aligned with workforce needs. We're on a fiscally unsustainable path in higher education.
▶ 6:01:59Without change, we can't deliver on the promise of economic mobility for all Americans. So, I urge my colleagues to pass this big, beautiful bill, and I yel back. Thank you, Mr. Wahberg. Mr. Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madame Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. Um, I'm here to speak in opposition to the reconciliation plan.
▶ 6:02:25In fact, we're considering this in an overnight committee hearing that tells you all you need to know about how bad a bill it is. After reviewing the big bad billionaires bill, it's clear that the central theme is to make life harder for everybody but the wealthy. Just consider the numbers under the bill. 4 million students are estimated to have their PEL grants reduced or eliminated.
▶ 6:02:52Up to 18 million children are estimated to lose access to free school meals and over 13 million people are set to lose their health coverage. And what is the purpose of all of these cuts to give tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations. Uh but now as ranking member of the um committee on education and workforce, I want to focus on what this does to education. It's currently drafted.
▶ 6:03:21The bill will increase costs for students attending college. It'll increase students expenses or exposure to lowquality high um higher education programs which would then reduce the likelihood that it actually find a rewarding or successful career. We divert federal money into private schools and reduce the number of students who will be able to get free lunches. and then take all of those savings to pay for more tax cuts for wealthy and the well-connected.
▶ 6:03:51Under this plan, the Republicans will cut students access to PEL grants, drastically lowering the amount of and drastically lower the amount federal loans they can take out that will either deny them the opportunity to get a college degree or push students into unaffordable repayment plans and push them into the private highost private programs.
▶ 6:04:18As it under this bill, uh, loan payments will be less affordable. For example, single borrower making $45,000 a year will see the student loan payments just about triple. Under the save plan, which was President Biden's final plan, the borrower would have been paying about $41 a month. This bill will have them paying $150 a month. and making it more expensive to attend colleges isn't bad enough.
▶ 6:04:47The bill will also increase their exposure to lowquality programs. That's because the bill eliminates existing regulations that protect students from predatory lowquality for-profit programs. In addition to make it harder for low and middle inome people to afford college, the proposal will significantly impact public school meals program. For some students, the food served at school may be the only nutritious meal they receive that day.
▶ 6:05:17And when children are fed healthy, nutritious food, they not only um were more likely to show up at school, but their academic achievement increases. And yet, despite this, a new analysis from the Urban Institute estimates that up to 18.3 million children could lose access to free meals as a result of the cuts to the SNAP nutrition program. And this is just what the SNAP program does to the students.
▶ 6:05:45We've not received the complete analysis on what other parts of the bill do. Last week, ranking member Bole and I wrote to the speaker requesting specific data on the number of children and families that would lose access to free or reduced school lunches, critical wick services, and grocery benefits through the summer EBT program, all due to SNAP and Medicaid cuts in the Republican reconciliation plan.
▶ 6:06:12We haven't received a response, and we should receive a response before we have to actually vote on the bill. Finally, I'd like to point out that the bill includes language to fund privatization of public education. That would constitute the first nationwide federal voucher program, effective effectively diverting taxpayers money and resources into private schools away from public schools which will be serving 90% of the students.
▶ 6:06:43That tax credit program was drafted by the Ways and Means Committee, but the this committee has put in additional language uh that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Education and Workforce Committee, including language preventing federal, state, and local governments from adding oversight mechanisms or guard rails that could protect students. I'm disappointed that the education and workforce committee didn't have an opportunity to comment before that ended up in the bill.
▶ 6:07:13In summary, the so-called uh one big bad billionaires bill uh disproportionately helps the wealthy uh then has others paying for it um through losing health care, nutritious food, and access to college. And this is all to provide more tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. And to add insult to injury, Madam Chair, the deficit goes up.
▶ 6:07:43And we know how to reduce the deficit. In fact, every Democratic presidential administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited. And every Republican since Nixon has left a worse deficit for the Democrats that succeeded them than they inherited. We should reduce the deficit. We know how to do that.
▶ 6:08:07For those reasons, I oppose the bill and ask that we start from scratch and produce a bill that reduces the deficit, fiscally responsible, and addresses the needs of the American people. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Chairman Guthrie, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh, good morning, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern, thank you for holding this hearing and the Energent Commerce Committee.
▶ 6:08:35We had a marathon 26 and a half hour markup of our reconciliation instruction. It was a unique opportunity to consider issues spanning the full jurisdiction of our committee. We work through legislation that will unleash American energy in costly EV mandates and advance American innovation along with strengthening the Medicaid program for the most vulnerable Americans and improving their access to quality care. Our committee was asked with identifying 880 billion in savings and new and new revenue.
▶ 6:09:04And I'm proud to say we exceeded that goal. We've worked diligently to meet the target by ending wasteful Green New Deal style spending, supporting the rapid innovation of American industry and federal agencies, and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid that jeopardizes care for millions of women, children, people with disabilities, and elderly Americans.
▶ 6:09:24To ensure American energy dominance, we are securing our energy infrastructure by taking steps to refurbish and refill our strategic petroleum reserve, which strengthens our energy security and supports our national security. Further, we're taking steps to streamline the process for LG, exporting LG to our allies while promoting more American energy production through an increase in federal revenues.
▶ 6:09:47We are streamlining the sighting and per permitting of new pipelines to transport energy around the country, which is critical to meeting the energy demands and winning the AI battle with China. We are saving $172 billion over the next 10 years by repealing the burdensome Biden Harris administration regulations and over a hundred billion by eliminating the EV mandates imposed on the vehicle emission and cafe standards that have failed to serve American taxpayers.
▶ 6:10:15And through major investments to modernize the Department of Commerce, we will integrate AI systems and upgrade IT systems to make the department more secure and effective. To protect the integrity of this project, we are implementing guardrails that protect against state level AI laws that could jeopardize our techn technological leadership. Our legislation raises 88 billion of new revenue through a historic agreement reauthorizing the FCC Spectrum Authority while protecting US national security.
▶ 6:10:44Biden inflation has left Americans struggling to access affordable health care, making programs like Medicaid critical for the vulnerable Americans more who rely on them, making it more difficult. The issue has been exacerbated by the decisions of left-leaning state governments to spend taxpayer dollars on illegal immigrants.
▶ 6:11:03House Republicans make no apologies for prioritizing Americans in need over Americans in need over illegal immigrants and other able-bodied beneficiaries who are choosing not to work. Our priority remains the same. Strengthen and sustain Medicaid for the expectant mothers, children, people with disabilities, and the elderly.
▶ 6:11:22That is why our legislation stops billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program by beginning to close loopholes, ensuring states have the flexibility to remove ineligible recipients from their rows and removing beneficiaries who are enrolled in multiple states. These are all common sense policies that will save taxpayer dollars and refocus Medicaid on those who need it most. Medicaid was created to protect health care for Americans who otherwise cannot support themselves. But Democrats expanded the program far beyond the core mission.
▶ 6:11:51That's why we're establishing common sense work requirements for capable but unemployed adults without dependence. Let me be clear, these work requirements only apply to able-bodied adults without dependence who don't have a disqualifying condition like a disability or substance use disorder. Encouraging them to reenter the workforce and or give back to their communities and regain their independence. All of this part of our effort is to strengthen Medicaid for those who need it most.
▶ 6:12:19When President Trump delivered his second inaugural address, he promised a revolution of common sense that would launch a generation of growth, prosperity, and health. This reconcil reconciliation bill is critical to that promise the president and congressional Republicans made to the American people. And today, we're discussing a bill that unleashes American energy dominance, advances innovation, and protects access to care to our most vulnerable.
▶ 6:12:41When we were able to accomplish all of the outstanding developments for our constituents and extend the 27 Trump tax cuts, we'll have delivered a generational win for our constituents and I'm proud on the work to respspark the American dream and ensure our country will always have the opportunity. I yield back and look forward to answering questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Guthrie. Representative Palone, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to everyone here today.
▶ 6:13:09And I'm always happy to come before the House Rules Committee, but I have to say that convening a hearing at 1:00 a.m. in the dead of night when most Americans are asleep at home to pass a bill with catastrophic consequences for millions of Americans is wrong. And we should be debating this bill when the American people can follow along and when they're able to call the representative to voice their opinion about the legislation.
▶ 6:13:31At its core, this bill takes health care away from millions of Americans in order to give tax breaks to billionaires and corporate interests who I don't think need them. Uh it's a reverse Robin Hood scheme that takes from the poor in order to give handouts to those who really don't need them. And the bill makes a series of devastating cuts to clean energy, killing jobs and gutting our efforts to combat the worsening climate crisis.
▶ 6:13:54It auctions publicly owned spectrum and uses that money to give tax breaks to the rich rather than reinvesting that funding for the public good. And it includes a massive giveaway to big tech at the expense of Americans by basically prohibiting state and local laws to regulate artificial intelligence for 10 years. And I'm going to go through some of the provisions of the bill in a little more detail. But I did hear your uh your suggestion that we try to summarize. Madam Chair, Mr. Blone, it's 7:00.
▶ 6:14:24It's not 1:00 and nobody told you that. No, but you're right that that people now hopefully can listen, but they were not able to from 1:00 till now. So, with regard to healthcare, for months now, President Trump and congressional Republicans promised the American people that they would not cut Medicaid benefits or strip away people's healthcare.
▶ 6:14:45But just yesterday, President Trump told House Republicans behind closed doors, "Do not f with Medicaid." And then House Speaker Johnson promised we're not going to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Well, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released their latest accounting of this bill yesterday, and they found the bill that advanced out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last week will cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid and take healthc care away from 8.6 million people.
▶ 6:15:13And I should point out that these figures are a floor. They're not a ceiling. CBO expects these numbers will rise as additional changes are made to the bill. And then there's the changes the bill makes to the Affordable Care Act. When you add the Medicaid cuts to the ACA cuts, the total number of people expected to lose their healthcare under President Trump and Republicans watch is at least 13.7 million people based on the CBO estimates.
▶ 6:15:38Now, let me be clear that is not, you know, I some of you are saying this is a moderate bill, but it's not and it's, you know, focusing on waste, fraud, and abuse, but that's not true. I mean, Republicans are intentionally taking healthcare away from millions of Americans so they can give these tax breaks to the ultra rich. And Medicaid, as all of you know, is a life-saving program that 80 million Americans count on every day. It provides health care to one in three Americans and nearly half of all children in the United States.
▶ 6:16:06It covers close to half of all births and it's the largest source of funding for long-term care for seniors and people living with disabilities. But with this bill, Republicans are intentionally taking healthc care away from millions of Americans. I'm going to keep stressing that. They're putting all sorts of burdensome and time-consuming roadblocks in the way of people just trying to get by all so they can kick them off their health coverage. And if someone loses their coverage through Medicaid, the bill bans them from getting coverage through the ACA marketplace with any kind of subsidy.
▶ 6:16:36And this is just one way this bill essentially repeals the ACA for most people and makes it more difficult for people to get health coverage. And Republicans are making it more difficult for states to finance their share of Medicaid costs by preventing them from implementing new provider taxes. This will be catastrophic for states as their healthcare needs change over times. The cuts will not just impact people who count on Medicaid. Hospitals, particularly those in un underserved and rural communities, are going to close. They've been telling you that.
▶ 6:17:05Nursing homes will close and seniors will lose the care that they rely on. Emergency rooms will once again be overflowing as people are forced to delay care until its life or death. Now, for decades, Democrats have been working relentlessly to make quality healthcare more accessible and affordable. It's worked. Thanks to our efforts, the number of uninsured Americans reached historic lows. But that's now all at risk as Trump and congressional Republicans looked to strip health care away from almost 14 million people.
▶ 6:17:35When we pass the inflation reduction act three years ago, Congress took a massive step towards lowering energy bills for American families. However, that progress could all be reversed by this bill. And this bill, if it passes, will wipe out all of that progress by rescending programs that are lowering energy costs and helping to build clean energy manufacturing here in America. Also, Republicans can again give tax breaks to bill to billionaires.
▶ 6:18:01And not content to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, this bill will go even further by creating a mockery of our environmental laws. It allows big oil and gas to simply bribe government agencies to acquire permits free of scrutiny. It sets up a pay-to-play scheme for fossil energy permitting that allows polluters to pay $10 million to the Trump administration to obtain pipeline permits and ignore environmental laws while clean energy gets left behind.
▶ 6:18:27It's essentially a complete dismantling of our energy permitting infrastructure in the country. Vital protections for the public interest, clean water and clean air would all be completely set aside. States would lose any say in energy infrastructure within their borders and courts would not be able to address any further violations of our weakened laws. Now, briefly on the environment, the bill is also a disaster for the environment. It would gut critical environmental protections and programs harming the health and welfare of all Americans.
▶ 6:18:55It both repeals and rescends unobligated funds for every single Environmental Protection Agency program included in the Inflation Reduction Act. It would also repeal clean vehicle standards, jeopardizing air quality and domestic manufacturing, giving a leg up to the fossil fuel industry. When Congress passed the IRA, Democrats made a critical and historic down payment towards a stable climate and a clean future for all.
▶ 6:19:19But this bill proposes to throw that all away by eliminating the environmental protections that keep families and communities safe while doing nothing to lower energy costs all in the service of providing these tax breaks for billionaires. Now, lastly, Madam Chair, I want to talk about artificial intelligence. The bill will also impose a 10-year ban on states ability to enforce their own laws protecting consumers from harms caused by artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems. So, let me be clear. This is an unprecedented giveaway to big tech.
▶ 6:19:50The 10-year enforcement ban will allow big tech to run rough shot over American consumers, including our children and teens, whose lives are increasingly intertwined with AI models and automated decision-making systems. Last Congress, at the request of big tech, the Republican leadership refused to move a bipartisan comprehensive privacy bill that would have provided important guard rails on the use of consumers personal information by AI systems. It was an unfortunate giveaway to big tech at the American public's expense.
▶ 6:20:20By contrast, states across the country have been working hard to protect their residents from harmful uses of AI. They've enacted laws that protect consumers privacy, prohibit the use of AI to commit financial fraud and to steal elections, prohibit algorithmic bias in housing and credit, prohibit harmful uses of facial recognition technology, and protect consumers from AI systems that put their mental health and physical safety at risk. Now, Congress, in my opinion, should be learning from the work done by the states.
▶ 6:20:51We should be working to enact federal laws that protect consumers from the negative consequences of poorly understood AI models and badly designed automated decision-making systems. But instead, House Republicans are leaving American consumers and especially our children at the mercy of big tech and their powerful and invasive algorithms. In this polic, if this policy becomes law, states will be powerless to respond to harmful uses of AI and automated decision-making systems for the next decade.
▶ 6:21:18And that includes threats we know exist today as well as any threats we can't currently imagine that arise over the next 10 years. So it's just a reckless policy giveaway to big tech that puts all of us especially our children at risk for years to come. I forgot I did have to also mention spectrum. And finally the bill reauthorizes the spectrum auction authority of the Federal Communications Commission and requires the agency to auction additional 5G spectrum for a savings of at least $88 billion.
▶ 6:21:47Now, historically, auctioning spectrum has been a bipartisan effort, and we've used that money to reinvest in the public good. However, under this bill, Republicans are tunneling the money to tax breaks for the rich instead of directing the savings to fund grants like next generation 911 or to make high-speed internet more affordable for American families. And that's again a gross abuse of spectrum auction funds. And it's a perfect example of what's at the core of this bill, selling out the American people to give hands out to the rich.
▶ 6:22:17So, Madam Chair, I just have to say this is a bad bill. It takes away basic needs like health care and food assistance from some of the poorest Americans in order to give these tax breaks to the richest. And we don't need to take from the poor in order for the rich to have more than they already have. Republicans should abandon this effort, work with Democrats on a bipartisan basis to pace pass a fair tax bill that lowers costs for the middle class and ensures the wealthy and corporate interests pay the fair share.
▶ 6:22:45And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Palone. Chairman Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair F Chair Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, every um member of the committee. It's uh it's a great opportunity to testify on the historic tax relief for working families, farmers, and small businesses included in the one big, beautiful bill.
▶ 6:23:13This legislation makes the successful 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, and it delivers on President Trump's priorities of no tax on tips, no tax on overtime pay, no tax on autoloan interest of autos produced in the United States, and tax relief for seniors.
▶ 6:23:34Families and workers will benefit from additional tax relief with with an expanded standard deduction and a larger child tax credit as well as receive help with the high cost of adoption, education, child care, and healthcare.
▶ 6:23:54Main Street will benefit from a permanent small business deduction that has been expanded to 23%, helping small businesses grow, hire, and compete with corporations. 2 million family farms and millions more familyowned small businesses will benefit from a death tax exemption that is permanent, larger, and also indexed to inflation.
▶ 6:24:23This bill will also help revive American manufacturing, renewed R&D, amortization, immediate expensing, and interest deductibility combined with the new 100% immediate expensing for construction of new manufacturing plants. It will help turn America into a manufacturing powerhouse again and lower taxes for those who build it right here in America.
▶ 6:24:52Opportunity zones will ensure distressed communities, particularly in rural areas share in this surge of new investment and jobs. Workingclass Americans voted for President Trump because he puts their interest over elite special interest. Wealthy universities will pay an endowment tax as high as the corporate tax rate.
▶ 6:25:18Bad Biden era tax policy that rewarded the wealthy, the big banks, and China with tax breaks and giveaways will be replaced with good tax policy that benefits working families and small businesses. Illegal immigrants will no longer be eligible for refundable tax credits. Foreign countries will no longer be able to steal American tax revenue.
▶ 6:25:47The result will be economic prosperity for workers and families like the boom times of President Trump's first term. Take-home pay for the typical family with two children will increase by as much as $13,300. Annual real wages for workers will rise by as much as $11,600.
▶ 6:26:13Progrowth tax policy will save up to 7 million jobs, while the permanent and expanded small business deduction will add 1 million new jobs each year and expand small business economic output by trillion.
▶ 6:26:33and Ways and Means was able to deliver progrowth, proworker tax cuts below the committee's reconciliation instruction of $4 trillion. I suspect Democrats will make the false claim that this bill rewards the rich at the expense of the poor. But that tired talking point was wrong following the enactment of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. And it is definitely wrong.
▶ 6:27:03Under this bill today, people who make over $1 million annually will pay a greater share of the tax burden than they currently do. Households earning less $100,000 get a 13% tax cut. If you make less than $100,000, you get a 13% tax cut.
▶ 6:27:30Not only do we stop a looming $1,700 tax increase on the average American family, if these tax provisions expire, we actually deliver that same family an additional $1300 tax cut compared to what they pay today. The winners of this bill are the working class, farmers, waitresses, linemen, and nurses.
▶ 6:28:00My focus has been on delivering for America's working class because I'm a product of the working class. I grew up in a single wide trailer in a small town of less than 5,000 people. And this bill delivers for families like mine who have fallen further behind for decades. Failure is not an option in getting this done. The one big beautiful bill to President Trump's desk.
▶ 6:28:30Otherwise, every single American will face on average a 22% tax increase. Nearly 30 million small businesses will lose the small business deduction and pay a tax rate above 43.4%. American manufacturing would compete with one arm tied behind its back against competitors like China.
▶ 6:28:57Families would have to sell the farm just to pay the IRS. Congress must Congress must deliver on the priorities expected by the 77 the 77 million Americans who voted for an America where workers and families will thrive again.
▶ 6:29:22Main Street and rural towns will grow again and America wins again. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your Thank you very much, Mr. Smith, Miss Moore, Representative Moore, your Good morning, Madame Chair, my uh classmate. I count it all joy to be here with members of the uh rules committee, uh ranking member McGovern and others.
▶ 6:29:50and I uh count it all joy to be able to testify on the behalf of the Ways and Means Committee uh and uh and of my constituents and all those who are the least lost and left behind in America. I want to talk about the tax provisions of a so-called one big beautiful bill act. I really can't argue with the president over the fact that this bill is big. Uh it's a thousand pages of a big bonanza for billionaires.
▶ 6:30:19I know that uh we have been accused of um of uh characterizing this as a bonanza for billionaires. Uh and the numbers will bear that out. I know uh Madam Chair, you're fond of factchecking stuff. So, I hope that you will do that uh on behalf of the American public when it comes to talking about how uh those folks uh under $100,000 are going to experience such a great growth in wealth and and income.
▶ 6:30:48Um you know, I I I you know, you've heard a lot about work requirements and and and how that that's going to generate all these savings. You heard about how these lazy little boys that are in the basement playing video games and saying to mom, "Bring down some more potato chips are going to um that's going to cost $800 billion dollar in savings. How many of these boys do we have?
▶ 6:31:16Are there that many video games?" I would have to ask. You know, we're we're we we're talk about how we're just going to route out waste feud um fraud and abuse and that's somehow going to generate over a trillion dollars in savings. I'm asking you, you know, even those of you who are not that good in math to try to figure this out with me.
▶ 6:31:40You know, let's begin the analysis of this bill, not with all the numbers that we're all going to be throwing around here this morning, but let's just begin this analysis with a moral question. Should children go hungry or be left to suffer or die from treatable diseases?
▶ 6:32:04And if your answer to that, anybody, if your answer is no, then just sort of reason backwards from that uh precipice and and see if the justification of this bill sort of unravels.
▶ 6:32:19You know, we have I'm so happy to be the last person to speak on this panel because we have heard from our colleagues and on other committees about the harms that this bill is going to do to millions and millions of our constituents, fellow Americans. We're going to cut 230 billion dollars out of SNAP.
▶ 6:32:43We're going to kick 13.7 million people off their health We're going to trigger a half trillion dollar in cuts from Medicare, those of us who are protecting seniors here on this panel. We're going to reduce educational opportunity for American children who are least least able.
▶ 6:33:10They there are people who kids who just might not be chosen. I was one of those kids. I wasn't chosen and I didn't have any choice. And this is who we're going to take money from. We're sitting here bragging about so-called savings. And what are we going to do with these savings? What are we going to do with the savings? Are we going to take these savings and reduce debt? Nope. We're not going to do that.
▶ 6:33:38These tax cuts are so massive that we don't have enough kids to starve. We don't have enough people to deny care. So, we're just going to ask Americans to finance tax cuts for billionaires on the national debt on the credit card. I just paid off a credit card. I mean, I was so relieved. It was the first night sleep I had in a long time.
▶ 6:34:08And we have people here. I know my good friend, the chairman of our committee, does not like debt. Well, he used to not like debt, but he kind of likes debt today. The JCT scored this bill at $3.8 trillion. $3.8 trillion. But that's not even the real score. Why not? Because of all the budget gimmicks in there.
▶ 6:34:38You know, they've got all kind of budget tricks in this billionaire bonanza bill, like cutting the budget window after 9 years and making dozens of provisions that benefit regular Americans temporary to get them through the 2026 cycle, to get them through Trump's tenure as president, assuming that he won't get a third term.
▶ 6:35:07um otherwise you're going to have to do something else. But that being the case, I mean, it is so cynical to tell people you're going to get we're going to just we're going to give these to you. We're going to we're going to have permanent tax cuts for wealthy people, but we're going to make this temporary, just long enough to trick you into believing that it helps.
▶ 6:35:33So, what is the cost of this bill after we strip away all the gimmicks? It's going to be not including the the interest on the debt. It's going to be at least $5 trillion. So, my twist on Mark Twain's statement, there are lies, damn lies, and then there's trickle down economics. You know what we've heard?
▶ 6:36:01At least I'm 74 years old and I swear to God I can remember when the talk of the trickle started and it hasn't trickled yet and this bill is not going to start to trickle. The so-called fiscal hawks will try to make you believe that this country club urban legend that that that tax cuts pay for themselves. It has never worked.
▶ 6:36:28But it it just has not stopped the talking point. That's what it is. And that they claim that this bill will generate $2.6 trillion of revenue from economic growth. There is not one produce them. Fact check this. Madam Chair, where is the economist who will back up those numbers? Where they at? They ain't here.
▶ 6:36:54deficits aside, this bill is ugly, ugly as we say, because it is ultimately a betrayal of the contract that we have made with the American people and especially to our babies and our working people. You know, it's it's a talk. It's a union hall, you know, working man's bill, but it is all for the millionaires billionaires.
▶ 6:37:23the so-called no tax on tips. That's just that's a that's a distraction from the windfall that they're giving to the richest people in the country. Let's just put the facts out. Let's talk some numbers. I've been just hollering and hooping. Let's put some numbers. Fact check this, Madam Chair. People who make over $1 million for a year on average get a tax cut of $81,500 under this bill. Fact check this, Madam Chair.
▶ 6:37:51People who make under $50,000 per year on average get a tax $265. That means a person who makes over a million dollar per year on average gets $310 times what a person making under $50,000 gets. Now, this notion that if we don't pass this one big beautiful bill that taxes are going to go up for everybody.
▶ 6:38:21This is a choice. Tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires is not tethered to our doing something for regular people. Y'all chose to do It's perfectly possible to draft tax legislation in a way that doesn't provide the most fortunate among us with windfall, but y'all chose to do it.
▶ 6:38:51Now, in the ways and means markup, we stayed up all night. And I I do empathize with you, Madam Chair, for having to stay up all night cuz we stayed up all night. And I see some of my colleagues are still here stand up all night again. We offer 33 amendments. 33 to keep the wealthiest from getting the benefit, most of the benefit from this tax cut.
▶ 6:39:18So, we suggested that, you know, we there shouldn't be any tax cuts for individuals making over $400,000 a year. Republicans voted no. We suggested that, you know, if they make $10 million, we shouldn't give them a tax cut. Republicans voted no. We said, "How about how about a hundred million dollars?" Republicans voted no. We said, "A billion dollars." They voted no. You know how voted. No one.
▶ 6:39:47No one was just too rich for this tax cut in the world view of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Ways and Means Committee. Now, if that wasn't bad enough, the JCT numbers show that this bill is even worse for people on the bottom rung.
▶ 6:40:091929 2029 sorry according to JCT numbers after the temporary tax cuts for people making under $30,000 for a year on an aggregate they're going to as a group they're going to be paying $5 billion more in taxes. That's That's a big tax cut, Madam Chair. Fact. Check that.
▶ 6:40:40Now, imagine that, Madam Chair. There's so many ugly things in this bill, in this thousand pages of this big, beautiful bill. My five minutes could not possibly do them justice, making it easier. I couldn't believe it when I saw this, Mr. Chairman. Madam Chairman, uh uh I I I couldn't believe it when they proposed to take away the taxes uh on silencers for guns.
▶ 6:41:10Uh what, Madam Chair? Why? There's a $200 tax on buying silencers for guns and and then we're going to kick two million children off the child tax credit. You know, they brag about doubling the child tax credit, but Madam Chair, the poorest, the neediest, the most vulnerable children get nothing.
▶ 6:41:37Nothing unless their parents earn money, you know. And what I say is that, well, why don't we just make the kids go to work? Just cut to the chase. Tell kids, y'all got to start working. Maybe cut some of them school hours and go work as the shampoo girl so that your mama can get a can get um money to do what we know did. We cut poverty in half.
▶ 6:42:05When we expanded the child tax credit to include the most the poorest the 17 million kids that this bill doesn't cover. So at the end of the day, the main thing, let's keep the main thing the main thing that this legislation before us will make Americans more in debt, will make them hungrier, will make them sicker, will make them more ignorant.
▶ 6:42:34They'll be falling behind other nations, we'll be upending national security. all to lavish more and more and more and more on the luckiest and wealthiest among us.
▶ 6:42:49And Madam Chair, I am so and I just want to point out to y'all, full disclosure, I'm woke and I yield back. Well, Miss Moore, I think that applause indicates a performance um having been uh brought to the uh rules committee this morning.
▶ 6:43:18I do have a lot of fact checks, but as I've done a couple of times this morning, I am going to resist, but I'm sure you will. But I'm I'm going to um going to wind up entering some things into the record that were said about the TCGA TCJA when it was passed to show that the same kinds of things are being said now and they're going they're
▶ 6:43:48wrong and they're going to be proven wrong just like the things said in 2017. M madam chair, could I can I just make an an intervention? We're not talking about the 2017 tax cutting. I wasn't here then. This is the bill that I have gone through and what I have said, you can fact check what I said. Uh and and I people going to be hungry and and and losing health care. Let's talk about this bill.
▶ 6:44:17I don't want to talk about that bill because I Let me talk about this bill. Okay. Talk about it. M Chairman Smith, you chair. You can do whatever you want. Smith, our friends on the other side of the aisle continue to assert that the extension of the 2017 tax cuts places an additional burden on our workingclass families and benefits only billionaires and special interests.
▶ 6:44:47However, isn't it true that President Trump's tax cuts increased American famil family's income and were a boon to the working class and that the bottom 20% of earners saw their federal tax rate fall to its lowest level in 40 years while the top 10% of earners now pay over 75% of all income taxes.
▶ 6:45:16And as a result of the Trump tax cuts, the 1% paid more income taxes than ever before. Can you check my facts? Your facts your facts are 100% accurate.
▶ 6:45:31I think it's important to note not note um Chair Fox if you listen to um the the counterparts that you just heard um if you use their statements it actually proves that our tax bill is cutting taxes for working class.
▶ 6:45:50Um my good friend from um uh from the Ways and Means Committee said that in 2029 um $5 billion in tax increases on people because of the expiring provisions. For in order to those to be increased, that means they had to be cut. And that's what we're doing here. We are cutting $5 billion for those tipped employees, those Uber drivers, those um linemen who work overtime. and it's for four years.
▶ 6:46:20I hope it's much longer. But you know what? Don't say that it's increasing five billion, but you're not giving us credit for the five billion tax cut that we're doing right now. And I also want to point out, Chair Fox, back in 2017 and those Trump tax cuts, the 17 million children that Miss Moore was talking about that are being left behind. Yeah. they're going to be left behind by the Democrats when they vote no on this bill because that would mean a refundability would go from $1,700 to a,000.
▶ 6:46:51So every one of those 17 million children would lose $700 pulled out because the Democrats voted So in effect the sh and the share shares of those who foot the tax burden got more progressive in the 2017 bill and will get that way and will be this that way again with this bill. Correct. That's correct.
▶ 6:47:19And last despite all of the rhetoric and I have to tell you it is it really qualifies as rhetoric. Again, performance, I think, is a better term for it. The Democrats could have raised the tax income bracket when they were in control and passed their reconciliation efforts because the tax cut expiration was in the 10year window. Isn't that correct?
▶ 6:47:47It's absolutely And they failed to do so. Again, they have a credibility problem here. We hear all the time from Democrats about what we're doing, but never taking responsibility for what they could have done when they had the majority in House Senate as recently as six months a presidency
▶ 6:48:18as recently as six months ago. Correct. Um, excuse me. ago they didn't have the majority three years ago, excuse me, two and a half years ago they had that majority. They absolutely had all three branches of government. Two and a half years ago, they had all three branches of government and they could have done that then, but they did not. Thank you again, Chairman Smith. Mr. McGovern, I'm recognizing you.
▶ 6:48:49Oh, okay. Um, so first of all, um, let's be clear. Um, I think Democrats are willing to work with Republicans on helping middle class families with tax relief. Um, and helping those in the lower income brackets get into the middle class. That's that's never been a question. Um, we don't have any problem with that. Happy to happy to work with you on something like that. But we're talking about this reconciliation bill.
▶ 6:49:15Um uh and um CBO uh just did an analysis which basically and I said this earlier, I'll repeat it again. It shows how your bill would impact the bottom 10% and the top 10%. And as you see on this graph here, the bottom 10% are going to be worse off. Uh and the top 10% are going to be much better off.
▶ 6:49:37And one of the reasons why is because in this beautiful bill that you think is so beautiful, uh there are cuts to SNAP that amount to $230 billion. Cuts to Medicaid uh that amount to um $880 billion. Uh and so basically, I mean, I'm trying to put this politely, but middle class families, those struggling to get in the middle class are going to be screwed if this becomes law. Um, and we went over this earlier, you know, with the latest version of this bill.
▶ 6:50:07Uh, the top 0.1% stands to $255,000 on average in 2027 alone. That's $700 a day. Um, uh, people who make over a million dollars a year will also get their pockets lined. On average, these millionaires will have an additional $81,500 per year. Uh for those earning less than $50,000, as Miss Moore pointed out, the average benefit is $265.
▶ 6:50:36That's less than $1 a day. So that is what our problem is with your reconciliation bill. The people that we think we that we get elected to try to fight for um are going to be hurt the most uh in this reconciliation bill.
▶ 6:50:52And let me also just say, I mean, I um I I I kind of hope that we would get to a where Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives would all agree on some fundamental fundamental basic principles. One is that, you know, everybody should have healthcare. Two is that nobody should go hungry in this country. I mean, we live in the richest country in the history of the world. We have 46 million Americans who are food insecure are hungry. I don't know about you, I'm ashamed of that.
▶ 6:51:23And as I said, because I'm also on the agriculture committee during the debate, um is that hunger is a political condition. Uh we we have the money uh to end hunger. We have the infrastructure. We we we we know what to do. We lack the political will. We have the political will to give billionaires tax cuts, but we don't have the political will to end hunger in this country.
▶ 6:51:45In fact, what is particularly gling is that this bill um takes from those with the least and gives to those with the most. I said this uh in the agriculture committee, you guys uh you guys make Marie Antuinette look down to earth. Um I mean this is like crazy. I can't believe that you are you're you're doing this.
▶ 6:52:06I mean I and I um you know I I again as someone who's on the egg committee and the chairman heard me and the ranking member heard me u speak at at length about this but I I find it unconscionable. I find it unconscionable and immoral that we're here debating a bill that's going to will take food away from kids. I mean this bill will do that. Uh you all the denials won't change the fact that this bill will hurt these people.
▶ 6:52:35It will take food off the table of families of seven, eight, nine year old kids in your communities. It'll mean more kids go to school hungry. More kids get kicked off their their free school meals. More k kids will suffer chronic illnesses because they don't have access to good nutrition. By the way, there's a cost to being indifferent about those who are food insecure in this country.
▶ 6:52:58Um and because of this bill, you know, more and more people are not going to go without health care, they're going to go without food. Um and for most of last week's hearing, um in the ad committee, and you know, uh most Republican, this is the thing that really bothers me, most Republicans on the agriculture committee couldn't even bother to show up during the debate. I mean, I made a comment uh I think that almost got my words taken down.
▶ 6:53:25I said, but I said, 'Look, I mean, we're all arguing about work requirements for people who are poor, you know, how about how about some work requirements for members of Congress that should show up to these committee hearings um and pay attention to the witnesses and offer amendments um and to actually be engaged? I mean, most of them came in for five minutes and then left. Well, guess what? I sat there for virtually all of the 13 hours. I've I've heard firsthand how much this bill is going to screw over kids and seniors and working families and so many other people.
▶ 6:53:56People who voted for Republicans and who I who I think now are going to feel betrayed by Republicans. They're going to lose their food assistance. Now, I don't know why you got I don't know why, you know, so many people didn't show up, but I I think it's because many of you know how deeply unpopular what you're trying to do here is among the American people. Um, and since you guys don't want to talk about it, I'm I'm just going to talk a little bit about it.
▶ 6:54:20Your bill cuts SNAP, a program that provides kids, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities with on average of about two bucks per meal to afford food. You're going to cut it by over $313 billion. You know, when the chairman of the budget committee was here a month and a half ago um advocating these cuts um in food assistance, I asked him a simple question. I said, "What is the average SNAP benefit?" He had no idea. He had no idea.
▶ 6:54:47He didn't know it was $2 per person per meal or $6 a day. And yet was advocating these huge cuts. But that means you're gutting onethird of the entire program. That is the biggest cut in history. And you know, your bill takes food away from families with kids if their single parent is struggling to find a job or can't access child care.
▶ 6:55:12Your bill forces older adults up to age 65, many who who have limited educations and dismal job prospects off of benefits in three months. I mean, who's hiring a 64 year old who was recently laid off? I mean, do you really think that you can change careers at 64? It's not easy. Some people can. It's not easy. Your bill prevents future increases to to benefit calculations, meaning families will have less money for food in the future as costs rise.
▶ 6:55:41I mean, really, this is $2 per person per meal. That that that's what it is. And your bill bill threatens food benefits for 16 million children, 8 million seniors, and 4 million people with disabilities by shifting the cost of benefits onto states whose budgets cannot support the hundreds of millions of dollars that have to put up every year to maintain benefits for these individuals. Chairman Thompson, I I want to ask you a pretty simple question.
▶ 6:56:09This bill, the bill that you wrote, takes benefits away from families with kids as young as seven years old if their parent loses a job and cannot find another job. So, let's say you're a single dad with a college degree. You live in a small rural town. There may not be a lot of jobs available. You only have a you have a college degree, but millions of single uh dads in this country are in this position. And let's say you get laid off from your job with no notice, no warning. Let's say it's March.
▶ 6:56:39So, you now got 90 days to get a new job or you lose your portion of the SNAP benefits, which means less food in the fridge for you and your family. So, yes or no, Mr. Chairman, do do you think it's right for the government to punish those kids because mom or dad uh can't get a job locked down in 90 days? And let me just also add, the majority of able-bodied people who are on the benefit actually work. They actually work. They earn so little they need the benefit.
▶ 6:57:07But I asked the question, I mean, do you think that that is an okay thing to have happen? Well, M. McGovern, being on the agriculture committee as long as you have, I think really felt like you'd have a great grasp on the the entirety of the nutrition title of the farm bill. um states have had and will have waiverss in those situations so that uh um that they can exercise uh when you got a single parent like you said there's there's not two parents there.
▶ 6:57:37Obviously there's provisions if one if there are two parents one parent would it would apply the other parent it would not apply to in terms of any kind of work volunteer or education opportunities which we pay for.
▶ 6:57:51And um and there was also uh um I mean there's a deduction from SNAP income uh income for SNAP eligibility for uncapped amount of child care expenses which includes child care and then we have federal government also funds subsidized child care through the child care and development block grant not to mention the child tax credit and the child and dependent care tax credit.
▶ 6:58:16So absolutely there's u no there should not be a loss of access to supplemental nutrition. Uh we uh I know that one of the things that talked about was CBO uh made the comment about three million people I believe that were coming off of of uh off of SNAP.
▶ 6:58:38Um well those are individuals who choose not they choose not to engage in work volunteer time or education or a big part of that of and you're right it's not half though yet at the most it's 27% of folks on SNAP are working but they some of those folks are coming off because they've worked their way off which is the American dream. They no longer are living in poverty.
▶ 6:59:02I'm going to yield to that's kind of a word salad, but the bottom line is if if that single parent can't find I've heard word salad, they lose their benefits. It's that simple. I mean, they lose their benefits. And by the way, we have a child care crisis in this country, too. Uh I don't know whether ranking member Craig wants to add anything.
▶ 6:59:18No, I would just just just add that one of the most egregious parts of this bill is changing that scenario where that single dad when their child turns seven then would have work requirements and again child care crisis in our country. Um and you know add on top of that that if you're married actually only one of you has work requirements. So you know it's it's crazy.
▶ 6:59:43you can stay home and still be eligible for the benefit uh if you're married and your spouse goes to work. But if you're a single mom or a single dad, the new dependent age for someone is seven years old. And by the way, the the vast majority of people in this country who aren't SNAP are kids. Uh they're seniors and there are people with disabilities. Um you know u and veterans as well. Um in your home state, Mr.
▶ 7:00:08Chairman Thompson of Pennsylvania, uh, they'll be under this bill, they're going to be on the hook for over a billion dollars in benefits alone if this bill is acted. So, what if what if what if Pennsylvania or any other state can't meet that cost? Uh, I know you think they can. Um, you know, but what if what if they can't? Um, I mean, I I think the governor of your state says the bill will make groceries more expensive, close down local grocery stores, and force kids to go hungry.
▶ 7:00:34But I I I want to just say, you know, this this state cost share that you all talk about saying that we're not going to cut benefits. Well, you know, like again, if if Pennsylvania had to absorb a billion dollars, that's a lot for a state budget. What if they can't do it? Um then and did they then do benefit cuts?
▶ 7:00:53Well, I I actually reject your premise of your question that states will refuse to cover 5% of a supplemental nutrition assistance program given that they have two years to adjust their state budgets. SNAP, as you know, is the only state administered entitlement benefit that is fully funded by the federal government and states are already paying anywhere from 25 to 50% of the cost of Medicaid benefits in their states.
▶ 7:01:18states states are fully capable of paying for SNAP and every single state has achieved an error rate below 6% in the last 10 years uh which would bring them down to that base uh cost share and really the time has come to impose clear incentives for states to improve their services to SNAP participants and control costs and the only way for that to occur is for them to have some level of skin in the game on benefit expenditures. Well, as you know, it's not just 5%. It could go up to 25%.
▶ 7:01:47Um, and and for for some states, but let me switch to Ranking Member Craig so we can get, you know, get some different uh perspectives here. Ranking member, what will states do if they can't meet the absurd new scam set up by Republicans in this bill? We all know that they're going to cut the benefit. It's just that plain and simple. And look, the way that this bill uh takes uh the error rate right now, if it's $56 or less, the state does not count that whether it's an underpayment or an overpayment.
▶ 7:02:16But like under this, everybody's error rate is going up. And I'm sorry that the chairwoman left because 19% of her households in her district are benefiting from the SNAP program today. And the cost in that state is going to be just exorbitant. So, isn't this just a backdoor way to take food assistance away from people without having to get your fingerprints on it? Well, it's shifting the blame for taking away the benefit. So, this body is trying to shift the blame to states.
▶ 7:02:4523 governors wrote to us to say we cannot afford this. We cannot pay for this. And in fact, ranking member, is there anything in this bill that prevents a state from cutting benefits for kids? There's absolutely nothing in this bill. So, this bill could lead to kids, seniors, veterans, and Americans with disabilities from being cut off of food assistance or seeing their benefits reduced. This bill will lead to benefit loss to millions of Americans.
▶ 7:03:10Now, Chairman Thompson, you know, even if you disagree with everything uh that we just said, would you support amendments, and that's a pretty accurate statement, Mr. Rank member. Thank you. Yeah. But would you support amendments that simply say that SNAP provisions in this bill cannot go into effect unless no child, no veteran, and no one living in a rural community will have their food benefits cut under this bill. I mean, we tried to offer that in committee because there's great concern. Mr.
▶ 7:03:38Ranking member, I just don't I don't see it necessary given the the depth and the and the width of of the nutrition title. Um, you know, what we're putting forward can't be taken in a silo. you have to look the entirety of what how the nutrition program works. And I I don't believe actually I believe that uh we're going to be empowering uh more children to have a better future.
▶ 7:04:02Um and there there may be parents out there that will choose not to engage in in work requirements that by the way we've had since the 1970s, right? This is not something not a seven not with kids as seven seven and and eighty old ny old. If you go back and you look at at the general work requirements, it's age six. We move it to seven with this bill.
▶ 7:04:24And I and I don't know how we I don't know how we provide children a better future uh by allowing by by providing them less food and nutrition, you know, as as they're growing up. I mean, I I don't know how we we guarantee a a better future if we do everything we can to keep children stuck in intergenerational poverty. Well, first of all, a a lot of people who are on SNAP, you know, who have been on SNAP have gone on to be very successful people.
▶ 7:04:53This this this kind of stigmatization that if you're on SNAP that that somehow you're going to always be stuck in poverty is just not the reality. I'll go to Miss Craig and then to Mora. Mr. Chairman, I'm offended by your last statement. You know, my own mother was a single mom who was going to school at night to get her teaching degree for nine years to become a teacher. Yep, she did it.
▶ 7:05:16But under the scenario we just outlined, my mom would no longer be eligible for benefits once I turn seven years old because my mom is going to school, not able to work during 80 hours a month. That is the truth and you know it. And look, 11 million people, according to the Center on Budget and Policy, including 4 million children live in households that would be at risk of losing these benefits if this bill passes.
▶ 7:05:44Well, and if I can, I just say that you read the bill. Um, it's an average of 80 hours a month. That's 20 hours a week. Doesn't have to be 20 hours. It just has to be an average of 80 over a month. And it is it is work. And like the the ranking member said, uh approximately 24 27% of SNAP recipients are working today already, but they're living in poverty.
▶ 7:06:10Um it but it can be volunteer work, but it also your mom would qualify because she was actually getting education and that that is a qualifier for not 80 hours a week, not 80 hours a month.
▶ 7:06:24and and and and let me just and just you know um you know we throw around these numbers you know you know 13 million people lose their health care you know so many five million people lose their their food assistance benefits and I and I worry sometimes that there are people in this chamber you know who look at those numbers and kind of view them as statistics um and fail to appreciate kind of the human element behind them you know one of the things that I've learned in this job um is that people's lives are complic complicated.
▶ 7:06:55Um, and one glove doesn't fit all. And as much as we want to, you know, say that this should apply to everybody or this should apply to everybody and and this and it is complicated. Um, and um, in my experience, especially with a lot of single parents raising kids, they want to be good parents because that's the best thing they can do to make sure their kids have a bright future.
▶ 7:07:17um and to have to add on to that now um if I don't meet this new requirement I will I will lose my my SNAP benefit you know and there'll be less food in the house. I I again I just like I don't understand like why this is something that every my Republican friends feel that they have to do. But I mean More Mr. Frank member can also say I mean that has been a quandry of of certain folks in certain situations. You're right. You know, it's complex.
▶ 7:07:46People have very different lives. What happens if childare is notable? And that is why state flexibility with waiverss to be able to meet those individual needs. We just need to make sure that the states administer those programs according to the intent of Congress. Lots of luck with that. And I would just again say, I mean, I think a better way to do it is to not make these cuts and maybe not give tax breaks to billionaires. But Miss Moore, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I I do appreciate this vigorous discussion.
▶ 7:08:16You know, as a s as a as a um as a co-chair of the bipartisan foster youth program here in Congress, I can tell you that leaving a seven-year old at home while the parent goes to work, there's a name for that. It's called child abuse and neglect. That will get you a case. And I know people who have had their children removed from their homes for that very reason.
▶ 7:08:45They were at work, couldn't afford child care, and left their child at home. Let me just say this. You know, as a survivor of childhood sexual assault, I guarantee you that Chester the Molester is going to know that your child is at home on a basis while you're out working to meet these work requirements.
▶ 7:09:08and they will find an opportunity to pretend that your mom told them to come by or you've seen them or come on go to store with me and if you're 7 years old you're vulnerable. I can tell you that if the house catches on fire while that sevenyear-old is in the house because they tried to make themselves some uh chicken uh nuggets and turn the stove on. That that is going to be a little bit of problem.
▶ 7:09:37I also want to mention another thing about this 80 hours. I think this 80 hours is very interesting. I remember my daughter once working for a daycare center and I mean the minute she hit that 19th hour, no matter how busy they were, they sent her home, right? Because they didn't want to incur payroll tax charges.
▶ 7:10:03There's employers make decisions that lowwage people, low-income people, people that you're targeting don't have any choice about it. You're working in the fast food, they're not going to let you work 40 hours a week, so they have to pay workman's comp. They're not going to let you work 20 hours a week in order to do it. They're dumb if they do because they don't. The whole point is is to have people churning in and out.
▶ 7:10:32So, I don't want to um you know, this is you know I I so appreciate my colleagues here from the ad committee um that have greater uh information about this particular part of the bill, but I just could not let it pass without talking, you know. So, if you want to change anything, this 7-year-old at home alone, it's a name for it, child abuse and neglect. Thank you. And yield back. I I just want to ask a few quick questions to Chairman Smith.
▶ 7:11:01Um, you know, Chairman Smith, you keep saying that if we don't pass this beautiful bill, it will result in the biggest tax increase in history. Uh, well, you know, as I see it, um, that's your fault. Uh, and why? Because when you passed your tax bill in 2017, you made the corporate tax cuts permanent, but you made the tax cuts for middle class temporary. So when those cuts expire and the rates go up on hardworking Americans is because you drafted your bill, um, that's why you drafted your bill.
▶ 7:11:30I mean, another thing you you you keep touting no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. Setting aside that under this bill, uh parts of tips and overtime are still taxed, just like in 2017, you drafted those tax cuts as only being temporary. They expire. So, if these are are an important centerpiece to help working class Americans, why are you making them expire? Why why are those tax cuts temporary?
▶ 7:11:57So the bill that we passed in 2017 out of the house made everything permanent. It was the other side of the building that put the expirations in. But the bill that I drafted, Mr. McGovern, and that I was part of the Ways and Means Committee made everything permanent. And the good thing about it is this one big beautiful bill before you will make all those expiring provisions permanent. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think the child tax credit should go down in You're talking about 2029.
▶ 7:12:25That is the enhanced boost that we're doing, which is $500 more for the child tax credit. But you think it should expire in 2029? I I would love for it to go longer. But I would love for Democrats to work with us to try to make sure we have permanent tax policy. Do you think the standard deduction should fall in 2029? Absolutely not. That's why I think Democrats would want to work with us to make sure that we continue to provide tax relief for working families. Do you think taxes should go up on senior citizens in 2029?
▶ 7:12:53That's why I hope Democrats will work with us to make sure that we're providing tax relief for seniors. Do you think people should have to pay taxes on their tips in 2029? That's why you'll vote with me to make sure that it doesn't happen. Right, Mr. McGovern? And do you think that people should have to pay tax on their overtime in 2029? That's why we're eliminating in this bill and that's why you're voting against it. No, I mean I'm just I mean I'm voting against it because I don't like the taxes for for billionaires and the cuts in healthcare and the agreement.
▶ 7:13:20no tax for overtime is in this bill and you'll be able to get, you know, I mean, and as I said at the beginning, I mean, we're we're we we more than willing to work with you on tax cuts and tax relief for those in the middle um and for those vulnerable populations. But it just seems that all all these provisions that seem to benefit the people who are most well off and well-connected don't have to worry about that. But all this other stuff, uh, we do. So, I'll just close with this.
▶ 7:13:45You know, I um I I am I think this is a an awful awful bill. Um and I and I and I understand why we we we began meeting at 1 in the morning to talk about this. Um because I think my Republican friends don't want people to know about it. The idea of people losing health care benefits and the idea of billionaires getting tax cuts um and people losing their food benefits. I said this in the ad committee. I said that there's a special place in hell uh for people who take food away from hungry people.
▶ 7:14:14Um and I feel very very strongly about this. I'm angry, but this is the path that you have chosen to go down and we're going to fight like hell on the House floor. I yield back. Gentleman yields back now recognize Miss Fishbach for her time of question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I I can tell who got a full night's sleep, so um that just kind of shows. But first, I want to start out um by thanking Chairman Thompson for all of your work on your portion of the bill.
▶ 7:14:41I know you've been working a long time and you have um not only the the America's farmers um in in concern, you know that you're concerned with them and you're working towards them, but also the people that are affected by the bill. So, I appreciate your work and Chairman Guthrie and Chairman Wahberg appreciate what you've done. I mean, you have done wonderful things and I know that you have been working on it for months and months and months and went through your committee and we've all been working on those things over a great span of time. And Mr.
▶ 7:15:11Smith, um I Chairman Smith, excuse me, I have to say I thank you for your work on Ways and Means and um and I was honored to work with you on that. We've been working year, well over a year, um, working through all of these provisions and making sure that we are addressing the issues that we need to to keep the economy going to offer tax breaks to the middle income and um, all of those things that we did.
▶ 7:15:36And you mentioned some of the provisions or a lot of the provisions that were were and we've discussed a few of them that were that are in the bill. And you know, I wanted to get just a little more specific because some of, you know, as as we were talking about, we need to talk about people. We need to talk about what's going on.
▶ 7:15:51And, you know, we heard about how important 19 over the year that we worked um and I'm sure everybody has heard from their constituents, we heard about how important the um 199A 20% deduction um is and um and we were able to increase that to 23. And I'll just 23% I'll just tell you in my district that affects 55,000 small businesses and family farms. And um you know what?
▶ 7:16:21I don't think they're billionaires. I mean, if I have 55,000 billionaires in my district, that's incredible. I would like to meet them. And just just to put it into perspective, in uh in Miss Scan's district, there are 60,000 small businesses that would be hit with a 43.4 uh% tax rate if this bill isn't put in place. In Mr.
▶ 7:16:47Nagus's district, it's over 110,000 small businesses that are affected by 199A. In Ms. Ledger Fernandez's district, it is over 41,000 small businesses. And in Mr. McGovern's, it is 67,000 small businesses that are affected. And these are not billionaires. They're not billionaires. These are small businesses, the backbone of our communities. And that's why that's so important.
▶ 7:17:17This bill does invest in tax relief for workers, families, farmers, rural communities, um, in a way that we haven't seen before. This is incredible. And if we talk about the child tax credit, we talk about the enhanced uh child tax credit. In my district, 75,000 families are affected by that by that provision. In Miss Scanland's district, there are 83,000 families that are affected by that. Mr.
▶ 7:17:46Nagus's district, 73,000 families that are affected by the child tax credit. in Miss Ledger Fernandez's district 75,000 and in Mr. McGovern almost a h 100,000 and all of those people would see their tax child tax credit cut in half without this bill.
▶ 7:18:06These are regular people, regular middle inome people that will be affected if we not take to heart those provisions and pass this bill. This is about making sure that people have what they need and the middle income are there and supported. You know, and I also just wanted to say, you know, um we've made made some mention about the length of time and that these provisions haven't been made permanent.
▶ 7:18:31And and just just as a side note, just to throw it out, when when Democrats in 2022 do pass the inflation reduction act, they only extended the enhanced premium tax credits through 2025. H was there an election in 2024? Yeah.
▶ 7:18:49Because I think that was that was the implication that we had somehow done it because of a because of an election and but instead what was prioritized in that bill was um was wealthy individuals trying to buy electric vehicles. So that was the difference. This bill actually helps the middle income and not just do that. But I did want to just really focus a little bit and I want Mr.
▶ 7:19:13Uh, Chairman Smith, you know, we we've talked a lot about the the families and the middle income, but I did want to circle back and just talk a little bit about the um uh the provision that we put for seniors that we created for seniors. So, if you could talk just a little bit about that. Absolutely. Um, first off, I just want to hit on um this bill affects 40 million children um with the child tax credit. So, every congressional district is is drastically affected.
▶ 7:19:42Um uh in to regards to the the tax relief for seniors, this is in currently in the tax code, um a senior 65 years old and older gets to deduct about $1,900 um from their standard deduction. They can get the standard deduction um if they're single, $15,000, and then that senior deduction is an added tax savings for them.
▶ 7:20:11Um what we did, we actually increased it $4,000. So now they'll be able to deduct $6,000 of that standard deduction. And that is equivalent that is the equivalent of a person who makes $75,000 or less a year not owing any on social security, any taxes on social security.
▶ 7:20:36And and Chairman Smith, I just have to ask so we can make sure that everybody understands, are those Um, if someone makes less than $75,000 a year, they're definitely not billionaires. Thank you for clarifying that for me because I hear that a lot. Um, that we are just, you know, benefiting billionaires. And it's absolutely not true. The American people are positively affected by this bill, the average middle inome family. And um, and I thank you for putting it together.
▶ 7:21:05And I thank the chair for all of the input for this bill. And with that, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize Miss Scandlin for her five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for joining us here. Uh you can thank the speaker for scheduling the early morning uh wakeup call for everyone. For some reason, I keep thinking of a song, There's Got to Be a Morning After.
▶ 7:21:31It was from a disaster film, which may be an appropriate analogy here because we all know that you don't schedule a 1:00 a.m. hearing unless you have a disaster of a bill that you want to hide from the public. And we don't have to look far to see why they want to hide this bill. It's an allout assault on the American social contract. They're trying to sell it as some kind of economic growth plan. Thank you, trickle down fictions again.
▶ 7:21:55But if you look past the press releases, what you find is a Frankenstein monster of a bill that kicks people off their health care, cuts nutrition assistance for working families, guts clean energy investments, and hands out trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest people of the country.
▶ 7:22:10And as we learned from a CBO report overnight, it's going to cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare in addition to the cuts to Medicaid and impose or initiate a wealth transfer from the 10% of folks in this country who have the lowest income to the 10% that have the highest. So, not saying that at there aren't lots of tax cuts in here, but it's at whose expense, I think, is the question.
▶ 7:22:37And if Miss Fishbach wants to have a conversation about tax cut for small businesses, we would love to have that conversation, but it was never brought up for discussion with the entirety of Congress. What we have seen, and in my district, maybe it's not the same thing in her district, but we've seen that tens of thousands of people will lose their health insurance, tens of thousands of families will lose SNAP benefits, and that's just unacceptable. Um, let's start with the cuts to food assistance.
▶ 7:23:05At a time when food prices are high and getting higher because of tariffs, when wages haven't kept up with the cost of living, when families are still recovering from the financial strain of the pandemic, this bill takes a sledgehammer to snap. We're talking about a program that helps feed nearly 42 million Americans, one in four children in this country, one of the most effective anti-poverty programs that we have. It lifts millions out of poverty every year, and it does so with efficiency and dignity.
▶ 7:23:36At a certain level, it even provides a form of corporate welfare so that big businesses don't have to pay their workers a living wage. But Republicans aren't satisfied with that. Instead of working to expand access to food, this bill imposes more paperwork requirements, shortens eligibility windows, and slashes benefits. Republicans are claiming this will promote work, but the overwhelming body of evidence shows that their work requirements don't actually increase employment. They just make it harder for people to eat.
▶ 7:24:06You can't work if you're hungry. You can't hold down a job if you can't afford to feed your kids. Kids can't succeed in school if they're hungry. And no one can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they're stuck in a hole that Congress has already dug for them. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the SNAP cuts in this bill could result in nearly two million people losing access to food assistance.
▶ 7:24:29That's two million seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, single moms being told by the government of the richest nation on earth, sorry, you're on your own. And to what end? So that Republicans can claim to save a few billion dollars at the same time that they're extending the Trump tax cuts for the top 1%. A move that is going to cost this country over $3 trillion over the next decade. So, let's be crystal clear.
▶ 7:24:54The trade-off the Republicans are proposing in this bill is not between cutting waste and boosting growth. It's between feeding children and giving billionaires another yacht. And speaking of tax cut, let's talk about what the bill does on that front because it's breathtaking in its recklessness. It locks in place the worst parts of the 2017 Trump tax law. It extends tax breaks for corporations, slashes taxes for people at the very top, and opens up new loopholes for the ultra wealthy to exploit.
▶ 7:25:25According to the Penn Wharton budget model and the tax policy center, more than half the benefits from these tax provisions go to the top 1%. Meanwhile, middle class families will see little to no benefits and millions of them will actually see their taxes go up because the cost of the Trump tariffs are greater than the tax cut they're going to receive.
▶ 7:25:46So, this bill was going to increase the already obscene inequality in our tax code and do so at a moment when the ultra wealthy are already paying a lower effective tax rate than workingclass Americans. If you want to talk about fairness and rewarding work, maybe we should start by asking why a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower effective tax rate than a firefighter, a nurse, a plumber, or a school teacher. This isn't tax reform. It's tax rigging. It's trickle down economics with a fresh coat of paint.
▶ 7:26:16And like every other time this theory has been tried, it's going to end in disaster. We already have a preview of what's coming because the fiscal impact of this bill is a five alarm fire. The bill is projected to add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. And that's not coming from liberal think tanks. It's coming from conservative think tanks and former Republican budget officials. And that's a baseline estimate. That's before the creative accounting and gimmicks get stripped away.
▶ 7:26:46Once you dig into the details, factor in the full cost of the tax cut extensions, the impact of the new tariffs, and the backloaded nature of the spending cuts, the real number could be much higher. And that's before we even see what's going to be in the uh the amendment that nobody's seen yet to this bill before it hits the floor. So, Republicans are saying, "Don't worry, tax cuts will pay for themselves." But we've heard this song before. They said the same thing in 2001. They said it again in 2003.
▶ 7:27:15They definitely said it in 2017. And in every single case, the result was the same. bigger deficits, slower growth, and greater income inequality. There's no serious e economist, none, who believes that extending the tax cuts will magically balance the budget. And we know that Moody's just downgraded our credit rating in part because they know these tax cuts will balloon the deficit and make our fiscal situation even worse. How do we propose?
▶ 7:27:44How do the Republicans propose to deal with that deficit? Not by rolling back the tax cuts. Not by asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share, but by cutting health care, slashing food assistance, and gutting the programs that ordinary Americans rely on every day. So looking at the health care cuts, because there are most among the most devastating parts of this bill, if this bill becomes law, nearly 14 million people lose their health coverage.
▶ 7:28:1114 million millions of low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid for doctor's visits, prescription drugs, life-saving treatments. That includes working families who use the Affordable Care Act to buy coverage on the marketplace. It includes cancer patients, people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, and seniors in nursing homes. We're hearing from all of our nursing homes about how devastating these cuts will be.
▶ 7:28:35This bill rolls back Medicaid expansion, slashes subsidies for ACA coverage, and imposes harsh new work requirements that will lead to coverage losses without increasing employment. And we know this because the data is overwhelming. When Arkansas imposed similar Medicaid work requirements a few years ago, more than 18,000 people lost coverage and there was no measurable increase in in employment.
▶ 7:28:59That's because most Medicaid recipients are already working or they're caring for a child or they have a disability or they're in school. So, the work requirements are just so-called work requirements. They're actually paperwork requirements. They'll kick people off Medicaid not because they aren't eligible, but because they have to jump through more hoops to prove it. And it's not about promoting work. It's about punishing poverty and making life harder for people who are already struggling.
▶ 7:29:25Just like with SNAP, the savings from these healthc care cuts are pennies compared to the cost of the tax breaks that Republicans are giving to their wealthy donors. You don't get to call yourself fiscally responsible when you're taking healthcare away from cancer patients so that Elon Musk can get another tax write off. Congressional Budget Office has been crystal clear. Medicaid work requirements don't increase employment. They just increase the paperwork and the number of people who lose healthcare. This isn't about work.
▶ 7:29:56It's about trying to justify an unjustifiable tax giveaway to the rich. And then we have the clean energy and environmental investments that are being gutted in this bill. At a time when we're seeing record wildfires, catastrophic flooding, skyrocketing insurance premiums due to climate related disasters, Republicans want to gut the very programs that are helping us fight back.
▶ 7:30:19This bill rescends billions of dollars in clean energy tax credits, slashes funding for renewable energy deployment, blocks support for home energy efficient that efficiency that many home owners in my district have been able to use to upgrade their furnaces and water heaters, and reduce their energy costs. And it even goes after investments in climate resilience and environmental justice. So, this is just sabotage. These clean energy investments aren't just good for the planet, they're good for our economy.
▶ 7:30:50They've created jobs. They've reduced household energy bills, and they keep our air and water clean. And they help our communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, prepare for and respond to climate threats. But because these provisions were passed by Democrats and they help us transition to more sustainable energy sources and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, Republicans are determined to tear them down. And the irony is that a lot of these projects are happening in red states, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa.
▶ 7:31:20They're leading the way in wind and solar development. But this bill is going to pull the rug out from under that progress. All to make a political point. The American people deserve better than this. They deserve a government that works for them, not one that caves to corporate lobbyists, science deniers, and billionaire donors.
▶ 7:31:38So just looking at the whole picture, this bill cuts food assistance from working families, kicks millions off their health care, hands trillions in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, blows a multi- trillion dollar hole in the federal deficit, and sabotages our fight against climate change. So it's not a big beautiful bill. It's a big disgraceful betrayal of the American people. It's a bill that punishes the poor, rewards the rich, and threatens the stability of our economy.
▶ 7:32:05and the fact that it's being rushed through the House with no real debate with new things being exposed about it practically on an hourly basis, no final CBO score, no transparency, no accountability, should alarm everyone here, regardless of party. So, obviously, I'm not a fan of the bill. We have to do better. The sun is up. The American people are looking. Um, Ranking Member Craig, this bill includes the most significant cuts to SNAP in decades.
▶ 7:32:36Can you explain what this means for working families and children and seniors who rely on SNAP to put food on the table? Yeah, it's devastating. It is the largest cut in American history to um the most successful anti-hunger program uh in American history. I mean, we're talking about, you know, and let me make sure my Republican colleagues understand this. The nutrition title is a title in the Farm Bill. This absolutely destroys the Farm Bill coalition that we have worked for decades to establish in our country.
▶ 7:33:08One issue that is raising a lot of uh concern in Pennsylvania, uh, which I represent, as does Mr. Thompson is that for the first time ever, this bill would require states to start paying a portion of SNAP benefits. What would this kind of cost shift, Miss Craig, mean for the state's ability to serve their residents? Well, at the end of the day, every state's going to make its own decision about what they can uh accomplish here.
▶ 7:33:36And the net effect is going to be in many states around this country, they're going to cut the benefit. Um, states already share uh 50% of the administration cost of this program. That goes to 75%. Most states, including Pennsylvania, are going to be on the hook for 25% of the benefit cost after this bill passes.
▶ 7:33:55Well, I know that our state legislators are already gravely concerned about the reduction in federal uh benefits coming to the Commonwealth and and this is not giving them any ease. Representative Moore, the majority claims this bill is a middle class tax cut, but analysis shows that people earning under $50,000 a year would get an average tax cut of less than a dollar a day, while the top 1% would get nearly $300,000 a year.
▶ 7:34:25Does that sound like a fair or balanced approach to tax policy? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. uh Miss Scandan um you are are are correct that it really increases uh inequality and if uh for those of us who remember our history uh when we went into the great depression um it was the biggest inequality uh if we had
▶ 7:34:55experienced in American history. Um and you know and this sort of resembles uh put putting us in that direction. This bill uh uh I is uh the 1% get 20% of the benefit in 2027. Uh the top 5% get 40% of the benefit.
▶ 7:35:20Um the top 10% get 52% of the benefit of this bill. Miss Scandlin, if you'll just indulge me for a moment. Um, I just want to talk a little bit about the quote unquote small business benefit. I noticed that um, um, Ms. Fishbowl referenced the numbers of small businesses in all of the Democrats communities that would uh, be affected.
▶ 7:35:51And so I just have a real question. Is it is or is it ain't a small business? Um, I'm looking at one of the things I think is particularly egregious. One of the most expensive pieces of this big beautiful bonanza for billionaires. That's the the deduction. They claim it's for small business this pass through.
▶ 7:36:20and you know they wax on about uh you know how important it is in 2022 that was the year that we were able to to the JCT was able to find data in taxpayers claiming the 199A deduction with adjusted gross income all of it qualified business income in the neighborhood of $200,000 a year that's small business
▶ 7:36:51claimed about $6,500 on average. Taxpayers claiming the 199A deduction with adjusted gross income in the neighborhood of $10 million. Still, this is small business. They claimed about $520,000 of this deduction on average. 2022, there were about 800 taxpayers.
▶ 7:37:20You know, there's supposed to be I know, you know, Mr. uh Mr. Smith here is going to tell you that there are limits on uh uh how much you can earn in order to qualify for the 199A, but not so much uh in this bill, nor in 2022.
▶ 7:37:39There are about 800 taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $100 million that received the 199A deduction and claimed $11 million of the deduction on average. And I mean, I'm not going to be picking on Republicans here in their district. I'll just talk about people in my in my community in Wisconsin.
▶ 7:38:03Dick and Liz Eline in Wisconsin saved over $40 million in taxes in 2018 by claiming this 199A deduction and they received $115 million.
▶ 7:38:18Now the next question is is oh well these are our job creators and I know I'm being but in 2022 of the 17 million people who claimed the 199A produ um uh reduction deduction fact checks this 84% of these businesses had zero employees zero. Mhm.
▶ 7:38:47And so, um, thank you for for asking me that question. Um, and yeah, the benefit goes primarily to rich people. And like I said just in the examples that that you've given the you know the average taxpayer uh not talking about business but individual is going to receive um $265 at least until it expires in 2029.
▶ 7:39:18I I appreciate that and and I have a few more questions for you but I wanted to yield to the chairwoman for a minute. Yes, ma'am. he just Oh no.
▶ 7:39:39stop and say a prayer for his Please take some time.
▶ 7:40:13Um, thank you everybody and Miss Ganon. Thank you, Madam Chair, for doing Oh, it's absolutely the right thing to do. You're recognized, Miss G. I appreciate that. Certainly a valued colleague and this is quite a loss.
▶ 7:40:31Um, Representative Board, um, we had just talked about the fact that the top 1% or top.1% are going to get a $300,000 per year tax break, which is almost four times the median household income in my district.
▶ 7:40:52Um so the fact that the very top would not only not pay their fair share but this kind of break um what is what do those kind of trade-offs say about the values and priorities in in this legislation? You know, Miss Scandlin, it is it it it cases creates uh exacerbates the income equality that have.
▶ 7:41:16But more importantly than that, you know, it really demonstrates that our values as Americans have sort of gone to skew. When you can provide 310 times the benefit for the top than you do for the bottom, you are depriving people of the opportunity to participate in our economy in a meaningful way.
▶ 7:41:45And the costs of that are tremendous. Um, you know, and then when you pile on stuff that's not in the ways and jurisdiction, like the cuts to SNAP, the cuts to Medicaid, you know, when you give somebody, you know, it's is $265 tax return.
▶ 7:42:10How far is that going go with compensating for their loss of SNAP in Medicaid? There's not one page in here that gives them any child care assistance or anything else.
▶ 7:42:27And I and I just want to point out that, you know, we we hear on and on and on and I and I Medicaid is not within our jurisdiction, but Medicare is parts of Medicare are. And you know, I'm so sorry. I'm just a little bit upset about Jerry, my friend.
▶ 7:42:52But what what we are what what we're seeing is that we're as we dismantle health care and we dismantle uh SNAP, we're not just depriving the poorest of the poor. We are dismantling health care period. I mean rural hospitals are going to close.
▶ 7:43:18Urban hospitals are going to close down their maternity wards. Graduate students, I had docs come and say, "Graduate students, people who graduate from medical school aren't going to be able to have residencies cuz there be no hospitals." And even if you have the best health insurance, the premier, you're rich, when you have your heart attack, you're not going to make it when you got to drive 35 miles to get to
▶ 7:43:48the ER. So when you think that it's not, it's just only them lazy boys in the basement that are going to be hurt, you better think twice. You're going to think PL when your provider leaves the area because there are too many Medicaid patients and goes somewhere, you know, Scottsdale, Arizona or something where there are rich people to practice so that they can that they can and you have no providers at all.
▶ 7:44:18Well, I I wanted to pursue that line with with Mr. Palone. um in our community we actually just lost the major health care system. It was bought out by a private equity instit uh entity and bankrupted and uh we have been unable to find anyone to take it over because the Medicaid funding source is so unstable or not sustainable or these cuts were threatened.
▶ 7:44:44So can you talk a little bit about what this is going to mean these cuts to Medicaid for the entire community? Well, as you as you point out and already been stated when um you know hospitals and all health care institutions depend on some kind of reimbursement either private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, whatever it is and if your hospital uh or your nursing home or your community health center, whatever um is highly dependent on Medicaid,
▶ 7:45:15which many uh rural hospitals and institutions are, then they just don't get the reimbursement rate and now these people are coming to the emergency room and they're going into the uncompensated care because they can't afford to pay the bill. And so what does the hospital do? Well, most states don't have the ability to make up for that. Some don't have much uh pay out much uncompensated care at all.
▶ 7:45:39And so they're, you know, they either close because, you know, now they can't make it or they uh try to pass that on to uh private payers or other government uh you know, government uh payment programs. The other alternative is that the quality of care goes down. So in the case of a nursing home uh rather than uh if they don't close then uh and they get less money then they just provide less services.
▶ 7:46:07One of the things that disturbed me the most in this bill in the energy and commerce mark was that they take away the Republicans take away the uh nursing home um staffing ratio, right? I think they save seven or eight uh billion dollars by doing that. Uh but what happens then? You know, there's no there's no nurse there at night. There's no nurse, you know, and uh you know, people die because there's nobody to take care of them. The services go down.
▶ 7:46:35And I remember uh years ago in in my state, we had uh we had terrible nursing home situations, safety, health hazards, nursing homes burned down, people died in the fires in my hometown. Um I don't want to go back to that. We made a lot of progress and we certainly don't uh want to go back to that.
▶ 7:46:56But if I could just add what the gentleoman said that um you know from energy and commerce perspective, we're not involved with the taxes and I I do think that you know lower income or even middle- inome people are going to pay more with this bill in taxes, but that we're concentrating on all these other affordability issues, right?
▶ 7:47:20In other words, we spent our time when we were in the majority uh trying to expand options so people uh could live and it was more affordable. So expanding Medicaid was an example of that, right? Um making uh you know expansion of of SNAP, making um having affordable connectivity programs so people could afford you know to pay for the internet uh lie heap, right? All those things are on the chopping block now.
▶ 7:47:48Some of them on the chopping block in this bill with the Medicaid cuts, but you know, the president is essentially eliminating lie heap. The Republicans refuse to renew affordable connectivity. In this bill, they have uh 30, you know, up to $35 co-ay that's mandated uh you know, so people have to pay more out of pocket. So, what are we talking about here? Everything in this bill, and I, you know, I I don't even get into the tax issues now.
▶ 7:48:15everything in this bill that's within our committee um makes things less affordable. Right? At a time when the president said, "Oh, when I'm elected, prices are going to go down. Everything's going to become more affordable." It's the opposite is happening. Groceries cost more. Inflation's going up. Everybody's and and and this is just aggravating that situation completely. It it is the reverse Robin Hood. That's exactly what it is. Take from the poor and give to the rich.
▶ 7:48:43not just with the taxes but also with everything else because all these things are paying for tax breaks primarily for wealthy people and corporate interests. Well, you you've touched on so many issues that are of really paramount concern for for my constituents. The lie heap cuts obviously are huge in our northeastern cities where we have cold winters and hot summers.
▶ 7:49:06Um the Medicaid copay, as I understand it, that was something that many of our Republican colleagues were unaware of the fact that this bill would impose a Medicaid co-pay. Um the issues with respect to hospitals, you know, we hear quite a bit about how these Medicaid cuts are going to hurt rural hospitals, but they obviously also hurt our frontline urban hospitals.
▶ 7:49:29And we just had an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer this week about how many of our urban hospitals we've lost because they were dependent on on Medicaid. So that remains a huge issue. Um could you comment at all? As I understand it, there's a provision in this bill that would impact the expansion of Medicaid coverage for new mothers, which is something we've been trying to work on with the black maternal health crisis in this country.
▶ 7:49:53And the fact that we have women dying at a rate in this country that is three, four times the rate of other developed nations. And one of the proven tactics for reducing maternal mortality is to make sure that women have healthc care coverage for the first year after birth.
▶ 7:50:11I I I have to mention that Robin Kelly is in the room who's a member of our committee and she with the CBC uh brain trust work very hard on a lot of these maternal mortality issues because they even in a in a disperate way even affect black women even more so, you know. Um but yeah, I mean that's that that that was another thing that we did uh as Democrats.
▶ 7:50:35we expanded uh to um one-year postpartum coverage which is which is negatively impacted in this bill. And um again, I it's another example of how Democrats were trying to make things better and and more affordable or and keep people healthy as opposed to Republican efforts which will all go in in the other direction. Okay.
▶ 7:51:00Um, Representative Scott, uh, Pennsylvania has a disproportionately high level of folks who have, um, student loans and they have a greater, uh, dollar value on average than than most, um, most states and and that may be in part because of problems with funding our state universities, but nevertheless, we have a lot of people who have a lot of student loans um, that they are struggling to pay at this point.
▶ 7:51:28Can you comment on what this bill would do with respect to student loans? Well, there a couple of things on student loans. One, it limits the amount of student loans you can take out. So, a lot of students will have to choose between going to college or taking out private loans to make out the um the difference. But on the um repayment, the repayment is much um much more expensive. And so the um it's much of a problem they have now. it'll be even more.
▶ 7:51:58So they they they limit the amount of aid you can get. So a lot of students won't be able to go to school. Those that do will be paying paying more and and for longer. And I mean it's an issue that is really something that over our lifetimes has has really just taken on a whole new um structure. I mean, when I went to college, I could work as a lifeguard and get a little help from my family and take out a few loans and and could manage to do that.
▶ 7:52:28But now, you can't without a college degree, you can't make enough money to even begin to start paying. Well, a few decades ago, the Pell Grant covered the 80% of the cost of going to a state college, tuition room, and board. Now, it's about 30%. Yeah. and covering. That's where the student loan crisis came in because families don't have that kind of money.
▶ 7:52:52They have to, you know, if they don't have a lot of money, they have to come up with um make it up with loans. Yeah. Uh they and by limiting the amount you can borrow, you may not be able to get enough to be able to go. So, you don't go at all or you get into the private loan market and pay all kinds of extra fees. Um and then after you've gone, you've the the repayment is more expensive, right? So, it's just um a bad deal, particularly if you're going this far into debt.
▶ 7:53:23Um people ought not be worse off. So, we've got bad news on the food front. We've got bad news on the health front. We've got bad news on the education front. We've got bad news on the tax front for our working families. Um think it's a bad bill and and we shouldn't move it forward. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Norman, you're recognized.
▶ 7:53:52You know, I've listened to this filibuster for a good while. All All of us have. Um, man, you know, when you keep hearing the four-letter word work being demonized, when you keep hearing um fact that uh it's you're you're because somebody has to go to work, your children are dying, mothers are starving.
▶ 7:54:24Um, you know, it's really that's that's really an insult to the working Americans. Uh, to that plumber who works 80 hours a week, to that electrician who uh non-stop, to that waitress who is on her feet all day long. Um, you know, and when you look at the work requirements, fact check, Miss Moore, you know what it is? 20 hours a week.
▶ 7:54:5520 hours. That I think if my math's right, that's four hours a day. Mr. Norman, would you yield just one second? It's 80 hours a month, which comes out to 18.4 hours per week. So, fact check. 18. Okay. 18 hours a week. Okay. That is an insult to the whoever's watching this um this hearing.
▶ 7:55:25That's an insult to the hardworking Americans that regardless of what you do, work brings dignity. Work brings a cause, a sense of purpose. Work brings um a reason to get up in the morning. Work brings helps find you find your God-given talent. And to to to say uh work is gonna kill children. work is g going to kill mothers, fathers. You're just you're not telling the truth. That's not right.
▶ 7:55:53America was built on work. And I can hear over and over and over again this rich, poor, uh, um, you know, the identity politics. Thank God 77 million people said no to that. They're tired of it. And America is a great country because of work and people are willing to do it.
▶ 7:56:19Uh, and it's really, you know, when when you look at the the the fraud that's going on, and I think from what if you check your facts, the gentleman you we've got no there is um 13 billion. That's that's if you check the facts, 13 billion of of fraud, uh, like in the SNAP cases, people getting money when they shouldn't have. 13 billion per year. That's that's 1.3 billion per month.
▶ 7:56:48if I check my facts right. Um, you know, it's Americans have had enough of this and I'm sorry. I know you learned it from the president Biden. Free education, free uh free food for 15 illegals that came into this country. Um, you know, free housing. I'm sorry, that's not how this country was built.
▶ 7:57:15And you know um the I admire all of you for the work that you do. Each one of you do work. Um and for those who keep identifying as you know demonizing work and demonizing those who have been successful. You never know the long hours that they put in the long hours that they took to build a business. The long hours that they didn't get a paycheck.
▶ 7:57:41So you're hurting the very people who you could give hope to. And by by demonizing this, Americans are just tired of it. You want to know somebody who's a definition of hard work right here. Came from nothing. Look at what she did. Many of you, and if you want to say rich, I think if you got your health, you're pretty rich. If you've got your health, Jerry Connley would get it back. So I, you know, I resent I resent you saying that.
▶ 7:58:10And I really uh it's a sad day that we've gotten to that that point in this country when so many people are doing that. And um uh are you asking me a question, sir? No, ma'am. Fibustered long enough. I think you would actually ask me a question about I did not ask you a question. I'm No. Um I'm not asking you a question. What I'm saying is what I'm I It's my time is more be uh I didn't interrupt you.
▶ 7:58:39You went on for I counted you went on for 20 minutes which is fine. Um and you are entertaining. I'll give you that. But all I'm really saying is Miss Morris my time. All I'm saying is that um the day of demonizing work, the day of demonizing America is over with. And American Americans people got it right. Uh and we're going to continue to have a great country. these this bill, this big beautiful bill will help this country out.
▶ 7:59:08It's got some things we got to work out, but it'll help this country. And the other thing I will tell you is the taxes are the people's money. Government is y'all's god. The taxes are the people's money. And to give it back to them like Chairman Smith and Chairman Thompson and uh Tim uh you know, that's the right thing to do. So, we're gonna write the the wrong for the last four years that this this country has been through a living hell with this past president.
▶ 7:59:39And thank God we got people who are willing to step up and and go to work. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Norman. Mr. Noose, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, my friend from South Carolina talked a lot about work. Just for the record, we've been working for the last eight hours here in the committee. And I could say the same for the chairwoman. I'm not so sure I can say the same about you. I think you snuck out for a little shutye for a few hours, so I'm not sure.
▶ 8:00:06There was a lot of talk about work, but uh I haven't seen you in a few hours. So, welcome back. Anyway, uh I I do want to take a minute uh in all seriousness and I I want to thank the chairwoman for taking a moment uh to center our conversation here just to to remember and honor our colleague um whom I know we all treasured and he was a giant among giants in this institution. He was a ranking member of one of our committees.
▶ 8:00:34He was the president of the NATO parliamentary assembly appointed by mad madam speaker ammerida. Uh he was one of the most prolific legislators in the house. I don't know that there's a single member of the house during his tenure in this body that had more laws signed or excuse me more pieces of legislation signed into law by presidents of both parties. Uh and more than anything else he was a fighter and a friend.
▶ 8:00:59And so I just know that uh we're going to miss him and uh I think that it's a big loss for the people of Fairfax and for the folks in the Commonwealth of Virginia and for this institution. Um we I want to ask some questions. Thank you to the panel. You all have been I think it's the longest panel as you know we started at 1:00 a.m. So we've been here for about 8 hours. I'm told the sun has risen and that it's it's morning outside but we haven't you know been outside the room yet.
▶ 8:01:28So, um, we'll just have to take your word for it. And as I said to the panel that preceded yours, I have been, I think maybe I can speak for my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we have been on this collective journey to try to figure out why the speaker and Republican leadership decided uh to do this midnight, middle of the night, dead of night hearing on your reconciliation bill.
▶ 8:01:50And of course, we believe it's because this bill is indefensible and the Republican leadership did not want this bill debated out in the open. And I've tried to get answers from a variety of my different colleagues. One of my colleagues uh from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, offered an explanation more recently and essentially said, well, this we did it in anticipation that there would be extensive debate by Democrats on this committee. Of course, there's only four of us on this committee. Uh Mr.
▶ 8:02:19Guthrie, Chairman Guthrie, I you haven't had a question in a while, so maybe I'll pose this to you. I How long was your hearing in energy and commerce? My hearing at first, uh my comments on Jerry, he he was probably one of my dear friends here and uh was supposed to be honored this weekend in Dayton, Ohio with a a NATO meeting. He's uh people don't really realize there's there's actually a NATO parliament and some of us are designated. He was the president or speaker of the NATO parliament. So, not only is Jerry beloved by all of us, he's beloved around the world, all of our NATO allies.
▶ 8:02:47every time he showed up at a meeting, Jerry, there's Jerry, there's Jerry. And they just uh everybody adored him because he's just a adorable, wonderful person and and I'm going to miss him and and I'll I'll be in Dayton this weekend and we're I'm sure a lot of us are going to shed a lot of tears for him. So that So the question my my hearing went for 26 and a half hours. 26 and a half hours. What time did you start it? We started at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. 2 o'clock in the afternoon. So you weren't worried about the anticipatory debate.
▶ 8:03:13You you knew that that ranking member Palone was going to come armed with extensive arguments and motions and amendments, but you decided to hold the hearing during the day nonetheless. Right. We started during the day. Started during the day. Started during the day. Yeah. Well, I I wish uh that the speaker would have taken the same approach, but it's clear to me and I think clear to the American public that he did not want to have this debate uh happen in the during the day.
▶ 8:03:40And I could understand why given what we've heard uh thus far. Uh Chairman Smith, want to talk to you a bit about tax on tips. I heard your opening statement and I think in some of the colloquies as far I think suffice to say that you're very passionate about the no tax on tips. Is that a fair Yeah, I I'm a passion I'm passionate because of the four million tipped employees.
▶ 8:04:05Just yesterday um in Washington DC at the restaurant that I was at my waiter asked me are you going to be able to deliver this chairman. So this affects real Americans. So very much passionate about it. Totally. Um why haven't you passed a standalone bill to get this done if it's so important? Because there's a 60 vote rule over in the Senate. The Senate just passed their bill yesterday, which is unconstitutional because all um taxing has originate from the course.
▶ 8:04:33I'm well aware, but I think I I guess I heard your first explanation was well there's 60 vote Senate barrier, so of course we could never get it passed to the Senate. But then Ted Cruz and Jackie Rosen, my understanding is they passed the bill by unanimous consent. Of course, as you said, uh there's the constitutionality issue. So I just don't understand why the Ways and Means Committee doesn't just mark up a bill. Actually, I think the sponsor of the bill is sitting right behind you. He's been in this hearing since like 3:00 a.m., Mr. Horford. He's got a great bill on this. I think we could get this on the bill tomorrow.
▶ 8:05:03I think there'd be bipartisan strong support. Clearly, there's unanimous support in the Senate. I mean, if you're so passionate about it, let's Why don't we get it done? Goose. Um, you know that I have tried to work on tax policy, um, bipartisan tax policy policy, the last Congress that we got 82% of the vote to move it forward. Unfortunately, it died in the Senate. So, sometimes bipartisan tax policy does not work.
▶ 8:05:26Um, I believe the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, the tax relief of seniors are so urgent that I would not allow a tax bill to move forward unless it includes that in the House of Representatives. That's why I'm delivering for working-class Americans. Yeah. No, I Well, anyway, I I guess I I don't want to belabver the point here. You keep referencing the Senate.
▶ 8:05:48Uh, unless I'm missing something, I'm I thought the United States Senate passed a unanimous consent without any objections Ted Cruz, Jackie Rosen, Democrat, Republican bill to not tax tips. And so I'm not really understanding the hurdle there, but anyway, um I you have a different worldview as to I guess the way to effectuate it.
▶ 8:06:10Um, can you give us a of where the state and local tax deduction piece is going to end? What what what are we going to be voting on later today? Um, what I'll say is is that the $30,000 deduction that we passed out of the Ways and Means Committee, capping it at um people who make less than $400,000, um the Ways and Means Committee felt like that that was a reasonable compromise.
▶ 8:06:40um that would help provide necessary tax relief. Um and that's what the language is right now. Okay. But I I mean, you're the chairman of the committee. We're supposed to be voting on this bill in a few hours is what I understand. There's rumors of a manager's amendment or maybe a secondary manager's amendment or they'll come up with some other way to describe a third manager's amendment. I'm not sure. There's a lot of reporting on it.
▶ 8:07:04Do you who would I go to talk to to figure out what we're voting on later today as it relates to the state and local tax deduction? I would say that's going to be the discussion of the rules committee when the manager's amendment is offered and debated. So, you'll probably know before um most members of Congress. I hope so. I we've been here for eight hours and we we've yet to get any indication of that. And I and I'm not I mean this would apply to Chairman Guthrie as well. I mean, we've heard a lot about the IRA phase outs.
▶ 8:07:32I don't know if you have you have anything to share with the group about where that That would be Ways and Means Committee jurisdiction, not Guthri's. ENTC doesn't have a lot of committee jurisdiction. Well, I'll let you two battle that out.
▶ 8:07:49But but um uh from my understanding um the ways and means committee um I've not seen any changes to the phase outs or what we've had in regards to so IRA. So what we have in the the rules mark now you believe is what we'll be voting on this evening or that's what I'm here testifying in regards to. Okay. Well, that's a different answer, but I and I I can appreciate your position.
▶ 8:08:19I guess my point here and and I know I was hoping to ask Mr. Roy this question because we I hadn't seen him the last eight hours, but he he appear Well, yeah, apparently he's negotiating it. So, I maybe he can come in and he can give us some indication as to uh uh as to the answers on both of those fronts. Oh, I see. Uh I guess Chip Royy's announced I'm a no, but I don't know that that makes Anyway, we'll I we'll hear from him directly.
▶ 8:08:42Um some questions for you chairman uh Thompson with respect to the agriculture mark. Help me understand and and maybe ranking member Craig can help me understand this as well.
▶ 8:08:57You all have sunseted the exemption for well no sorry you've included an exemption for veterans within the what you've determined to be the able-bodied requirements veterans homeless and um and young people that age out of foster care up to age 24. So veterans homeless and then what was the third foster foster youth foster youth. Yeah.
▶ 8:09:23Um, but you've sunset that exemption in 2030. That exemption only lasts through 2030, correct? Um, yeah, that's correct. Um, oh, that's correct because those were actually put in place of the fiscal responsibility act. That's where those three provisions were added. And I and I actually believe that uh uh let me ask you I guess the question I'm asking is why not eliminate that sunset?
▶ 8:09:53Why if well well my question back to you is why would you not want those individuals to be have access to greater opportunity which only comes through being eligible under the SNAP title for and the nutrition benefits you know for the for the career and technical education SNAP ed SNAP employment and career and technical education.
▶ 8:10:13We, you know, the farm bill, why are you put about $1.1 are is what we put into the nutrition title and a big part of that is the investment in greater opportunity through those educational benefits. Okay, let me take a step back to so I can just understand that I guess what I'm trying to understand is the rationale for the exemption. You've exempted veterans, homeless youth, foster youth from these requirements until 2030.
▶ 8:10:42So you hold on, let me finish. You've clearly decided that it's important to proceed with those exemptions until 2030. Otherwise, you would have said we're just going to end the exemption now. So you believe it's important to do for the next few years. Why have you decided not to extend it further? Why why is 2030 the the year that you've decided that veterans should no longer be able to be exempted from these?
▶ 8:11:06That was a part of what um um quite frankly my negotiations on that with the fiscal responsibility act were with President Biden and um and that was the But you're not locked into that now. You all have abandoned most of the fiscal responsibility even you know um that was a great negotiations. You know we both uh both sides got uh some some good provisions.
▶ 8:11:32Uh but at the same time, even back then, I felt that it was it really was um disrespectful to veterans to uh well, we'll just talk you let off with veterans to, you know, to to not have an opportunity to benefit from the investments that are there under this nutrition title for SNAP employment and career and technical education. If you feel that way, why why keep it? I don't understand. And I guess I I guess you're saying we have this exemption.
▶ 8:12:02It's important for foster youth and for the homeless and for veterans, but also we believe that we shouldn't have this exemption. And so that's why we're comfortable with it ending in 2013. Usually uh usually taking somebody off a cliff immediately is a really bad idea. Uh we don't really do that with this with this bill. Even with the state share, we we provide uh I agree with you about describing it as a cliff and not an opportunity. I mean, that's that's exactly what my sort of point is, right?
▶ 8:12:30We look closely at poverty cliffs and uh you know, and you know, and I I think taking folks off of that uh um that 2030 expiration really will serve those um the veterans population particular. And I also think that uh the youth coming off out of uh uh out of foster care. How much money do you think it would cost? Your team may have a better sense of this than I would to extend that out to 2031 or to 2032.
▶ 8:13:00What what do you all know what it costs per year for that exemption to have continued? I'm not sure the CBO has provided it for Yeah, we don't I mean, are we talking tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars? Well, we'd have to look back. Um, you all would have to look back at the fiscal responsibility act to see what the score was on that. Here's why I ask. To me, it seems like really what we're getting at right is a question of priorities, resources, and values.
▶ 8:13:29And it would not take, I don't believe, a lot of resources, a lot of investment to be able to avoid that cliff hitting these veterans and these foster youth in 2030. Right. Right. And and let me give you an example, right? There's a simple way. Are you familiar with the tax on silencers? You're familiar with that? I am. provision tax. And you're aware that this bill repeals that tax? That's correct. All right. And that tax, do you know how much that's going to generate in terms of revenue over 10 years? I don't.
▶ 8:13:59It wasn't in my jurisdiction, but I understand. Let me tell you, let me finish. I You said you don't know. So, let me tell you I hear you are a healthcare major. I understand. I hear you. So, let me just explain it to you. Over 10 years, the joint committee on taxation estimates that this particular repeal generate $1.4 billion. Think about that one. Hold on. I'm not asking you a question, Mr. Chairman. 1.4. I'm not asking you a question now. I'll give you an opportunity in a moment to answer a question. What do you have against? Mr.
▶ 8:14:29Chairman, I will give you an opportunity to finish. I'm not asking you a question. Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking you a question. I I will I'll redirect it to the ranking members since I I I'm not asking you this question. Ranking me it is it is the member of the committee's time and Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We didn't have the I will simply say this back and forth and uh I'll I'll I'll address this towards the ranking member. $1.4 billion that will be generated by virtue of this repeal of the silencer tax.
▶ 8:14:59This is a tax that has been on the books since the mid 1930s, 100 years. That's during Republican administrations, Democratic administrations. I don't remember Republicans or President Trump for that matter trying to repeal this tax in 2017 when you all were pursuing this the first time around. And yet, you've decided on this course to repeal this particular tax that would generate $1.4 4 billion in revenue.
▶ 8:15:29Just imagine, ranking member Craig, what you could do with that 14 1.4 billion to address the cliffs that the chairman of the agriculture committee had described with respect to veterans and foster youth. The poverty cliff, I think was the phrase that he used that they will face under this bill in four and a half years. Ranking member, I happy to give you an opportunity.
▶ 8:16:01Well, we could spend, excuse me, we wouldn't have to cut, I suppose, or Republicans wouldn't have to cut food out of the mouths of hungry children, veterans, and our nation's seniors. Um, what's happening in this committee is egregious. You just think about the revenue savings that you're cutting from a title of the farm bill.
▶ 8:16:28And I know I keep saying that, but I know my recan colleagues across the aisle know that the nutrition title is part of the farm bill. And they know that these cuts, $313 billion to a title of the farm bill outside of a 12 title, five-year process is putting a farm bill in jeopardy. And my colleagues are coming after food. We talk about work.
▶ 8:16:58I wish Mr. Norman was still here. Nobody here is arguing. He's done working. He left. He He left again. He's done working. Apparently, Mr. Norman said, "What are you again? It's Are you kidding me? We already have work requirements in SNAP." What we're doing is we're adding work requirements to single parents of seveny Who thinks that's a good idea? It's egregious. And you talk about child care costs in this country.
▶ 8:17:28It's egregious where we are. And you know, Mr. Norman, and I I could use I could give you examples for every single one of your districts, but I'm going to use his just because I had it open here. We're talking about 11% of the state population in South Carolina that he's going to cut. We're talking about $321 million a year to the taxpayers of South Carolina in additional cost shifts. We're talking about a billion dollars a year to the state of Pennsylvania.
▶ 8:17:58These are real dollars if we move forward with these. And so I have no idea why we think it's a good idea to repeal attacks on silencers when we are going to feed fewer children in our country as a result of this. It's a moral damn failure is what it is. Congressman, I couldn't I couldn't say it any better. Uh, Ranking Member Craig, I think you articulated it well.
▶ 8:18:22And I guess it is just full circle in some ways given that this was the last panel that we're going to hear from, but it makes a lot more sense in retrospect now why Republicans decided to proceed with this particular hearing in the dead of night.
▶ 8:18:37Because I think when you begin to see the full picture, it's only when you have, you know, the the the chair of the Ways and Means Committee to talk about the various priorities they are pursuing, you know, repeals of of taxes on silencers by way of example, and hear from the agriculture committee about the priorities they are pursuing, massive cuts to the social safety net, that you begin to understand the full picture holistically that is reflected in this bill.
▶ 8:19:06And I think that is ultimately what House Republicans did not want the American people to hear or to see. Uh, regrettably for them, we're going to have an opportunity throughout the rest of today and when this bill invariably gets to the floor to continue exposing it to the American public and I think the more the American public learn about this bill, the less they're going to like it. So with that, um, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. I think gentleman yields back and now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott for his time of questioning.
▶ 8:19:36Thank you, Mr. Um, there's been a lot said about a lot of different numbers here. Um, but I I want to come to you, Mr. Smith. I mean, my understanding is that the current tax rate for 2025, the top rate is 37%. And that is going to apply to people that are making um they're filing jointly.
▶ 8:20:04Mary filing jointly $731,200 somewhere right there. And that if this bill passes that tax rate at 37% is still going to be 37% for 2026. Is that correct? That's correct. So all this talk about tax cuts for billionaires, what what what the accurate statement would be is we are not allowing tax rates to go up.
▶ 8:20:33We're keeping the same current tax policy with all the rates because every individual rate if Congress does not act by the end of this year goes up. The lowest tax rate and the highest tax rate. And what this bill does, it just makes permanent current tax rates. Okay. I'm going to come to to you, Chairman Thompson, because I want to talk about SNAP and the the work requirements and other things.
▶ 8:20:56And I want to say this, we we met um on two separate occasions and there was an accusation made that you shut down debate. U my recollection is that we met the first day and then we came back and we met a second day and we went from 10 to 10. And I read the various amendments that Democrats kept submitting and it was basically the exact same sub amendment. Like they plagiarized each other with the amendments that they were submitting.
▶ 8:21:25And so finally we went ahead and we had the votes on the amendments and is that your recollection? Well, that plus the fact that um none of the amendments were submitted within the within the deadline. It's within within the rules package that was unanimously adopted. Absolutely. And it um and there was quite a bit of repetition. Okay.
▶ 8:21:51So, uh what percentage of farm bill spending currently goes to SNAP benefits? uh approximately 81 80 82% 82% of farm bill spending now goes to SNAP benefits. That's correct. It's and while the Democrats say they want to work in a bipartisan manner to pass a farm bill, their demand is that 82% of farm bill spending must go to SNAP benefits, which means that production agriculture is going to end up with less than 10%.
▶ 8:22:22Now, if you're not taking care of production agriculture, then you're not taking care of the food supply for anybody in this country, whether they're on SNAP or or whether they are um at the highest tax bracket in the country. Is that fair to say? That that is more than fair to say. If uh if we have if farmers fail, we have food insecurity. And uh no matter what the programs look like, what what the rules are, what the regulations are, um we have food insecurity, which quite frankly is national insecurity.
▶ 8:22:52So only four Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee voted for the farm bill and committee last year. Is that correct? That's correct, Miss Craig. I don't think you were one of them, were you? No, sir, I didn't. But I noticed Republicans didn't bring it to the floor because you didn't have the votes. Well, because because of the demand that 80 plus% of it go to SNAP benefits. 45 million Americans versus 1 million Americans. That's a split in the farm bill between those two programs. Explain those numbers, please.
▶ 8:23:23SNAP covers 45 million Americans. The farm program covers about 1 million Americans. Yes, ma'am. And those 1 million Americans provide 100% of the food for the American citizens. and your country. This is my time and you can wait. I'm going to come to you because I want to talk about some of the votes you've cast on the inflation reduction act and the American Rescue Plan. But without the 1 million farmers in this country, there's no food for the people who have SNAP benefits to buy.
▶ 8:23:52That's all there is to it. So, uh, but I appreciate you coming clean on that. I'm not coming clean. It's a fact. Sure you are. Yeah. You're talking fact. Yeah. You made it clear. You don't care. Why the coalition exists? Because the nutrition and the farm programs exist together. Gentlemen's time to ask a question. You expose yourself on on not caring about the 1 million farmers. And that's fine. Oh. All GT federal law right now today.
▶ 8:24:23And this is under this a Biden administration proposal I have. And I would remind everybody that's watching, when they had the House, the Senate, and the White House, they passed both the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act without a single Republican vote. So that they could have changed any of this they wanted to, and they chose not to. That's correct.
▶ 8:24:43Federal law limits the amount of time a timelmited, which is an ablebodied working age adult without dependence participant, commonly referred to as an able-bodied adult without dependence, can participate in SNAP to any three countable months and a 36-month period unless an person meets the work requirements. That's the current law. That's correct. to know the work require we've had the work requirements since 1970s.
▶ 8:25:14Um yeah, thank you for coming clean on that. That's right. And when Bill Clinton signed the welfare to work requirements, the poverty rates declined more than at any other point in the country. Is that correct? Correct. That is correct. Do you dispute that, Miss Craig? I don't have that data in front of me and I don't think GT does either. Oh, come on.
▶ 8:25:43Democrats have routinely taken credit for what Bill Clinton did and and the welfare to work. Just factually speaking, it was a good piece of legislation and and people went back to work and poverty rates declined. All right. So, what we have done in the bill is effectively take the two separate work exemptions.
▶ 8:26:07uh one is a general work requirement exemption and we have made them match with the able-bodied working age adult exemptions. Is that correct? That's correct. By reducing the hopefully going forward then reducing the the confusion, the complexity for the participants to be able to um gain better access. Gain better access to what? just now.
▶ 8:26:37Look, this is a gentleman's time. Work work is good. Work is good. Work is great. You know, and and without the 1 million American farmers, nobody in this country has food to eat. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. Gentlemen's back now. Recognize Miss Ledger Fernandez for her time of questioning. Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:27:01Uh and you know I think it's uh really important that we do not mischaracterize what our witnesses have said and there was a gross mischaracterization as to whether the ranking member supports our farmers. I know the ranking member supports our farmers because indeed we if we just talk about SNAP 1.5 times the benefit goes to the farmers. So when we're talking about protecting SNAP, we're also talking about protecting the farmer.
▶ 8:27:31Is that right, ranking member? Well, if you cut SNAP by $300 billion, you're actually taking $30 billion right out of the farm income. And that is absolutely true, sir. And you know what's I'm sorry, I have not yielded time, Mr. Scott. What's interesting, Miss Ledger Fernandez, is that my colleague uh across the room 23% of folks, all households in his congressional district have access to the SNAP program in our country.
▶ 8:28:00One of the highest rates in this room. Uh and he is seeking to cut that program by $300 billion. And back to work. Work is good. and matching the program. You're talking about sending single mothers and fathers to work almost 20 hours a week when their child turns 7 years old. If we were here to talk about work, we would be talking about trade skills, technical programs.
▶ 8:28:30We would be talking about ways in which to help people get out of lowwage jobs in our country. We'd be talking about raising the minimum wage in our country to help them get out of poverty, but we're not. We're here talking about cutting their health care, cutting their SNAP benefits. We're talking about items that are going to absolutely decimate rural communities like Mr. Scots across the room here and it's just stunning to me. Me too. Mr.
▶ 8:28:59Chairman, since my name was called, I do expect a chance to respond to that. Um, actually the the proper the rule is the rule is that that you can mention the gentleman from Georgia, but you're not to mention him by name in debate. And so if you would stick to just saying the gentleman or my colleague is fine and if you would stick to that, but that you know that's the way we're supposed to operate.
▶ 8:29:22Would you like to restate it to say the gentleman from the gentleman from Georgia has one of the highest rates of SNAP households in the country and he is promoting decimating this program. And look, you know, there's lots of things in here that should be in a farm bill. Lots of elements. You cut the nutrition title, you plus up the farm programs in reconciliation in a partisan process. That's what's happening here.
▶ 8:29:51We should be sitting down and doing a farm bill. And honestly, I know my chairman sitting next to me does not want to cut SNAP by $300 billion. And many of the colleagues on our committee did not want to do it because they didn't show up for debate. They didn't want to be on the record talking about this because they know it's incredibly unpopular for the American people. We have traditionally been able to get a bipartisan farm bill from the nutrition coalition and the farm coalition.
▶ 8:30:21Of course, these coalitions are together, but we're destroying that here today, folks. And it has long-term consequences for us. I just hope you all know what you're doing on a partisan basis has long-term consequences. Thank you. And I I noticed that the education chair and ranking member, you know, perked up and they said, "Wait a minute. We're going to talk about education. We we came here to talk about education. Uh and uh we're actually cutting education by also hundreds and billions of dollars. So we're not going to get there.
▶ 8:30:49But I wanted to uh yield some time to my ranking member uh uh Mr. McGover. The gentleman from Yeah, you could. Yeah, I won't be offended if you refer to me by my name, but uh uh but you know what? Enough of this BS because that's what it is. I mean, nobody here is saying that there isn't dignity in work. Uh what we're saying is that life is complicated and one glove doesn't always fit all.
▶ 8:31:14And what we're also saying, and because I believe this is true, that this is aimed, this is a backdoor attempt to force people off the benefit so you can take that money and pay for tax cuts for billionaires. That's what it's about. And I will also tell the gentleman that over the years, hunger has gotten worse in this country. The only time it didn't, believe it or not, was during the pandemic.
▶ 8:31:36And that is when we increased the SNAP benefit and when we increased other nutritional uh programs to help people get through that difficult time, we actually saw hunger go down, food insecurity go down. And then when some of those programs sunseted, hunger started to rise up again. So hunger is a political condition, my friends. I mean, we have the money, we have the resources, we know what to do to end it. What we lack is the political will.
▶ 8:32:03And again, tax cuts for billionaires paid for by savings and SNAP um is not going to end hunger and food insecurity uh in this country. And again, I mean, the idea that we can't come together and say that ending hunger and food insecurity is a priority, that somehow we we we it's okay to demonize people who are struggling. I mean, I I find that, you know, um appalling quite frankly, and I thank the gentle lady for yielding. I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 8:32:32uh uh the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern. You know what? Hunger is also a moral issue. It is a moral issue. And that's why 31 religious organizations have written to the chairs of all of the appropriate committees asking them to not pass these cuts.
▶ 8:32:59and they point out that uh so actually Mr. Chair, Madame Chair, uh I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record uh a letter sent uh to all the chairs of the committee from 31 religious organizations across the United States. Without objection. In the letter, this is why it's a moral issue and they say it out loud. They say they wrote it down.
▶ 8:33:26It is an abdigation of it the government's moral responsibility when the government seeks to reduce its investment in programs for the poor. Complacency can become greed and selfishness when the funds saved from the Medicaid and SNAP programs are used to ultimately widen the gap between rich and poor.
▶ 8:33:55Budgets are moral documents that outline a nation's priority. And I am looking I was at some of the members on here because I know that they believe deeply in the moral obligations they know. They know the teachings that ask us to feed the hungry.
▶ 8:34:25to take care of the poor. That is the essence of Jesus's teaching about love. It is the essence of almost every religion. Actually, it's the essence of everyone I know. And I think that that is a key failing of what we are doing But I want to move on for a moment because I know we've given a lot of attention to a and I might come back there.
▶ 8:34:54But you know, ranking member Palone, many of the children that we're talking about might be both receiving benefits and receiving Medicaid, right? And is that why you know they're many of the children because this is what we're talking and they are often working poor. Their families are working. We heard the ranking member Craig and so many stories.
▶ 8:35:22We have people, you know, congressmen and congressw women here who've shared their stories about how their parents worked and received SNAP and that's how they got ahead. But isn't that the case that we have many children who rely on both SNAP and Medicaid? It's absolutely the case and I don't know how much you wanted me to expand on it but you know I I I want to say really two things in response.
▶ 8:35:47First of all um you know my colleagues and and my chairman during the markup repeatedly said and Mr. Norman said, you know, work, work, work work. But the fact of the matter is that these people are working, right? The people that are getting SNAP, the people that are getting Medicaid, they're working, right?
▶ 8:36:07And it's and and it's the paperwork, it's the red tape that uh the Republicans are putting in place uh in this bill that is kicking people off. And I'm not suggesting that anybody's doing it intentionally, believe me. And I I I maybe shouldn't say this, but I'm going to, you know, Mr. McGovern 12, he mentioned Marian Twouette, right? And um I was for some reason, I guess it had nothing to do 11:00 at night, couple nights ago, there was a movie on about Marian Twinette, right?
▶ 8:36:37And she said to her husband, the King Louie, she said, "I don't know why everybody out there hates us so much. you know, I care about the poor, but the problem is that at the time they were, you know, all the money was going to the nobility and nothing was going to the average person, right? And so then one of her adviserss says, "Well, ma, you know, madam, queen, whatever.
▶ 8:36:58Um, you realize that the people have no bread, right?" And she says, "Well, let them eat cake, right?" I mean, it's it's it's not that anybody here on the Republican side, you know, doesn't have moral values. They just don't understand. They just don't understand what's going on out there, right?
▶ 8:37:16And so they say, "Well, we're going to have work requirements." But then if you look at the states that had these work requirements, like Arkansas or Georgia, we find that almost everybody who was eligible for Medicaid, right, was working. And uh the problem was they they they didn't know that they had to fill out the papers. The the the it was too ownorous to fill out the paper.
▶ 8:37:39I just want to give you one story because I had it here in Arkansas, which was one of the two states, but they only had it for a few months because they realized that it was kicking people off. And they said in the few months that the state had its work reporting requirements in effect, 18,000 people lost coverage, that's one in four people who were eligible for Medicaid. But research tells us that more than 95% of those people were meeting the requirements. Uh but they were kicked off because they didn't even know that they had to meet the requirements.
▶ 8:38:09Even when they do, it's impossible to navigate. And they have one person here, Arkansas, and attempting to document her work hours. Shared that my mom my mom said I need to go online and do this and that I was on the phone with a lady trying to and she said I needed to do something with my hours. Well, I was on the phone with the lady for like an hour. Then she sent me to someone else. Then she sent me to someone else. So I just gave up trying to report my hours worked and she lost her Medicaid.
▶ 8:38:37In Georgia, there were like four 3 to 400,000 people that were eligible. The state admitted they were eligible, but only about 7,000 ended up with coverage. That's the one state that still has it. Not because they weren't eligible, but because they couldn't go through the red tape.
▶ 8:38:54And and you know, I I know I don't I'm not suggesting that uh anybody on on the Republican side is do is intentionally doing this, but this is the reality and this is what the CBO says is why all these people, millions of people under this bill are going to lose their Medicaid because of this red tape. It's it's that simple. Yeah. It's going to bury.
▶ 8:39:15And I'm glad you mentioned the Arkansas example because indeed 18,000 people, right, in New Mexico, uh, you have to fill out this is this is what you fill out in New Mexico, right? It's not like people aren't working or that they aren't filling out a lot of paperwork. This is before this bill. And it asks all kinds of stuff. Your immigration status, what you're doing, where you're working, they are filling out too much paperwork as it is.
▶ 8:39:41And for a party that's always complaining about paperwork, they're going to just put more on there because that's not the purpose. The purpose isn't to get people back to work. It's to kick people off of Medicaid. It's to not recognize the hard work of those that already are. Because, as you put it, 90, what is it?
▶ 8:40:0492% 92% of adults under 65 on Medicaid are already working or can't work because they're caregiving illness. They're going to school. So don't tell us about work because we come from families that work. We come from families that get our hands dirty. We know what it's look what it looks like and what it feels like.
▶ 8:40:31And these are the people that we are working to protect. And I am very concerned about what they're going to do to indeed the people when I go to my rural areas when I went, you know, to the dairy farms and talked to the people in my rural areas and they said we are the people who get our hands dirty because they are I represent the a large large rural They're gonna get slammed,
▶ 8:41:02aren't they, Ranking Member Palone? Because rural hospitals are going to go under. Um, Madam Chair, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record Medicaid cuts would threaten rural hospitals. And this is, Madam Chair, without letting you finish the Yeah, thank you.
▶ 8:41:25thought that was going to go into it because I think it's really important that Americans who now have woken up and had their second cup of coffee um that they actually look at what's happening here because it is really scary. In Pennsylvania, 12 rural hospitals, 24% are at immediate risk of closure from what you're doing here. in Michigan, nine rural hospitals. Oklahoma, 24 rural hospitals.
▶ 8:41:52You know, several in my community as well. But if you are representing a rural area or a rural state, your rural hospitals are going to close because this is the thing. We're going to kick you off of Medicaid and then we're not going to let you get onto the Affordable Care Act with the subsidies. Is that right? They're going to show up at the hospitals and not have any care, right? Absolutely.
▶ 8:42:18And and I want to explain why because I'm not sure everyone knows that um the CBO estimated that those 8.6 six million under the bill that or at least most of them that would uh lose Medicaid because of the red tape um would immediately or at least they would try to move over to the ACA and get a um a subsidized U insurance policy under the ACA.
▶ 8:42:46But because of that, all of the savings that were going to be give, you know, go to the rich and the and the uh and the corporate interest under this bill would have been lost because if those people moved over to the ACA and got a subsidized insurance policy, the government would have to pay for their subsidy and therefore there was no savings or very very little savings under the bill. And so then they put in the work.
▶ 8:43:10They put in the the uh prohibition that if you were denied Medicaid, you could not go to the ACA and get a subsidy. You had to pay full freight, which of course none of them could afford to pay, right? So that is strictly to make sure that there's money saved to pay for um the the the tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporate interest. That's the only reason that's in there.
▶ 8:43:34Again, it's not because, you know, I think the GOP hate uh the poor. It's because they have to come up with this money to pay for the tax cut for the rich and the corporate interest. That's the bottom line. So, I think it's also once again, you know, budgets reflect your values.
▶ 8:43:52Uh, Chairman uh Moore, I was wondering if you happen to have uh the uh the bill if you would mind reading title the title of section 111106 on page 91 line 20 in the rules committee print. Oh, sorry. Chairman got I was about to say you had made me a chair chairman. I was just gonna say I I knew your question then. I'm sorry.
▶ 8:44:22I I didn't hear I I didn't know it was directed at me. I'm sorry. What would you ask again? Okay. Uh if you'd go to uh page 901. Mhm. Page 901 uh line 20 of the bill. Do you have the bill in front? I don't have the bill in front of me, but read. I'll I'll pass this down to you. Okay. Just read that one line. Line 20.
▶ 8:44:53I don't think that's not in my jurisdiction. I'm sorry. That's why I didn't know about it. We can pass it. Uh I think that was raising means actually. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know what it is. Chairman Smith. Sorry. Excise. Okay. So, what are you asking? Would you please so that the American public knows what this bill does? One of the little things that it does. Would you please read page 901, line 20? I think it'd be better if you read it. Oh, he doesn't want to read it.
▶ 8:45:21I I've read it actually member ranking member here. So you ranking me, it was a question if you would read it. So I'll ask ranking member Moore to read the the text. This is this is in their bill. They don't want to read a line from their own bill. Ranking member, I don't want to read the bill for you. I am I am testifying about this legislation. I'm not going to read the bill to you. Okay.
▶ 8:45:51I am I am This is amazing. Miss Lagger Fernandez. Shall I pass this back or shall I read it for you? Why don't you just read it? I am a a member of this committee. Uh I am the ranking vice chair of the committee. Says section 1116 repeal of excise tax on indoor tanning services.
▶ 8:46:14So they are going to repeal they are repealing an excise tax oh god on beds. They're repealing they're repealing a tax on silencers at the same. So they're going to Okay. So if you have a tanning bed, you get a little bit of a tax break. And if you need a hospital bed in rural America, I'm sorry, you're out of luck. Right?
▶ 8:46:44And I don't know where this particular provision came from. We do know that there are certain elected officials who appear to have a certain orange hue about them that maybe they want to make sure that tanning beds get a little bit of special credit, but really really we are prioritizing tanning beds over hospital beds in rural So, you know, I do want to
▶ 8:47:14talk a little bit about the tax credit, the child tax credit, because one of the things that is sad about the child tax credit, I agree that it should have gone on for longer. We fought Rossa Delo has been fighting for that expanded child tax credit for almost her entire time here and she is joined by so many of us on the Democratic caucus. I think all of us.
▶ 8:47:40Now, sadly, it didn't get extended, but it didn't get extended because we could not get the Republican votes to extend it in the way it was. And right now, what they have in this bill would actually deny the full value of the child tax credit to 17 million children because their families don't make enough money to qualify for it.
▶ 8:48:11Now, I don't know if the chair wants to answer any more questions, but uh maybe I'll just ask ranking member Moore. Is that what's going to happen with the child tax credit? is the families who need it the most won't get Well, uh do does the does the does the child tax rate extend to all uh the family?
▶ 8:48:36So, what this legislation does of the 17 million children that you're talking about, they're going to make sure that their refundability is $1,700. At the end of this year, it drops to a,000. So, we're making sure that they are staying whole of where they are currently. If this bill does not pass, those 17 million children will only have a $1,000 um $1,000 child tax credit instead of a but there is a discrepancy.
▶ 8:49:05Representative Moore, thank you so much. And and and you know, Chairman Smith knows that uh that this is very important to me. This is the reason that I came to Congress. And so while I appreciate the fact that this committee has finally recognized that as an OECD country, we need to provide some kind of child supplement to children. I mean, everybody else has figured that out before we did.
▶ 8:49:31And while people want to give women $5,000 to have babies, I just think it's a lot more practical to take care of the children that we already have. I guess the thing that I um and we're going to get to talking about work requirements again, but um as people have pointed out about 96 97% of people who are under the age of 65 and that receive any of these benefits are they work.
▶ 8:49:57And if they're not working, they've worked the year before, you know, they received any of these benefits, they worked a year after they've gotten it. And the six or seven% of people who don't work, as Mr. McDermott um has pointed out, they have very uh Mr. McGovern uh have very complicated lives. Uh they're taking care of elders, they're taking care of children.
▶ 8:50:21So if a if a woman finds herself in a situation for example where she for whatever reason cannot work, you know, there are 17 million children who will get zero and these are the poorest kids that there are and um and they need support.
▶ 8:50:44you know, a ch, you know, a child supplement is supposed to recognize that child rearing is expensive. You know, um that kids don't earn money particularly, but they need their Cub Scout uniform. Uh you know, they have sports equipment, they can't participate. I can remember growing up when I couldn't go on a field trip cuz I didn't have $5 for the bus fair. and we're going to leave them out.
▶ 8:51:15And you know, because of this work requirement, the poorest children, 17 million of them, who have no control over whether or not employers will provide their parents with work, parents who perhaps don't have a high school diploma.
▶ 8:51:37Uh, you know, I I know people who wouldn't hire people because all their teeth were rotten and that wasn't a good look for working in the restaurant. And these are children the most needy will not receive any money whatsoever. And you have to earn at least $2,500. Is that right, Mr. Chairman? To get the get the lowest amount of the tax credit.
▶ 8:52:04So someone, you know, the mayor of Milwaukee, you know, he's got three beautiful children, he'll get the maximum tax credit and kids who live down the street will get nothing. It's it's that disparity. You know, there are so many bad things in this bill that we really need another three or four days.
▶ 8:52:24the inflation reduction act, what they are doing to clean energy, what they are doing in so many different areas, condemning the United States to be so far behind, condemning us to be, you know, second to China on renewable energy in so many different ways. But, you know, I think that we will just continue to talk about these other things because it's really important.
▶ 8:52:50Uh with that, uh I want to yield just a really quick few seconds to my colleague. Yes. Um I just wanted to seek unanimous consent on an article my colleague uh mentioned the issues with respect to rural hospitals. Um but there's a Philadelphia Inquirer article from May 19th entitled Pennsylvania hospitals like Croerchester Chester with a lot of Medicaid patients keep closing budget cuts would speed up that trend.
▶ 8:53:18and it discusses how half of our adult hospitals in southeastern Pennsylvania have closed due to lack of adequate Medicaid funding. Without objection. Thank you. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you. Um, Miss Hen, do you have a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I I appreciate the panel um being here and for long hours and testifying.
▶ 8:53:45Um, I do want to offer to my chairman of Energy and Commerce, Chairman Guthrie, uh, to, uh, just touch on anything that you would like to cover out of the many accusations that have been leveled about the bill.
▶ 8:54:01Um, but my one question to you, since high school diplomas were mentioned, if somebody doesn't have a high school diploma, uh, then they might not be able to get a job per the work requirements that we have in the bill, uh, doesn't participating in some sort of education program count toward those requirements? Yeah, if you're working towards a GED program, that would count towards your work requirement. So, thank So, if you want to um go through uh, I'll give you yield time to you to cover the many accusations. Thanks a lot. And and I come from a product of hard work, too.
▶ 8:54:31My whole life growing up, my childhood up through high school, my dad went worked in a Ford foundry. That's pretty hard in Alabama. That's pretty hard work when you're in the heat of the summer. So, I come from that as well. And and if you look at they talked about the coverage loss, I always say look at ineligible, illegal, and able. So, if you look at the coverage laws that that that comes from the Medicaid requirement, it's people that one that aren't eligible to participate in the Medicaid program by the rules set up by people who voted for the Medicaid program.
▶ 8:55:00The other are the people that are not here in a legal presence. And the other is the able-bodied. And when we talk about able-bodied, well, one, I know that we talked about the maternal health program that was actually bipartisan. I think um Doc Burgess was really engaged in doing that. It was extended for a year and that if it's anywhere in the bill, I want somebody to point that out because it's absolutely it's it's not in the bill that that's affected.
▶ 8:55:24But the work requirement does not apply to you if you're a pregnant woman, if you're under 19 or over the age of 64, if you're a tribe member, if you're a parent, guardian, caretaker, relative of a disabled individual, or have a dependent child. Veterans with a disability rated as total. Individuals who are medically frail which includes but is not limited to people with the following conditions.
▶ 8:55:48Blind, disabled, substance use disorder, disabling mental disorder, physical intellectual development disability, serious or complex medical condition or other conditions identified by the state approved by the secretary or you're for compliance with TANIF or SNAP which they've had. SNAP's had them argued since the 1970s. So we think we can do this. People have brought up Georgia and and Arkansas. Those were problems. People were working and could not get Medicaid. And that is absolutely not what we want.
▶ 8:56:17That's why we took great pains to make sure we simplify the reporting requirements. People have due process rights. We want people to have Medicaid, but if they're not working and able to work to work, but we don't want to use the work requirement to deprive people of Medicaid. So, we feel that is is there. the other number cuz they throw up 13 million.
▶ 8:56:37There's like over 5 million, but that comes from an expiring provision in the in the in the inflation reduction act and it was brought up by my my friend from Wisconsin and others that why don't we make all these other things permanent. That wasn't made permanent. It's expiring and because it's expiring, that's where the 5 million comes from.
▶ 8:56:57So, there were decisions that y'all I don't know why y'all decided in the IRA to spend $32 billion or $27 billion on the green energy fund when you could have made this last longer. And then in my my friend from Massachusetts talked about, well, this is for the well-connected.
▶ 8:57:13We had a hearing yesterday where there was a nonprofit that was started by a well-connected individual had a $100 in the checking account of the nonprogressive forward and got a $2 billion grant which the CEO salary of that is over $800,000. So she's getting paid five times a member of Congress to implement a grant appropriated by Congress.
▶ 8:57:37And if that's not well connected and and that that's money that could have been spent for these um and and with rural hospitals, I love to see when that article was written because we really sat down all of us on we got a lot of energy commerce people here. I went to rural hospitals. I've been it it's it's urban hospitals. It's any hospital that has a high Medicaid population which by typically also has a high Medicare population. So the low reimbursement rates for those programs affect those hospitals. That's what we're talking about here.
▶ 8:58:06And if you look at a a item came up that that a lot of I didn't know as much about ST direct state directed payments. We sat down and and that's probably what they're writing about because there were people saying that those should not stay where they are. And we sat down with hospitals. We all did. We looked and we said, "Yeah, this really ups the the reimbursement for hospitals have high Medicaid so they can stay open." So we held harmless that provision. Now going forward there's there's there's reform in it but it held harmless.
▶ 8:58:37State said that they had difficult times with their with their budgets and the provider taxes helped them get through. You know President uh Biden called him a scam. President Obama wanted to be 3.5. So a lot of people know this is sending money up to match federal money. But we said okay we realize it would be a big burden on states if we took a big approach to it. So we we held harmless. We said we're going to freeze where you are.
▶ 8:59:01you can increase, but we don't want rural hospitals on the edge closing because we took away state directed payments because we lowered the provider taxes for states. And so if anybody's closing to tomorrow because of this bill, then it means they were already going to be closing anyway because this bill doesn't affect that. And then there were people that are ineligible for Medicaid. So only ACA. So that that was another one. So if you're they said if you're on Medicaid and you fall off Medicaid, you can't go to the ACA.
▶ 8:59:31The AC sets up the provision that if you have other coverage, you can't go on the if you have other coverage. So, if somebody has has Medicaid, this is what our argument wasn't save money, but if somebody has Medicaid and the only reason they become ineligible because they are able-bodied under all the exemptions that I that I read, but they're able-bodied and they fall off Medicaid just because they won't work, then they shouldn't have the opportunity to get a subsidized plan in another another form. And so, that's what that provision was there for.
▶ 9:00:02So this whole committee, energy arent a lot of time making sure that we reform a program that's grown twice the size of inflation. I mean one state has spent $26 billion more on Medicaid in the last three years. We felt it was unsustainable. We walled off. There's two groups. There's the Affordable Care Act. So if I'm a healthy Kuckian and I go to the hospital, the federal government pays 90%. If I'm a disabled child, I can take all the hospital.
▶ 9:00:32The federal government pays 72%. Talk about values. But we have left that alone in our bill because of the states have have budgeted and put their hospitals around that. So, unfortunately, that's what was put into law under the Affordable Care Act. And so, we looked at at all of that.
▶ 9:00:48How do we get a handle on the growth in Medicaid and make it sustainable and protect it for mothers and pregnant mothers, pregnant women, mothers, children, the disabled, what the program was originally intended for because most of the great growth is in the expansion population and it was I think this proposal well thought out. I received a letter from the Kentucky Hospital Association. I said with a saying that thank you for the path that you took because this is something we can deal with.
▶ 9:01:16I sat with hospital executives when they when they listened to the rhetoric and they saw where our where I thought our plan was going and I could say look this is where I think it's going they would all say wow we can all live with this. So we've given a product that saves the program. It it makes well it puts it on a more sustainable path. You know it's still a growing program. It's going to spend over 1.1. We're going to spend 700 billion this year. 1.1 trillion 10 years from now after this bill's in full effect.
▶ 9:01:45So, we're not cutting Medicaid. What we're trying to do is deploy the resources for the people that need it the most and reform the program and let estates have to take more responsibility in the future, but hold them harmless today so we don't have these these hospitals on the edge like my friend from Pennsylvania mentioned on the edge being affected by what we do here in the next few days. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. you did spend time with uh hospitals from my state um talking to them about what we were doing in this bill.
▶ 9:02:15I really appreciate the time that you took there with them and with many other members uh any member who had uh hospitals with questions uh you took time to to visit with and we are grateful for that. Um I just want to make a few uh exclamation points on some of the things that you said. Um, Medicaid alone is on pace to out spend outpace defense spending. Medicaid alone is on pace to outpace defense spending.
▶ 9:02:44Say we'll spend one, it's going up from 700 billion out of 1.1 trillion under this bill. That is not sustainable. And Mr. Chairman, what happens to the Medicaid population when we can no longer afford that level of spending? Well, it's the fear when the the interest on the debt just gets so big, it it it overcomes it all. And so I said to hospitals, I a lot of hospital CEOs that I've talked to yours and others and I said, "Look, this is this is a beginning to bend the cost curve.
▶ 9:03:15This is this will be a much different conversation when we get to the point that we can't borrow money anymore because our debt's too high. We need to have this conversation now because we can do things that that's sustainable and can keep everybody operating. But we get to a point where we can't borrow anymore. It's a different conversation. And we've been talking about safeguarding Medicaid for the people who need it most. You you said it uh best.
▶ 9:03:39We are preventing the ineligible, the illegal, and the able from accessing benefits and taking dollars away from the very people who this program was designed to help. Uh, pregnant women, children, the disabled, seniors, if we did nothing, would there be more or less money available to take care of the traditional population? Well, if you think about if you're a state program and you get 90 cents in my state, you get 72 to 90.
▶ 9:04:09So 90 cents for one patient and 72 cents for the other. If the incentive is there, I don't think it was intentional. It was to get states to expand, but now the incentive is there to spend more, have more access and care for the the the higher reimbursement.
▶ 9:04:23And finally, we are saving approximately $700 million in Medicaid over the 10-year window because of making sure people who are ineligible, illegal, and able are not accessing benefits designed to for the people who need able access them if they work. But they work. That's right. Um but we're saving money, but we're still increasing spending in Medicaid. So when Democrats say we're slashing Medicaid, we're still increasing our overall spend in Medicaid over the window. Is that correct?
▶ 9:04:54700 billion to 1.1 trillion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Uh thank you, Mr. Langworthy. Uh thank you very much, Madam Chair. A lot's been said here today. I I would like to offer the opportunity for Chairman Thompson uh uh from my neighboring district to offer, you know, in similar fashion anything that he would like to um rebut based on what's been said here today.
▶ 9:05:21Well, I thank thank my neighbor to the north for uh yielding some time. I just want to start out by by saying contrary to the disparaging remarks we've endured today based on fear not facts um we are the goal is not to hurt those struggling in poverty um the goal is to fulfill the purpose that is in law of the nutrition title and the nutrition title as of the FRA uh when u
▶ 9:05:52by the way any of those who voted for the FRA were the ones that u um approved those uh benefits that we talked about for the homeless uh those aging out of uh of foster care and veterans. Uh you that voted for that were the ones that voted to have those expire in 2030. There was a question during some of the questioning of of where that came from.
▶ 9:06:18So um but within the FRA we obviously food security has always been a part of the nutrition title uh really important uh but it has a dual purpose. It is officially codified and in law and that is workforce development uh that became a part of uh that purpose.
▶ 9:06:40And I would say we also um not in law but my own personal perspective is we need to achieve sustainability of this uh this critical program and not to and not to have cuts and I I've said all along we've had the that discussion in committee and um and I read too often about cuts that are happening and there and there are no cuts.
▶ 9:07:04The House Committee on Agriculture is leading efforts to restore integrity to the SNAP program. Um the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Uh the committee's reforms ensure that SNAP works the way that Congress intended it to um going back to the 1970s. We're really proud of that program.
▶ 9:07:25It's been uh it has been a program that has restored rungs and a ladder of opportunity for folks to to be able to pull themselves out of poverty while at the same time meeting their uh providing supplemental nutritional assistance. And the goal is and we do that in terms of uh the program integrity in areas by reinforcing work.
▶ 9:07:50those who can work should and there certainly are plenty of waiverss and and provisions so that to address you know kids uh the reason it went that it's always been six year six years and younger as a waiver under general work requirements is because it was recognized that if you had a preschool child at home uh that you would have be able to care for them.
▶ 9:08:15It also applies if you have someone in your house that is disabled, including a maybe a a parent that that you have to provide care for. Uh always th those exemptions are there. But by reinforcing work, rooting out waste, and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs uh and end executive and state abuse and overreach.
▶ 9:08:41is when the executive branch and specifically the states um do things the wrong way. U it is the the SNAP participants, those individuals, those families are the ones that that are hurt most. Um so the um you know the reason for this reform it you know it's intended to supp you know through though the intend intended to intent to supplement the food budget for lowincome individuals.
▶ 9:09:11That's what SNAP is. SNAP has ballooned in cost since 2019. SNAP rules have increased by 17% from 36 million uh to in 2019 to 42 million. And a lot of that has occurred at the state level. And while the overall cost of the program has grown by 83% ballooning from 60 billion to 110 billion annually, you know, states do administer the program. Uh they administer the program.
▶ 9:09:41There's a cost share for uh administration of the program and the the collectively um those the states make $13 billion per year in erroneous payments both overpayments and underpayments. And both of those hurt the beneficiaries, the people that we've been spending hours now talking about how do we how do we help them?
▶ 9:10:10uh the uh uh the national average error rate is 11.68% and that has nearly doubled just 2019. So what is the impact? Obviously we all know what the impact is when it's an underpayment. You know that single parent mom with two little babies don't have isn't the states are not providing sufficient assistance uh in in putting money into their SNAP EBT card. Um, and that's obvious how that hurts those families.
▶ 9:10:40But I will tell you that the overpayments, which there's more overpayments than underpayments, best based on the data, uh, has even, I think, greater harm. Um, if you're that single parent mom with two little babies and the the car gets charged, you're going to use whatever's on that card. And I, you know, that's fine because that's the benefits you were given.
▶ 9:11:01and and when you go and by the way SNAP benefit bene um beneficiaries use an average of two to three forms of payment uh when they go they're not they're not using just SNAP uh they're that's obviously supplemental to uh to uh you know cash and to checks or um debit Um so how does the over the overpayment hurt them?
▶ 9:11:28Well, because the states will come back and claw that back. It may be three, four, six months later. Now, where is that single parent mom with two little babies supposed to find that money at that point? That's where program integrity is so important. It it protect one of the things it does, it protects the beneficiary. It protects that single mom from uh from that. And so the error rate uh by these states is completely um unacceptable.
▶ 9:11:58And you know what? Why do they do it? Because there's no skin in the game. They don't have any there's no accountability. Uh they they get the money, they they execute the program. Um and if they don't do it right, which is with these error rates is a significant amount. I believe Pennsylvania doesn't do it right. It's double digits. And there's a lot of Pennians that are hurt because of these error rates. And that's unacceptable. States have to do a better job.
▶ 9:12:25So what we provide is we could have come in and just done a a punishment, but we did a carrot in a stick and we put it at just 5% cost share. Um but it's based on their error rates. And I I happen to believe that looking over the past couple decades, they can every state can get their error rate down below to be at that 5% mark. that only 28% of able-bodied adults without dependence on SNAP have earned income from work.
▶ 9:12:54That's largely because of how not because of the the the law that we and the regulations that Congress passes and and and the executive branch writes, it's because of how it's poorly administered by the states.
▶ 9:13:10the uh USDA and states have intentionally limited enforcement of the SNAP work requirement for adult um with um without dependent children, able-bodied adults uh through waiverss, leaving 40% of these work ready individuals today under a waiver of the of the aald work requirement and remaining on the SNAP rules long after the three-month time limit uh for compliance with the work requirement.
▶ 9:13:38So, uh, because the SNAP benefit, unlike other entitlement benefits, is 100% funded by the federal government, there is minimal, I would say no incentive for states to control cost to enhance efficiency and improve outcomes for recipients. The general lady showed the uh the Medicaid paperwork.
▶ 9:13:58um that is not paperwork that comes I don't believe comes from the federal government because I know in the SNAP program you know it is the the states determine that bureaucracy and there are problems with states that will take months uh in order to process those applications under the nutrition title that's unacceptable and that's why we need to hold states um and I I don't believe that no no state out there is going to cut u SNAP benefit benefits.
▶ 9:14:28You heard about the passion for for that assistance on both sides of the aisle and here. And so I think you're being uh pretty much unrealistic and disrespectful to our colleagues that work in state capitals to think that this program would be any less important to them. And we're talking 5% uh that I believe that they can all get there. So uh uh with that um I thank the gentleman for for yielding. Mr. Mr. Mr. Langworthy, do would you yield a moment?
▶ 9:14:59I think Mr. Thompson, you brought up a very significant word in your comments and that's integrity. And what we keep hearing on side is we want integrity in these programs to save them. But integrity and and we're hearing that these are moral programs.
▶ 9:15:23Integrity is too and we want integrity in the programs so that we can save them. And I think you've just outlined that extremely well.
▶ 9:15:37And it's a word we have not heard enough of in this debate here and I think probably in the committees because we keep hearing about cuts when we're talking about having integrity in the programs. So thank you Mr. If if the gentleman from New York will yield just a few minutes. Certainly.
▶ 9:15:59you know, we uh we did not roll back um the the daily amounts uh that these recipients receive. Uh there was an increase uh when the market basket analysis was done at the direction of the 2018 farm bill. And and again, I agree it's only like $6 a day, something like that. That amount was not rolled back within this.
▶ 9:16:24uh nor nor did we pre are we preventing going forward adjustments based on inflation because that is the current law. Um and so I uh I think those corrections are really important to make and I and I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. U yield back to you Madam Chair. Thank you Mr. Griffith. You're recognized. Thank you very much m Madam Chair.
▶ 9:16:50You know, fake news, misinformation, it has long existed in human societies. And today we heard several folks reference Marie Antuinette and let them eat cake. U she never uttered those words. Uh as his historians will tell you, there's no evidence that she ever said it. I understand the intent in which it was used, but um she never she never said those words.
▶ 9:17:19In fact, the rumor, let me finish. I just say you guys look like she's down to earth. That No, no, no, not going there. But the rumor that she said those words uh started circulating in the streets of Paris a couple of weeks after her head had been severed by the guillotine. And as everybody knows, uh the brain only functions for two seconds. Scientific data done at the guillotine by French scientists showed the brain only functions for two seconds.
▶ 9:17:48two blinks of the eye subsequent to the head being severed. Uh misinformation is still out there and sometimes it's both sides of the aisle that just we start these these stories or these rumors in the minds of people. And one of those that that all of us have been guilty of is talking about work requirements related to this bill because it's actually community engagement.
▶ 9:18:12So, if you're going to school, as we've heard some testimony today, if you're engaged in your community in any way, going to school, getting a getting a drug treatment program counts. Volunteering in your community for that 18.47 hours a week counts. Or 80 hours. It doesn't have to all be done in a week. 80 hours over the course of the 4.33 weeks in a month um counts. And and so I I heard because we fall into that trap.
▶ 9:18:41I heard that, you know what? How can you work it when you need daycare? Well, you could be volunteering with the local daycare and count as community engagement. So, we need to try to get the facts straight in this point in history or else 200 years from now, they're going to be talking about work requirements when in fact it's community engagement.
▶ 9:19:05Just as we have heard today that Marie Antuinette said, "Let them eat cake," which she never did. Now, we have also heard other disparagements today which are not accurate. The gentleman from Missouri threw shade on the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier by saying that it didn't have great jurisdiction. Now, having heard the some of this, I'm sure his opinion has changed.
▶ 9:19:31And knowing that in order for him to make final comments, he will need to be recognized by a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I'm sure his opinion has changed in the last few hours as we've been debating this. And I would now ask the gentleman from Missouri if he would like to uh correct any things that are misunderstood, that have been said today, or that somehow otherwise need correction. So the historical record will be complete.
▶ 9:19:59I I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for um for yielding asking that question and also for serving on a fairly decent committee. Um so uh I appreciate the work that you all have been doing. Um you know this bill this bill is a bill for working Americans. I um I'm a product of the working class.
▶ 9:20:26Like I said earlier, I grew up um most of my life in a single wide trailer and then we upgraded to a double wide. My dad was one of those 199A employees that would benefit in this bill. He was the employee of one. He had a twocar garage. He was the best transmission overhaul mechanic that you could find. And I was the first in my family to ever graduate college.
▶ 9:20:54They were the first in their family to ever graduate graduate from high school. And so the community that I represent, my hometown where I live today is less than 5,000 people. The per capita income is just at $24,000. $24,000 a year. My grandparents never had running water on the farm that I live on. I was the first one to drill a well so we didn't have to use an outhouse.
▶ 9:21:24I understand the the struggles of working Americans. And that's why for over the last year, Chair Fox, we have traveled throughout this country. We've had 15 different field hearings from from um a homeless shelter in Chicago to an Indian reservation in Arizona to the second largest port in Staten Island.
▶ 9:21:53We went all over this country to hear from real small business owners, real working moms, real farmers of the issues that they're facing in today's economy. And that's what this bill delivers on. This bill makes permanent makes permanent what is expiring at the end of year. Every individual tax rate will be made permanent. The 10% tax rate will be permanent.
▶ 9:22:23Every single one. The child tax credit which affects 40 million Americans, 40 million children. If Congress does not act by passing this legislation, you will see the child tax credit go from 2,000 to a thousand to a thousand. That affects working families.
▶ 9:22:46The guaranteed deduction, which 91% of Americans use when they file their taxes, that gets slashed in half if we don't pass this bill. But guess what? This bill also increases that guarantee deduction a thousand per individual. That's real tax relief for the 91% of Americans that use it to file their taxes.
▶ 9:23:10We also enhance the child tax credit $500 to make the child tax credit Inflation's gone up a lot since 2017, and we're indexing it for inflation.
▶ 9:23:27We're also delivering on the promise that that we made to the voters of no taxation on tips, no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors, also allowing you to be able to deduct your interest from autos made in the United I'll tell you, the senior citizen who's an Uber driver is going to benefit the most from this tax package because no tax on
▶ 9:23:57tips, senior tax relief, and also they can deduct their interest if that car is made in the United States. These are real impacts for real Americans. In fact, an average family of four under this tax bill will see their tax cuts of $1,300.
▶ 9:24:19Where I come from, $1,300 is a lot of money in the paychecks of working families who are struggling just to get by. in this tax bill, what it does for small businesses. What it does for small businesses. There's 26 million small businesses right now that are wondering, is their tax rate going to be 43.4% next year or 23 to 28%.
▶ 9:24:48And these are those mom and pops on Main Street that are just surviving. That's my parents' auto repair shop in southeast Missouri. They're deciding of how to invest, how to grow right now with the uncertainty and this bill will provide that certainty.
▶ 9:25:07In fact, we also enhance the small business deduction to 23% allowing them to have more parody with the big corporations with having a lower tax rate as a small business owner. We also go after special interest tax provisions that were passed in the IRA. We eliminate more than a half a trillion dollar of bad green scam policies.
▶ 9:25:36And those policies will be redirected for the workingclass Americans, those tipped employees, those linemen working overtime, those seniors who are living paycheck to paycheck. That's what we're going to do with those credits. We're also going to hold elite accountable. We're going to make sure that they pay their share of revenues coming from endowments.
▶ 9:26:05Corporate tax rates 21% the top tax rate will be 21%. If if an endowment can have $55 billion more than most countries, I think that they're not really paying their fair share. We're always talking about paying their fair share, but we're going to make sure those elite universities pay their fair share. It's the same way with woke nonforprofits. We're holding them accountable.
▶ 9:26:35We're also saving $140 billion dollar in the tax code to make sure illegals aren't benefiting from the tax code. And this is all to deliver real relief for the average everyday American who sent us to Washington for this mandate. I appreciate you for allowing us to be here today.
▶ 9:27:04Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Jack. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will uh engage Mr. Wahlberg. I appreciate your patience throughout this hearing. I can relate that it's a little lonely when you sit at the edge of the table, but uh would welcome any closing thoughts and comments from you and the incredible work that your committee members produced at the education and workforce committee. Well, Mr. Jack, I appreciate that.
▶ 9:27:32Uh Bobby and I are feeling like Rodney Dangerfield down here at the end of you know, I I've ser I served on the A committee my first term in office. Great committee. Got a great a district that I represent. I served on energy and commerce up until I took the chairmanship of this fabulous committee and I never wanted to serve on Ways and Means. It's not up to my standards yet. Now, I love you, Jason. I love you. I had just had to get that in.
▶ 9:28:02But I do appreciate that, you know, uh, education workforce, and I don't want to belabor this, but we did some amazing work. I believe $350 billion of savings that will I think foster better opportunity for students in higher education at lower cost.
▶ 9:28:23uh in the in the Northwest Ordinance that's probably included in some of your states constitutions that says religion, morality, knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind. Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. I don't think we've been encouraging education as we ought to. And for that reason, uh, my ranking member Scott and I, um, and Representative Nagus, I'll respond to your question, which was a legitimate question.
▶ 9:28:53We, uh, we started 10:15 in the morning on our markup. 5 and a half hours later, after 33 or 34 amendments that we debated together, we completed it. And I turned to Bobby and I said, Bobby, what happened? He said, what do you mean? I said it's still light out. I think that shows how how a committee can work together to get things done whether we agree or not on everything and we didn't. But I think the passion is there for education.
▶ 9:29:22So what we did in this bill seeing that uh right now uh 40% of master's degree programs and a quarter of bachelor's degree programs leave students worse off than if they never started in higher because of the costs and the debt that they have.
▶ 9:29:43Within the next 10 years, if we don't do something, we have 300 billion dollars of debt to the students that they're going to lose over the next 10 years. Taxpayers lose 20 cents on every dollar that they lend to post-secary education right now. That's that's not a winning formula. So, in our in our legislation, Mr.
▶ 9:30:08Jack, we uh attempted to reduce from five disparit loan programs, some without well most without any limit on them down to two. And we put reasonable caps in for undergrad, for grad, and for professional grad students. Why did we do that?
▶ 9:30:33to give incentive to to colleges, universities, trade schools, community colleges to live within their means. And ultimately, we gave them something they've asked for for many years. And now they have the opportunity to counsel students on the basis of what their program will afford to them once they graduate, what they should take as a loan and no more.
▶ 9:31:01For that reason, we have a chance to give them skin in the game that if students come out at the end of the pipeline and they are paying off their student loan, keeping on track to do that and they have advanced in their ability to earn, we give them a special carrot called a promise grant.
▶ 9:31:22If they don't and the students are defaulting and not achieving what they ought to achieve, then we give them a portion of risk sharing uh to contribute that carrot and stick approach. Um Bobby and I agreed on on a very significant portion of the bill and that's workforce PEL, short-term PEL.
▶ 9:31:46We know our our uh manufacturing entities, our trades need people in the jobs these days. And why not give them certification programs, apprenticeship uh short-term uh degrees that we can use Workforce PEL for to bring them out of that pipeline with a skill, with a job, and without huge student loan debt.
▶ 9:32:12And um Bobby and I are going to continue to work on other workforce programs to ramp up that deal. But we did get that in this bill as well. So I won't belabor the point, but that 250 or excuse me, $350 billion of savings is all being put in to make it more accessible for students to come out of the end the pipeline. Um we don't agree on all of that. I get that.
▶ 9:32:39Uh, but that's the approach and I think in the end we're going to see a better higher education system. I wonder if the gentleman might give the ranking member a chance to Well, he already had a chance to address one of your concerns for him. I just heard a lot of references to Bobby. Respectfully respectfully. I'm respectfully, Mr. Noose. I reclaim my time and I appreciate your comments, Chairman Wahberg, and obviously appreciated your testimony throughout this hearing, Mr. Scott. And with that, I yield back to our chairwoman, Miss Fox.
▶ 9:33:07Madam Chair, can I can I publicly thank rules Republicans for all those profound last questions? You just did. Just did. Madam Madam Chair, Madam Chair, Madam Chair, excuse me.
▶ 9:33:34I' I'd like to like to thank you and the gentleman from Colorado for your kind words about Jerry Connley as the dean of the Virginia delegation. Uh several people said very nice things and I'd like to thank you for those.
▶ 9:33:50I I want to say I think it's important we always acknowledge each other because we all work hard and it's important that we do that no matter the
▶ 9:34:57the next panel. Thank you. in the room who've been waiting patiently to deliver test amendment testimony. I have a brief announcement about how we're going to proceed. Those of you been excused can go.
▶ 9:35:29going we're going to begin with a leadership panel, but it will still be an amendment panel. Democrat leadership has asked to testify as a panel of three to begin with, but it's our understanding they will abide by the procedures of an amendment panel, meaning five minutes of testimony each. We will then move to calling up members to testify on amend on amendments, eight members at a time.
▶ 9:35:58We've been doing our best to monitor when members have arrived and are arriving. We're also doing our best to cross reference our notes on this with the staff of our Democrat counterparts so we get it as right as possible. I'll be calling up the eight the members eight at a time. I've been patient this entire meeting and I ask for reciprocal patience here.
▶ 9:36:28If you just walked in, you may need to wait for a third panel. And for those listening who aren't here, you may need to wait for a fourth panel and so on. Again, I'm asking everyone to be patient. We'll be identifying the members for each panel verbally.
▶ 9:36:51Uh, I believe if you are on the Democrat side, and I think everyone who wants to offer an amendment is on the Democrat side, you may talk to the Democrat staff outside about where you might be in the
▶ 9:37:27Mr. Jeff, I understand you want to address the group in terms of the loss of Mr. Connelly first and then I'll identify you for your testimony. Well, Madam Chair, thank you so much and thank you so much for the moment of silence and uh the kind words of remembrance on behalf of our dear colleague uh Jerry Connley who really was a members member.
▶ 9:37:51Uh someone who conducted himself with the highest degree of intellect, brilliance, resilience, integrity, humor, uh and wit. It's a great loss for his family, great loss for his district, uh great loss for the Commonwealth of Virginia, great loss for us as House Democrats, but certainly a great loss for the Congress and for the country.
▶ 9:38:13Uh given just the depth of his representation, the relationships that he had on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the capital, uh and the fierce representation that he provided, uh to the people that he's been privileged to represent for decades. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share some brief words of reflection on behalf of the House Democratic Well, I'm reminded of an old old poem for whom the bell tolls.
▶ 9:38:44Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Jeff. Now, I'd like to recognize that we have minority leader Jeff, uh, leader Clark, and, uh, part of the, uh, leadership, Mr. Aguilar, at the witness table for our first panel. So, I now will recognize each of you. Will you be going first, Mr. Jeff? Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, good morning.
▶ 9:39:14Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern for the opportunity to testify at this incredibly important rules committee meeting. Uh, I also thank my colleagues, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Agular for partnering with me on this amendment. Come before you today with an amendment to strike the unacceptable, unconscionable, and unamerican cuts to the health care and food assistance of the American people.
▶ 9:39:42America is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. We are better than The great American middle class dream is that when you work hard and play by the rules, you should have the ability to provide a comfortable life for yourself and for your family, a good paying job, educate your children, purchase a home, and have access to high quality and affordable health
▶ 9:40:12care, as well as be able to put food on your kitchen or dining room table. Unfortunately, we are here today discussing a bill that would make that American dream harder to reach for millions by increasing costs for families, hardworking American families, and gutting the things that they need to survive and thrive.
▶ 9:40:38This reckless budget would take health care and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the welloff, and the well-connected. It would hurt children, hurt seniors, hurt families, hurt women, hurt people with disabilities, and hurt our nation's If enacted, the GOP tax scam would represent the largest cut to health care in
▶ 9:41:08American history and the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history in order to provide the largest tax breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk in American history. So, let's begin with the healthc care component of this amendment. everyone should have access to highquality and affordable health care in the United States of America.
▶ 9:41:38In 1965, Congress created both Medicare and Medicaid. In the intervening decades, Congress passed legislation to expand and strengthen these important programs. 2010, this Congress under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Dellesandro Pelosi passed the historic Affordable Care Act, which created new protections for people with pre-existing conditions and expanded health care for tens of millions of people who couldn't otherwise afford
▶ 9:42:08it. Since then, we have managed to achieve the lowest uninsured rate in history. Why would we go backward, which is what the GOP tax scam do? We know, however, that our healthcare system is not perfect. Too many Americans continue to be unable to pay their medical bills and struggle to get access to the care that they need. As Democrats, we are ready to work in a bipartisan manner to address these challenges.
▶ 9:42:38But we will never support any Republican effort to rip away health care from the American people. This GOP tax scam will force nearly 14 million people to lose their health coverage and cause millions more to pay higher co-pays, premiums, and Hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down, and people will die in all of your
▶ 9:43:11districts. Now, prior to the modern SNAP program being created in 1964, there was vast hunger and food insecurity across this country, including in lowincome communities, rural areas, and communities of color.
▶ 9:43:27Thanks to public investigations, community- based organizations, and some good journalism, these challenges were spotlighted, and the need for an expansion of federal food assistance was The American people were moved by images of children with distended bellies rumaging around in garbage and families hungry.
▶ 9:43:55Finally compelled Congress to act. And over the last 60 years, we as a country have made significant progress to reduce hunger and help people afford nutritional food. Unfortunately, the policies in this GOP tax scam threaten to undo this progress.
▶ 9:44:14and return us to an age where far too many children or veterans or seniors are struggling to eat and get access to the nutrition that they need.
▶ 9:44:31It's also important to recognize that SNAP is a vital part of providing opportunity for our farmers who we stand with, food makers, small businesses, truckers, independent grocerers, and the entire chain. So for the Republicans who have promised to love and cherish Medicaid, I ask you to support this amendment.
▶ 9:44:58For the Republicans who believe we should not rip food away from the mouths of seniors, and veterans, we ask you to support this amendment. And for the Republicans who believe that the gospel in Matthew 25 and35 teaches us to stand up for the poor, the sick, the afflicted, the least, the lost, and the left behind.
▶ 9:45:26We ask you to support this amendment and strike these harmful cuts to health care and nutritional assistance. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. Thank you, Madame Chair and Ranking Member McGovern members of this committee.
▶ 9:45:50I am a proud co-sponsor of taxion while our deficit is a triple threat to the American people. But unfortunately, it doesn't end there.
▶ 9:46:19I'm offering an additional amendment that strikes a provision that would defund Planned Parenthood. Speaker Johnson recently said about this provision, it is about going after quote big abortion, but he knows better than that. We all know the federal government doesn't pay for abortion care. We all know Republicans have already decimated access to safe abortions in this country.
▶ 9:46:48So what does this provision actually do? It further defunds women's health care. It defunds cancer screenings, prenatal care, postpartum services, fertility treatments, preventative care. 96% of Planned Parenthood's clinical work has nothing to do with abortion, but everything to do with serving millions of women.
▶ 9:47:18most of them overwhelmingly in rural and underserved areas who are having a hard time finding reproductive care or any health care, especially in states with abortion bans. Faced with the choice of either breaking the law or breaking their oath to put patient first, OBGYNS are packing up and leaving.
▶ 9:47:46As a result, 35% of counties in America don't have a single obstitrician. In Georgia, it's 42%. In Texas, it's 50%. Clinics are shutting down while maternal mortality is on the rise. Infant mortality is up for the first time in decades. How does this bill respond to this Republican manufactured crisis?
▶ 9:48:16It piles on. It makes it even harder for women to find health care. Without this amendment, it would shut down nearly 600 health centers run by Planned Parenthood. 64% of which serve women living in medical deserts. These are communities that don't have enough health care providers as it is. These are women who overwhelmingly live in rural areas.
▶ 9:48:44These are women that you represent. If Planned Parenthood is defunded, 7500 South Carolinians will lose their doctor. All of them, 100% live in a medical desert. 9,200 Georgians are on the edge of that same 75% in medical deserts. 22,000 hooers, 82% medical deserts.
▶ 9:49:1224,000 Virginiaians, 50% 37,000 North 67%. 51,000 motans, 69% and 118,000 Texans. Count on Planned Parenthood in a state where babies and pregnant women are dying at a historic rate.
▶ 9:49:38Twothirds of Texans live in medical deserts and 141,000 New Yorkers are about to see 47 clinics boarded up. 61% of them in the neediest areas in New York State. Millions of women are counting on their representatives to make the right decision.
▶ 9:50:01Women like Cheryl from North Carolina, who years ago was overdue for a papsmear, but she didn't have insurance and she kept putting it off. A friend mentioned Planned Parenthood would provide this free of charge. She booked an appointment, got checked, and it came back abnormal. They caught it early and the cancer was removed. Cheryl credits Planned Parenthood with saving her life.
▶ 9:50:29A lot of stories begin like Cheryl's. They should all end in the same way with health care that saves lives. I hope this amendment gives you all pause when the women in this country deserve health care. And I hope you will think about the moms struggling to get by and stay healthy for the sake of their children and their families.
▶ 9:50:59It is not too late. Do right by them. Make this amendment in order for floor consideration. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, distinguished colleagues on the committee. Uh, I appreciate your kind words about our colleague, Mr. Connelly, as well, Madam Chair.
▶ 9:51:23I'm grateful for the opportunity to introduce amendments that would strengthen SNAP, a program that helps families across the country meet their basic needs. I'm also proud to co-sponsor Leader Jeffy's amendment. State governments can't afford to take on the extra costs that this legislation would impose on them.
▶ 9:51:46It would force leaders in red states and blue states to either raise taxes or remove people from SNAP, leaving even more Americans hungrier and poorer. I wish more Americans had the opportunity to hear from our prior panel's testimony during the workday, but this committee made the choice to hide from the public and keep hidden what's actually in this bill.
▶ 9:52:12In fact, we're still told that managers amendments are still being negotiated and are incomplete. It is outrageous that this committee is debating these policies under the cover of darkness. But it shouldn't be surprising. Legislation you intend to pass, started at some ungodly hour, kicks millions of Americans off their health insurance and takes away food assistance for families who need it most.
▶ 9:52:40As grocery prices rise, I cannot understand why my Republican colleagues want to take food out of the mouths of mothers, children, and veterans while making healthcare even more expensive. House Democrats are eager to take on waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the federal government. But we cannot find a willing partner on the other side of the aisle because of our colleagues single-minded focus on a cutting health care for people who need it most.
▶ 9:53:10This legislation doesn't make Medicaid or SNAP more efficient or more fair. Madam Chair, all this bill does is ensure that billionaires who have never had to worry about a hospital bill or putting food on the table can continue to pay less in taxes than a teacher, a firefighter, or a nurse. Madam Chair, it is a fact that only House Democrats want to make health care more accessible and more affordable for everyone.
▶ 9:53:39We will continue to fight back against this effort to drive up costs of health insurance and end basic needs programs just to make a group of campaign donors happy. The contrast is clear. House Republicans are making health care more expensive and less accessible. House Democrats want to ensure that every American can earn the peace of mind of a good paying job with great benefits. I yield back, Madam Chair.
▶ 9:54:10Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. Would you mind leaving your testimony with me because I I don't believe I heard a couple of things that you said and I just want to look at it before I make any comments. Of course. Okay. I want to double check that I heard some things that I think you said. Okay. Before I make any comments. Of course.
▶ 9:54:31Um, I am uh I'm going to uh before I speak, I'm going to recognize any of my colleagues. Um uh Hchin, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Scott, you're Madam Chair, I would just like to submit ask unanimous consent submit for the record an article uh entitled Rich State Poor People.
▶ 9:54:57And if I might um Without objection, if I might just read from it. U the oil and gas has helped New Mex New Mexico has become the nation's second biggest oil producing state. Taxes paid on the state's oil production will generate and in quotations more money than we know what to do with uh according to Democrat state senator and legislative finance committee chair George Munoz. States are flushed with cash that are well worth. Thank you. Without objection, Mr.
▶ 9:55:27McGovern, you're recognized. Yeah. Um, first of all, let let me just address something that Chairman Smith said. Um, you know, he went through all the things in the tax uh section of the reconciliation bill that quite frankly most of us support. I mean, the child tax credit, the no tax on tips, the middle class tax cuts. But what he omitted with tax cuts for billionaires, what he omitted were the cuts to Medicaid that would throw people off of healthcare or the the cuts to SNAP.
▶ 9:55:56Um, leader Jeff, um, I mean, we're reasonable. We we happy to work with them. Uh, but there's no way in hell we're going to support a bill that's going to throw 14 million people off of healthcare, you know, or throw millions of people off of SNAP. Maybe you can maybe comment on how how would children how would seniors be impacted by the legislation that is before us? Well, thank you, Mr. McGovern.
▶ 9:56:20You know, this legislation would rip health care away from approximately 14 million Americans, millions of children who will be impacted by the fact that Medicaid is being cut in the greatest numbers in American history.
▶ 9:56:47children who would otherwise be able to see a doctor when they're sick, but might not be able to as a result of Medicaid being ripped away. Children who will no longer have the ability to receive preventative care that could catch things early enough to avoid serious illness or death.
▶ 9:57:13They're impacted by the GOP tax scam. Seniors, of course, who will have their Medicaid ripped away from them will also be adversely impacted because the majority of seniors who receive nursing home care in America or home care in America, these aren't statistics.
▶ 9:57:38It's our parents, our grandmother, our grandfather, our great-grandmother and grandfather. The majority of people who receive nursing home care in America or home care in America, which allows people to maintain dignity and respect in their amazing golden years, they rely on Medicaid to receive that assistance.
▶ 9:58:06And that of course is at risk of being ripped away from them. And Mr. government. It's all being done in service of enacting the largest tax breaks for billionaires in American history. Billionaires like Elon Musk, who's the last person in this country who deserves a tax break. And Mr. Aguia, I support your amendment.
▶ 9:58:34You know, interesting enough, the House Agriculture Committee never did a hearing on the cost sharing issue with states, and there's a reason why governors all over the country are panicking that they may be hit with a bill of hundreds of millions of dollars or even a billion dollars in the case of Pennsylvania, um, which they're not going to be able to meet and therefore it will result in them costing it end up cutting the benefit to people.
▶ 9:59:00Um and so I I I I support it it totally and uh leader Clark I you know let me ask is it possible uh at all for other providers like community health centers to absorb the patients that plan parenthood health centers see annually um and what services for women would be at risk. Uh thank you so much for the question and let's uh bust this myth once and for all because we have two things going on here.
▶ 9:59:28We have the nearly 14 million Americans including many women, seniors, moms, pregnant moms who are going to be uh have their health care taken away from them totally and that impacts health care FQC's they receive um Medicaid is the single largest source of payments, reimbursements for are FQC's
▶ 9:59:59and this is what's always pointed to by the right is they will just pick up these services for women out of this defunded clinics for Planned Parenthood. It is impossible.
▶ 10:00:12At the same time that you are cutting Medicaid to these clinics in Massachusetts alone, that'll be a almost $1.2 2 billion cut to these health centers and saying if you're going to pick up what Planned Parenthood provides, you would have to increase the capacity of our FQC's by 56%.
▶ 10:00:37So, we're going to take away Medicaid over here and then we're going to say magically increase capacity by 56% to serve the women who will no longer have a place to get the cancer screenings, the the prenatal care, the fertility treatments, contraception, reproductive health care that they need and that is increasingly difficult to find.
▶ 10:01:03I I I regret that so much of uh what is done in this Congress and in this current administration around healthcare is so politically charged. Yeah. Um and um and again going back to the to the to the SNAP issue, um uh people are people are going to see their benefits cut again on average of $2 a person, you know, per meal. That's it.
▶ 10:01:29Um, and if states can't meet their cost share, they have no choice but to cut the benefit. But to cut the benefit and no hearings on this, not one single hearing. And this is a major change. Major change. Um, and not and and and not even the courtesy of a hearing. We we we weren't able to bring in governors or anybody from any states to be able to comment on what the impact of this would be. um or whether even all all all the states could could could meet, you know, their financial obligation.
▶ 10:01:59And I again, I mean that it's part of a reconciliation bill and that nobody even cares enough to to do a hearing on it. Is that the way you legislate around here? I don't know if you want to add anything before I I yield back. Uh thank you, Mr. McGovern.
▶ 10:02:17Um, I think that's incredibly important and I I just share that the the cost shared discussion really breaks a promise of 50 years of a relationship between the federal government and the and the states. Uh, this is shifting more resources so they can be the bad guys um and so they can reduce benefits, kick people off of um eligibility.
▶ 10:02:42It's just an existential threat and would result in uh significant reductions in benefits to the people who need it most. And I'll just say finally, all this does is it gives my Republican friends some cover uh to be able to dodge responsibility and when benefits get cut, say, "Hey, it's not me, it's the states." And and again, that that to me is very cynical. I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. McGover. Mr. Fishbach.
▶ 10:03:11Thank you, Miss Scandlin. You're recognized. Thank you. Um, I think we just heard a little bit about myth busting. So, uh, Leader Jeff, I was wondering if you could address the myth which we have had thrown at us repeatedly throughout all the committee hearings on this bill that somehow these proposals are going to be paid for by kicking undocumented immigrants off federally subsidized food and healthcare. Is that true?
▶ 10:03:39Are undocumented immigrants getting federal health care and federal um food benefits? Yeah, it's a great question. Under current law, undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for Medicaid, the ACA exchanges, and for SNAP benefits. Not a single undocumented immigrant in this country gets a dime in federal taxpayer dollars for any part of comprehensive Medicaid coverage. Not one.
▶ 10:04:09And so when we're talking about nearly 14 million people who are going to be thrown off their health insurance, millions of others who are going to be jammed up this aggressive cut to SNAP, the largest cut to food assistance in American history. We're talking about American children. We're talking about everyday Americans.
▶ 10:04:35We're talking about Americans disabilities. And when it comes to nutritional assistance, we're talking about veterans who have served this sacrificed, risked it all, and they're going to lose access to the food assistance they need to live a life of dignity and respect. Those are the facts.
▶ 10:05:05That's why we're fighting hard to stop this GOP tax scam that will hurt everyday Americans dead in its tracks. I appreciate that because we've heard this gaslighting, you know, for weeks now and and uh we knew it wasn't true, but I appreciate you're clarifying that as well.
▶ 10:05:26And of course, um, to the extent that anyone was trying to game the system and and get benefits to which they were not entitled, we have inspectors general who were tasked with rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, but unfortunately have been fired by this administration. So, you know, don't preach about wanting to far it out fraud, waste, and abuse when you're pulling the watchdogs whose job it was. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
▶ 10:05:57I've already came to you. Mr. Noose, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Leader Jeff, Whip Clark, and Chairman Aguular for your leadership and for the amendments that you've submitted before the committee today. Uh, as you all know, we started at 1:00 a.m. So, this hearing's been going now for about 10 hours. We've heard from many Republican chairman. Uh we have of course many members of our caucus who are here that we'll hear from.
▶ 10:06:23Uh the only person I and of course we have all the leadership of the House Democratic Caucus and we're so grateful uh that each of you came forward to testify uh in this fashion. The one person we haven't heard from is the speaker who came here briefly earlier but was not willing I guess to testify in the way that you all have. Mr. The leader, I know you offered to debate the speaker on the floor.
▶ 10:06:49I believe sent a letter to him about a month and a half ago uh on this particular reconciliation bill, and I wonder if you might expound a bit on why you think that is important for the American people to be able to hear uh that that debate and that dialogue. Well, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the great state of Colorado.
▶ 10:07:06Uh first of all, let me uh thank all of the members uh of the rules committee, certainly my colleagues on the Democratic side uh who have done a tremendous job on behalf of the American people, Jim McGovern, Mary Gay Scanlin, you uh Joe Nagus, and of course Teresa Ledger Fernandez. Let me also thank uh the chair, Chairwoman Fox from the great state of North Carolina by way of New York City. She may have left the Bronx, but the Boogie Down Bronx has never left her.
▶ 10:07:36Uh, so thank you for providing this opportunity uh for us to have this discussion. But one person is missing, Speaker Mike Johnson. Over a month ago, I asked our distinguished colleague from Louisiana, the speaker of the house, to debate any of us, but certainly myself on the House floor about this very bill.
▶ 10:08:05He believes it's one big beautiful bill. we believe is one big ugly bill that's going to hurt the American people, hurt children, hurt families, hurt veterans, hurt seniors, cut health care, cut assistance, explode the debt by a minimum of $3.8 trillion.
▶ 10:08:31This is being done by people who claim to be the stewards of fiscal responsibility. 3.8 8 trillion, if not more. And so the offer still stands. I'd love to have the opportunity to debate Speaker Johnson anytime, any place, right here at the rules committee, but certainly on the floor of the House of Representatives.
▶ 10:09:01Not a duel, a debate of ideas. I couldn't agree more and I thank the leader, the whip, the chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Noose, Miss Leisure. Fernandez, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you to each of you for coming and testifying.
▶ 10:09:22Um, RIP Clark, as you describe the impact that the abortion bans have had on states across this country, uh, the lack of reproductive health care in states around this country, and then that this bill would then add to that difficulty.
▶ 10:09:47I am reminded and I've been sharing lately a story that I didn't used to talk about because it was so hard about how when I pregnant I almost bled to death and I remember lying on that surgery piece of metal and they didn't put me to sleep because they we were trying to save the baby and they were screaming, "We're
▶ 10:10:17going to lose her. We're going to lose her. We're going to lose her." Those doctors could concentrate on saving my life. They did not have to worry about whether they were going to be criminally charged or whether they were going to have to shut down their practice because they were working on a pregnancy.
▶ 10:10:42And now we know across the in rural areas especially we are losing our OBGYn care. So I want you to talk a little bit more about what happens in those rural areas. What happens in those areas where doctors are fleeing and how what they're doing this bill by going after Planned Parenthood. Does that make it worse?
▶ 10:11:14Thank you. Thank you for sharing that story and it is the story of women across this country. Pregnancy is often complicated and it needs interventions and we want safe outcomes. The way we get that is good prenatal care and being able to find that within a 50 mile drive from your home.
▶ 10:11:36And with the abortion bans that is becoming out of reach for so many people and it compounds the cruelty in this bill that is already there in all that they are taking away from women and children and families from their health care, from food programs, public schools.
▶ 10:12:01The list goes on for this cynical exercise of giving tax cuts to people who are too wealthy to need them or maybe even notice them. So, we have to keep our eye focused on what is happening. And with this amendment, it may seem like a a sort of um insignificant or a very detailed part of this overall package, but the themes are the same.
▶ 10:12:29And at the end of the day, it is denial of health care for women in this country. And at the same time, we have a White House lamenting, why aren't women having children? Maybe we'll give $5,000.
▶ 10:12:43If you don't have a safe place to have a child, if you cannot guarantee that you will survive, have the medical attention that you will need, and if you're able to have that child, that that child will be able to access health care, that you'll be able to find affordable quality child care near where you go to work, that you will be able to have the fundamentals of a housing to be able to put a life together.
▶ 10:13:11A recent study showed the majority of families in this country, 60% of families cannot afford the basics. And what they're saying in this and what makes it so pernacious is this is has no place in a reconciliation bill.
▶ 10:13:30This is ideology and this is policy and this is saying we don't like abortion providers and it's not enough to outlaw them in our own states to deny that care in those states. If there is an affiliate or a subsidiary in any state, then we will shut down the clinic that is not providing abortion care, but is providing this critical primary care for women.
▶ 10:14:00That doesn't belong in this bill either. And it is part of the pattern and the theme of this bill that the American family is put last and we are making the winner circle. so very small and it doesn't include women in this country. It doesn't include working families.
▶ 10:14:21It doesn't include seniors and veterans and the 99.9% of people who get up and work hard every single day and want to have a future for their children, a place in this economy, want their small business to survive this tariff regime, want to be able to put a life together that has hope, and instead we're offering them ideology wrapped up as health care.
▶ 10:14:50It is it is a cruelty and it is a shame and that is why we have seen the Democratic caucus and the American people united against this bill. Thank you Rip Clark. Chairman Aguular.
▶ 10:15:04um your amendment I think touches on a very important fact and that is that people are working and they're working really hard and they're often not getting paid enough and when Democrats were in charge we increased jobs but right now there is a recession looming and what they're going to do is kick people
▶ 10:15:35out of Medicaid and they're not going to be able to get nutrition programs and they're saying it's because people are lazy. Is is that right, Chairman Agular? I mean, what is really happening with to American families who are working hard and just maybe not making enough money toward health? Thank you, Congresswoman, for for sharing your story. Um, first of all, and for the for the question. My amendment prevents what I hope is something we can all agree on.
▶ 10:16:05No child in our country should go hungry. Yet, under this bill, nearly 645,000 people, including children, ages 7 to 18, will lose some or all of their SNAP benefit. Just in my state of California, whether you're a child in New Mexico or Maine or California, that isn't right.
▶ 10:16:28As cruel and failed as that three month time limit is, it has never been applied to parents and grandparents without with dependent children. It's right in the name, able-bodied adults dependence. So, what is supposed to happen? The child turns seven and now doesn't need to go to school by themselves. It's just plain wrong and it puts kids at risk.
▶ 10:16:56No one is staying home for SNAP benefits that are $6 per person per day. If my colleagues were serious, we wouldn't be providing child care and transportation and fair wages to help families make ends meet rather than cutting these important benefits. Thank you, uh, Chair Gillary and, uh, Leader Jeff.
▶ 10:17:17Uh, thank you for painting the picture of what hunger looked like in America and what poverty looked like in America when we decided that that was not an acceptable picture for us. And I think it's a policy choice, but I think you also touched on a sense that it's also a moral choice.
▶ 10:17:41And I entered into the record earlier today a letter from 31 faith organizations who were opposing these kinds of cuts because they noted that it was against a principle, a moral principle that government should provide for those who were in need. And I I I just wanted to give you the last word.
▶ 10:18:09I'm the last Democrat who gets to ask a question on uh these issues of how you see the values and the choices that are being made uh in this bill. Well, thank you again uh for sharing your powerful story in such a compelling way and it really does illustrate the challenges that we confront here.
▶ 10:18:35When we make policy decisions, we are impacting the American people in ways that in certain cases could be questions of life and death. It's often been said, Dr. King made this observation that budgets are moral documents. And I don't question anyone's faith in this room.
▶ 10:19:03There are people of faith on both sides of the aisle. But we do have to ask the question, can't simply be enough to go to synagogue or go to the mosque or go to church and pray on Sunday and then come to Washington DC pray on the American people the rest of the week.
▶ 10:19:32P R E Y. Pray on the poor. Pray on the sick. Pray on the afflicted. Pray on working families. Pray on Americans. Pray on our children. Pray on veterans. Pray on older Americans.
▶ 10:19:48It can't be sufficient to go to church and pray on Sunday, but then come to Washington DC, advance a bill like the GOP tax scam, and pray on the American people for the rest of the week. Democrats will never stand for it.
▶ 10:20:13And we're going to fight hard to sure that we do everything we can to uplift the American people to protect their health care, protect nutritional assistance, protect our veterans, protect our children, protect our women, families, older Americans, and to protect the American way of life. I yield back.
▶ 10:20:42Thank you uh leader. Thank you Clark. Thank you chair. I will say that you know as we did the procession on Palm Sunday our archbishop said exactly that that he wanted to pray for all of us that we remember the poor and the needy and that we would have the grace in our hearts to do what's right.
▶ 10:21:10Tribal leaders came and met with me yesterday and said that they had done the blessings in the morning so that they could bring them to Washington DC because the cuts to Medicaid, the cuts to tribal sovereignty, the cuts were something their people could not survive.
▶ 10:21:29And so I think those prayers and those blessings are important so that when we come to Washington, we act from our hearts and that we let that lead our decisions. Thank you very much for all three of you for this incredible amendments, this incredible testimony. And with that, Madame Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Miss Leure Fernandez. Mr. Griffith, do you have any questions? I do not. Thank you. Thank you.
▶ 10:21:59Thank you all for coming. The witnesses are Thank you. Madam Chair, yeah. Well, while I want to announce the names. Yeah. But before you do, can I can I make one can I make one statement, please?
▶ 10:22:26I I I just I want to I want to um I want to uh I want to thank all my colleagues who have been here for an incredibly long time. I some of them have been here since 1:00 in the morning. Um and I I feel very proud to be part of this caucus and I feel very proud of all the members who are here who want to make their voices and their views heard. And I especially want to also thank Speaker Ammerida Nancy Pelosi for being here for hours as well. Uh as and I want to thank our leadership team.
▶ 10:22:55But it it means a lot to me personally and I think to everybody on this committee uh that we have so many colleagues that feel so strongly that they have waited for hours and hours and hours to be able to present their amendments and and I and I thank you madam chair for letting me say that. Okay. The pan next panel the next panel will be Tim Kennedy, Normma Torres, Al Green, Mr. Horford, Miss Batty, Miss Dingle, Mr.
▶ 10:23:24Gomez and Miss Robin Kelly. Oh yeah. If you all would quickly get to the tables, please.
▶ 10:24:00We can fit in one more. We can do one more. May I suggest if you're here for the next panel, start down here and move up here.
▶ 10:24:28It makes it a lot easier to get seated. Okay. Mr. Kennedy, you're recogn Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee.
▶ 10:24:58I'm here today to offer two critical amendments. first to strike 4411 and preserve the current 10% state cost share for Medicaid expansion preventing the financial burden that would otherwise fall on states and safety net hospitals. Second, to strike section 44126, which targets and defunds community health centers that provide family planning services.
▶ 10:25:30Taken together, these provisions in the underlying bill, in addition to the massive cuts to Medicaid that this bill ensures, would decimate access to care for millions of Americans, particularly lowincome women, children, and seniors.
▶ 10:25:47As members of the majority attempt to shove this bill down the throats of the American people and frankly some members of their own party in a process that started in the middle of the night while America slept, my Democratic colleagues and I are here to stand up and shed light on what you're hoping to hide from the American people.
▶ 10:26:05as an occupational therapist, myself, the husband of a physical therapist, the son of a nurse, and the representative of a community 285,000 people who depend on these services, including 110,000 children.
▶ 10:26:24Let me focus on what's at stake with the Medicaid provisions outlined in this Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, nearly 25 million Americans nationwide have gained access to care through the Medicaid expansion. That means moms have access to prenatal and postnatal care. Children can get regular checkups.
▶ 10:26:47And people struggling to put food on the table can still see a doctor before minor issues become emergencies. It means those in rural areas, often far from major hospitals, can visit clinics, access teleaalth services, or get prescriptions filled without having to travel hours for basic pre preventative care. States that expanded Medicaid saw the uninsured rate among lowincome adults decrease by more than half.
▶ 10:27:17It is so popular that even in states where the legislature and governor opposed it, like Oklahoma, when put to the voters, it was approved. In New York, the state I represent, expanding Medicaid has given over 1 million people access to care. With this bill, New York will face nearly 1 billion dollar in new costs, while other states could see their expansions repealed entirely.
▶ 10:27:47As I've been here since the wee hours of the morning, participating in a broken process that started at 1:00 a.m., I cannot fathom why members of this majority would choose to rip life-saving care away from your own constituents in the name of tax breaks for billionaires. Aside from the fact that the president told you to do so, as an occupational therapist, again, I've worked with patients, young and old, people who rely on Medicaid for necessary care.
▶ 10:28:17I've seen what happens when patients delay care because they cannot afford it. Minor conditions become chronic, emergency room wait times lengthen, and hospitals cannot absorb the cost. As a result, our health care system becomes destabilized. In cutting Medicaid, we don't eliminate the need for care. We just eliminate access to care.
▶ 10:28:43And for those who aren't on Medicaid, we only make care more expensive and harder to get. We force families to choose between medicine and groceries. We push more patients into overcrowded ERS. And we risk lives. This Republican bill does not save money and it sure doesn't help the people who sent us here to represent them. It shifts the burden to states, to hospitals, and to the people who can least afford it.
▶ 10:29:12Simply put, it's cruelty. My amendments protect Medicaid expansion programs and ensure that millions of Americans don't lose the care that they need and that our public hospitals and safety net systems can continue to function. Without our Democratic amendments, this bill will make all Americans less safe and health care less accessible, particularly for our most vulnerable citizens. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
▶ 10:29:42Health care, we know, is not a luxury reserved for the few, and it shouldn't be. It is a right, and it is our responsibility to protect it. I yield Thank you, Mr. Torres. you're recognized. You're former member of the committee. We're glad to have you back. Thank you. Good morning, uh, Chairwoman, uh, Ranking Member McGovern. Uh, it's great to be back with, um, all of you here, although under difficult circumstances.
▶ 10:30:12I know how difficult it is to have to work through the night. Um, but the work that we're doing here today is really important. It's important for members to be able to share um how this bill will impact our constituents. The bill before the committee, it is truly a disaster for the American people. It would throw almost 14 million people off Medicaid. It would cause our hospitals to close in areas that need them the most.
▶ 10:30:41It would cut food assistance for more than three million Americans. and all to help the multibillionaires that have that pay much less in taxes. I fully support many of the amendments proposed by Democrats to fix this cruel these cruel actions and I hope that they'll be made in order. I have amendments I have three amendments that would address problems in the bill and in the current policies of the Trump administration.
▶ 10:31:11First, I have submitted an amendment number 507, which would protect the health care of nearly 340,000 of my constituents by striking the hundreds of billions of Medicaid cuts contained in this bill. It's a common sense at this time when families are struggling with higher prices of food and good due to the self-inflicted wound of tariffs caused by our president.
▶ 10:31:38Second, I have an amendment to prevent the $300 billion dollar in cuts to food assistance programs like SNAP. The Republican reconciliation bill would kick more than three million people off of food stamp assistance again while we are getting imported eggs from Turkey and other countries that are willing to help us in a time of need where when our food prices are so high.
▶ 10:32:04Third, I have submitted an amendment to lift the salt deduction cap imposed by the 2017 tax scam bill. The reality is is that this simply shifts more federal taxes to Californians when California already contributes much more than many of your states. For example, we are California is a donor state.
▶ 10:32:28We send 692 billion to the federal government and we receive back 609. That means we send $83 billion to many of your states to help fund the quality of life that all of you enjoy. Um, Representative Griffin, Virginia um receives they pay $ 107 billion. um they receive more than in federal government that they give.
▶ 10:32:58Uh Chip Roy uh of taxes gets back $71 billion more. Uh Chairwoman Fox uh North Carolina gets 53 billion more. Um Representative Norman of South Carolina, you receive $ 35 billion more.
▶ 10:33:17Representative Austin Scott of Georgia and Brian Jack of Georgia receive Georgia receives $ 35 billion more and Representative Hutching of uh Indiana receives $30 billion more. So if we want to talk about welfare and welfare to the very poor, let's start with your states. Maybe your states should pay their fair share.
▶ 10:33:41Uh lastly, I have an amendment that would help stop the unlawful and dangerous firings of Federal Aviation Administration workers who maintain our air traffic control systems. They are the backbone of the air traffic control system. They are the unseen workers that help keep planes in the air and and provide safe landings um when we land.
▶ 10:34:06They support our air traffic controllers um that ensure a safe um flying public. While the administration is trying to recruit more air traffic controllers, they continue to fire probationary employees and reduce staffing for the people who maintain these systems. This is something that is critical that we need to address. Um next, and lastly, I have an amendment that would strike the 5% federal tax on remittance transfers in this bill.
▶ 10:34:35The tax proposal in this bill would disproportionately impact uh immigrant workers who already pay into a system that they cannot um reclaim any of the social security or or taxes, state local taxes that they pay into. Um I'm sorry. Lastly, I have an amendment that would disapprove of the US Army Corps of Engineers work plan for fiscal year 2025. This plan isn't just flawed.
▶ 10:35:05It blatantly politicizes um the project selection process and attempts to leave once again California, the the state that all of you depend for welfare for your constituents, you know, to have zero projects um uh allocated uh by them. I think the American people should know what is in this bill. It's a tax giveaway uh to the filthy rich.
▶ 10:35:31Um, thank you uh, Chairwoman for your patience and uh, I yield back to you. Thank you, Miss Torres. Mr. Green, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Ranking member, members, all I am here today because of SNAP and concern.
▶ 10:36:00But first, I'd like to thank Miss Ma, Miss Mang, Grace Mang for introducing the Fairness for Victims of skimming act. It has been reduced to amendment number 30.
▶ 10:36:17Um, I had a similar piece of legislation and this whole issue was called to my attention by a news reporter from Channel 2 KPRC in Houston, and as a result of his engagement, we produced a piece of legislation. I do not want to see block grants to Texas for healthc care.
▶ 10:36:46Madam Chair, Texas refused $100 billion dollar to expand Medicaid. This is one of the reasons why Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured persons and the highest number of uninsured persons in the United States America. I don't know that Texas is going to be responsible enough to accept the grants.
▶ 10:37:18What will you do and what will we do when Texas does what it does quite regularly and that is decline federal dollars? So, I'm here today to talk about a program that has benefited not only Texans but persons across the length and breadth of the country. And this has been a bipartisan effort in the past.
▶ 10:37:42Um, it was in existence until December of last year, right around Christmas, and it has to do with reimbursing persons who have their SNAP monies skimmed away with electronic devices such that they have to sometimes go without food. They are victims. We should not allow the criminals. Would you hold suspend for just a minute?
▶ 10:38:12There's a knocking noise going on somewhere. Do you all hear that? And it's it's bothering everybody out there because I can see it on your faces. I don't know where it's coming from. It stopped. All right. Okay. It stopped.
▶ 10:38:39So I don't know what's causing it but it was hard making it hard to hear you and understand you. So I want did I want to make sure we can hear you and it's also distracting. So we'll start again. You didn't lose any time. Thank you. I will elevate the level of my uh I guess you would speak up a little bit. Thank you. I shall. Thank you. As I was indicating this has been bipartisan.
▶ 10:39:02It has prevented criminals from causing persons from causing persons to lose food. And I think that it should be bipartisan now in terms of reinstating this program such that people who need food and cannot afford the necessity of life will be able to acquire the food that they merit.
▶ 10:39:28I would also add this that this program is one that has been sponsored by Republicans. So, Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree to prevent criminals from taking food.
▶ 10:39:50this uh there's been talk about work and how work is good and I agree work brings dignity but the thing madam chair that hit a nerve with me was when our dear brother whose name I cannot call because it's not appropriate to do so but if I could call Mr. Norman's name I would.
▶ 10:40:18This dear brother said that work built America. And he's right. It did. Over 10 million people working for more than 240 years without America is a great country and is great, Madame Chair, because of the economic foundational mothers and fathers
▶ 10:40:49whose lives were sacrificed. If you're in this country, you're standing on the backs of those persons who were enslaved. And you're right, work ought to be recognized in this country.
▶ 10:41:07In our capital, in Emancipation Hall, the recognition for 240 years of enslavement is a plaque not much larger than that picture on the wall.
▶ 10:41:21That's an It would seem to me that if we truly appreciate the dignity and work, then we would express that dignity for the people who had a hand in building the White House, a hand in building the capital, built the roads, the bridges, planted the seeds, harvested the crops, fed the nation.
▶ 10:41:40Why don't we recognize them to the same extent that we recognize people who are victims of the It just seems to me that if we're going to talk about work, let's talk about the people who built the country. And finally, I want to thank you for the time and I'd like to thank uh the ranking member as well and and and and would hope that we can save this SNAP program. Thank you.
▶ 10:42:12Good morning, Madame Chair, uh to the ranking member, to the assistant Democratic leader, to the members of the committee. been with you since 3:00 this morning. I want to thank you for your time, but I'm here to bring the voices of 750,000 people in Nevada who elected me to do a job, and that's to make sure their perspective is heard by this Congress and this committee.
▶ 10:42:36I know we've heard a lot uh but I want to touch on what this bad built bill for billionaires doesn't do because it barely touches housing a crisis that is affecting more than just the people in my district. My disappointment is what with what is not in here.
▶ 10:42:56So once again, like I did in the Ways and Means Committee, I am here to let you and the American people know that there's nothing to address the fact that rent increases are outpacing people's income. That there's nothing in this bill that builds out housing for the middle class. That there's nothing in this bill that touches Trump's blanket tariffs, which are taxes that Americans pay, not some governments, that will raise the cost of housing.
▶ 10:43:24In fact, in 2018, the CBO projected that the initial Trump tax cuts would reduce residential investment since their provisions are not favorable towards housing. That report proved true as inflationadjusted residential investment today is nowhere close to its pre208 trend. I'll also tell you what this bill does have.
▶ 10:43:50It has an annual tax cut for billionaires over $255,000 a year. While the average benefit for working people earning less than $50,000 annually is a meager $265. The cutting of health care of for 14 million Americans and the selling of Nevada public lands without a single dollar going to the state for which those lands are intended.
▶ 10:44:20So let's recap. Trump is making borrowing more expensive. He's raising the cost of housing materials due to tariffs and extending the GOP tax scam means continued reductions in residential investment and making Neadans pay for it with our land. Please make it make sense.
▶ 10:44:40That's why I am offering a package of amendments to help our veterans to address tipped workers, small businesses, and the hospitality sector, which has been hit hard by President Trump's tariffs. However, for the purposes of this hearing, I will focus my remarks around helping our veterans. My amendment seeks to address the housing crisis that my colleagues seem to be ignoring.
▶ 10:45:09This amendment would create a veterans housing fund through a 1% sir tax on excessive corporate stock buybacks limited to firms with over $10 billion in assets. We are asking that the largest companies who recorded nearly a trillion dollar in buybacks pay 1%. Over 30,000 veterans are experiencing homelessness.
▶ 10:45:36If my colleagues are committed to helping veterans, then you can support this amendment to help balance that equation. This is not a blue city amendment. According to HUD's 2024 annual homelessness assessment report, nearly half of veterans experiencing homelessness are in suburban or rural communities. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this committee represent eight states that total around 6,000 veterans who are experiencing homelessness.
▶ 10:46:05Georgia nearly 650, Virginia around 400, New York almost 1,200, Indiana over 400, Texas nearly 1,850, South Carolina almost 400, Minnesota 300, and North Carolina nearly 700 veterans experiencing homelessness. There is nothing in this bill that addresses shelter, mental health, substance abuse, job training, and other assistance specifically for our veterans.
▶ 10:46:35So, I'm urging my Republican colleagues to work with us now to fix this bill before it goes to the floor. We want to work with you to address the problems facing our constituents. Earlier this month, I introduced three bills that can help address the housing crisis. We need to legislation that addresses the corporate takeover of single family homes like my home act. Not one Republican joined when I brought that bill forward.
▶ 10:47:02I introduced my unlock housing act to address affordable housing by allowing the Bureau of Land Management to be able to lease the land to local governments and tribes specifically for affordable housing. This is a smart method to use the laws that are already exist to build out more housing. Why? Because as Neadans know, the land that we sell has not helped create the housing that we need.
▶ 10:47:29But we are seeing the same story over and over that this bill does not have working people in mind. Instead, we have people like Representative Mark Ammedday pushing to sell off more than a half a million acres of land in Nevada under the guise of creating more affordable housing. He didn't even give a second thought to selling out our community. And for what? To use Nevada as a cash grab for the nation's debt. Don't believe me?
▶ 10:47:57Look at section 88 8030 uh 80315 of the bill. If my colleagues are truly serious about addressing the struggles of the middle class and specifically housing affordability, then please support my amendments. I'm also putting on the record that I've sent a letter to Chairman Smith and to Speaker Johnson to bring up my TIPS act to ensure that TIP workers receive the benefits that they are entitled. Thank you, Madame Chair.
▶ 10:48:36Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the rules committee. I urge you to make in order my amendment, amendment number 280. This amendment is simple. It would stop the implementation of the reconciliations bill's massive cuts for the wealthy if the bill's other provisions result in reduction in funding of Medicaid, Social Security, or SNAP. Let me just put it in simple terms.
▶ 10:49:02It says no tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans if you cut the programs that everyday Americans, families, seniors, and others rely on. If you believe that is true, then you should have no problem supporting my amendment, which would make no changes if the bill does not cut Medicaid or food assistance.
▶ 10:49:23We are here to serve our constituents, and I know I'm not the only one here who has received thousands of letters and calls demanding that Congress protect health care, food assistance, and other critical programs. Constituents are saying, "What are we doing?" Well, I'm telling you, this panel shows you what Democrats are doing. We are fighting. And despite what the title of the Republican budget reconciliation bill would have you believe, it is not one big beautiful bill.
▶ 10:49:52It's a big billionaire's bankroll bill. And it is one of the biggest and most reckless and heartless attack on American families. It would rip away health care from almost 14 million Americans. and 11 million children with food assistance. And the worst part of it is none of this is necessary. It is only being done to bankroll a billionaire's tax cut.
▶ 10:50:22That is why I am offering this amendment. I am offering this amendment for the 2.4 four million Ohioans who rely on Medicaid to access critical health care services like blood pressure, diabetes screenings, mammograms, mental health services, and other life care situations.
▶ 10:50:40I am offering this amendment for the millions of women across the country who rely on Medicaid to cover birth of their child and to keep them and their babies healthy before and after birth. I am offering this amendment for the more than 42 Americans without federal food assistance that they might not eat tomorrow.
▶ 10:51:04I am offering this amendment for Anishia, an Ohioan, a constituent mother of two and a recent cancer survivor who relies on Medicaid. She's scheduled for surgery that Medicaid makes affordable. Her family also depends on SNAP to put healthy food on the table. Losing these benefits would be devastating.
▶ 10:51:27In short, I'm offering this amendment for Americans who are struggling to get by, who are counting on us, Democrats and Republicans, to lower their cost and to improve their lives, not enrich billionaires. Unfortunately, families I'm fighting for will not benefit from the tax cuts in this package.
▶ 10:51:49The top 0.1% of earners, billionaires, will see a tax break of some $278,000 per year. And that is a tax break of $762 per day, almost twice the weekly salary of someone making minimum wage in Ohio. It is clear that this bill is an attempt to sell out hardworking American families who are just trying to make ends meet to benefit the few.
▶ 10:52:19This bill would harm our constituents, Democrats constituents, Republicans constituents. Republicans have claimed that this bill does not cut benefits. And if you believe that is true, you should have no problem supporting my amendment, which would make no changes if the bill does not cut Medicaid and food assistance. So, I would urge you to make this in order.
▶ 10:52:42And Madame Chair, I would like to enter into the records the GOP's budget plan, this article, the GOP's budget plan that makes it hard to conceal its lies about Medicaid and and SNAP. Without objection. Thank you. Lastly, let me just say to the American people, we have been here all night and we're here because of you. They planned this hearing at 1:00 a.m.
▶ 10:53:09in the morning to 5 and here we are now in the first panel 11:45. Is this the way our country should run? Is this what you expect from our leaders? Let me answer it for you. The answer is no. And that's why we are here today. Thank you, Madam Chair. and I yield back. You're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 10:53:37Thank you, Madame Chair and Ranking Member McGovern uh for letting us talk testify today about issues that matter uh to all of us and to the American people. Over the past several weeks, I've been very concerned about what this Republican reconciliation bill will do.
▶ 10:54:00Not only does this bill, the bill if it's enacted, the House bill would be the biggest loss of healthc care coverage in American history that will strip health care from almost 14 million Americans. But as my colleague just said, how many of the pieces of this legislation have been considered in the dark of night when the American people are not able to watch what is happening?
▶ 10:54:28It's been too many pieces of this legislation. I have offered several amendments. Medicaid is the largest payer of long-term care in America, which is why I filed an amendment to ensure Medicaid home and communitybased services or HCBS are not cut or reduced as a result of this reconciliation bill.
▶ 10:54:52We know that the majority of seniors and individuals with disabilities would prefer to receive care in the comfort of homes in the communities that they've known where they can maintain an independent life, remain engaged in their communities and aged with dignity.
▶ 10:55:12And in fact, it is less expensive than in nursing homes, which is where most long-term care in America is paid for by Medicaid. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Americans are already sitting on state wait lists to access homebased care, and this bill will exasperate this this issue. No one should have to sit for years on a waiting list to get the care that they deserve.
▶ 10:55:41and caregivers shouldn't live in poverty to do this critical work. Let's be honest, the long-term care health system in this country is broken. And until someone you've loved or you yourself are in it, you don't know how bad it is. And this system, this this bill is going to break the system even more.
▶ 10:56:08I I pray I'm asking that my Republican colleagues change course on this misguided bill that would harm seniors and individuals living with disabilities. I'm also strongly supportive and I'm a co-sponsor of Representative Riley's amendment regarding President Trump's most favored nation executive order that was issued May 12th. In fact, I offered this exact amendment during the Energy and Commerce Committee markup last week.
▶ 10:56:38This amendment supports President Trump's executive order that aims to lower medication costs for Americans by preventing pharmaceutical manufacturers from charging Americans higher prices while giving discounts to other nations when we in fact pay two, three, four, 10 times as much as other countries do and spend more on the research for these drugs than any other country in
▶ 10:57:09the world. No one in America should have to pay higher prices for medications than patients than patients in other countries, which I have to admit to you was shocked that every single Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee voted against this amendment that supports their own president's prescription drug drug pricing plan.
▶ 10:57:31And I have to say I was very surprised after being up for all night when I watched President Trump Wednesday night say this provision was going to be in this bill. So I think there's some communication issues too. Simply doesn't make sense. This logic is backwards and quite frankly absurd. And on top of this, we had a bipartisan deal that opened the door for a solution to lower drug costs for Americans last Congress.
▶ 10:57:59But thanks to Elon Musk, Republicans tanked that agreement and are now trying to pass a bill with no meaningful change that would not only failed to lower drug costs, but would also rip coverage away from 14 million Americans.
▶ 10:58:19I'm going to end by expressing my concerns with this legislation's impact on our environment and natural resources, which is why I filed three amendments that I offered during the natural resources markup two weeks ago. Taken together, these amendments would preserve judicial review. I think too many people forget we are system of checks and balances in this democracy.
▶ 10:58:43protect compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which has literally saved thousands of species, and prevent the Inflation Reduction Act decisions from Noah from applying to fisheries, climate resilience, and harmful algi bloom forecasted in the Great Lakes. I'm getting that look. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. She yields back. And I recognize Mr. Gomez of California for 5 minutes.
▶ 10:59:16Republicans are paying Russian roulette with the American people. That's right. I said it. Russian roulette. And that's because either you're going to lose your healthcare that could pro probably save your life or not. You can uh get a tax increase or not. This is serious business.
▶ 10:59:33According to the joint committee on taxations, Congress's nonpartisan score uh scorekeeper says families making 30,000 or less will pay an average of 200 billion more in taxes because of this bill. Families making 50,000 a year, you have a 50/50 chance of seeing a real change in your taxes. But you'll have to wait till April to see how lucky you were. Now the billionaire establishment has nothing to worry about.
▶ 11:00:01They'll get a tax cut of 270,000 a year. Right here in this committee, the American people are witnessing one of the biggest transfers of wealth in American history. But Republicans are advancing legislation that will slash billions of dollars from Medicaid, health care for the working class, so that they can give trillions in tax breaks to the billionaires, ultra wealthy, and the largest corporations in this country.
▶ 11:00:25Republicans are literally stealing from the poor to give to the rich, all while adding trillions in deficit uh to uh deficit spending and to the debt. They should be ashamed about this legislation because look at not what's happening in my district. Look at what's happening in their districts. In North Carolina, 400,000 people will lose Medicaid coverage. In Minnesota, 250,000 will lose the uh healthcare. Texas, 380,000. Virginia, 390,000. New York, 1.2 2 million.
▶ 11:00:55These aren't numbers. These are real people who will lose healthc care coverage. And if they don't have coverage, they might not have insulin. They might not have preventative care. They might have to go into the hospital to see an emergency doctor later, which can cost them their lives. We also know that 51% of new moms and their babies who are covered by Medicaid will lose. The seniors that don't get enough coverage through Medicare will lose. The sons or daughters that don't earn enough to cover their parents' assisted living facility will lose.
▶ 11:01:26People that live in rural communities that are mostly represented by Republicans will lose. Republicans are making it harder for working people to get by. Harder for families to welcome a new child, get postpartum care, or cover basic medical needs during one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. Families are barely staying afloat. Many who are working two or more jobs just to get by. and they're already stretched thin by the cost of food, housing, and child care.
▶ 11:01:52Now that Trump's tariffs are hitting them with an extra $4,900 a year and Republicans always say that they're they're the pro-f family party, but they never do actually anything that actually values the American family. And Republicans say they're the balanced budget party, but this bill balloons the deficit and saddles future generations with more debt that they have to pay off. Voters sent us here to lower costs and create real opportunities. And that's what we should be delivering on.
▶ 11:02:20We should make the child tax credit fully refundable and advancable and make it bigger and pay it monthly. We should act build uh bill millions of starter homes for new families and help them buy their first home so that they can build wealth. We should make child care affordable and guaranteed paid family leave. But this bill does none of that. That's because Republicans choose the billionaire establishment that has taken root in DC over their own constituents.
▶ 11:02:46Now, I asked the same question to my Republican colleagues in the as I asked in the Ways and Means I want to ask you here and they answered wrong. So, I'm asking you guys, are you for the working man or woman who is struggling to get by or the billionaires? Are you for uh the babies or the billionaires? Are you for the seniors or the billionaires?
▶ 11:03:05Are you for the American family or the I have introduced 14 amendments making sure that billionaires pay their fair share to housing to health care and one of those bills is sponsored by Speaker Ammerida that is extend the ACA premium tax credit to prevent uh to help pregnant women and children.
▶ 11:03:26That's one of the things that we know that and some of the states that are going to have the biggest cuts to Medicaid also are some of these southern states that have the highest maternal mortality rate in the country. You know, California has its problems, but we actually have one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in this country. The lowest. So, here's the thing once again. Are you for pregnant women or the billionaires? Are you for babies or billionaires? Because that's what this all comes down to.
▶ 11:03:53And I will ask that if you vote on just one, just one amendment, maybe you can restore a little faith in this uh kid from California. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back now. Rep recognize Miss Kelly of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, ranking member. I have an amendment at the desk titled amendment number 371.
▶ 11:04:18My amendment is simple and requires 12 months of continuous Medicaid and CHIP coverage of full benefits for pregnant and postpartum women. We've heard a lot about that. I've dedicated 10 years uh to this topic. This amendment will codify what we already know is essential. That one year of postpartum care is not just medically necessary. It is a matter of life and death.
▶ 11:04:42Let's remember that the United States maternal death rate remains far higher than other highincome countries and nearly two out of three maternal deaths occur during the postpartum period. Our nation is facing a maternal health crisis and it has been for years. It's shameful and it has worsened.
▶ 11:05:02The maternal mortality and morbidity epidemic is particularly dangerous for people with disabilities who face a maternal death rate that is 11 times higher than the rate for non-disabled people. Black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes than white women and American Indian and Alaskan Native women are twice as likely to die of complications.
▶ 11:05:27Medicaid improves maternal health outcomes and ensures access to vital pregnancy services. Medicaid covers almost half of all births in this country. And in many states, it's more than that. And it covers more than half of all births in rural communities consider a new mom from Arkansas who was finally approved for Medicaid in her third trimester following a delay in her eligibility determination. Her Medicaid coverage was invaluable during complicated labor and delivery.
▶ 11:05:57Her baby was not receiving enough oxygen, and she ultimately needed an unplanned cescareian section. Without Medicaid, that procedure would have resulted in profound medical debt, giving the cost of a C-section in Arkansas is estimated to be close to $10,000 without insurance. Ensuring 12 months coverage can give women the peace of mind that they have stable coverage and access. Cutting funding. Funding means cutting care for moms and babies during their most vulnerable time.
▶ 11:06:28That means fewer prenatal checkups, more life-saving deliveries, and forcing states to choose between vital programs. Waivers aren't enough, especially during major budget cuts like those in this bill. In Michigan, 12 month postpartum Medicaid coverage reached nearly 45,000 moms, reducing maternal deaths from 36 to 22 per 100,000 births in a year. Most maternal deaths occur after childirth.
▶ 11:06:55One and three happens one week and one year postpart between one week and one year postpartum. In Colorado, 89% of maternal deaths were preventable. Continuous guaranteed year-long coverage saved lives. Overall, over 80% of maternal deaths are preventable. This amendment codifies 12 months of full Medicaid and CHIP benefits to postpartum individuals. No more statebystate patchwork. No more expiration dates on care.
▶ 11:07:24No more new mothers being dropped from coverage just 60 days after giving birth. Right when they're still at high risk for complications like infection, postpartum depression, and more. Postpartum coverage for 12 months should be mandatory and permanent and immune from shifting state politics and budget pressures. We cannot expect someone to recover from childbirth, return to work, care for a newborn while also scrambling to reapply for coverage. That's not health care.
▶ 11:07:54It's chaos and disproportionately harms low-income families, rural communities, and communities of color. We've already seen the impact of this policy thanks to the American Rescue Plan. Democrats enable states to extend postpartum coverage to 12 months and 49 states have done so in just four years. Red and blue states alike chose to prioritize maternal and child health. But making it optional isn't enough.
▶ 11:08:22With the deep cuts proposed in this bill, states will soon face painful budget choices that could jeopardize this progress. To protect moms and babies everywhere, we must make this coverage permanent, mandatory, and nationwide. This is about saving lives, supporting families, and finally treating maternal health as a national priority. It should be. I have deep concerns states will roll back care for pregnant and postpartum women.
▶ 11:08:49My amendment ensures that all women in the United States, regardless of where they live, can access comprehensive health care for a full year following the birth of a child to survive and thrive. I've spoken to doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, and this is what all of them recommend. If Republicans claim, quote unquote, they want to strengthen Medicaid for mothers, as they asserted in their press releases, then this should be a no-brainer and something that we all can support.
▶ 11:09:18I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help us build a stronger, safer future for all moms and families so that people are not being shut out from coverage because we have made it too complicated for them. And I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Do I have anyone on the Republican side that wishes to ask questions? Seeing none, recognize the gentleman. Yes, Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you. I just a couple of observations.
▶ 11:09:44First of all, I want to again thank you all for your commitment and your stamina uh and for for being here. Again, I appreciate the fact that many of you waited many many hours to be able to testify, but I think that's a reflection of how strongly you feel about the issues that you brought before this committee. Um, and I certainly I think I speak for all the Democrats here. We all support uh your amendments. Um, and we'll do our best to try to see what we can do to make them in order.
▶ 11:10:11Um, but I also when I was listening to everybody here, um, I couldn't help but think about what could have been. Um, you know, again, as I said before, I mean, there are things in the tax bill that I think we all could agree on. You know, the the middle class tax cuts, the no tax on tips and child tax credit, all that stuff. We could have come together and and agreed on that.
▶ 11:10:34Um, and I think that um, you know, we would have um, you know, been if if Republicans wanted our vote, we could we we could have negotiated a better uh, deal on the on the SNAP benefits, which right now is unacceptable. Uh, and certainly insisted that people don't get thrown off healthcare, but I think you could have gotten a bipartisan bill.
▶ 11:10:57Maybe not every Democrat uh and not every Republican, but you could have gotten a bipartisan bill that might have been able to make it its way to the president's desk that reflected our values, also reflected some of the Republican values, but didn't go after the most vulnerable people in this country.
▶ 11:11:14But I think what's happened here in this house right now is that the way the current leadership thinks of legislating is that whatever the most extreme element of their uh conference wants, that's the direction. Um and so there's no desire, there's no attempt to try to bring Democrats into the process. I'm reading um you know breaking news. Speaker Johnson and House Freedom Caucus will go to White House today to meet with President Trump.
▶ 11:11:44Trump is expected to tell the House Freedom Caucus that the bill needs to pass today. I I don't even know, you know, he was up here yesterday morning. I don't know, you know, maybe this maybe this will make a difference, but um but it doesn't sound like if that's the strategy that this bill is going to moderate. And I again I think that's bad for the country. Uh uh this this is a big deal.
▶ 11:12:11The implications of this reconciliation act on every aspect that was raised by all of you today is significant. Uh it is going to adversely impact it is going to hurt our constituents. Uh as well as the constituents of our Republican colleagues. There is no doubt about that.
▶ 11:12:29Um and um and so again I I just um I want to again uh thank you uh for being here and um and again I support all your amendments and uh and I uh and for what it's worth and I think I speak for all of us up here. It's kind of inspiring for us to see you just kind of wait it out.
▶ 11:12:51Um because you know what the stakes are uh and um and I think people who are tuning in also appreciate u you're being here today. So I I thank you and I yield back to the chairman. Gentleman yields back. Recognize Miss Scandlin for Thank you. I want to echo the ranking members remarks.
▶ 11:13:12Um, I think the outpouring of members here is is inspirational and and is a measure of just how significant and impactful um this bill is going to be in a negative way. And you've all raised important policy issues that deserve full legislative consideration and also the American people deserve to know where their representatives stand on these issues. So I would support a full vote on them. I did with respect to um Representative Kelly's bill.
▶ 11:13:40This has been a major issue in in my district and I just wanted in support of that bill to seek unanimous consent to enter a Philadelphia Inquirer article from September 21st, 2022 entitled 80% of pregnancy related deaths are preventable. Philly or CDC says highlighting a problem in Philadelphia. Without objection. So ordered. Yields back. Yields back. Now recognize Mr. Nagus for his five minutes.
▶ 11:14:09I thank the chairman. Um well, first let me just say thank you to my colleagues and echo the sentiments from our ranking member and um Miss Scandlin. Our deep appreciation and it's not lost on us that there are several of our colleagues here, Mr. Chairman, uh who testified just a few short minutes ago who've spent more time in this hearing than Republican colleagues of ours on this committee.
▶ 11:14:34Um there are several members and no no I'm not I'm not referencing uh the chairman but others of your colleagues Mr. Horford has been here literally since we arrived and convened and you have members who as as has Mr. Kennedy Mr. I'll go down the whole list but every member here um has been here for literally going on seven 8 n 10 hours for five minutes to be able to speak for five minutes on behalf of the people that they represent.
▶ 11:15:01And uh I I think that's a testament to their convictions and their passions for their constituencies. I want to ask just a few questions of uh Mr. Horford and Mr. Gomez as the two members who serve on Ways and Means. Uh Mr. Horford, you heard me earlier um if you might maybe at 4 in the morning or 3 in the morning. I don't remember exactly when in my exchange with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee regarding the tax on tips.
▶ 11:15:29And I'm still trying to understand why the Republicans on the committee don't just put your bill on the floor given that there's bipartisan support for it, given that this seems to be an issue that they're passionate about. Um, I I I I struggle to understand why that's the not the case. And I know you have fought vigorously on behalf of the people that you represent in Nevada for that particular policy, but I want to give you an opportunity to expound upon it if you're interested. Thank you to the assistant Democratic leader.
▶ 11:15:58Look, to be clear, I I've been working with a coalition of workers, the culinary workers, Unite Here, One Fair Wage, and others to bring legislation to provide relief to tip workers. 6 million TIP workers in America today make as little as $2.13 an hour. 213. 70% of those workers are women and women of color in particular.
▶ 11:16:29So on top of giving relief and allowing more tip workers to keep their earn uh their hard-earned by eliminating the tax on tips, we also need to give workers a raise. And that is what my bill does. No other bill does that.
▶ 11:16:53My bill also has important safeguards so that people continue to pay into social security so that hedge funds uh are not able to grift off of the policy so that we define what a tip worker is so that it's not abused under our tax law. And so for Chairman Smith to sit here today and say, you know, he he couldn't bring a bill to to the committee on um is just wrong because I'm ready.
▶ 11:17:23I've been ready and my bill has been ready uh since the beginning of this Congress and it comes from the actual tip workers um who are affected by the policy. I am a co-sponsor of the bill that was unanimously passed by the Senate, the same version, and I see no reason why the House cannot bring up a standalone bill to make sure that we are advocating for the needs of TIP workers and all workers.
▶ 11:17:50You're going to have all these compounding effects of cutting health care, of cutting nutrition programs, of making it harder for working families to get by. Then let's give workers a raise. Let's give them a raise that's um uh livable enough to actually pay the rent on and to afford to buy a home. That is what Democrats stand for. That's what we're fighting for is to give everyone an opportunity to not just survive, but to actually thrive in America.
▶ 11:18:20So, thank you to the assistant leader for the opportunity to talk about that legislation. and Chairman Smith, wherever you are, my letter to you asking for a standalone uh vote on my legislation um is is at your office. Well said. Well said. Mr.
▶ 11:18:35Gomez, there was a robust discussion earlier about the tax brackets and I think the chairman was was not as candid as I would have hoped with respect to his description of the various tax brackets in the reconciliation bill. I wonder if you might talk about the billionaire tax bracket and the amendment that you proposed. Yeah.
▶ 11:18:56Um, one first, u, I have an amendment that would increase taxes on billionaires, basically preventing them from getting any kind of tax break in this bill and actually require them to pay their fair share, increasing the tax bracket from 36% to 39% u roughly. So, in this room, by show of hands, who believes a billionaire shouldn't be uh shouldn't get a tax break and actually should pay their fair share of taxes like All right. How about on the Republicans?
▶ 11:19:23You guys can um help me restore my faith because here's the thing. There aren't many Republicans here committee unfortunately. Paul left. And the reason why is that if you increase the taxes on the billionaires, you can actually give the people who are getting uh screwed at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder a tax break.
▶ 11:19:44So for the record I want to enter into the record the distribution uh chart of distribution of the estimated revenue effects of tax provisions of the chairman's markup. Basically what's going to happen into the record this is a J this is by the joint committee on taxation. It's an official official record. What's it on? is basically shows how much who's paying what in taxes under this bill by the joint committee on Without objection.
▶ 11:20:14So ordered. Thank you. And and here's the thing. The reason why let's go over years calendar year 2027. If you're um people that make less than 15,000 a year will pay an additional $1 billion in taxes. 1 billion. And here's the thing. In uh the year 2029, people that are making less than 15 million are going to pay uh 15,000 will pay another $2.6 billion in taxes that year.
▶ 11:20:43People that are making 15 to 30,000 2.5 billion in additional taxes that year. And we go on to year 2031, you're they're actually less than uh 15,000. They're going to pay another 30 uh $3.6 6 billion that tax year. 3.6 billion. And if you're making 15 to 30,000, you're going to be all those people will be pwning up another billion. $4.5 billion.
▶ 11:21:12And by the year 2033, let people that are in that tax bracket of less than 15,000, $3.7 billion just that year. And then the people making 15 to 30,000 3.8 billion. So anybody that says that the people at those low rungs of the economic ladder are not getting screwed are not going to be paying more in taxes are just absolutely wrong. And with that I yield back to Mr. Nagus. Thank you Mr. Gomez. I yield back. I did. Timman yields back.
▶ 11:21:43Seeing anyone else wishing seeing no no one else wishing to ask questions. I thank this group for presenting your amendments. Thank you for being with us. And we will move on to the next group and I'll need the names. All right. is there is they're leaving. Our next panel will be uh uh Miss Dexter, Mr. Carter, Mr. Ms.
▶ 11:22:05Takakota, Takuda, uh Miss Bonamichi, Miss Baragon, Mr. Mr. Tonko, Miss Goodlander, and Miss Stanbury. She's raising her hand.
▶ 11:23:52All right. If Miss Mlan Delaney can join as well. and now recognize um Miss Dexter of Oregon for her five minutes of presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our ranking member. Today, I'm offering three amendments rooted in a basic principle.
▶ 11:24:22Government should work for the people, not silence them, not shield corruption, and certainly not rip away healthcare. Let's start with with what this GOP tax scam tries to take from the public, their voice. Under current law, communities can protest oil and gas leasing decisions that threaten their land, water, or climate. This bill would impose a $150 fee plus more for extra pages or lease parcels just to be heard.
▶ 11:24:51And let's be honest about what that is. attacks on public participation, a toll on free speech, and it won't deter billion-dollar oil companies. It will deter working people, people who love outdoor places. At the same time, Republicans are slashing royalty payments and handling handing billions and giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. That tells you everything you need need to know about where their priorities lie.
▶ 11:25:20My amendment would strike this unjust protest fee from the bill and protect the public's right to be heard. Second, we must ensure accountability. I'm offering an amendment to allocate a 0.5% of new funds to the Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector General, a nonpartisan watchdog that saves taxpayers money by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. This should be easy for Republicans to support.
▶ 11:25:49It's the same bipartisan provision they themselves championed by our current House Natural Resources chair in 2021. It's simple. Let's ensure transparency and pass this amendment. And now I want to speak to what I believe is the most urgent and dangerous part of this legislation, its impact on healthcare. Before I came to Congress, I spent nearly 20 years caring for some of the sickest patients in our community. I've worked in emergency rooms.
▶ 11:26:18I know what happens when a system doesn't have the resources that it needs to serve its patients. That's why I'm offering an amendment to require states to report on how coverage losses under this bill would impact uncompensated care and emergency department wait times in safety net hospitals. If this bill were really only about wa ridding out waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, we should welcome this kind of data. But we know the truth.
▶ 11:26:48This bill isn't about waste. It's about ripping health care away from nearly 14 million Americans and destabilizing the health care system for everyone else in the process. And for what? To give tax breaks to billionaires. Medicaid isn't just a lifeline for patients. It's a fundamental part of our health care infrastructure. Providers depend on it to stay open to serve not only Medicaid patients but you, me, everyone in our communities.
▶ 11:27:17Cutting Medicaid will made mean clinics and hospitals in rural towns will shut down. Hospitals in cities will be over capacity. Seniors will be forced out of nursing facilities due to closures. and emergency rooms will go on divert, turning away people in crisis because there simply isn't enough space for people to be seen. We're talking about longer wait times for pediatric care, delays for life-saving cancer treatment, people suffering and dying.
▶ 11:27:47Not because we don't have the tools to help them, but because we've made a political choice to take those tools away. These cuts will be devastating, and the consequences won't be statistics on a spreadsheet. They will be lives lost, futures cut short, and suffering that could have been prevented. And again, for what? Tax breaks for billionaires. I urge my Republican colleagues, show courage in this moment.
▶ 11:28:15Stand with the constituents who cannot afford to lose their voice and their healthcare. Support these amendments and defeat this outrageous and dangerous bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for five minutes. Mr.
▶ 11:28:55Okay. Okay. Start again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking member. Um, my first amendment number 299 preserves environmental justice block program grants for that improve public health. The EPA has provided grants for more than 50 years that protect our constituents public health and enhance their environment.
▶ 11:29:20This is especially true for the environmental and climate justice block grant program, which provides valuable funding that serves community centers, environmental rehabilitation projects, and public health revitalization initiatives that would otherwise not be possible. These projects are providing environmental and public health benefits in Democratic and Republican districts alike.
▶ 11:29:47However, this bipartisan bill ruthlessly claws back these funds and eliminates this vital program. Not only is this bill stealing people's health care, it's also making them sicker. My amendment will ensure that environmental and climate justice block grant projects that improve the health outcomes in lowincome communities do not lose critical funding.
▶ 11:30:12If Republicans truly prioritize this their constituents, they should easily agree with me that this funding is valuable and must be protected. My second amendment is amendment number 358, which would add to the text the bipartisan next generation 911 act to the Republican budget reconciliation legislation before us today and fully fund programs using the from
▶ 11:30:42future spectrum auctions. Because technology advances, the tech the telecommunications over from the past 50 years, Americans can communicate today in ways even weren't even contemplated when 911 system was first created. Yet, our 911 systems are stuck in the past. Our first responders are unable to utilize these tools we take for granted in this digital age. We are far behind.
▶ 11:31:11Police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians who serve communities we represent deserve better. I cannot think of a better use of dollars raised from auctioning off public airwaves than to upgrade old, outdated public safety communication systems. I hope my colleagues will vote yes on this amendment to modernize our 911 systems for the 21st century.
▶ 11:31:39Congress should give FCC the authority to begin spectrum auctions now. Those proceeds need to help our constituents and first responders not pay for tax cuts for the al ultra rich.
▶ 11:31:54My third amendment is amendment 373 which states no funds can be used to effectuate the detention or removal of United States uh of citizens of the United States or any non-citizen whose legal status was determined or or visa revoked due to exercising simply their right to speech free speech not break any laws simply their right to free speech.
▶ 11:32:21Last month, I led a delegation of House and Senate members to two ICE processing centers in Louisiana to meet with individuals who had their legal status revoked and remain in immigration detention simply because they exercise their right to free speech. If these individuals can be jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights, any person in this country is under the same threat. Now, let me be clear.
▶ 11:32:48I do not support any hate speech of any kind. Speech that supports anti-semitism or calls for violence. I am totally opposed to. The individuals we met with were very clear. They don't support these matters either. My fourth amendment and last amendment is number 357 which states that 100% of Medicaid cuts resulted from waste, fraud, and abuse will go directly back into programs to strengthen Medicaid for generations to come.
▶ 11:33:19The my Republican friends say that they want to help the people that Medicaid was quote unquote intended for, the most vulnerable. And I and to that I say put your money where your mouth is. But we all know they won't. It's always been about enriching billionaires while ripping health care away from seniors, children, mothers, and those with disabilities. Republicans now say that Medicaid say the Medicaid shameful. We will put the most vulnerable at risk.
▶ 11:33:49That's why we keep spinning false narratives about waste, fraud, and abuse. But don't take my word for it. Take it from Republican Senator Josh Holly and I quote, "Will Republicans be the majority of the people or permanent minority speaking only for seuite?" So if the goal is to protect Medicaid and root out waste, fraud, and abuse, we should have no opposition to support my medic amendment to reinvesting these funds into Medicaid.
▶ 11:34:16I have one final quote, ma'am, and I know I'm shortly over, but I want to remind people. I'm I'm told yesterday that our president, Donald Trump, said, and I quote, please forgive my language, don't with Medicaid. I hope he was serious, and I hope this committee takes it serious, too. I yield. Carter, Mr. Duda, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 11:34:42Ranking member McGovern and I submit one amendment today, 159, protecting rural Americans from snap cuts. Every day, millions of Americans go to bed hungry. For 14 straight years, the United States has led the developed world in food insecurity. In 2023, over one in four Americans reported struggling to afford food. Think about that. In the richest nation on Earth, 85 million people are missing meals. And where is this pain felt most deeply?
▶ 11:35:12Rural America, small towns, farming communities, places like Hawaii's second district, where food is grown but life is hard. 87% of the counties with the highest food insecurity are rural. Families face fewer job opportunities, fewer doctors, fewer grocery stores, and now even fewer lifelines. And Republicans want to make it worse. This isn't just a bad bill. It's a big bad bill. It's a big ugly bill.
▶ 11:35:39a brutal assault on rural families, working parents, seniors, kids. The GOP plan is to slash 313 billion dollars from SNAP, gut Medicaid, rip lifelines out of the hands of people just trying to survive, and hand billions in tax breaks to the ultra wealthy. All this as part of the GOP tax scam 2.0, a reckless giveaway to billionaires that will add5 trillion dollars to our national debt.
▶ 11:36:09Five trillion dollars in tax breaks for the rich, paid for by taking food off tables and putting health care out of reach for working Americans. This isn't fiscal policy. It's moral failure. It's the wealthiest 10% cashing in at the expense of the poorest, most vulnerable, hardworking people who labor every day to hold on to life in communities too often forgotten. Let me tell you about Anna, a constituent of mine from the rural west side of Aahu. She and her husband run a small family business.
▶ 11:36:39Last year, just $200 more in monthly sales pushed them over the limit for SNAP. $200. That tiny increase cost their children meals. Anna told me she had to measure every scoop of rice at dinner. She couldn't say yes when her youngest child asked for a second helping of food. She sent her kids to school hungry. Months later, after their sales dropped again, Anna reapplied. They were approved and she cried.
▶ 11:37:06But now Anna and her husband wonder every day, should we sell our home? Should we leave our community? That's the America we're creating where a family's survival depends on a spreadsheet and sadly declining sales. Anna isn't a cheat. She isn't lazy. She's not gaming the system. She is the system. The engine and the heart of rural America. working, sacrificing, raising kids, building a future. And yet, this bill punishes her.
▶ 11:37:36SNAP works. It feeds families and fuels local economies. Every SNAP dollar we know generates over a$150 in economic activity. It supports farmers, grocerers, small town businesses. It breaks cycles of poverty and Medicaid, keeps rural hospitals open, keeps parents and kids healthy. It keeps people alive. Cutting these programs isn't just cruel, it's anti-American. But here's the truth. The cruelty is the point.
▶ 11:38:06Because this bill is about priorities. The GOP's priorities is clear. Cater to the billionaires, crush the working families, and let's call it policy. They're ready to hand out massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while robbing the rest of the country of food and care. That's not a budget. That's a betrayal. So yes, this bill will devastate rural America.
▶ 11:38:30It will mean more hunger, more closed clinics, more families like Anna's forced to consider giving up their homes, their communities, their dignity, so that billionaires can buy a third yacht and pay even less in taxes. But we have a choice. We can do the right thing. We can stand with the families who work hard and ask only for a fair shot. We can vote for policies that invest in people, not punish them. We can reject the GOP tax scam. We can protect SNAP. We can defend Medicaid.
▶ 11:39:00And we can refuse to balance budgets on the backs of people who can least afford it. This amendment is our choice. If you are confident rural America will not see snap cuts or decrease benefits, as the chair of the agriculture committee has claimed, then this amendment will do no harm. Vote yes. But if you have a concern and quite frankly a conscience, vote yes. reject this big bad bill.
▶ 11:39:24Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield Bonichi, you're recognized for five minutes. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment, which is number 24, is pro- family, pro-children, and pro- momom. It guarantees that this bill will not take away nutrition benefits for moms and hungry kids in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, or wick.
▶ 11:39:46Federal nutrition programs like WIC and SNAP and school meals are investments in the health, learning, and development of children and young adults and communities across the country and are some of the most successful tools we have for reducing child hunger. These nutrition programs have been associated with improved educational outcomes and reduced food insecurity, which is especially important for children from low income and food insecure families.
▶ 11:40:11And it's widely known that WIC contributes to healthier births, nutritious diets, and improved infant feeding practices, better healthc care for children, and higher academic achievement. The benefits is are indisputable. So, WICK has served as a lifeline for many mothers and their young children, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I would now like to make a few comments on amendments that I am either co-sponsoring or supporting.
▶ 11:40:37There is uh one by ranking member Bobby Scott to protect American children from going hungry uh with with regard to the proposed cuts to SNAP. Yesterday, the Urban Institute released a new report highlighting that as many as 18.3 million children could lose access to free school meals as a result of the harmful provisions in this bill. And we know that every congressional district has children who are hungry.
▶ 11:41:04families are working hard, but the income isn't keeping uh up with the cost. So, I hope we can adopt uh Mr. Scott's amendment number 184. I also want to speak in support of a rep uh amendment that is going to be introduced or has been introduced by Representative Sykes to strike the language in the bill that cuts Medicaid. In Oregon, one in three people are covered by Medicaid, including 57% of Oregon children.
▶ 11:41:29And make no mistake, uh, if you rip away health care from millions of Americans, people will die. Rural hospitals will close, cancer patients will go without treatment. And I will support this amendment uh, and proud to support this amendment. Uh, I also uh, want to uh, raise an issue uh, in the amendment that is introduced by Representative Rivas, number 215.
▶ 11:41:52This is an amendment that will fix a catastrophic policy that's tucked quietly uh into this bill that would let the world's most powerful technology go unchecked for the next decade. This is a blank check for big tech. It would uh and the um bill as written will block state and local governments from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. That is a a long time. That is a decade of risk. Let's be clear.
▶ 11:42:21We do not have federal policies uh or governance laws on data privacy, security, and bias. And I served on the bipartisan house AI task force, and we set spent a long time studying these issues. And our report that was signed by both Republicans and Democrats explicitly warns against blanket and impulsive federal preeemption of state AI policy.
▶ 11:42:43and I quote, "Without comprehensive federal AI or data privacy laws, states are well positioned to address gaps, tailor protections, and respond to emerging harms." But this bill ignores that bipartisan advice. Yesterday, 40 state attorneys general, including Oregon's Dan Rayfield, sent a bipartisan letter opposing this provision because of the unchecked harm it will cause. And let's talk about what that could look like.
▶ 11:43:09An algorithm that denies a disabled person access to housing, and no state agency could intervene. A company that designs generative AI to imitate voices or faces without consent. States couldn't stop it. A hiring platform that discriminates by race or gender.
▶ 11:43:24Under this bill, if a company deliberately designs an algorithm that causes foreseeable harm, they'd be legally unaccountable and it would leave policy makers and the public flying blind as a handful of corporations consolidate power over a rapidly advancing technology. And I'm not talking about machines. I'm talking about civil rights, consumer safety, child protection, elections, employment, and more.
▶ 11:43:48The House AI task force made it clear we should empower good AI policy at the state level, not block it. This amendment strikes the provision and gets government out of the way so states can protect their people. Let's test whether Congress stands with the public or with the powerful. I also have a few bills I want to mention that or excuse me, a few amendments that I'm co-sponsoring. One by Mr.
▶ 11:44:10buyer to keep energy costs low by uh taking uh two of the most successful energy policies in history uh the production tax credit and the investment tax credit uh protecting those. Also, Mr. Buyer's amendment protecting bipartisan clean energy tax credits. I also want to support uh be on record of supporting uh ranking member Bobby Scott's amendment number 261 that makes it harder for stu strikes the language that makes it harder for students to access highquality education.
▶ 11:44:40Uh and and one more madam chair with your indulgence I want to support the amendment by my Oregon colleague representative binham that ensures the consumer financial protection bureau retains current funding for protecting student borrowers and I yield back. Thank you, Bonamichi. The order now is Goodlander, Stansbury, Delaney, and Tite.
▶ 11:45:01Okay, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member McGovern, for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the people of New Hampshire second district, uh, to offer a common sense, one-s sentence amendment to this truly big and catastrophically bad bill. We know the big the bill is big. I brought a copy with me. doesn't fit on this very big table in front of me.
▶ 11:45:27Uh, this bill is catastrophically bad because of what it does and what it fails to do. And that's where my amendment comes in. This bill is catastrophically bad because we know what it's going to do to 14 million Americans who will lose health coverage. The biggest cuts to health care in American history. It's going to hurt our kids, people with disabilities, pregnant women, seniors. It's going to jack up health care costs everyone.
▶ 11:45:54Rural hospitals in my state are going to close and people are going to die. We know this bill is catastrophically bad because what of what it's going to do to the more than 10 million Americans who are at risk of losing access to food because of the biggest cuts to SNAP in American history. We're talking about kids, about veterans, about hardworking people all across our country and in and in the most rural parts of my district in Berlin, in Stewartstown, in Winchester, people are going to lose access to food.
▶ 11:46:25And for what? To give another big tax giveaway to big corporations and to billionaires. This bill also is going to bring about the biggest deficit increase in American history, $3.8 trillion. And that's trillion with a T according to the nonpartisan budget, Congressional Budget Office. And it's going to add trillions of dollars to the national debt. So this is this bill is bad for all the things it will do.
▶ 11:46:50But one of the things this bill will not do and another reason why it's catastrophically bad is what it fails to do to really make government work better for hardworking people and to actually cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse. And that's where my straightforward common sense one-s sentence amendment comes in.
▶ 11:47:08Title two of this big bill provides nearly $150 billion dollars to the Department of Defense and does this, mind you, at a moment when that department is in a state of pure and utter chaos under the leadership of a person who has no business serving as the Secretary of Defense. That's a lot of money, $150 billion.
▶ 11:47:28It's 10 times the state of New Hampshire's bianual It's also, I should note, $50 billion above what the House Armed Services Committee was instructed to spend uh in this bill. And I read every bill I vote on and that's it's 50 billion dollars above. So, I'm offering a straightforward amendment.
▶ 11:47:49It's one sentence that would simply require the Department of Defense before it is able to spend the additional $50 billion to do what it is already required to do by law and what it has failed to do under law for decades now and that is to pass an independent audit. This is about basic government oversight. But the Department of Defense has failed seven audits.
▶ 11:48:14It is the only federal department that has failed an audit and it also accounts for more than half of our discretionary spending. We're talking about about a trillion dollars. Um, this is not right. If you really want to talk about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, I'd ask the question, isn't a clean audit of the Pentagon a top priority? If you want to know whether we're actually wasting money, an audit is going to help us do exactly that.
▶ 11:48:43So look, at the end of the day, this is about it's about military readiness, and that's something that our national security depends upon. It's something our economic security depends upon. It's also about the public's trust. Small businesses across this country, people across America, have got to pass an audit to keep doing what they do. The Pentagon should be held to the same standard. And it's the public's trust that our democracy depends on.
▶ 11:49:11And so with that, I would say this this big, truly big and catastrophically bad bill cannot be cured with one amendment. But this is a step towards progress on what I think we all share, a goal we all share, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. That is not what this bill do does. Um, and with that, I yield back. Thank you. You're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 11:49:34Madame Chair, ranking member, members of the committee, before I get started, I just want to observe that we've been here for almost 12 hours. And I want to take a moment to thank all of the staff who've been holding it down for the last 12 hours in this room.
▶ 11:49:53And I want to also observe that I count exactly two Republicans in this room while literally dozens of Democrats have sat here all night and all day to have five minutes in front of this committee to speak our peace on behalf of the American people. So I have a lot of ground to cover. If it's not obvious already, not only am I a no on this bill, I am a hell no. Let me tell you why.
▶ 11:50:20This bill puts a massive permanent tax break in place for the ultra wealthy and corporations on the backs of working Americans. It will literally make the poor people of this country poor while the rich get richer. It will give billions of dollars in kickbacks to defense contractors, private prisons, and big tech. It gives cuts to lifesaving programs, Medicaid, and health care, which all of you said you wouldn't cut for months, and here we are.
▶ 11:50:48food assistance, school lunches, PEL grants. It will decimate protections for the environment, NEPA, public lands, judicial review, climate and clean energy. It decimates protections for our federal workers. It makes them at will. And it threatens their retirement. It threatens our consumers. It eviscerates the federal budget.
▶ 11:51:09And madam chair, despite what I have heard here for many hours of lying, it will put into place largest increase in deficit spending this country has ever seen. Ever. That is what this bill does and that is why I oppose it. I'm here to present six amendments.
▶ 11:51:35one of which was voted down by the Republicans in oversight that would actually protect Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, and food assistance. I'm also here to fight for a bill, an amendment to this bill that would make it impossible for people like Elon Musk and special government employees to selfdeal and exploit the government for their own personal gain.
▶ 11:51:59I'm also here to present an amendment that would restore the protections for our tribal nations because notwithstanding what I heard the chairman say in the dark of night in this room, this bill takes away the judicial rights of our tribal nations to defend their sacred lands and their tribal trust and treaty responsibilities. And it is shameful. It is absolutely shameful.
▶ 11:52:24I am also here to offer an amendment to restore climate funding that was cut out of our national budget. And I am here to present an amendment which the Republicans have already voted on in a number of different places and spaces that would make it impossible for our foreign adversaries to mine here in the United States and take advantage of our system.
▶ 11:52:47These are but a small offering to a thousandpage bill that will literally kill Americans. This is but a small offering in the 500 amendments that my colleagues and I have waited all night and all day to present in this committee. So, let me be perfectly clear. This bill will hurt the American people. It will raise the debt. It will give permanent tax breaks to the ultra wealthy.
▶ 11:53:18It will put billions of dollars into the pockets of Donald Trump's friends. It will cut lifesaving programs. It will decimate protections for our communities. And it is happening on your watch. And we are here to fight it every step of the way in this committee, on the floor, in our communities. And we will not stop fighting. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 11:53:50Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, Ranking Member McGovern, and thanks to all the staff. I agree as well, who've been here. Um, I got here around 3:00 in the morning, and um, I echo what many of my Democratic colleagues have said. Um, but I just have to say as a preamble, you know, many of the things I've said will be repeating others, but my heart is heavy.
▶ 11:54:13Um, as a, uh, freshman member from Maryland, but grew up in this great state of Idaho, um, and I've lived here for 30 years, I've never seen anything like this in Washington. And I must say, um, I ran on common sense, common ground in my campaign. And there is none of that right here on in on Capitol Hill. But that takes common ground, takes shared truths and starting at at least the same platform and the same set of facts and shared value outputs.
▶ 11:54:41And I would think that we should come back together to really look at those things. Um the way in which we have not been able to really have hearings and an ability to really think and and probe into all these issues is so important. to go.