[House Prints 119-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress}
1st Session } COMMITTEE PRINT
======================================================================
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF FISCAL YEAR 2025
BUDGET RECONCILIATION,
AND POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
=======================================================================
FOR THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 2025
__________
Serial No. CP:119-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-198 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Mike Turner, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Byron Donalds, Florida Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Greg Casar, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Emily Randall, Washington
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Ryan Giachetti, Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian
Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
Lauren Lombardo, Deputy Policy Director
Lauren Hassett, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Meeting held on April 30, 2025................................... 1
BILLS CONSIDERED
----------
* H. Con. Res. 14, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print
Resolution Discussed............................................. 3
* Several Postal-Naming Measures
Measures Discussed............................................... 89
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Statement for the Record, AFGE; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, AFL-CIO; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, FMA; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, IAFF; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, IFPTE; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, NARFE; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, NFFE; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, NPMHU; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, NRLCA; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, NTEU; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Statement for the Record, PMA; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Letters, 100 Letters, April 30, 2025, from Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, to the Trump Administration;
submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Article, Associated Pres, ``Inside the Trump White House's
intense screening of job-seekers''; submitted by Rep. Mfume.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF FISCAL YEAR 2025
BUDGET RECONCILIATION,
AND POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
----------
Wednesday, April 30, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Turner, Gosar,
Foxx, Grothman, Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace,
Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, Boebert,
Luna, Burlison, Crane, Jack, McGuire, Gill, Norton, Lynch,
Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost,
Lee, Casar, Crockett, Randall, Subramanyam, Ansari, Bell,
Simon, Min, Pressley, and Tlaib.
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A
quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule (5)(b) and House Rule XI, Clause
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an
amendment on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The Committee will continue to use electronic system for
recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills before
the Committee. Of course, should any technical issues arise,
which I do not anticipate, we will immediately transition to
traditional roll call votes. Any procedural or motion related
votes during today's markup will be dispensed with by a
traditional roll call vote.
Before we begin, I would like to let our departing Ranking
Member Gerry Connolly know that everyone here is praying for
him. Our thoughts are with him and his family. It has been a
pleasure to work with Gerry Connolly. We do not always agree,
but I will tell you, I think he is a tremendous legislator. I
think he is sincere about governing. He is sincere about trying
to identify waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the
Federal Government, which is what this Committee is all about,
and I think that Ranking Member Connolly is a role model for
what a good Member of Congress should be. He fights for what he
believes in, he is honest, and he tries to do what he thinks is
best. And we all, on the Republican side of the aisle,
appreciate and respect Ranking Member Connolly and wish him a
speedy recovery.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Over here.
Chairman Comer. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. Would it be all right if I led us in a word
of prayer for Gerry?
Chairman Comer. Yes, please. I will yield to Mr. Burchett
for a----
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Word of prayer for Mr.
Connolly.
Mr. Burchett. Bow our heads, please. Dear Lord, we ask
blessings on our dear brother, Gerry, and we ask that your
healing hand is upon him and his family, and we ask that you
give wisdom to his physicians, and we just ask for his healing,
and thank you, Lord, for bringing him into our lives. We do not
agree on anything, but I love him like a brother, and I do,
Lord. You know that. You know my heart. And I ask all these
things in Jesus' name. Amen.
Chairman Comer. Amen. Thank you. Now I will yield to Mr.
Lynch for comments.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burchett, thank you
for your prayers. I want to thank all the Members of both sides
of the aisle for your kindness and remembrance and prayers on
behalf of Gerry Connolly. Gerry Connolly is still involved
here, though, so, he is whispering in my ear. While I am in an
interim position in his absence, he is very much engaged on the
reconciliation process and thereafter.
His presence is still here, and I think he would have fully
endorsed the part of Mr. Burchett's prayer that called upon God
to give wisdom to Republicans. You know, ironically, we are
here today on a hearing on Federal employees. Mr. Connolly has
more Federal employees in his district than any other Member of
Congress, so I know it pains him greatly not to be part of this
process, but I hope that his presence and his love and his
longtime advocacy on behalf of Federal employees has an impact
on this hearing and on the votes that we will take during the
course of this day. Gerry Connolly was not only an advocate for
Federal employees, he was someone who nurtured Federal
employees. You can see that in his own staff. He has many staff
members, the Committee staff included, that came from various
parts of government that Gerry had worked with over 20 years.
As the Chairman said, he was legitimate and is a legitimate
legislator in every aspect of that word.
I have been working with Gerry Connolly for almost 25
years. Gerry and I have done CODELs to Iraq and countless
CODELs to Iraq, Afghanistan. We have done investigations on the
army hospital, Walter Reed Hospital, back in the day, when we
were fearful that they were not providing adequate care to our
wounded military and veterans. He has been a real example,
hopefully, to both sides of the aisle, and I just ask that his
presence and his priorities and his spirit imbue all of us
during this process.
And, again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
especially Mr. Burchett for his kind prayers on my friend's
behalf. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Our next item
for consideration is the Oversight Committee's Fiscal Year 2025
Budget Reconciliation Committee Print providing for
reconciliation pursuant to House Continuing Resolution 14.
The clerk will please designate the Committee Print.
The Clerk. Oversight Committee Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the Committee Print
shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any
point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The clerk will please designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
the Committee Print, offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
Committee Print and the amendment.
Today, this Committee has a generational opportunity to
fulfill its part of the House mandated charge to enact reforms
to benefit the American people. This work is part of a larger
effort led by President Trump to fundamentally change how the
Federal Government operates. Last November, Democrats offered
to provide ``more of the same,'' but the American people
rejected that and elected President Trump to a historic second
term.
President Trump promised to change Washington, DC, and he
has delivered on that promise during his first 100 days in
office. House Republicans' budget takes action to further
deliver on President Trump's America First Agenda. It provides
the resources needed to secure our border, enforce our
immigration laws and deport criminal illegal aliens. It grows
our economy by reducing taxes for American families and small
businesses. It encourages investment in the United States to
create good paying jobs right here in the United States. It
restores America's energy dominance by dismantling the radical
left's Green New Deal scam, and empowering American energy
producers. Republicans' budget restores peace through strength
to provide our military with the resources it needs to protect
our freedom, and our budget will make the government more
efficient and more accountable.
Today, we are considering reforms within the Oversight
Committee's jurisdiction that reduce Federal deficits by at
least $50 billion in 10 years. The cost reduction changes to
the Federal Government the Committee will consider are part of
the President's vision for enacting his legislative agenda and
pass significant taxpayer savings into law. Congressional
procedure, precedent, and tradition too often contribute to an
ever-expanding Federal Government, while too little is done to
shrink the administrative state or make the Federal bureaucracy
more efficient. The budget reconciliation process, while
imposing requirements and some limitations on cost-saving
measures this Committee is considering, provides a rare
opportunity to reverse that trajectory.
The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has very
limited jurisdiction to help reduce the Federal budget deficit.
Specifically, the Oversight Committee is empowered to pursue
civil service reforms, including Federal employee benefits and
reigning in the influence of partisan and unaccountable
government employee unions. Such Federal employee retirement
benefits far outpace the retirement benefits that most
Americans enjoy in the private sector. The Congressional Budget
Office issued an April 2024 report indicating that, ``Benefits
for Federal workers cost 43 percent more per hour work on
average than benefits for private sector workers.'' Forty-three
dollars an hour more. Furthermore, the CBO notes that,
``Benefits also constituted a larger share of total
compensation for Federal workers, 40 percent, than for workers
in the private sector, which was 30 percent.''
World-class employment benefits provided to Federal
employees are well known, which can include 11 paid holidays;
various incentives and awards; health, life, and long-term care
insurance; flexible spending accounts; student loan repayment
and forgiveness plans; generous leave and workplace
flexibilities; and childcare, professional development, and
commuter subsidies. The simple truth is that a significant
amount of the cost associated with all of these benefits are
funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector, and
increasingly now, Federal Government borrowing.
The legislation before us today advances important
budgetary reforms that will save taxpayers' money. Their
proposed reforms also account for some unique employee
situations brought to this Committee's attention. We have,
therefore, made some changes to avoid unintended consequences,
contrary to clear public interest. This includes key exemptions
to maintain public services provided by certain frontline
Federal employee groups, such as law enforcement officers,
Border Patrol officers, air traffic controllers, nuclear
material couriers, and firefighters who typically have
shortened Federal careers due to mandatory retirement rules.
Taken together, these reforms will reduce the deficit by $50.9
billion while moving us toward the more accountable Federal
Government the American people demand and deserve.
I now recognize my colleague, Mr. Lynch, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The real reason we are
here today is because congressional Republicans have instructed
this Committee to target our Federal workforce with
approximately $50 billion in funding cuts regardless of the
impact on hardworking, loyal Federal employees and the critical
services that they provide to the American people. In just a
hundred days, we have witnessed this Administration lay off
more than 200,000 probationary employees. And we talk about
generational change, we just fired the next generation of
Federal workers--leading public health experts, veterans, and
other critical positions. The Trump Administration has coerced
75,000 civil servants to resign. They replaced 50,000
nonpartisan civil servants with political appointees and
illegally terminated nonpartisan independent oversight by
Federal watchdogs, our Inspectors General. This partisan bill
threatens to further undermine the Federal workforce by
reducing the take-home pay, the benefits, and workforce
protections of 2.4 million Federal employees, most of whom are
middle-class Americans, and a third of whom are military
veterans.
Americans did not vote for Donald Trump to do that. They
did not vote to have Donald Trump cut 80,000 employees at the
VA who are taking care of our veterans. This is more of the
same, an unprecedented assault on a political purge of the
civil service. If this legislation becomes law, almost every
Federal employee hired in 2013 or earlier, under the Federal
Employee Retirement System, or FERS, would see a nearly four-
percent pay cut by forcing them to contribute more to
retirement.
The Federal Employee Retirement System annuity supplement,
the monthly payment for retirees before they are eligible for
Social Security at age 62 would be eliminated for anybody not
actively receiving the supplemental payment at the time this
bill is enacted or does not meet specific exemptions. Federal
workers like letter carriers, VA hospital nurses, and food
inspectors who have committed decades to the job and are
eligible to retire, would not be able to receive this vital
payment to make ends meet.
This legislation would also change the annuity formula to
base most employees' annual retirement payments on their
highest 5 years of earnings instead of the highest 3, an
outright theft of earned benefits that would cost each Federal
employee thousands of dollars per year. A particularly
egregious provision in the bill would force any newly hired
Federal employee to accept at-will employment with no
protections, or face an additional 5 percent retirement
contribution on top of the 4.4 percent already required. So,
firefighters, Capitol police officers, air traffic controllers,
and other Federal workers who choose to remain under the merit
base system with employment protections would be forced to
contribute nearly 10 percent of their paycheck toward
retirement, at the same time that we are actually reducing the
amount of that retirement.
This legislation would also require current and former
Federal employees to pay a $350 filing fee for any appeal
before the Merit System Protection Board. So, in order to
exercise your rights as an employee under this system, under
the Merit Protection Board, employees would have to pay $350 to
have their rights protected, which would create a financial
barrier for employees seeking justice, particularly for low-
income or recently separated workers.
Despite the claims of this Administration, Federal workers
are not leeches on the system, but they are hardworking,
dedicated public servants who are paid about 25 percent less
than their private sector counterparts. A strong non-partisan
Federal workforce is fundamental to the functioning of a
democratic government. These dedicated workers deserve our
respect and so much more. Like most Americans, Federal workers
face increased costs for groceries and housing and economic
uncertainty because of President Trump's reckless tax and
tariff agenda is undermining their economic position. The Trump
tariffs are estimated to cost American households close to
$5,000 per year. That would be the largest tax increase since
1968, and that is coming. That is coming.
Republicans are also advocating for a tax regime that will
actually increase the Federal deficit by more than $4 trillion.
You talk about borrowing. In order to fund the Republican tax
cut, they are borrowing $4 trillion to give a tax cut to some
of the richest Americans. There is no fiscal responsibility in
that. Worst of all, they are seeking to offset these costs by
gutting $800 billion from Medicaid programs. My Democratic
colleagues and I do not support that, nor do the American
people. Oversight Democrats stand with struggling families, we
oppose corruption and abuse of power, and we are committed to
solving our Nation's crises without sacrificing the wellbeing
of our country's civil servants.
In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this
legislation and instead work toward a budget that respects
American workers and the vital services that they provide. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. I strongly oppose this reconciliation bill,
including the Committee's portion. Republicans are taking away
Medicaid, food assistance, pay benefits, and protections for
Federal employees, and other critical Federal funding and
programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
The Trump Administration and Congress have launched
unprecedented attacks on Federal employees, Federal contract
workers, Federal agencies, Federal programs, the rule of law,
and the Constitution, among other things. Most recently, the
Administration stripped Federal employees of their collective
bargaining rights. The Administration and Republicans in
Congress are trying to dismantle much of the Federal
Government, gut the Federal workforce, and fill Federal jobs
with political loyalists, in violation of the Constitution,
statutes, and regulations.
Federal employees who provide invaluable services to the
American people deserve praise, not derision, cruelty, fear,
chaos, and illegal firings. These actions would and have
deprived the Federal Government of expertise and experience.
This harms the services of the Federal Government that the
Federal Government provides to all Americans. Instead of
attacking Federal employees, this Committee should be
considering bills to support the Federal workforce, such as my
bill to combat Federal pay compression. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Turner from Ohio.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support
President Trump's efforts and voted for the Fiscal Year 2025
Budget Reconciliation effort in the House. I will be opposing
this Committee's bill today. I gave this Committee a prior
heads-up, prior to this markup, of my opposition to this bill
and sought changes to this bill. I do not believe that this
bill represents Republican values, and I do not believe that it
represents American values.
I believe that making changes to pension retirement
benefits in the middle of someone's employment is wrong.
Changing the rules, especially when someone has already been
vested in their benefits, is wrong. Employee benefits are not a
gift, they are earned. When someone goes to work every day,
what they believe that they are earning includes the benefits
both that they earn in their wages, but also the benefits that
they are told that they are receiving. I have fought to try to
get the Delphi Salaried Retirees' pension benefits restored
that were taken away from them during the Obama Administration,
and I am not going to fight to have one group's pension
benefits restored and then vote to take away another group's
pension benefits. And I understand the need for reform, and
certainly we can have changes that occur in benefits for new
hires, we can certainly look prospectively. But I do think that
for current employees, to change the rules for people in the
middle of the game is wrong.
I have talked to enough people on the House Floor that I do
think that this will not be included in the final bill, and
that this bill ultimately will have to be changed if it is
going to be included in the ultimate budget reconciliation. So,
I will be voting no, and I certainly hope that this process as
it goes through will be changed because I do not think that it
is fair and it represents either Republican values or American
values. I think that we, as a party, stand up for pensions, and
I do not think that we should say to the American public that
we will change someone's pension in the middle of the process
of their employment. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Crockett, then Mrs. Luna is next.
Ms. Crockett. I actually just wanted to say that I agree,
something that I very rarely have an opportunity to do on this
Committee. And I actually want to applaud the Congressman,
Congressman Turner, for laying this out in a very plain way
that is not about partisanship, that it is simply about right
versus wrong. And I think as we go through reconciliation as a
whole, we should be looking at what is right, and it should not
be about what somebody told us we had to do. It should be about
listening to our constituents and doing what is fair and just.
I think that that is who we are supposed to be in the House. We
are supposed to look after the people that elected us and just
do right by Americans.
So, honestly, because I very rarely get an opportunity to
agree with someone from across the aisle in this Committee, I
just wanted to say that I absolutely agree, and it is not just
agreeing, I agree for the same reasons. A lot of times when you
see ``no'' votes on the Floor, sometimes it is for completely
different reasons. But this is about fairness and about doing
what is right for people, and I think that we all on this
Committee should take a step back, and as we go through this
budget process, we should absolutely think about what is right
to do for the people.
So, thank you so much, Congressman Turner, for eloquently
laying this out, and I will yield.
Mr. Lynch. Will the gentlelady yield to Mr. Garcia?
Ms. Crockett. Yes, I will.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
make some opening comments as well. Thank you. Mr. Chairman,
thank you.
I also just want to start today, and I want to thank both
our Ranking Member, our interim Ranking Member, and our
Chairman for the remarks on our Ranking Member, Gerry Connolly.
I also just want to add and send love and appreciation to
Ranking Member Connolly. He is a mentor, I think, to all on
this Committee, and I know we all wish him a strong recovery
and are sending his family a lot of love. Ranking Member
Connolly, of course, cares about how government works and has
been one of the most effective lawmakers in supporting our
Federal workers here in Congress, and I just want to wish him
and his family the absolute best.
Now, I also want to start out today by laying out what is
happening here today. It is clear that the Majority on this
Committee, most of them, are part of a massive effort to rig
the economy against the American people, and I want to spell
this out as clearly as we can. Here is the actual deal the
Majority is offering: $7 trillion in deficit-based finance tax
cuts for the wealthiest in this country, huge giveaways to Elon
Musk and his friends, and, in exchange, of course, working
people will get hit with $880 billion in cuts that will
decimate Medicaid. Eighty million Americans could lose their
healthcare. Low-income people, the disabled, long-term care for
the elderly, substance abuse treatment are all on the chopping
block. We also know that Medicaid covers 41 percent of all
births in this country. Millions of women would lose coverage,
and that is not a deal anyone should support. We should be a
country where we take care of each other.
Now, my Democratic colleagues and I actually believe in
making billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share.
We believe in making sure that hardworking people get
healthcare and food and an affordable place to live, even if it
means standing up to the powerful, but let us be clear. The
rip-off is not the only thing that this bill does. Here in the
Oversight Committee, House Republicans are trying to continue
Elon's war on to our hardworking Federal workers. They want to
slash pay, they want to slash benefits, all for hardworking
public servants.
Before coming to Congress, I was mayor of my city for 8
years. We had over 6,000 employees. They were hardworking, they
took care of their families, and I can tell you from
experience, you cannot build an effective organization without
respecting your employees and providing them opportunities to
grow. You cannot also keep talent if you do not pay people what
they are worth. This committee needs to stop supporting the
DOGE agenda and the Trump agenda. We need to say no to Elon
Musk and Trump's attempts to sabotage the programs and agencies
that people rely on.
This Committee should be investigating powerful people, not
enabling them. We should take on and stop the Trump agenda, not
further it. We should be investigating the impact of tariffs.
We should hold hearings on reducing the cost of living and
issues that matter to all Americans, and we should stand up for
the rule of law. We should be investigating the people who are
profiting off our government, jeopardizing our national
security, and harming our country, and we need to stand up for
working people inside or outside our government. We should
defeat this bill and create a government that actually helps
people. Thank you, and with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize,
to speak on the ANS, Mrs. Luna from Florida.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I am
extremely proud to have this reconciliation package being
marked up today, and I would like to say that the language
placed in Section 90004 of this package specifically is a
provision that I contributed to in the reconciliation package,
and it is not about ideology. It is about the budgetary
responsibility of protecting American taxpayers from spiraling
entitlement costs tied to the Federal workforce.
So, first and foremost, for those of you who have maybe
ever served, there was a point in time when the military had
the option of, and new incoming troops had the option of,
actually adopting the new retirement program. So, instead of
just being 20 years automatic retirement, it shifted to
something like a 401(k). What this provision specifically
allows, is for new hires to either opt into a traditional first
protection, where they have the option of increasing their
personal contribution by five percent, or if they choose not
to, having access to more of a cost-efficient personal track.
That is important because a lot of people are saying that this
is somehow going to impact the current retirement system, and
that is simply not the case. This structure is going to
incentivize and create actuary beneficial dynamic changes for
the Treasury, allowing the CBO to reduce the deficit by over
$4.5 billion over the next decade.
So, I understand everyone here is representing their
districts, their constituents, and what I can tell you is,
first and foremost, it is really important that the facts and
the evidence is out there. We are not trying to attack people's
retirements. In fact, we are doing quite the opposite. And if
you have a runaway train of debt, ultimately understand that
that can impact everything from Social Security to these
retirement packages. So, we have to be fiscally responsible.
Thank you, Chairman.
And I will also say this. Unfortunately, right now, because
of the amount of, I think, partisanship in regard to this
topic, I think a lot of people are genuinely scared about DOGE.
And the fact is that DOGE is actually doing right by all of the
American people by ensuring that future programs, future
generations are not left on the fiscal hook of debt, but also
to have the opportunity and access to the American dream. So, I
understand what everyone here is trying to do in regard to
their constituencies, but it is very important that we have
those facts out there.
So, thank you, Chairman. I yield this time, and I urge all
of my colleagues not just to support this amendment, but also
to support this reconciliation package.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, and does any other Member wish
to speak on the ANS? Ms. Randall?
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, as I have said
in this Committee before, I have the honor of representing
27,000 Federal workers who continue to tell me daily and weekly
how traumatizing it is to be disparaged by this Administration
and congressional Republicans who continue to say that they are
looking for waste and fraud and abuse and people who are not
doing their jobs. Certainly, in every workforce, there are
folks who rise above and go above and beyond and there are
folks who do not. But the individuals who are serving our
country, the Department of Defense at Naval Base Kitsap, and
the Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Puget Sound, Naval
Shipyard, are doing an essential service to protect our mission
and our national security.
We also have, like everyone else, postal workers, and we
have Forest Service, and we have folks who want to deliver
results for the American people but are feeling attacked
regularly, and this bill continues those attacks. This
Committee is proposing to cut retirement benefits and pay for
our Federal employees so that folks like Elon Musk can have
higher tax cuts. And regarding Section 90004 and the assertion
that it is giving individuals options for their retirement,
what it does is use the carrot of not lowering your take-home
pay to convince employees to go at-will and to lose the
benefits that they have to challenge workforce discriminations
and decisions that they would otherwise be protected from, or
at least have options to pursue corrections. They are shifting
folks from a regular employee to at-will employee in this
change of retirement benefits, and I think we cannot let that
be swept under the rug.
The stories that I hear from my neighbors, like a Federal
Head Start employee for 23 years who got fired, she deserves
the ability to pursue an appeal, to pursue being reinstated in
her job when we know we have a childcare crisis. Another of my
neighbors in Shelton, a disabled veteran and the spouse of an
active-duty Air Force service member, lost her job with USDA,
and the spouse told me, we are real people who are suffering
and we just want things to go back to normal, and they are
asking me to do everything I can to reverse what she calls a
betrayal.
I met with Forest Service workers yesterday. We are already
having a hard time recruiting folks in to the Forest Service to
be able to do the important thinning and maintenance of Federal
lands to prevent wildfires, and they have mandatory retirement
early because of the dangers of their job as firefighters. But
without these supplemental annuity payments, they are just
going to lose folks into the private sector and other fields
because the retirement benefits are a big part of how we have
been able to recruit and retain workforce into these important
timber industry jobs. Federal firefighters who work for Sub
Base Bangor have the same issue.
Under this Administration's policies, we are already losing
critical and talented workforce. And if my colleagues plow
forward with the provisions of this amendment in the nature of
a substitute, this bill, we are going to continue losing folks,
but apparently the Majority does not care. And the cuts to
Federal workers are just one piece of a larger bill that they
are working on, a larger reconciliation bill that would cut
$880 billion from Medicaid that will impact folks like my
sister born with complex disabilities. I know how important
these Federal programs are to my neighbors, to my constituents,
to my family, and to people like them, and I will do everything
that I can to fight this callous and cruel policy-making, and I
urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. This
Committee Print advances proposals that would slash pay,
eliminate benefits, and undermine longstanding protections for
Federal employees. I stand with working-class families. These
are working-class families, and, therefore, I cannot support
this proposal. It is as simple as that. It is not about a
Democrat or a Republican talking point. It is about standing
with working-class families, period.
This Administration is systematically gutting the Federal
workforce and replacing dedicated civil servants with
unqualified DOGE representatives. Their abrupt and legally
questionable appointments are undermining the great work that
these employees do every single day. And I think that as a rule
of thumb, again, regardless of what letter is in front of your
name, we stand with working-class families. We stand with
supporting and upholding the values that make this country what
it is, supporting our most vulnerable, and I think that is what
this Committee needs to keep in mind. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Does any other
Member seek recognition on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute? Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good morning, everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think these markups are complicated
and sometimes difficult to explain and understand because they
get into technical details. So, I want to try to break it down
a little bit and, actually, with our current acting Ranking
Member, maybe get a little bit into the details. So, let me
zoom way out here to talk about the entire enterprise that the
GOP is engaged in right now, and to lay down some facts.
So, first of all, what is important to understand is that
over the last couple of months, the President has transmitted
to the Hill a list of asks, and they really focus on making
permanent tax breaks that were originally put into place in
2017 that are about to sunset. So, these tax breaks are for
billionaires, millionaires, mega corporations, and it is going
to cost $7 trillion. And to pay for it, they want to try to
offset some of those costs because our friends across the aisle
are trying to claim that they are being fiscally responsible.
But let us be clear, the math does not math because the
offsets that they are seeking only add up to about $1.5
trillion to $2 trillion. So, if you do the math, 7 minus 2
equals 5, which is why this bill, the big bill that we are
talking about, does not actually reduce the debt or the
deficit. It actually will blow a hole through it by increasing
debt spending by $5 trillion, and when you add it all up over
30 years, we are talking over $30 trillion in new spending for
the United States' government. So, first of all, do not buy the
baloney that this is somehow going to balance the debt. This is
going to blow a giant hole in the debt.
Now, let us talk about what is happening in this committee.
So, they passed the instructions out of the Senate, came back
to the House, very confusing. The Senate and the House
Republicans could not agree on which package to go with, so
they passed it all, so here we are now. Those instructions have
gone down to each committee, and each committee now has to
break it down in its own jurisdiction, so this Committee can
only work on things that are in its jurisdiction. We are in the
Oversight Committee. Our jurisdiction is overseeing the Federal
Government. And so, this Committee has been instructed, through
those resolution instructions, to cut funding to supposedly
offset cuts. So, where are they trying to find those cuts? They
are trying to find those cuts on our Federal workers' backs.
Now, let us be clear. Over the last 100 days, Donald Trump
has fired over 200,000 probationary employees. Over 75,000
people have been forced to retire or leave the Federal
Government. And now they are talking about taking away
significant retirement benefits and turning the Federal
workforce over to an at-will workforce. What that means is, is
that they want to strip away the protections for our Federal
workers so they can be fired at-will at any moment, OK? So that
is actually what is inside this reconciliation piece that is in
front of the Committee today.
And if you do not, as a Federal employee, elect to be at-
will, if this piece of legislation passes, you are going to
have your retirement taxed, essentially, an additional five
percent. So, that means your pay is going to get cut unless you
elect to be fireable. Is that correct, Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. That is essentially correct, yes, absolutely.
Ms. Stansbury. So, basically, what this package is doing is
extortion. This is called extortion. This is in the vein of
trying to say that they are going to balance the budget, which
they are not because it is still going to cost the American
people $5 trillion to pass this overall tax package for
billionaires. And, by the way, these trillionaires are going to
get an additional, let us say, $300,000 a year off of their
taxes, while the rest of us are going to actually see prices go
up with tariffs, the cost-of-living expenses, all of these
issues. They are going to use this piece of the reconciliation
package to further punish the 2.4 million Federal employees who
provide your Social Security, who help with your VA benefits,
who make sure that your Medicaid is taken care of.
This is all about cutting Federal workers, punishing
Federal workers, making life harder for Americans, and
destroying the Federal workforce. And I strongly oppose it in
every single way, every piece of what is in this piece of the
reconciliation package, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any further
discussion on the ANS? The gentlelady yields back. Any further
discussion? Seeing none----
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. I request unanimous consent. I have here a
letter from the National Association of Retired Federal
Employees in opposition to this bill.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lynch. I have an amendment.
Chairman Comer. Yes, we are going to start with the
amendment, so the Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Yes. The clerk will distribute the
amendment to all Members.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee
Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent
Resolution 14, as offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to
thank Mr. Turner for defending Federal workers and his own
employees as they would be affected adversely by this
legislation. Every Member--every Member--their employees will
also be affected in a similar way. Every Federal employee in
their districts will be affected, will be harmed by this bill.
In the interest of the Federal workforce that remains free of
partisan influence and political cronyism, my amendment would
strike the section of the bill that seeks to force new Federal
workers to surrender their due process rights and their
employee protections, and accept a new job classification as
``at-will employees, subject to termination for any reason.''
Now, as a former union president and as a labor attorney--
an employment attorney, I just want to make sure people
understand what ``at-will'' means. An at-will employee can be
fired for any reason or for no reason. So, here is the
President. Now, obviously, he would like to have partisans on
his side brought into government. The sad fact is that all
those people can be fired for no reason. For any reason. So, it
will create this massive turnover if people are even willing to
come on to the Federal payroll without the benefits that they
are going to get and with the changes that are being made here
today.
The bill before us presents incoming Federal employees with
the Hobson's choice. You can elect to give away all your
rights--all your rights--all your basic job protections that
prevent you from being arbitrarily fired or have your
retirement contribution rate go up by an additional five
percent of your pay. That is on top of the 4.4 percent that is
already coming out of your paycheck, so it approximates 10
percent of your pay if you want your rights. If you want to
have rights as an employee, you need to pay all this additional
money, and that is for the duration of your employment.
Alternatively, you can agree to waive your employee rights.
First of all, every Federal employee has to give up their right
to strike, so, even if you wanted to stop work, you cannot do
that as a Federal employee. Statutorily, Federal employees are
prohibited from engaging in strike. So, if you thought your job
was unsafe, you got to keep working. You can grieve. Well,
unless you do this, unless you give up all your rights, then
you need to shut up and keep working for less, and your
employer can just fire you for no reason. For any reason that
comes into their head, you are gone. Considering that entry-
level Federal workers earn an annual starting salary as low as
$30,000, the majority of new employees will essentially be
forced to relinquish their constitutional and statutory job
protections just to keep more income in their pockets for their
families.
Mr. Chairman, the primary purpose of this provision appears
to be to advance the implementation of Schedule F, President
Trump's government-wide plan to strip Federal workers of their
civil service protections, arbitrarily fire them, and replace
them with political loyalists. This shameless attempt to
politicize our Federal workforce is already the subject of
multiple legal challenges brought by a coalition of Federal
employee unions and pro-democracy advocates with the strong
support of the Democratic House Litigation Working Group, which
I am a member of.
The statute governing the Federal workforce, the bipartisan
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, enshrined the merit system
protection that Federal employees should be protected against
arbitrary action, personal favoritism, and coercion for
partisan political purposes. Schedule F and the at-will
provisions included in this bill fly in the face of that
purpose. This provision is also an additional attack on Federal
workforce that, out of duty, already sacrifices critical rights
enjoyed by their private sector counterparts. Every new Federal
employee swears an oath to serve the American people and carry
out their public service now, knowing that they are expressly
prohibited by statute from participating in any strike or work
stoppages or asserting the right to strike and even belonging
to a union that asserts the right to strike against the Federal
Government, a violation is a felony and punishable by
imprisonment.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support my amendment, to strike this
egregious provision from the bill, and preserve the dignity and
the independence and respect that we all should have for our
Federal employees. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back, and I recognize
myself for a brief statement in opposition of the amendment.
I do appreciate the length of the amendment. Just two words
and a number. I appreciate that, I sincerely do. I did not have
to spend a lot of time reading that, but I oppose the Lynch
Amendment Number 1, which would significantly reduce deficit
reduction in the Committee's legislation by over $4.5 billion
and result in the underlying Print conflicting with our
reconciliation instructions and comprising the legislative
privileges. For that reason, I strongly oppose the Lynch
amendment.
Do any other Members wish to speak on Lynch Amendment
Number 1? Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico, you are recognized.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
love to just ask----
Chairman Comer. Reset the clock, please. Go ahead.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love to
just ask a few questions about the amendment. So, again,
zooming out a little bit, there is a lot to not like about this
portion of the reconciliation package. As we said, I think it
is an all-out attack on the Federal workforce, and it kind of
cuts at the heart of some of the major reasons why people stay
in Federal service, because it is not only them serving and
doing their duty for the American people, but also you are
making sure that you have a good retirement, you are taking
care of your family.
And also, we want to make sure--one of the things that I
think is really important for the American people to understand
is that after Richard Nixon resigned, there were major
overhauls done to the Federal service because of the corruption
and the ways in which Nixon used the Federal workforce and
service to carry out his own personal political vendetta. There
were major reforms in the 1970s to the Federal workforce rules
and laws because we wanted to protect Federal workers from
being used as political agents of whoever was in power. And so,
the idea of trying to convert Federal workers to at-will undoes
all of the good government reforms that were put into place in
the 1970s after Nixon to protect the Federal workforce. Is that
correct, Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. That is absolutely correct. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Stansbury. And so, it is really important to understand
that that is why those protections are there, and the whole
point of trying to convert people to at-will is, again, to make
it easier to make the Federal workforce your political arm, and
we do not want that. We are not an autocracy, we are a
democracy, and we want to make sure that our Federal employees
are protected from whatever whims of whoever is serving in
power. So, I do want to ask though, Mr. Chairman, you said you
oppose this amendment because of its impacts to the budget. Can
you explain to me how does not allowing Federal workers to be
forced into an at-will situation affect the Federal budget?
Chairman Comer. We have budget instructions. We are
following through with the budget instructions. We have been
very transparent about what this Committee was going to do
within our jurisdiction of budget reconciliation. This is our
bill, and it is self-explanatory.
Ms. Stansbury. No, but I do not understand--so, Mr. Lynch's
amendment is to strike Section 90004, which is the provision
about at-will work. How does that affect the budget?
Chairman Comer. The employees who choose to not be at-will
have to pay higher contribution rates.
Ms. Stansbury. Say that again, please.
Chairman Comer. The employees who choose not to be at-will
have to pay higher contribution rates.
Ms. Stansbury. And how much money are you saying this will
generate for the Federal Government, or savings?
Chairman Comer. The Congressional Budget Office says $4.5
billion.
Ms. Stansbury. Over what period of time?
Chairman Comer. A decade.
Ms. Stansbury. A decade?
Chairman Comer. Ten years.
Ms. Stansbury. OK. So, the idea here is that you----
Chairman Comer. Let me interrupt you. We are trying to----
Ms. Stansbury. No, Mr. Chairman, I understand that.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Make savings here, and all you
do is criticize.
Mr. Lynch. It is the gentlelady's time.
Chairman Comer. And you act like there is no----
Mr. Lynch. The gentlelady's time.
Chairman Comer. You act like there is no----
Ms. Stansbury. No. I am asking you a question----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Fiscal crisis here.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, it is the gentlelady's time.
Ms. Stansbury. I am just asking the question about the
monetary offset of at-will employees. So, the idea is here that
you are going to generate a few billion dollars over 10----
Chairman Comer. A few billion dollars. A few billion
dollars here, a few billion dollars there.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, is it million or billion? Is it
million or billion?
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Over 10 years by taking away
Federal benefits and making the Federal workforce fireable,
undoing all of the good government reforms after Richard
Nixon's corruption. I just want to clarify, that is what you
are saying. Cool. OK. I think we got it. Thanks. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition on the
Lynch amendment? Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The problem with this bill
is that it does not offer Federal employees a real choice. It
forces them into a lose-lose situation, which weakens the very
protections that ensure fairness and due process. This package
is literally a betrayal of the middle class, and as I said
before, I think our litmus test is, do our proposals support
working families or not?
In Missouri alone, these proposals threaten the rights,
healthcare, and financial security of thousands of Federal
workers. And let us be clear, in my district, Missouri's 1st
District, over 186,000 people rely on Medicaid, and under
Republican budget plans, their healthcare is at risk. And so,
again, we need to stand with working class families, and these
proposals are an attack on working class families. It is pretty
straightforward. I would yield my time back to Rep. Stansbury
or the Ranking Member.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. Again, the gentleman is
on point with the, first of all, the impact of this on Federal
employees and the costs that this will incur in terms of
performance at the Federal level. Right now, we are in
competition with the private sector, but through loyalty,
through patriotism, in the case of the VA, about a third of our
workers at the VA are veterans themselves. When I go through
the Brockton VA in my district, which I do often, I ask them,
were you in the military? More often than not, the answer is
yes, and then they proudly tell me what branch of the service
they were in and when they served. And they also express the
spirit--esprit de corps--the patriotism, and the obligation
that they feel toward wounded veterans. All of that is wrapped
up in being a Federal employee at the VA and some of the other
departments and agencies where Federal employees work each and
every day.
So, the President has proposed that we are going to go back
to, I think it is 1979 in terms of the number of people working
at the VA, so he wants to cut 80,000 people from the VA. Now,
because of the high number of veterans we have at the VA, out
of that 80,000 people he wants to cut--that is what his budget
resolution anticipates--27,000 of the people that he is firing
at the VA are veterans themselves. So, all of this, this bill
here today is just in furtherance of that same mission.
And again, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Turner, standing up for his workers at the VA. I just hope
every Member here is willing to do that. I understand the goal
of savings and of balancing the budget, but this is not the way
you do it. You do not go after people at the VA. We had the
Inspector General for the VA do a whole survey. So, there are,
like, 86 major VA medical centers across the country, and we
asked him, give us a report card on how we are doing with our
veterans. He came back and he said two things. He said, No. 1,
80 percent of the hospitals that I have visited need a medical
director. You need to hire a medical director, and he said 86
percent of the hospitals that I visited, you need more nurses.
They are the backbone of our healthcare system.
So, what did Mr. Trump do first day in office? Announced
2,400 cuts, 2,400 people laid off at the VA, and 80,000 more to
come. So, our veterans are waiting longer for appointments,
there are fewer people caring for them, and this bill is in
furtherance of that same mission. We used to agree on stuff on
veterans. We do not anymore, and I miss the support that we
used to have, bipartisanship for our veterans, and, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other Member
seek recognition on Lynch Amendment Number 1? Ms. Crockett from
Texas.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. You know,
walking in today, I did not really know how I felt or what I
would do because as people asked me about how I can get so
passionate in this Committee about certain topics. I recently
had an opportunity to talk to a group of people in Las Vegas,
actually last weekend. And there was a woman who was almost in
tears as she told me about the number of family members that
have been fired from the Federal Government. And she said, Rep.
Crockett, you give us so much hope and I do not understand how
people are so callous toward Federal workers. And I explained
to her, I cannot really understand the callousness either, but
I can tell you that my passion lies in the fact that my mother
has given almost 40 years to the Federal Government.
In March, it would be 40 years that my mom has worked for
Department of Defense. She has worked for Navy, she has worked
at Walter Reed, she has worked for the IRS, she has worked for
AFRICOM, she has worked for the post office, and doing that
hard, honest work as we consistently attack Federal workers. We
call them lazy. We call them dumb. We try to pretend as if they
are not taking care of the very people that elected us. But my
mom graduated from college at Washington University at the age
of 19 after receiving a full ride, and she decided that what
she would do is dedicate her life to this country. And I wish
that we would find an ounce of courage that my mom and so many
other Federal workers have and just decide that we are going to
dedicate ourselves to service and not just say that we are
public servants, but actually do the work of being public
servants.
So, let me tell you that this amendment is not going to do
anything that you all claim is going to do. You claim that this
is about money, when honestly, as far as I can tell, this is
only an admission that what has been done under this
Administration has been unlawful the entire time. This is only
an avenue to make sure that when and if another rogue tyrant
decides that they want to enter the White House, they can go
and get rid of as many people as they want to, and they will
not have any recourse in the courts.
The fact that you had to put this in here tells me that you
all absolutely know that these firings of these workers has
been unlawful, and honestly, it has been simply inconvenient
for so many of you. But I can tell you that the only people
that are going to be hurt are the people that you are
servicing, even if you can tell me that the CBO tells us that
maybe--they can tell me it is $50 billion or however many
billions of dollars over a number of years. What the CBO is not
telling us is how many people are not going to get their Social
Security, how many people may die because they do not get the
services that they need at the VA, how many people are not
going to get their SNAP benefits because there is not going to
be anybody there.
As we have had hearing after hearing about people
complaining about the post office and not receiving their mail,
and so many of our seniors rely on their checks to come through
the mail to make sure that they can keep a roof over their
head, that is the part of the story that the CBO numbers are
not going to tell. And the last time that I checked, no matter
if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you have got somebody in
your district that is relying on these services.
This is about hurting people. This is about getting rid of
people that are too inconvenient for an administration that
does not want to keep our food safe at the FDA as they are
firing people. This is about an administration that does not
want to have any oversight or anybody reporting back and
telling you that our food is unsafe, telling you about the
diseases that are coming through, and basically talking about
the overall incompetence. If you do not have anybody that is at
work, then yes, you do not have to worry about whether or not
people who, say, are trying to go and get education, whether or
not they are going to actually be able to fill out their FAFSA
and get that funding that they need.
So, at the end of the day, if you cannot really explain to
me how this is going to help your constituents, I do not
understand why we are talking about it because, again, we were
not elected by Donald Trump or JD Vance or Elon Musk. We were
elected by the people of our districts, and those are the only
people that we should be discussing as it relates to the policy
changes that we bring about in this Committee, and I will
yield.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition on
Lynch amendment No. 1?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment offered by Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. I request a roll call vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Perry, seek recognition?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Mr. Perry of
Pennsylvania.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes to explain the Perry amendment.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three weeks ago, this
was passed in this very Committee. So, I am bringing it back
around so we can consider it in the proposal before. So, this
amendment requires Federal employee unions to reimburse Federal
agencies for their use of agency or taxpayer resources and
official time spent each quarter. Federal agencies will assess
public sector unions a fee to utilize their resources, such as
office space, parking space, equipment expenses incurred while
on union time and any official union time used by labor
representatives affiliated with these organizations. American
taxpayers would be absolutely shocked to learn that Federal
employees are paid for work hours while supporting public
sector unions rather than the agency operations, missions, and
programs they were actually hired to support in the first
place. They are not doing the work that they were hired to do.
They are doing work in furtherance of their own personal and
organizational goals, and that is fine. Just the question is,
who should be paying for that?
According to OPM, official time logged by Federal employees
can be used for lobbying Congress, alongside allowing certain
employees to spend 100 percent of their time handling union
representation functions while still being paid by Federal
agencies to do Federal agency work. In 2019, before President
Biden halted OPM tracking reporting of official time, it was
reported that employees across the Federal Government were paid
$135 million to do 2.6 million hours of union work while on the
clock at their other government jobs that they were actually
hired to do, forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill for
Federal Union organizing is outrageous and absurd.
It is quite simple. If Federal employees and resources are
going to be used for union tasks, the union should have to pay
for that, not the taxpayers. American taxpayers are paying
government employees to do a job, not the bidding and
strategizing of their organized bargaining unit. According to
CBO, this amendment would generate $130 million in revenue over
10 years. I am simply asking the Members of this Committee to
vote at least exactly like they did 3 weeks ago. And of course,
my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they have finally
seen the light and realize that they have come here to support
their constituents and taxpayers as opposed to the special
interest in Washington, they can vote with us, too. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and encourage
a positive or affirmative vote.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Ranking Member Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perry's statement--
his amendment, rather--would require agencies to assess fees to
public sector labor organizations for use of agency resources,
including office space, parking spaces, equipment, and other
expenses while performing non-agency business. This amendment
would also require agencies to charge public sector labor
organizations fees for any time an agency employee who is a
labor representative spends performing union business while on
the job. The section is substantially similar to Representative
Perry's Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act, which the Committee
considered in late March, and which I believe every single
Democratic member opposed. This also complements President
Trump's March 27 executive order that even Republicans have
admitted is too extreme, which ends collective bargaining
across 18 Federal agencies with national security missions,
including the State Department and Department of Veterans
Affairs, and even the Department of the Treasury and Department
of Health and Human Services. This amendment is an attack on
official time, which is critical for the efficient management
of the Federal workforce and a high priority for unions that
represent Federal employees. Official time reduces employee
turnover. It improves customer service. It prevents costly
litigation and grievances and leads to quicker and more
efficient implementation of agency initiatives.
I just want to give one example. So, let us use the post
office, United States Postal Service. So, today, we have
200,000 less postal employees than we did 20 years ago. And the
reason that is the case is because the union, the postal
unions, sat down with the postmaster general and talked about
automation. How do we make this process move faster with less
people? How do we save the postal customer money, and yet, how
do we do it without attrition, without a lot of layoffs
involuntary?
So, they worked out an agreement. They brought in high-
speed sorting machines, all kinds of new technology into the
Postal Service. And over 20 years, we have been able to reduce
the number of postal employees by 200,000. That happened by
sitting down and working things out on the job and in the
workplace. That was done in a way that we reassigned people who
used to sort that mail by hand, but it was sitting down and
working it out, and that saved the postal customer a huge
amount of money. Think about it, 200,000 less people doing that
job, and it is because we have the ability for the unions
representing the employees, collectively representing their
interests, making sure they get treated with respect, and that
we did not have mass layoffs when we went to technology, we
brought in high-speed equipment and automation. We worked it
out.
I am a former union president. Your mission as a union
representative is to help the business, make it more efficient,
make sure those jobs are protected, make sure the company is
successful, and that is the job of the postal unions. I
remember September 11--right after September 11, a bunch of
post offices, they had threats from anthrax. We had, right here
at the Brentwood postal facility here that serves Washington,
D.C., we had somebody, some terrorists, mailing anthrax to
officers here on Capitol Hill. We shut down Longworth. I got
elected on September 11, so I remember this vividly. We had two
postal workers, Joseph Curseen and Mr. Morris, both of them
died. Those are postal workers that worked at Brentwood died
from anthrax inhalation because they were sorting mail. Now, if
it was a private company, those employees would have walked,
right? They would have walked. I am not going to throw mail.
Are you kidding me? And bring that anthrax home to my family,
my kids?
The unions, the postal unions met with their members, and
they said we have just been attacked, a terrorist attack. We
have to keep the mail going. So, because they took that oath
and they served this country, they kept working. I had two
sisters with small kids at the time. They went to work. They
went to work with their union support, and that is what we are
punishing today, that type of loyalty to our country. That is
what you are punishing today. We should not be doing that. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for your courtesy.
Chairman Comer. I will recognize myself. I want to thank
Mr. Perry for his amendment. He and I have been working
together for this policy goal, and I look forward to pursuing
this legislation through regular order. However, for the
purposes of this Committee's reconciliation efforts, I must
unfortunately oppose this amendment from my good friend. Do any
other Members seek recognition? Ms. Pressley--I am sorry--Ms.
Crockett. Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. All right. Just briefly, I want to reiterate
the words of my colleague, and it looks like this may go down
since you are opposing it, so I will not belabor the point. I
will say that as you do go forward, Mr. Perry, because I know
that this is something that will most likely come back, I would
ask, I know that in the second-to-last paragraph, there is this
definition of ``union time.'' And it lays out the term, ``union
time,'' means the time an employee of an agency who is a labor
representative for a labor organization spends performing non-
agency business while on duty. I would ask for further
clarification of what non-agency business would mean because
while you may not believe or I may not believe, we may define
what non-agency business looks like completely differently.
And the reason that I say that, is that you were talking
about people campaigning, and the reality is that right now,
you see those of us on our side of the aisle, we are not trying
to do things like union busting. We are trying to make sure
that those workers have those protections. And so as far as I
am concerned, campaigning or trying to elect someone who aligns
with making sure that you have those protections, so that
someone like my constituent, who passed away because he
overheated after serving our country for 40 years as a postal
worker.
I then had the union come in and telling me about issues as
it relates to work, for sure, but they absolutely felt
comfortable coming and telling me and supporting my candidacy
because they know that when I come to work, I am going to
support them. And to be perfectly honest, any candidate that is
trying to break up their ability to bargain for contracts, to
break up their ability to actually do things such as make sure
that they have worker protections, to make sure that they are
not going to be at-will, to make sure that they have the
ability to unionize, I would say that that is actually
absolutely on par with doing the business of that organization
because that is going to be a better way to make sure that
people will actually want to work for the post office.
I can tell you--I do not know anything about your district,
but I can tell you that in my district, we have consistently
had a problem with getting people who actually wanted to work
for the post office. And frankly, when we are having
conversations like this, when the United States is leading the
way in firings, in the entire country, it is the Federal
Government that has fired more people than anybody else. I
frankly do not know who is going to come and sign up and want
to do this work, especially to do it at-will, especially to do
it in a way that says even if you are going out and making sure
that you are going to get somebody who is going to serve in a
seat that is going to make sure that you can be protected. I am
going to say that that is non-agency business. As far as I am
concerned, that is agency business.
So, as you go forward, I have a feeling of what I believe
your intent is, but I think that you are going to need to
better define that because you may run into this area of it is
up to who is interpreting it. And when I interpret it, I
absolutely believe anybody that is going to protect them as a
union, that is absolutely agency business. With that, I will
yield.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition on
the Perry amendment?
Mr. Mfume. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I might be recognized.
Chairman Comer. Yes. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. And I will be brief. I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your opposition to this amendment. I would urge
others to be in opposition. In Baltimore, we have got a simple
term for this. It is called union busting and union bashing,
and we need to remember that all union contracts are negotiated
documents. They are negotiated by the union and the government
vis-a-vis the government agency. And so, all the understandings
that are a part of that really are legal. It is a binding
document. And this has been taking place for years under
Democratic and Republican administrations. So, I would urge
Members of this Committee to reject this amendment.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to support
my colleague's amendment. I do not know if it is going to clear
reconciliation scrub or not, but knowing that my Chairman does
support the language and yet, in his role as Chair, has to
oppose changes to the underlying bill so that we can move
forward with the reconciliation process. I am going to say I
support Mr. Perry's intentions here, and I think it is
important that it is on the record that conservative
Republicans stand behind that legislative language. I am going
to support the amendment. I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other
discussion on the Perry amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none. The question is now on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Perry.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Mr. Mfume--oh, well, OK. Before that,
if it is OK, the Ranking Member has some unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few unanimous
consent requests on a letter from the AFL-CIO in opposition to
this bill; a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights in opposition to this bill; the Professional
Managers Association in opposition to this bill; and the
National Federation of Federal Employees in opposition to this
bill, as well as the National Treasury Employees Union in
opposition to this bill; the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO; in opposition to this bill; the Federal
Managers Association in opposition to this bill; the National
Postal Mail Handlers Union in opposition to this bill; the
National Rural Letter Carriers Association in opposition to
this bill; the International Association of Firefighters, Edso
Kelly in opposition to this bill; the Federal and Technical
Engineers, AFL-CIO CLC, in opposition to this bill. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
For what purpose does Mr. Mfume seek recognition?
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk distribute the amendment to
all Members? And now, will the clerk designate the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee
Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent
Resolution 14, as offered by Mr. Mfume of Maryland.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Mfume, is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our Nation, I think
it goes without saying, we have always taken a great deal of
pride in the idea that government serves all Americans, not
just those aligned with one political party, ideology, or
anything else. This amendment upholds those core principles of
fairness and privacy in our Federal hiring process. More
specifically, it amends Section 9004, to prohibit any questions
regarding a prospective applicant's political party membership
or activity--prohibits all such questions.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been
rather focused on the concept of meritocracy, so I want to
point out the fact that no one should have any trouble
supporting this amendment that seeks to ensure that employment
in public service is based on merit and skills, not political
affiliation. Allowing an applicant's political party
affiliation to be a deciding factor for a job opportunity
really opens the door to implicit bias, discrimination, and the
erosion of the public trust that we have always had in our non-
partisan civil service. And frankly, I am concerned that it is
nothing short, quite frankly, of political coercion. Moreover,
leaving politics out of the Federal Government establishes
confidence and trust from our constituents. Federal workers, as
has been said over and over and over again, should not have to
worry about being punished or fired for expressing their First
Amendment right to disagree with this President or any
President. I urge my colleagues, upon real consideration of
this, to really work now to preserve the integrity of our civil
service and to protect the rights of all who wish to serve this
Nation by supporting this amendment.
And I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to be
entered into the record an Associated Press article from
January the 13, and it says, ``Trump Teams Questions Civil
Servants About Who They Voted For.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Mfume. I yield back to the Ranking Member should he
choose to speak.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. I welcome the
opportunity. So, Mr. Mfume, the gentleman from Maryland's
amendment here goes right to the heart of the spoils system.
So, early in this country's history, back in the 1800s, it was
openly accepted that each incoming administration would fire
all the people from the earlier administration, you know,
Thomas Jefferson did it to John Adams' people, and that carried
right through the 1800s until about 1880, and then there was a
movement to get away from the spoils system, where whoever the
incoming President was, would wipe out all the Federal
employees, and then bring in their own partisans.
What drove that was, in the 1880s, President Garfield was
operating under the old spoils system, and one of his campaign
workers, who had made a couple of small contributions and also
handed out some leaflets for him, wanted to be appointed
Ambassador to France, and President Garfield would not do it.
So, the gentleman shot him, killed him because he had been
rejected the job, and he felt because he had supported the
President, he was owed that job.
Now, we have come a long way from that until today, and
now, President Trump would like to get rid of all the people
that have been in government, and he does not care if they were
appointed by Republicans or Democrats. He wants to get rid of
them all and bring in his own people, you know? So, he wants to
go back to the spoils system, and Mr. Mfume's amendment goes
right against that and requires that political interrogation
not be part of the hiring process. And I think this amendment
serves the American people, serves our government so that we
will not be firing all the Federal employees every 4 years,
especially when a new President comes in. We will not be doing
that. That is not good. If you have Federal researchers and
nurses, people in different agencies, you do not want a new
employee coming in every 4 years. And that is what will happen
if we do not accept Mr. Mfume's amendment. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize
myself.
This amendment introduces policy changes into an otherwise
budget related matter, and honestly, it should receive no
further consideration. For the purposes of this Committee's
reconciliation efforts, I oppose the Mfume amendment.
Do any other Members seek recognition? Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that we
did have the first amendment, that was brought forward by the
Ranking Member, that was seeking to actually delete a portion
of what has been proposed, which is Section 9004, which is
introducing a policy change to change the status of employees
from their current status and make them all at-will. So, we
should consider policy changes if that is what we are going to
do. I want to say that if any of you stood against Project
2025, which so many of you said that you did not know anything
about Project 2025, you all were not introducing Project 2025,
and acted as if it was this mythical boogeyman that the
Democrats were making up, this is straight out of the playbook
of Schedule F. This is a Schedule F issue in which we are
trying to make sure that there are only loyalists within the
Federal Government.
And let me tell you why it is problematic. It is anti-
American, it is anti-democratic to decide that you are going to
do things like this because what happens is systems start to
fail. Not only do they fail us as the American people, because
now, we are losing skill sets, we are losing experience, we are
losing all those things in the name of somebody saying the only
qualification that I probably need to have is to say that I
love red hats. At the end of the day, if we really care about
this country, the only way that we are going to survive is if
there is actually a robust debate every once in a while when
one needs to take place because right now, one of the reasons
that some of you all do not want to show up and attend a town
hall is because there has been no resistance. Because right
now, it is only about people who will say I will do what my
leader says, and that is not what America is.
So, why would we do this to our Federal workforce if they
are doing their jobs, if they are going through reviews, which
we do have a review process, and if there are no issues in
their reviews, as we saw as it has come out case after case, as
you all have sought to fire people, and they lied in the
firings, the half of them, and told them they had performance
issues when it was clear that they had just had performance
evaluations and the performances were fine? And listen, I do
not even know why we would make this a partisan issue because I
can guarantee you that my fight right now is going to save some
Republican jobs as well as Democrat jobs. In fact, if you have
seen any of this stuff on social media, there have been
testimonies about people that never thought that their fearless
leader that they were voting for would actually come for their
job, and he did.
So, if you really do not want to be in a situation where,
say, you have got the opposite of Donald Trump and a far-left
Democrat who says, you know what? I am going to be the anti-
Trump. I am going to do exactly the opposite of everything that
he did. I am going to hurt those that supported his candidacy
the way that he did that to us. If you do not want to run the
risk of that, then I would say that this is just a smart
amendment. This is not a Democratic amendment. It is not a
Republican amendment. It is a smart amendment, and I do not
believe that if it is OK for that first section that we dealt
with to be in this which would be an absolute policy change,
then I think that we can deal with this policy change as well.
And I will yield.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition? Mr.
Subramanyam.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to speak
in favor of this amendment. We are trying to keep politics out
of certain parts of the Federal workforce and for the reasons
people have said this is important. But I also want to add, I
represent many of the Federal workers who are losing their
jobs, and many of them feel like they are losing their jobs
because their work or they, themselves, have been targeted for
their political beliefs. But really, what is happening is we
are deciding to choose loyalty over competence. And when you do
that, you end up with really poor results because in the end,
in the theater of war, it does not matter who is fighting with
you. It does not matter if you are a Democrat or Republican.
They just want to do what is best for our country. When you are
studying cancer research and trying to cure cancer, it does not
matter if the cancer patient is a Democrat or Republican. What
really matters is that we have the very best and brightest in
our Federal workforce.
But instead, what is happening with these loyalty tests and
with these questions about people's political leanings is we
are ending up having a brain drain in our Federal Government,
and that is hurting our country. It does not just hurt the
Federal workforce. It does not just hurt my district, although
it does. It hurts every single American across this country who
is served by the Federal workforce. And we are losing the best
and brightest now because of this. This amendment, all it says,
is that we want to take politics out of the Federal workforce.
We want to keep politics out of the Federal workforce. And we
do not want loyalty tests when we are trying to hire the best
and brightest.
And so, I look at another sector, technology. I have had
many hearings recently on wanting to have the best technology
for our national security apparatus and within our Federal
Government to serve the people. We are losing technologists
because they feel like they are being asked whether or not they
are a good Democrat or a good Republican, and they are being
told that it is not about their skills, it is about their
loyalty to this President and loyalty to his party, and so that
is going to hurt every single American. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none. The question is now on the
Mfume No. 1 amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Mr. Mfume again seek recognition.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please distribute the
amendment?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will now designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment Number Two to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Mr.
Mfume of Maryland.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. This amendment,
in short order, would amend Section 90006 of the legislation by
prohibiting the facilitation of action of purging Federal
employees from the workforce upon their political affiliation,
particularly when they apply for Federal employee health
benefits. Those benefits have been embedded in the way we do
business and what we guarantee our civil workforce and ought to
be protected.
Health benefits are not a privilege that is tied to
political alignment. They are a fundamental part of the
employment package offered, as I said, to Federal employees who
serve this Nation regardless of their personal or political
beliefs. They are not just in one section of the country. They
are in every state and indeed in everybody's congressional
district. So, this ought to be just a commonsense approach, and
many Federal workers rely on the Federal employee health
benefit program to receive their healthcare for themselves,
obviously, but also their eligible family members. This benefit
cannot nor should it be weaponized as a mechanism to identify,
to punish, to exclude because of a political party that one may
or may not belong to.
Not only that, it is really none of our business, quite
frankly, what party someone belongs to, if they are a Federal
worker. Doing that undermines the core values of our democracy
and obviously it starts to weaken and eventually destroy civil
service as we know it. Elon Musk and his DOGE employees have
already fired over 200,000 employees and forced more than
75,000 more to take deferred determination agreements that
would pay them throughout the Fiscal Year as they began to
leave the jobs, that in my opinion, they were forced to quit.
Gutting Federal agencies is not saving the government money, it
is not improving efficiency.
In fact, in just the first 100 days of the current
Administration, we have seen more money spent on firing people
than saving money, not to mention the money spent to rehire the
people who were not supposed to be fired in the first place.
So, this sort of continued attack on Federal employees
primarily harms the middle class of our country. It hurts
people in all communities. In the state of Maryland, we have
got 144,000 such employees that have gone about serving this
country with distinction for many, many years. In my own
district, that number is 19,000. Federal workers are the heart
blood of the Nation. If you just check with any of them in your
own districts, you do not have to listen to me or believe what
I am saying is accurate. And so, these mass firings are both
un-American and illegal.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, not just
for the Federal workers that it will protect and their
healthcare, but also the democratic principles that it seeks to
uphold. With that, Mr. Chair, I would yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize
myself.
This amendment introduces policy changes into an otherwise
budget related matter, and should receive no further
consideration. Furthermore, this amendment does not contain a
CBO score, as required by reconciliation, so we do not know its
impact on the Committee's net savings budgetary instructions.
For these reasons and the purposes of this Committee's
reconciliation efforts, I must oppose the Mfume amendment No.
2.
Do any other members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none. The question is now on the
Mfume Amendment Number 2.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
All right. We are going to suspend for 1 second.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. OK. We will resume. For what purpose does
Mr. Lynch seek recognition?
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Mr.
Lynch of Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would
ensure that retirement benefits for Federal employees who are
also military veterans are not reduced by the new retirement
calculations mandated by this bill. So currently, the
retirement benefits of Federal workers under the Federal
Employees Retirement System and the previous Civil Service
Retirement System are calculated based on the average of the
highest 3 consecutive years of salary during their Federal
careers. The underlying bill would change that and alter this
longstanding formula to instead base retirement benefits on an
average of the highest 5 consecutive years of base Federal pay.
So, this new formula will reduce a Federal worker's retirement
benefits by thousands of dollars each year.
And while I strongly support the amendment that will be
offered by my colleague, Mr. Min, to strike the high-five
formula overall in the bill, in its entirety, I am offering
this additional amendment because I believe that my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle can at least agree that we
should not reduce the retirement benefits of military veterans
who have transitioned to the Federal civilian employment.
The Federal Government is the largest single employer of
our veterans. In fact, our Federal workforce of more than 2.4
million employees is made up of 30 percent, or more than
650,000 veterans. That is who the Federal workforce is, 650,000
veterans who served this country, put on the uniform of this
country courageously. That is why the nonpartisan Partnership
for Public Service reports that veterans are uniquely impacted
and have been exposed to significant risk by the Trump
Administration's effort to arbitrarily downsize the Federal
Government.
In only 100 days since he took office, President Trump, at
the direction of Elon Musk, has already conducted mass layoffs
across the Federal Government that have included at least 6,000
military veterans. The Trump Administration has also targeted
our broader veterans community by firing at least 2,400 VA
employees amid a severe staffing shortage of 3,000 healthcare
positions at the VA facilities, as I mentioned earlier, and a
backlog of more than 250,000 veterans benefit claims. President
Trump even fired workers at the veteran suicide crisis hotline
during an epidemic of veteran suicide. He is also proceeding
with plans to indiscriminately cut an additional 80,000 jobs at
the VA at a time when the agency is seeing a 40 percent
increase in veteran's health care enrollment and a 30-percent
spike in veteran toxic exposure claims since the enactment of
our bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats, PACT Act in 2022.
We do not need to make matters worse by reducing the
retirement benefits of military veterans who proudly chose to
extend their public service by working in the Federal
Government. Let us remember that Federal statutes such as the
Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, reflect our enduring
bipartisan respect for the placement, protection, and retention
of veterans in the Federal workforce.
I urge my colleagues to remember--look, I point back to the
Brockton VA facility in my district in Brockton, Massachusetts.
When I go through there, so many of the nurses and attendants
there are veterans. It is uncanny how many of them have served
our country in the military, and there is a great vibe there.
They love caring for their fellow wounded veterans. I think
there is a holistic and actually a medical benefit by having
veterans cared for at a VA hospital instead of in a regular
hospital, because there is that camaraderie and support and
love that is there, and I think it helps them heal.
So, what this bill would do is, especially with my nurses,
a lot of those nurses at the VA are veterans, so there is
already competition at the VA for nurses, right? So, I got a
bunch of private hospitals that are trying to hire the nurses
away from the VA and offer them more money. So, what you are
doing here today by cutting their retirement benefits, cutting
their worker rights, cutting their pay, is just going to make
it easier for those private hospitals to steal away our best
nurses. We should not be doing this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for a brief statement. I
want to thank Mr. Lynch for this amendment, recognizing the
tremendous work and value veterans provide and their continued
service to our country and the Federal workforce. I cannot
support this amendment, which does not contain a score from the
Congressional Budget Office to determine its budgetary impact
on our Committee's instruction to save $50 billion as required
in this budget reconciliation process.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none. The question is now on the
Lynch amendment No. 2.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Stansbury seek recognition?
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will please distribute. The clerk
will please designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee
Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent
Resolution 14, as offered by Ms. Stansbury of New Mexico.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlelady from New Mexico
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am offering an
amendment this morning here to address the major concern that
the vast majority of Americans, and especially the constituents
in my district, have shared with me, which is the unfettered
attacks that we have seen over the last hundred days on vital
programs that support our communities, whether that is Social
Security, Medicaid, food and housing assistance programs, or
just the vital programs that people depend on every day. We
were just talking about veterans benefits.
And in fact, Mr. Chairman, I am just coming off of a town
hall tour across my district. We did 15 town halls across 10
counties in rural and urban New Mexico. We heard from over
15,000 New Mexicans and the most important issues that we heard
in every single town hall, and these were not just people of
the same party, these were just New Mexicans across the board,
from all different ideological backgrounds, all different
communities, was that they are afraid right now of what they
are seeing with the Federal Government and cutbacks to Social
Security programs, the proposals that are in this
reconciliation package that would impact Medicaid, the
proposals that are in front of this Committee that would cut
back the Federal workforce that provides Social Security
benefits and VA benefits, cuts to housing and food assistance
programs, and the general lawlessness that we have seen across
the board in the way in which this Administration has been
carrying out these cuts and have been enabled by the GOP here
now, especially with this reconciliation package.
So, I want to read my amendment. It is very
straightforward. It says, ``The President or any member of the
President's cabinet or any officer or employee of a Federal
Agency may not take any action, including an action related to
staffing, office realignments, budgetary data, or operational
changes that would impact the delivery or timing of vital
services that Americans depend on, including Social Security,
Medicaid, food assistance, housing income supports, or other
programs; or two, to attempt to privatize these services or
programs.'' It is a very straightforward amendment. I would
hope that my friends across the aisle--of course, I doubt they
will--would support this amendment. I hear our friends going to
me daily and say that they have no intent to cut Medicaid, even
though their instructions for this reconciliation package say
that they are instructing the committee of jurisdiction to cut
funding by $880 billion.
We know that this would impact almost a quarter million New
Mexicans and the health care system of our entire state. We
know that millions of Americans will lose access to health care
if these Medicaid benefits get cut. We know that over 150,000
New Mexicans, especially our elders, our seniors, and our low-
income families, would lose access to food assistance, whether
that is SNAP assistance to buy groceries or whether that is
school lunches, if these cuts go through. And we know that this
will also impact our communities across the board in just the
basic programs and services, whether it is the VA, Social
Security, or any of these programs. So, this amendment says
that the Administration has got to stop doing that because it
is hurting the American people. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself. This amendment
introduces policy changes into an otherwise budget related
matter and should receive no further consideration.
Furthermore, this amendment does not contain a CBO score, as
required by reconciliation, so we do not know its impact on the
Committee's net savings budgetary instructions. For these
reasons and the purposes of this Committee's reconciliation
efforts, I oppose the amendment.
Does any other Member seek recognition? Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It is
interesting to hear you kind of use the form language of, ``we
do not understand the impact.'' The idea that Ms. Stansbury
proposed an amendment that specifically talks about vital
programs, literally not extracurriculars, but literally what
people depend upon to actually survive and live. And the idea
that are a retort to whether or not someone will be able to
eat, to whether or not someone will have a roof over their
head, to whether or not they will have the healthcare that they
deserve, our answer is, well, we do not know what the cost is
going to be.
Well, I can tell you that for those people that may end up
losing their lives, there is no cost that you can tell them
that will make them feel better or make this feel like a more
American bill because they would have lost their life, or they
would have lost their home, or they would have lost their
healthcare. So, I would ask that at least we engage in the
conversation so that even if we are not moving forward on this
in the moment, we evidence to all of our constituents that we
actually care and believe in these vital government programs. I
will yield.
Mr. Lynch. Will the gentlelady yield to me?
Ms. Crockett. Yes, I will yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Just in furtherance, I fully support
the comments just made by the gentlelady from Texas, and I also
want to point out that Ms. Stansbury's amendment is one of
preservation. So, she is acting courageously to defend the
benefits that she describes in her amendment, which would be
the delivery and timing of services including Social Security,
Medicaid, food, housing, income supports, and other existing
Federal programs. So, she is defending the current level of
benefits. That is known. That is not something that CBO needs
to do a study on. It is what we are spending today. So, the
objection that we do not know the cost or the impact is not
true. We know exactly to the penny what the cost of those
benefits are to Social Security, to Medicaid, to food
assistance and housing. Those are known quantities. And so, I
disagree with the assessment that part of a reason for denying
the propriety of this amendment is because there are unknown
questions on the budgetary side, and I would yield to the
gentleman, Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, and I yield to Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I want to make
clear and build on what Mr. Lynch is saying here. First of all,
this is just preserving the existing programs that Americans
are already depending on, and are speaking loud and clear. In
fact, the polling shows this week that two-thirds of Americans
are completely opposed to the cuts that DOGE and Elon Musk have
put on these programs. And I hear people in this chamber every
single day trying to claim that they are not impacting real
Americans, that these are just paid protesters. Well, let me
tell you, I was in community after community in my district
over the last couple of weeks, and I had people show up crying,
people saying that their cancer treatments could be terminated
if Medicaid goes away, people who say they will lose
everything, they will not be able to put a roof over their head
or food on the table if these cuts go through, people who are
frightened by what they see is the absolute attack on their
civil liberties and free speech and their freedom.
And I actually went to the Social Security office in my
district last week and was denied entry and told to call a
regional office after I had an appointment and spoke to people
who have literally been waiting for days and weeks because Elon
Musk has crashed the Social Security system, firing people.
Their computer systems are down, our call centers are
completely overwhelmed, and people cannot get appointments for
months. This is what is happening in America right now, and
that is why I introduced this amendment, to protect those
programs and to fight for the American people and to fight for
the programs that we know they depend on so that they can
survive. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Ms. Greene.
Ms. Greene. Hi. I would like to point something out that
our Democrat colleagues know this because they did
reconciliation before when they were in charge. And it may be
hard for some of the freshman Dems to understand, but this is
not a policy debate. That is not what reconciliation is. This
is a budget process. And so, for the American people watching
at home, our Democrat colleagues are sitting here trying to
score points and spread more lies and divisiveness about
Republicans in order to spread more garbage across the country.
But this is about budget, Mr. Chairman, and this Committee is
trying to do serious work, and we need to stay focused on
budget, and that is for the American people, and it is very
serious. That is what we remain focused on here in our work on
oversight.
And the Democrats know that provisions must be carefully
crafted because they did it before, and it has to be scored by
CBO to be included in this budget bill, and that is what we are
trying to do, Mr. Chairman. And I just wanted to point that out
for the people watching at home, so they are not swayed by this
entertainment today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Very good. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say our
Federal budget reflects our values. When we fund the VA--so it
is not just about numbers. It is about the mission and the
purpose of our budget.
Chairman Comer. With all due respect, you do understand our
Federal budget is $2.5 trillion and then.
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time now.
Chairman Comer. I know, but our value----
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time. You do not get to just
interject, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. You know what? I think you have already
spoken, so we are out of order, so.
Mr. Lynch. I have not spoken on this. I borrowed on
somebody else's time.
Chairman Comer. All right. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Lynch. I borrowed somebody else's time, and I will
speak.
Chairman Comer. Well, speak. You all have put our country
in debt. Kids are graduating from college----
Mr. Lynch. You are about to put our country in $4 trillion
more debt.
Chairman Comer. I do not think you all could find a billion
dollars in savings.
Mr. Lynch. Come on. Come on.
Chairman Comer. You do not care about the Congressional
Budget Office scores because you do not care. You just want to
spend the hardworking American taxpayers' money.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my
time. I ask to restore the time.
Chairman Comer. Give him 5 minutes. You can talk all you
want. I want everyone in America to see how much opposition you
all have to try to get fiscal order.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, you are out of order. You are out
of order. Your own Chairman, and you are out of order.
Chairman Comer. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Now, without interruption, what we decide
here in the budget--the point I am trying to make is it is not
just dollars and cents. It is about where that money goes and
what purposes and what priorities it reflects. Governing is
about making decisions, and we choose to fund things that in
this country we have honored for a very long time, and that, I
have to say, in my 25 years in Congress, we have had very
little disagreement on funding veterans' benefits. I have to
say that. I do not think I can count on one hand the time we
had disagreements over 25 years when we talk about, how do we
care for our veterans, things like that, and I miss that
because now we are fighting tooth and nail about whether we are
going to lay off 80,000 employees at the VA.
What I am saying is that, sure, it is about the budget, but
underlying that budget is our priorities as a country, what we
consider to be worthwhile, and I feel that veterans' benefits
are worthwhile, veterans' healthcare is worthwhile. The way we
treat our Federal employees is important. It is intrinsic to
the work of the Federal Government and how we help the most
vulnerable, as well as average everyday Americans, on Social
Security, on Medicaid. So, I have had layoffs recently in one
of my big health centers, community health centers, laid off 60
people in a city that cannot afford that. And that is because
of decisions that are being made on the budget, on the numbers,
on the budget. We are going to cut over $800 billion on
Medicaid. I have got nursing homes. So, I got seniors who are,
they cannot go out and get another job. They are in nursing
homes. Their families are trying to care for them. We are
cutting 40 percent of the income for those long-term care
nursing homes for elderly are being impacted by the numbers in
this budget, and that is very troublesome.
So, I am just saying that this is different. Yes, the
gentlelady from Georgia is correct. I have been through
reconciliation before. I know how this process works, and it is
about numbers, and I agree with that point, but this is
different. This reconciliation is going after things that have
been long respected and honored in this country, and we are
changing our ideals and our commitments to people, like our own
veterans. They want to pull benefits from Federal employees
and, again, the numbers behind this all, the general purpose
here, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is to make a tax cut possible.
So, we are going to increase the debt. We are, that is the
plan here. We are going to increase the debt by, I think it
will be at least $4 trillion based on what we are looking at
right now, and to justify that, we are cutting all this. You
know, veterans' benefits are different. They are different.
They are different and they are special because veterans'
benefits are for courageous service previously rendered. We owe
this. We owe those benefits. Those wounded veterans lying in VA
hospitals all across this country, your state and mine, we owe
them for their service. They have delivered, every one of them,
by definition, every veteran who is eligible for this has
honorably served this country in uniform, put their life on the
line for the benefit of us all. We made a commitment to them.
We said, if you come back with wounds, visible or
invisible, we will take care of you. We made that promise.
Multiple generations of Americans have made that promise. This
budget, these numbers breach that promise. We break that
promise in this bill, first time ever, at least in the 25 years
I have been here. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy,
and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
Mr. Frost. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, what we are
hearing from the Republicans on this Committee is laughable,
and it is hypocrisy. They want to hide. They do not want to
support the amendment from the Stansbury, which I support, and
they want to hide behind the CBO and process. You did not care
what the CBO had to say when you passed the last set of tax
cuts for billionaires, the ultra-wealthy and corporations, when
the CBO said that it would raise the national debt by
trillions. You did not care. You do not care now. You want to
hide behind the CBO because you do not want to pass an
amendment that protects Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
food, housing, and programs that our constituents support. Then
you want to bring up process.
If we want to pass the amendment, we can pass the
amendment. Do not hide behind process. If you believe that we
need to protect Social Security, then vote yes, but do not come
here and tell us that we cannot pass it, like we do not have
the power to simply press the button that says ``yes'' on here.
It is hypocrisy. This is Republicans on this Committee trying
to cover up for Donald Trump and themselves from the fact that
they want to rob our constituents of earned benefits and things
we have fought for because they want to give a massive $7
trillion tax cut that will go to the richest people in this
country and put more money in their pockets, and they want us
and our constituents to pay for it.
They are finding money by stripping for parts the essential
services that middle and working class and the fastest growing
class of Americans, the working poor, not just depend on, but
have earned, and that we have put forward as part of our social
construct, that we will take care of each other and we will see
this country through the eyes of the most vulnerable. It is
despicable. So, if you are going to be about cutting these
things to help your billionaire donors and corrupt
corporations, then just say it, but do not hide behind process
and the CBO when you have not cared about it before. I will
yield my time to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Mr. Casar, did
you desire time? Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Yes, please, because Maxwell took us to
church. Push the button, push the button. That is the name of
the sermon. Hallelujah. I appreciate that because honestly, you
know, the one thing that I hear, and, Maxwell, I appreciate
that you have been traveling the country and actually listening
to people. I appreciate Melanie talking about getting out
listening to people. I have had an opportunity to get out and
listen to actual people, and the one thing that I hear is that
they are following no rules. That is the only thing I hear, is
that this Administration has not been following any rules and
been breaking everything, and so it is weird that we would hide
behind process when we are talking about doing good. But to do
bad, to fire workers, yes, let us do that, to decide that we
are going to try to jerry rig and do this situation around
birthright citizenship, to decide that we are going to try to
just write out the Civil Rights Act in the form of an executive
order. I can go on for days about all the things that really
have not been a part of the rules that have only brought about
harm.
In fact, I still do not understand how or why Elon Musk was
allowed to do anything that he was allowed to do, and honestly,
I would argue that he was not allowed to do any of the things
that he did, and no one argued for any procedures or rules
then. So, I applaud you, Ms. Stansbury, again, and thank you,
Reverend Maxwell, for the sermon.
Mr. Frost. If you would yield back?
Ms. Crockett. I will yield it back to you, sir.
Mr. Frost. I want to add on because you just brought
something up, Representative Crockett, that reminds me that our
colleagues are also saying that we cannot vote on this because
it does not have a CBO score and because the CBO has not told
us the impacts of it. And as a representative in the U.S.
Congress, if you need a CBO score to know the impact of Social
Security in your district, if you need a CBO score to know the
impact of Medicaid in your district, food in your district,
housing in your district, Medicaid in your district, then you
need to go back out and speak to the people in your district. I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
Mr. Frost. I yield to Representative Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I just want to be clear. If anybody actually
wants to know the impacts, we have it. Specifically, in Georgia
14 as it relates to what is going to happen to Medicaid in
Georgia 14, 111,000 children under the age of 19 and 20,000
seniors over the age of 65 will be impacted. As it relates to
those that are dealing with food assistance, it will impact
99,000 people in that district. Sorry, I was trying to help.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition? Mr.
Subramanyam?
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to speak
in favor of the amendment because all we are trying to do here
is say that do not reorganize or cut a department or agency to
where you cannot deliver the very services that that department
has created to give to the American people. And so, you know, I
have heard from folks that work in my district office about how
they are getting calls about OPM becoming even slower
processing case work. The Social Security Administration is
requiring people to come in person now because of policy
changes, yet they cut half the people that worked at the Social
Security Administration and closed many offices, so people's
appointments are getting canceled, right? And I have story
after story after story about people who used to call our
office and be able to get in touch with an agency or get their
agency problem solved, and now they cannot because some of
these cuts and some of these firings now make it so that the
very agencies that were developed to provide services to the
American people cannot do so anymore.
That is throwing the baby out with the bath water. That is
another way of putting it. And all we are trying to say is do
not do that. Stop the cuts. If they do not make sense, if their
very purpose is to undermine a program, then just say that. If
you are trying to cut the Social Security Administration
because you do not like Social Security, you want to get rid of
it, just say that, right? But do not cut half the workforce who
is trying to administer that program. And you know this stuff
about, you know, cutting the debt and the deficit, I mean, this
President is the one that increased the debt by trillions. The
last time he said that these tax cuts were going to pay down--
we are going to start paying down the debt like it is water.
That is what he said after the 2017 tax cut. What happened? The
deficit and the debt both increased dramatically. We are at $36
trillion now. Then he said tariffs last time would pay down the
debt, and that has not happened either. Next, he is going to
say his golf trips paid on the debt. The reality is, this is
not about fiscal responsibility. This is about cutting services
that help the American people, all so we can give it to the
largest and wealthiest corporations. I yield back.
Ms. Stansbury. Does the gentleman yield?
Mr. Subramanyam. I yield to Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much for pointing that out. I
also think, Mr. Chairman, just being conscious of language, you
know, in this room, just a few moments ago, our friends across
the aisle used the word ``garbage'' to refer to our fight to
protect your Social Security. I am so sorry, but seniors,
veterans, children whose parents have died, kids on school
lunches, are not garbage. The American people are asking us to
fight for them and the fight for their rights, for the funding
that keeps them alive. The fight to help the people of this
country is not garbage.
I think that, you know, we are sitting here and the debate
has taken this bizarre turn where it is being put forward that
somehow we do not care about fiscal responsibility. I am sorry,
that is just baloney, OK? Like, we are all about making the
government more efficient. We are all about addressing the
needs of the American people. This amendment is about defending
the existing programs that keep Americans alive, and neither
them or those programs or the Federal workers who provide those
programs are garbage. These are the American people. These are
who we work for. We do not work for Donald Trump. We do not
work for the billionaires. And the entire argument that is
being put forward here today, that cutting a few little pieces
here and there and decimating the Federal workforce and these
programs is somehow going to save the deficit is literally a
bold-faced lie.
The CBO has scored your reconciliation bill. The CBO says
it is going to raise the debt by $5 trillion. So, if you are
going to sit here and say it is not going to raise the debt,
you are just lying. That is factually untrue. So, if you want
to play the CBO score game, let us talk about what this bill
actually does. It is going to raise the debt by $5 trillion, it
is going to increase deficit spending by $37 trillion over the
next 30 years, and it is going to give your billionaire donors
and all those guys out there that you are trying to help,
including these guys serving in the Cabinet, the largest tax
break in American history. And how are you going to do it? By
balancing the books on Federal workers and the elders and
seniors and children of this country, and that is why we are
fighting. And it is not garbage, and the fight is not garbage,
and we are here to defend the people who we work for, not the
billionaires. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Stansbury amendment. The question is now on the Stansbury
amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. Recorded vote requested.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Stansbury seek recognition again?
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I have one more amendment.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Ms.
Stansbury of New Mexico.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman from New Mexico
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I am grateful
for the notes that were brought to this debate a few moments
ago by my colleagues on this side of the aisle about following
the rules because there has been nothing about this
Administration over the last hundred days that has been about
following the rules. In fact, we have never seen a more lawless
administration basically trying to break the rules around the
appropriations process, around the constitutional separation of
powers, around Federal hiring and firing laws, about data
mining your data. And in fact, there are now over 170 Federal
court cases and over 90 restraining orders and injunctions
against this Administration for their lawless behavior. So,
what this amendment does, it is to make sure that the American
taxpayers are not left on the hook and that those who are
breaking these laws cannot continue to do so or to financially
benefit from the Federal Government.
So, I am going to read it: ``Any individual serving in an
advisory or decision-making role to the President or the
President's administration, including any special government
employee''--that would be someone like Mr. Musk or any of these
DOGE employees--``as that term is defined in Section 202, Title
18 of the Code, who has significant financial conflicts of
interest or who has been found by a Federal court to have
violated any Federal law while serving in that role, shall be
barred from serving, advising, or interacting with the
executive branch and from entering into a contract with any
Federal Agency and shall be held liable for any damages to the
Federal Government and the American people.''
Now, I know that this is all about the budget, so you want
to save the American people money. Now, let us take a quick
diversion to clarify one thing. First of all, the whole premise
of this DOGE exercise was that it was going to save the
American people money. But actually, the report card is out
this week, and, actually, the Trump Administration has spent
tens of billions of dollars more money in the last hundred days
than the last Administration did. They did not save you money,
guys. They actually spent more money, and part of the reason is
because Donald Trump is using Federal taxpayer dollars to fly
down to his golf resort every weekend while he is taking away
your benefits and Elon Musk is destroying the fundamental
programs that provide VA benefits and Social Security and
actually help with programs that you all depend on, and they
are not saving money.
This whole idea that it is waste, fraud, and abuse, it is a
total lie, because while they are doing this, they are also
giving themselves additional contracts. We know that Elon Musk
has already put himself in a position before he leaves in the
next couple of weeks to pick up contracts at FAA. He is going
to pick up contracts at DOD. I heard yesterday from some of my
constituents that he is actually talking about getting billions
of dollars through this Golden Dome project that they want to
put in this reconciliation package. I mean, talk about grift.
We are talking tens of billions of dollars to build a missile
defense system that Donald Trump just brought up 1 day and he
wants to give a private contract to Elon Musk to build it.
So, this amendment would protect the American taxpayers
from people like these special government employees who have
been exploiting their role within the Federal Government, self-
dealing, stealing from the American people, impacting our
services, and frankly, putting you on the hook for their
defense in the courts. So, that is what this amendment is all
about, and with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition? Ms.
Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Yes. I just wanted to thank the gentlelady
for her amendment, and I was curious because you already kind
of preempted the arguments that would come from the other side
as it relates to saving money. We do know that Elon had a
contract that he was planning on entering into as it relates to
Tesla vehicles. Do we not?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Ms. Crockett. And last time I checked, that contract was
somewhere around $400 million.
Ms. Stansbury. As I understand it, yes, with Department of
Defense.
Ms. Crockett. OK. And to be perfectly honest, I think that
you were being kind of kind in this amendment because they are
only prevented or precluded from service within the executive
branch, but we still have other branches of government where
they can still do stuff, huh?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Ms. Crockett. So, you actually left a lot of leeway for
someone to even do more, so even if Elon wanted to go somewhere
else, he could. It just could not be here. In addition to that,
there is this thing about liability, and this really excited me
as a practitioner because I think people were wondering, why is
it that Elon is not being sued? Because Elon is committing so
many heinous issues as it relates to violating. And we still do
not know, and I do not know when we will know, because it seems
like we are not doing oversight over that right now to better
understand how much damage he has done as it relates to our
privacy and our information. But it has this liability portion
in here, so somebody like him, who just happens to be the
richest person in the world, would actually be able to be
liable in a personal sense, correct?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Crockett. Instead of, say, him being able to hide
behind the shields that normally protect you because you are
doing something ``on behalf of the government.''
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Ms. Crockett. I mean, this Committee is supposed to be
about waste, fraud, and abuse. So, if there is any abuse or
fraud, this would absolutely preclude that or any abuses that
are taking place with people that are, say, self-dealing and
coming in, wrecking everything, and then stealing all our
money, right?
Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely right.
Ms. Crockett. I think it is an amazing amendment, and I
support it.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Stansbury Amendment Number 2.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. And Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded
vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purposes does Mr. Frost seek recognition?
Mr. Frost. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please distribute the
amendment?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Now will the clerk designate the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Mr. Frost of Florida.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rule of law is
fundamental in a functioning country and the only thing that is
going to guarantee people's safety and security. Without the
rule of law, there is chaos, corruption, anarchy. And if the
President and the government he leads do not follow all laws
and ignore the ones that they find inconvenient, then no laws
really matter for the general public. So, no bills that we
file, debate, or vote on matter as long as the President of
United States is defying Supreme Court decisions and defying
the law.
The Trump Administration is already undermining the rule of
law, spewing out blatantly illegal executive orders, ignoring
Americans' constitutional rights, and ignoring and even mocking
many of the Federal judges and judicial decisions that point
out and prohibit Trump's illegal actions. Our democracy and our
rights are still hanging on by a thread because Trump has lost
over and over again in court, his illegal acts prohibited by
Federal judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans, and
now the Administration is even ignoring a unanimous nine to
zero Supreme Court decision. This is a Supreme Court decision
that includes six Republicans, three of them appointed by Trump
himself. Our Federal judges have been stunned by this but slow
to figure out on how to react. Congress must act on this.
So far, congressional Republicans have allowed Trump to get
away with everything, rolling over and completely surrendering
all their power to the Trump Administration. Congress has to
exercise its authority and defend the rule of law. My amendment
will help us do that. If the White House or any executive
agency of this Administration or any administration violates an
order by the Supreme Court, my amendment will nullify this
entire legislation. This amendment is important because the 9
to zero Supreme Court decision, that the Trump Administration
is currently ignoring, is in defense of our most fundamental
right, the right to due process twice in our Constitution. In
both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, it states that the
government cannot deprive us of our life, liberty, or property
without due process. It does not apply to certain people in
this country. It applies to every human in this country.
Because of that constitutional, fundamental due process
right, the Supreme Court's 9 to zero ruling was an order to the
Trump Administration to facilitate the return to the United
States a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Kilmar is the man
who the Trump Administration sent to a hellish prison in El
Salvador by mistake, the Administration even said by mistake,
an administrative error they keep calling it. The
Administration also had to admit that Kilmar had no criminal
history, but they still casually called him a terrorist,
pretending that he has gang tattoos and hope that people will
believe them. But here is the thing: that is horrible, but the
worst part of this whole thing right now is the reasoning that
they are using to not facilitate his return, which the Supreme
Court has ordered the Administration to do, and they are saying
that it is completely out of their hands. With that reasoning,
what is to prevent this Administration from deporting anyone in
this country, citizens included? And then when ordered to
facilitate the return of the citizen or the person, they can
simply chalk it up to it is out of our hands. We have to talk
about this and handle it now.
My colleagues always want to talk about American
exceptionalism without protecting the thing that makes this
country exceptional, which is the right of due process, not
just for citizens, but for all people on our soil and on our
land. That is what makes us exceptional. This is just a tool to
label anyone Trump wants as a criminal, strip them of their
rights. Trump has said he wants to do it to citizens, too. He
said it in the Oval Office that people he considers his enemies
who are home grown.
If Trump can do this to one person, he can do it to anyone.
The government can take you, disappear you to a foreign prison,
tweet emojis to mock your family's confusion, terror, and
helplessness, or post your wife's address and send her into
hiding like the Trump Administration did to Kilmar's wife. This
is a red line. This is when Congress needs to step up and step
in. And so, I ask my fellow Members of the Committee to support
my amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize
myself. This amendment would have the effect of potentially
repealing the effects of Section 90006, the bipartisan Federal
employee's health benefit government-wide improper payments
audit requirement at any time over 10-year budget window. We
are working within the budget reconciliation process. We,
therefore, have no idea how Congressional Budget Office would
score the effects of this amendment, which would very likely
affect our current savings and put our Committee Print under
$50 billion net savings instruction. I, therefore, strongly
oppose this amendment. Does any other Members seek----
Mr. Frost. Would you yield to me, Mr. Chair? I have a
question for you.
Chairman Comer. You have already been recognized, so no.
Mr. Frost. All right. I am talking about your time.
Chairman Comer. I yielded back.
Mr. Frost. OK.
Chairman Comer. Do any Members seek recognition? Ms.
Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. You can go to Casar first or, OK, I can go. I
will yield my time to Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. No, I think something is very interesting,
because in the Chairman's explanation of why he does not
support the amendment, he said there is a possibility that the
amendment would nullify a bipartisan piece of the legislation
in front of us. But all my amendment does is say that if the
President of the United States defies a Supreme Court decision,
then it nullifies the bill, which means the Chairman is
conceding right here in this Committee that the President of
United States could, and I would say is right now, defying a
Supreme Court decision, which is dangerous in this country. You
should not have to worry about anything being nullified if you
truly believe that the Administration is following the law, but
not even the Chairman believes that the Administration is
following the law. I will yield back to Representative
Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Yes. Do you mind answering a few questions
for me?
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Ms. Crockett. Out of curiosity, you talk about them
violating this law, and I am curious if most Americans
understand what you and I understand is that in violating
someone's civil rights, constitutional rights, we are actually
costing this country a lot of money because whenever we get
Abrego back, baby, they going to get sued.
Mr. Frost. Oh, a hundred percent.
Ms. Crockett. So, literally, your amendment would actually
save us money in the form of, listen, you either get these
savings that are already written in that are going to harm
people to the tune of cutting down $1.8 billion in direct
spending and $4.3 billion in discretionary spending over 10
years. But when we look at it, though, if we can hopefully hold
a rogue administration in check that will limit how much money
we may be on the hook for going forward, if you have an
administration that continues to violate people's civil rights,
their constitutional rights, and even now, so many of our
worker's rights are being violated, and that is risking so much
of our Treasury. Because when somebody gets a lawyer that
decides that they will not bend the knee to this Administration
and instead will stand up and do what is right based on what is
in the Constitution, that is going to cost us money in the long
run anyway, isn't it?
Mr. Frost. No, a hundred percent, and it is that, and it is
also the fact that this Administration is paying foreign
governments to imprison these people. And so, you know, I
remember here on the campaign trail, the President ranting
about sending money overseas, sending money to other places. It
looks like he has a problem with us expending resources to
ensure that we stop the spread of preventable diseases so it
does not reach America, but he does not have a problem with us
sending money to imprison people whose constitutional rights
have been violated.
Ms. Crockett. No, you are absolutely right, and honestly,
we also need to make sure that we are conducting effective
oversight over that because as we spend money, whether it is
with a prison that we have right here on our soil, whether it
is a prison that we contract with, we still are the ones that
have to oversee and make sure that people's rights are not
being violated. And frankly, I want to say thank you to those
of you that spent your own money and went to check up because
it does not seem like we are getting any reports. In fact,
there were a lot of people, as we saw Senator Van Hollen, who
also went over. There are a lot of people that did not even
know if Abrego was alive. And it is my understanding that when
you all went over, they did not even want to let you all in, so
I do not know how it is that we send money.
And you know, like I know, that as it relates to the money
that we were sent into foreign countries for USAID, we would
oftentimes take congressional delegation trips to see what is
going on. How are you spending this money? Is this an effective
use of our resources? But it seems like we do not want to
conduct any oversight over what they are doing with these folks
that have had their due process rights violated. Thank you so
much for this amendment. I really do appreciate it, and I will
yield.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment offered by Mr. Frost.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Mr. Casar seek recognition?
Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
Amendment Number 3.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will please distribute the Casar
Amendment Number 3.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will now report.
The Clerk. Amendment Number 3 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Mr.
Casar of Texas.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. Mr. Casar is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, Trump lied when he said he was
going to support the American worker. In his first hundred days
in office, Trump has raised prices for families across America.
He has done devastating damage to the economy, and he has
stripped collective bargaining rights away for over 1 million
American workers working here in the Federal Government. And in
Congress, we can fix this right now, Republicans and Democrats
alike. Because these workers, they are not political pawns in
somebody's game, they are all of our constituents. And I know
of no other time in American history where a President has
taken away workers' rights from this many people just in one
single day. It is unprecedented. It is unacceptable. The courts
are not accepting it, and the Congress should not accept it.
If we want the services our constituents rely on to be
delivered effectively, we need to restore these collective
bargaining rights right now. And in this bill, we are talking
about stripping away the pensions of so many Federal workers,
while at the same time letting stand Trump's illegal order that
takes away the bargaining rights of those very same workers.
So, if we allow this blow to labor rights to go unchallenged,
Trump is going to be coming after private sector workers'
collective bargaining rights next. So, I encourage my
colleagues to support my amendment and support the right of all
workers to collectively bargain rather than pass this bill,
which strips away workers' pensions and will become part of a
bigger bill that strips away workers' Medicaid, that strips
away workers' education funds, that strips away all this money
from the American people and the American worker all to give it
out to billionaires and to their corporate cronies. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. I will now recognize myself for a
statement. The amendments budgetary effects are not clear.
Furthermore, this amendment invokes policy reforms. The
Committee's directive under the budget reconciliation process
is to achieve net budgetary savings of $50 billion. That is a
foreign concept to some on this Committee, but budget savings
of $50 billion. I, therefore, oppose this amendment. Does any
other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. OK. Seeing none. The question is now on the
Casar Amendment Number 3.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, we would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Mr. Casar seek recognition?
Mr. Casar. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
Amendment Number 2.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please distribute?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report?
The Clerk. Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print provided for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Mr.
Casar of Texas.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, we are now talking about ways we
can save the American taxpayer money, and here is an idea. Why
don't we say Elon Musk has to follow the law and leave the
government at the end of his 130-day mandate, otherwise we
cancel all of his sweetheart contracts? That would save us $3
billion a year just alone on saying Elon Musk needs to follow
the law, or we can just save the American taxpayer $8 million a
day, $3 billion a year.
Already, we have heard that Mr. Musk is saying he wants to
step back some from his role of robbing the Federal Government
and the American taxpayer blind, but stepping back a little bit
is not what is required under the law. The law says that if you
want to be one of these fat cats with billions of dollars in
Federal contracts and then be in the White House, look, I do
not think you should be allowed to do that at all, but the law
says you get to do it for 130 days. Those 130 days end on May
30.
So, my amendment is simple. If Elon Musk follows the law
and leaves the Federal Government at the end of 130 days, then
that is it. He followed the law. But if he does what it sounds
like he is saying he is going to do and stay involved in the
Federal Government, keep on running Cabinet meetings, keep on
running the White House, keep on firing veterans and stealing
their salaries to give his companies another big contract,
then, no, we cancel those contracts, and we know exactly what
the impact to the budget is. We will save ourselves $3 billion
a year. We will save the American taxpayer $8 million every
single day, but the choice would be up to Elon. And if the
Republicans think that Elon Musk is going to follow the law and
leave the government when he is supposed to at the end of May,
then they should have no problem voting for my amendment. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Casar Amendment Number 2.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. And Mr. Chair, we would ask for a recorded
vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Mr. Casar seek recognition again?
Mr. Casar. I seek recognition on my Amendment Number 4 at
the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please distribute?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report?
The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print provided reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Mr. Casar of Texas.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve the point of order. The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans on this Committee
just voted no on canceling Elon Musk contracts if he violates
the law and stays past 130 days. The Republicans on this
Committee just voted no on Mr. Frost's amendment that would
require the President of the United States to follow U.S.
Supreme Court orders. At some point, we have got to have some
shame on this Committee. So, my amendment--I would hope my
Republican colleagues would vote for it--is that if a court or
the Federal Government finds that Mr. Musk abused his power to
enrich himself here over the last few months, then we would
cancel his contract. If a court finds that the richest man on
earth went in, used the Federal books, scraped people's data,
steered contracts to himself, then we should maybe stop sending
him $8 million a day and save the American taxpayer $3 billion.
That is the way that, not just Democrats, but conservatives,
progressives, independents all across the country, want to see
us save some money by saying these corporate grifters that use
the government to enrich themselves, they should get cutoff.
And look, there is a House Republican majority today, but
there could be a Democratic majority tomorrow or at least in
under 2 years, and when we are sitting on this Committee and if
we get a chance to have the subpoena power and look into this
and find out that Elon Musk has used his power to enrich
himself, the consequences could actually be much greater than
just having his contracts cutoff. So, I ask my Republican
colleagues, I know you voted no on Mr. Frost's amendments to
say the President should follow the U.S. Supreme Court. I know
you just voted no on my amendment that said if Mr. Musk stays
over the 130 days, he should have his contracts canceled. At a
minimum, I would ask that you vote for this amendment that says
if Musk breaks the laws, if we find out from a court or from
the Federal Government that he steered these contracts to
himself, then we should not keep on rewarding him with billions
in taxpayer dollars. That is the way we should be saving the
American taxpayer money, not by kicking kids off of Medicaid or
pulling school meals or firing veterans.
I yield back Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that at least
one Republican Member of Congress would vote to say we will
hold Mr. Musk accountable if he stays past the 130-day limit,
we will hold Mr. Musk accountable if a court finds that he has
been funneling money to himself. The news is out that he is
seeking this multibillion-dollar contract for Trump's golden
dome. The word is out that he is out there messing with the
FAA, trying to get his Starlink contracts at the FAA. The word
is out that he tried to get a $400 million contract just
recently for Tesla at the State Department, and then he got
caught doing it. So, look, you may not think it is going to
come out today, but it will come out eventually, and it would
have been better if you voted yes to say we are going to cutoff
Musk's contracts if he breaks the law, if he breaks the 130-day
rule, if he breaks conflicts of interest, if he keeps on using
his position to enrich himself. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition? Ms.
Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Yes. I would say that Mr. Casar has laid this
out really plainly. You know, there used to be a time in which
one of the mottos of the Republican Party was this idea that
you all were the party of law and order, and I really think
that it is very clear that it is anything but, when we have
amendments that literally just say follow the law. I mean,
right now, one of the things that we hear over and over and
over about why it makes sense to throw people out of this
country without any due process is because you are just saying
that they broke the law, not that they had an opportunity to
defend, not that we have any proof that they broke the law, but
your word is enough to literally exile somebody and send them
to a prison where they are doing God knows what.
But if we have a court that has found that this man has
broken the law, it would be wise, if you really believe in law
and order, to say that we will not continue to enrich the
richest person in the world with our tax dollars, especially
when we are talking about the fact that we are trying to find
savings, when we know for sure that he has broken the law. So,
I appreciate Mr. Casar, because this is not about partisanship.
This is about right versus wrong, and honestly, it is just
about good old common sense. I think that is the one thing the
American people are wishing that we had right now in
government, is just a little bit of common sense, and it only
makes sense that we would not continue to send somebody $8
million a day or even more money than that, knowing that they
literally are breaking the laws that we wrote. I will yield.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Casar amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Lee seek recognition?
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, my
amendment number 1.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please distribute?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please designate?
The Clerk. Amendment Number 1 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Ms. Lee
of Pennsylvania.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her
amendment.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would end
the budget cuts if the Consumer Price Index increases by more
than one percentage point above the annualized rate. The
Consumer Price Index is an estimate of the level of prices of
goods and services being bought by households, it essentially
attracts price changes over time. Since my Republican
colleagues are always praising Trump's impact on the economy
and how low he is going to get prices, this amendment should
not be a concern.
Trump practically ran on lowering the price of eggs, so
this amendment, I think, would serve the best interest of all
of us. But the reality is that prices have gone up across the
board. Combined the price of meats, poultry, fish, and eggs saw
a 1.3 percent monthly increase in March alone. Utility gas
services increased 2.5 percent and electricity prices increased
0.9 percent. In February, home prices were up 2.9 percent
compared to last year. Medicare, insurance, excuse me, clothing
prices all went up.
This Administration has so far failed to make any dent in
the cost of living crisis. Instead, we have gotten erratic
tariff policies, removals of government watchdogs, gutting of
Federal staff and cuts to critical Federal programs like
Medicaid and Food Assistance, which only exacerbate this
crisis.
This is not being caused by some serious outside force or
immigrants or Federal workers or whoever else, the Republicans
feel like blaming on any given day. This is a Trump made crisis
entirely. We are gearing up for a recession based on his
policies and his actions.
So, let us be clear, working-class Americans will be hit
hardest with all of these price hikes and job losses, while the
wealthiest are being handed trillions in dollars' worth of tax
breaks. While home ownership remains a pipe dream for so many
Americans, private equity firms are gobbling up those houses
and setting rents at sky high rates. While people are watching
their retirement accounts plummet due to stock market
volatility, Trump insiders, possibly even on this Committee,
are making out like bandits by selling at the right time.
A recession will only shift more money and more resources
to the top one percent. The wealth gap will only grow larger.
It is a shame how much these reconciliation bills are punching
down and putting the burden on those with the least means and
power.
In this bill alone, we have pieces that take away from the
monthly paychecks of Federal workers and reduce their pensions
and for what? Nothing in this bill will do anything to lower
costs to make life better for folks. Its only goal is to pay
for the trillions in tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. So,
whether you live in an urban or rural area or if you are a
Republican or a Democrat, the cost of living is a universal
concern and being able to not live just day-to-day, but to
thrive is a goal we can all get behind. And nothing in this
bill or any of the other reconciliation bills will make that a
reality. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Does any Member seek recognition? Ms.
Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Briefly. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
This is an amazing amendment brought by the brilliant
gentlelady out of Pennsylvania, because one of the things that
we consistently hear every time we start one of these hearings
is that the Republicans had a mandate and that that is why we
ended up with Donald Trump. And I can tell you that as I travel
the country warning them that what is happening was going to
happen, people would say things like, the price of eggs are so
high. And so, this amendment specifically deals with issues
around the Consumer Price Index.
So, let us talk about the price of eggs, because for
whatever reason, we have yet to have a hearing on the price of
eggs when that was really the one big thing. And I remember the
big guy that is in the White House saying that he was going to
reduce the cost of eggs on day one. But what we see is that the
national average price of eggs in March 2025 was $6.23, a 6
percent increase from the previous month, a 60 percent increase
year-to-year and USDA said egg prices could climb 41 percent
this year.
When we start to talk about things such as our energy--in
March, natural gas prices increased 3.6 percent and electricity
prices increased nine percent, fuel and oil prices increased
0.8 percent, utility gas services increased 2.5 percent. The
national average for a gallon of gas is currently $3.17,
nowhere near the $1.98 that President Trump claimed last week.
I just want to make sure we get the facts out there.
And finally, the other area that we typically talk about
that really impacts everyday working people is housing. When we
look at shelter prices, which measure the cost of housing,
rent, lodging away from home, and owners' equivalent rent, it
rose 0.2 percent in March. In February 2025, home prices were
up 2.9 percent compared to last year, selling for a median of
$424,000. The number of homes sold was down five percent year
over year.
Listen, we are in a crisis and they are pretending that the
solution is going to be cutting everything that those of us
that make this country actually go, is the solution. Right now,
we are cutting jobs as it relates to the Federal Government.
Right now, because of the failed policies around tariffs, we
know that we are looking at losing plants. They said that they
were going to bring plants. They just announced that we had two
auto dealers that were going to shut down approximately 40,000
jobs.
As they then go after NIH, we know that in the state of
Alabama, the largest employer in the state of Alabama is the
University of Alabama. They are looking at losing jobs because
they will not have research dollars. The only thing that they
are doing is hurting us. It is the reason, if we are going to
talk about numbers and mandates, it is the reason that the only
person in recent modern times to have the lowest approval
ratings at their 100-day mark is the same person the first time
they were in and now this time.
It is time for us to get serious and talk about what-will
grow our economy, what will bring more money in, what will make
sure that people can move up from working poor to middle class,
and maybe even reach this higher level that so many of you all
listen to, this upper echelon, this rich level, because that is
what is supposed to set us apart in this country. We are
supposed to live in a country where everyone has an opportunity
to go from rags to literally riches.
And so, I am asking my colleagues to start looking out for
the people that elected them and this is one way that we can do
it by supporting this amendment of Ms. Lee. And with that, I
will yield.
Mr. Higgins. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields. Do any
other Members wish to speak on this amendment?
[No response.]
Mr. Higgins. Do any other Members wish to speak on this
amendment?
[No response.]
Mr. Higgins. Hearing none, the question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlelady.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Higgins. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Higgins. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it,
and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. And Mr. Chair, we would ask for a recorded
vote.
Mr. Higgins. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Are there further amendments on this bill?
Ms. Lee. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. My
amendment, Lee amendment 2.
Mr. Higgins. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The
clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. The amendment number 2 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to a House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Ms.
Lee of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection, the amendment is considered
as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman, Ms. Lee, is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment would end the
budget cuts if the President or any executive agency deports
any person in the United States without due process under the
law, and I think that is incredibly important because we can
all agree how important due process is in this country. This
amendment is not just about immigration. It is about whether
America will remain a nation governed by the laws and freedoms
that we value. If due process becomes optional, it threatens
all Americans, and we should all be sounding the alarm.
We are seeing people straight up disappear to El Salvador.
Two hundred and eighty-eight men, including teens, have been
taken from their homes and families with no notice, no due
process, and no information about why nor any opportunity to
challenge it. We are seeing the Department of Justice green
light warrantless searches of homes by ICE agents. That could
mean an agent in plain clothes busting into homes with no
probable cause, no signoff from a judge, nothing. That is a
terribly dangerous prospect.
It is already clear that Trump is not targeting actual
threats, but manufacturing reasons to disappear and deport
lawfully present individuals, long-term residents and families.
Report after report have indicated that most of the people
being disappeared and deported have little to no criminal
record. We just cannot sit here and say it will not happen to
me because we do not know that. Trump has already defied court
orders, including those from the Supreme Court. We are beyond
the slippery slope. This is a defining moment of who is on the
right side or the wrong side of history. Due process is such a
closely held core principle of this country that it is in the
Constitution twice, first in the Fifth Amendment, which says to
the Federal Government that ``No one shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law,'' and then
later in the Fourteenth Amendment, which is applied to the
states. This should not be a radical opinion.
My Republican colleagues are always speaking about how much
they and we love the Constitution, but I am afraid that they
only love it when it benefits them. Nowhere in the Constitution
does it says that these rights are only for American citizens.
If you are here, you are under protection. That means
immigrants, too. So, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. It is an opportunity for us to get our country back
on course, and I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. I recognize myself to
speak on the amendment. I oppose the amendment. I support the
executive branch effort to protect our country and preserve the
peace of our republic by deporting criminal illegals, and I
encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield the
balance of my time.
Ms. Crockett. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Higgins. Does Ms. Crockett wish to be recognized?
Ms. Crockett. I can. I was going to ask you a question,
though.
Mr. Higgins. Ms. Crockett, I am yielding my time, but I
will be happy to recognize you, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. OK.
Mr. Higgins. Ms. Crockett is recognized for 5 minutes to
speak on the amendment.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you. So, I think that where we differ,
as it relates to what is going on in our country, is that No.
1, the Constitution, as it has been laid out by Ms. Lee,
specifically guarantees the right to due process. And what we
are trying to grapple with is this idea of, if you give
somebody due process, that does not necessarily mean that they
would not be deported. They simply would be able to, say, to
enter into a defense of whatever allegations are being made
against them and considering the fact that none of us are
perfect on this earth, and I know you agree with me, because I
know what you believe, right?
No one is perfect, so people can make mistakes, and this
gives us an opportunity to catch mistakes. This is not about
Democrats saying, you know what? We want certain lawless bad
people in this country. Instead, what it is saying is that we
believe in the Constitution. No matter if we are a Democrat,
Republican, or Independent, we believe in our founding
documents and we believe in the Constitution, and this means
that you do not have an accident where Abrego is sent out of
the country. This means you do not have an accident where you
are incarcerating U.S. citizens. This means you do not have an
accident when U.S. children are being deported to the extent
that we have a U.S. citizen child who was literally supposed to
be receiving cancer treatment being deported.
It gives us an opportunity to catch any potential mistakes
by making sure that there is a process. All due process gives
you--it does not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. It does
not give you permission to stay when you are not allowed to
stay. It does not allow you to evade the law. In fact, it makes
sure that the law works the way that it is supposed to work. It
is what every single criminal defendant has always been
guaranteed, regardless of their status, so that somebody cannot
just go out and say this person committed that crime, but
instead, there would be a process that involved more than just
one person's opinion.
And so, I guess that is my big question is, why are we
afraid of process? If we know that these are bad people, if we
believe that the persons that are seeking to make sure that we
rid our country of them, then why would we? In fact, this gives
you all more time to show. You get to show and tell. You get to
go and lay it all out and make sure that the entire public gets
to see this person did this, this person did that, and this is
why we send them away. It, honestly, instills some sense of
confidence in the entire country and what you are doing. And
they get to say, you know what, Mr. President? You were right.
We had too many of those bad people, and now we know that this
person did this, that, or the other. So, the only thing that we
are asking to do is actually to follow the law and the highest
law in the land, supposedly, is the Constitution. Thank you,
and I will yield.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. Do any other Members
wish to speak on this amendment?
[No response.]
Mr. Higgins. Hearing none, the question is on the
amendment, offered by the gentlelady, Ms. Lee.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Higgins. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Higgins. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it,
and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Mr. Higgins. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does the gentlelady, Lee, seek
recognition?
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Lee
Amendment 3.
Mr. Higgins. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
[Pause.]
Mr. Higgins. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print provided for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Ms. Lee of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection, the amendment is considered
read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain and speak on her amendment.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really think that
this one really gets at the heart of this Committee and the
work that we are entrusted with doing. This amendment would end
the budget cuts if the President, a special government
employee, or a member of the Cabinet violates ethic rules by
using their public office for their own private gain; for the
endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise; or for the
private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the
employee is affiliated with in a non-governmental capacity.
Simply put, if President Trump or Elon Musk, or any other
agency head uses their official position to make themselves
rich, their family rich or to sell some product, then all of
these budget changes Republicans are running through should
end. My Republican colleagues seem to act like no ethic
violations are happening, so again, this one really should not
be a problem. They will not because they know that Trump has
sold out the presidency to the highest bidder. They know that
this Administration's actions would cause this bill to almost
immediately expire. They are seeing exactly what the rest of us
are seeing so far.
Trump has turned the White House lawn into a Tesla
dealership. So, while Americans are struggling to afford
groceries, he is showing off the features of a car made by his
bestie, campaign donor and employee, Musk. Trump has been
hawking his official Trump meme coin and gutting crypto
regulations. People may not be able to afford healthcare, but
if they are a top Trump meme coin holder, they get to go to an
exclusive gala with him. He also holds court in his private
members-only club, Mar-a-Lago, his so-called Winter White
House, while most people cannot afford to buy their own house.
Americans are struggling to get by while watching this
administration get richer and richer, and it is not just Trump.
A Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations memo out this
week estimates that Elon Musk and his company stand ``to avoid
at least $2.37 billion in legal liability through his efforts
to gut the Federal workforce and exert influence over Federal
Agencies.'' He has also made billions in government contracts,
none of which conveniently have been touched by DOGE or
Republican funding cuts. Trump and Republicans are scapegoating
and demonizing Federal employees so that nobody is paying
attention to the absolute grift that is happening in the
executive branch.
This is not a monarchy. We do not have to sit by idly while
an old, out-of-touch billionaire enriches himself and his
family. We have a duty as a co-equal branch of government to
put a stop to these blatant ethic violations. Our government
should be answering to the people, not to the highest bidder
and not to the biggest check. We should be working to clean up
the corruption that has been allowed to rot from the inside,
and that rot is not coming from our dedicated Federal workers.
It is coming from Trump and his top officials. We deserve
leaders who serve the people, not themselves, so I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment, and with that, I yield
back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. I recognize myself for
5 minutes to speak on the amendment.
I oppose the amendment and I encourage my colleagues to
oppose the amendment. Republicans stand against Title 5
violation. Any violation of the Code of Federal Regulations is
contrary to the core principles of our country, and Republicans
stand united against that. There are sufficient laws and
mechanisms for enforcement already in existence, replete
throughout Federal law and precedent within our judicial system
to protect our country against violations of the Code of
Federal Regulations. So, I oppose the amendment, and I
encourage my colleagues to oppose. I yield the balance of my
time.
Does anyone else seek recognition to speak on this
amendment?
[No response.]
Mr. Higgins. Hearing none, the question is on the
amendment, offered by the gentlelady, Ms. Lee.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Higgins. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Higgins. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it,
and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, we would ask for a recorded vote.
Mr. Higgins. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does the gentlelady, Ms. Lee, seek
recognition?
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Lee
Amendment 4.
Mr. Higgins. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all
Members, and the clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment Number 4, to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Ms. Lee
of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection, the amendment is considered
as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman, Ms. Lee, is
recognized for 5 minutes to speak on her amendment.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appeal--oh, excuse me,
jumping ahead--we did not have to do that. The amendment would
add additional exemptions to avoid these egregious new filing
fees for Merit System Protection Board appeals. Those
exemptions would include suitability determinations of Federal
employment practices, reduction-in-force actions, performance-
based removals, or terminations of probationary employees and
actions related to an employer's denial of reinstatement.
The Merit System Protection Board was created to protect
Federal workers against partisan attacks and other prohibited
practices, so the very things you are seeing in the news, like
all of these purges of Federal employees. When we talk about a
system of checks and balances, this is one of those checks on
executive branch power. When an employee is fired for, say, a
DOGE teenage minion randomly adding their name to a list, they
can submit an appeal to the Merit System Protection Board. In
that hearing, the Agency will then have to prove that that
action was warranted. But Republicans do not want those checks
and balances. They seemingly want to revert back to a pre-
Revolutionary War days when we were governed by an unfettered
king. They are definitely not taking up their role as a co-
equal branch of government and putting a stop to the illegal
firings and funding cuts, and we can see from this bill that
they are trying to make it easier for Trump and Musk to do what
they want.
Just look at the bill we are marking up today. In one
section, they are trying to force new government employees to
choose between having workplace protections, like being able to
appeal their firing in the Merit System Protection Board, or
having more money in their monthly paycheck by not having to
pay an additional five percent into their retirement accounts.
Then, in this section, they want to force a filing fee on those
that still have those protections and want to appeal their
dismissal. Republicans are telling a person who feels they were
unlawfully fired, that while they understand they may be
stressed about no longer getting a paycheck and having to pay
for an attorney to appeal the decision, but now they also have
to pay about $350 in a filing fee. The entire point is to
discourage appealing at all. Three hundred and fifty dollars
may not seem like a lot when we are talking about folks who
have billions of dollars at their disposal, but to the average
person, that might be a utility bill or their monthly grocery
budget or their children's prescription drug costs. It is a
direct attack on low-income employees and a barrier to justice
and due process. This bill is forcing the Federal workforce to
foot the bill for tax cuts for billionaires while Trump and the
DOGE crew carry out a full-scale assault against them. It is a
shameful tactic.
I urge my colleague to support this amendment, which
expands exemptions to this harmful filing fee. It is incredibly
simple, and with that, I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. I recognize myself for
5 minutes to speak on the amendment.
I am going to oppose the amendment, although I appreciate
the spirit of the language of the amendment and avail myself to
the gentlelady and her colleagues in a future legislative
endeavor to consider this type of language. I oppose because,
although I do acknowledge the intention and the spirit behind
the gentlelady's amendment, the legislation we are considering
today is carefully constructed to comply with congressional
rules of reconciliation and budget considerations. Therefore, I
encourage all my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
yield the balance of my time. Do any other Members wish to
speak on this amendment?
[No response.]
Mr. Higgins. Hearing none, the question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlelady, Ms. Lee.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Higgins. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Higgins. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it,
and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Mr. Higgins. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the questions will be
postponed.
For what purpose does the gentleman, Mr. Garcia, seek
recognition?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk, Garcia number 1.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. So, the clerk will distribute the
amendment to all Members.
[Pause.]
Mr. Higgins. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Mr. Garcia of California.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection, the amendment is considered
as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman, Mr. Garcia, is
recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment.
Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that it
is very clear from all of us that today's debate and discussion
has made the House Republican agenda very clear. It is
giveaways to billionaires, huge cuts to healthcare and Social
Security, attacks on due process, and we should not lose sight,
of course, of the other big crisis happening right now that
Donald Trump, of course, is causing. Now in the coming weeks,
every American is going to be impacted by Donald Trump's insane
and destructive trade and tariff agenda. Now, we already know
that the Trump tariffs are just a sales tax that hits the poor
and working people the hardest.
I also represent one of the biggest ports in the U.S., the
second largest container port in the country, and I will tell
you right now that goods simply are not coming. Last week,
trucking volumes coming out of L.A. collapsed to levels we only
see during Christmas and New Years. Trucking, which is a No. 1
job for non-college educated men, are seeing huge rollbacks. We
could also see huge numbers of bankruptcies and layoffs in the
coming months as a supply chain freezes up. Now, small
businesses, we know, will not be able to buy the goods they
sell. Prices will skyrocket for products, and others may simply
vanish from the shelves. The uncertainty is just as dangerous,
whether you are in shipping and trucking, a small business in
the import or export business, all of these businesses are
being impacted by the Trump tariffs that are nothing, but pure
chaos.
Businesses and small businesses are going to be hit first,
but our consumers will be next. These tariffs will not bring
back jobs because no firm can invest in new factories. There is
too much uncertainty and businesses cannot plan long-term
tariff rates, and they cannot just import machines or
construction materials. The job market is just too uncertain.
These Trump tariffs will not bring us a better deal because
China will not even pick up Donald Trump's calls, and it is
beginning to look more desperate every single day. No one
benefits from this insane and dangerous trade agenda.
But there is maybe one group that appears to be benefiting
and that is connected insiders. We know that prior to these
Trump tariff announcements, and in between, there have been
people, including Members of Congress, maybe some on this
Committee, that have purchased between tens and hundreds of
thousands of dollars' worth of stock. By the way, between April
8 and 9, the day before President Trump caused his sweeping
global tariff crisis. Now, we know that even the day before
Trump's announcement, a certain Member and maybe others dumped
between $50,000 and $100,000 in Treasury bills, according to
required public disclosures made to the House.
Now, of course, there is no direct evidence today that
anyone has been committed of doing any wrongdoing and certainly
we have no evidence that anyone had any advance notice of what
Trump was doing and his decision to undo some of the tariffs.
But we do know that the day before the announcement, Trump
posted, ``This is a great time to buy.'' This should raise
concerns to all of us. The public needs to trust us. Who knew
about Trump's chaotic tariff announcements, who invested in the
stock market, and what insider information did they know? Now,
we do not know specifics of the announcement, of course, and
who was in the room and made these decisions and who purchased
all the stock. We also do not know who is getting direct
insider information on future announcements and future deals.
So, this amendment brings clarity and it is quite simple.
It will suspend the implementation of this toxic and dangerous
legislation if we determine that the President or head of any
executive agency or any member or employee or contractor of
DOGE is found to have committed insider trading related to the
imposition of the tariffs. This is a common sense, good
governance measure to ensure trust and honesty and to bring a
certainty to our tariff policy. It removes an incentive to fuel
chaos in order to profit and will provide much needed
certainty. I urge all Members to support this amendment and I
yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself
for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment.
I will be in opposition to the amendment. I am also in
opposition, along with all my colleagues, one would hope, on
both sides of the aisle, to insider trading that results in
personal benefit for any Republican or any Democrat. Today's
legislation is not the venue for that. I am going to oppose the
amendment, but again, I offer to myself and my colleagues in my
office at the avail of my Democrat colleagues to work toward
legislation and investigation into any illicit or illegal
insider trading that may be found to exist, including within
this body, but so, of course, to include the executive branch.
So, I am in opposition to the amendment. I yield the balance of
my time. Does anyone else seek recognition? Mrs. Luna of
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment.
Mrs. Luna. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. First of all, I
obviously am supporting what the Oversight Republican Committee
is doing here for this entire process, but I did want to speak
to Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia, please let it be known, if you would
like to do a discharge petition banning insider trading for
Members of Congress, I will happily support that. I think that
it is disgusting that people do that. I share Mr. Higgins'
sentiment and I think that majority of the American people want
that, so I would be happy to support that. We can get the ball
rolling. Discharge petition away on that, please. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. Well, if I can respond to that. I appreciate
that, Representative Luna. I agree with you.
Mr. Higgins. Does the gentlelady yield her time?
Mrs. Luna. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I appreciate that, Representative
Luna. I also agree with you that there should be absolutely no
insider trading in Congress. In fact, I believe there should be
no stock trading of individual stocks by Members of Congress,
period. I support legislation to do so, and so, I am looking
forward our conversation to move this issue forward. So, thank
you.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields. Do any other Members
wish to speak on this amendment?
[No response.]
Mr. Higgins. Hearing none, the question is on the
amendment, offered by Mr. Garcia.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Higgins. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Higgins. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. And Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded
vote.
Mr. Higgins. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. Subramanyam?
Mr. Subramanyam. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. Do you seek recognition?
Mr. Subramanyam. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Mr. Higgins. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all
Members.
[Pause.]
Mr. Higgins. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print provided for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Mr. Subramanyam of
Virginia.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection, the amendment is considered
read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes to speak on his amendment.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment is
simple. It would strike Section 90001, which would increase
Federal employee's contributions to their retirement benefits
in its entirety. This provision is not savings. It is a pay cut
for longest-serving civil servants who have invaluable,
irreplaceable knowledge, and experience serving the American
people, and this is just going to worsen the continued brain
drain of the Federal Government and folks who serve.
I have heard from constituents all around my district who
have already left the Federal workforce as a result of this
Administration's actions. They are physicists and
technologists, people who keep us safe, people who develop
cutting-edge research and technologies, and make government
more efficient and cost less, and many of them are also
veterans who choose to continue serving their country after
their time in uniform, and still others might make the choice
to leave if these provisions are passed into law.
I will tell you the story of one Federal employee in my
district. He said that, ``I have proudly served as a Federal
employee for over 20 years. Throughout my career, I have worked
diligently, often for significantly less pay than my
counterparts in the private sector, and to change or take away
these promised benefits just a few years before I am eligible
to retire feels both unjust and deeply discouraging.'' And he
and others have noted that a lot of people, who the Federal
Government has been trying to recruit for many years, now do
not want to come, and we are losing some of our top people.
In fact, this amendment is trying to stop this brain drain
by showing that some of the senior people who will be most
affected by this and some of the veterans and some of the
experts that will be affected by this, they are going to leave.
We are going to lose them, and we are going to lose their
expertise. So, what we are trying to do here today with this
provision is to not punish the expertise and longevity of some
of these Federal employees by cutting the pay of those who have
been here the longest. And while it might raise a little bit of
revenue, the costs of this to our Federal Government and to the
American people will be far higher. And there are better ways
to make government more efficient without attacking the hard-
earned retirement benefits Federal employees have been paying
into their entire careers.
I would be more than happy to work across the aisle on
bipartisan solutions, but sadly, this is not where we are at
today. And so, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and
oppose this provision. I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields. I recognize myself to
speak on the amendment.
I will oppose the amendment which completely repeals
Section 90001 of our Committee Print. This amendment would
significantly reduce deficit reduction in the Committee Print
by over $30 billion in revenue over the course of 10 years.
This amendment further would result in the underlying Committee
Print conflicting with our clear reconciliation instructions of
$50 billion in net budget savings, a component of the larger
reconciliation instructions that we are compelled to abide by.
We have a nation that suffers from almost $37 trillion in debt.
Making a minor adjustment in Federal spending is not only an
obligation of our Congress, but reflective of the oath that we
have sworn to protect and preserve our republic. So, I am in
opposition to the amendment, and I yield the balance of my
time.
Does any other Member wish to be recognized? Ms. Crockett
is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I do
support this amendment. You know, there is a theme that we keep
hearing on this side of the aisle where it seems like we are
constantly talking about real people, working people, the
people that continue to make this country go, and the idea that
we continue to violate people's trust, people that have
dedicated years and years of service to us, whether it was in
the form of being veterans or whether it was literally just in
the form of being a dedicated government worker like my mom.
The issue that we have is that we keep pretending in this
Committee and, actually, in this Congress that the only way
that we can save money is if we go after the people that
literally are at the bottom. When I say, ``the bottom,'' one of
the best things that I have seen on social media here recently
said that the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90
percent. The bottom 90 percent. One percent own more than the
bottom 90 percent. We are talking about this wealth gap that is
just going to continue to widen at a time in which every single
policy decision we are making is only making life more
expensive and making it more difficult for those that are just
trying to survive, especially those that work for our Federal
Government.
The fact is, we are saying, you know what? We are going to
take away access to resources that you had because we want to
save money while at the same time, as it has been laid out by
Ms. Lee and me and others, about the fact that the cost to eat
is going up, the cost to get to work is going up, the cost to
put a roof over your head is going up, the cost to put clothes
on the backs of your children is going up, all at the same time
we are saying and we are going to give you less. We are going
to take away from you. This is not what makes us America the
beautiful.
And so, I think that this is an opportunity to do what is
right, and if we want to start talking about how we get out of
debt, we can start with the top one percenters. And maybe let
the 90 percenters continue to at least just try to survive in
this very difficult environment. With that, I will yield. I
will yield back to the author of the amendment.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you. I want to add as well, again,
if the goal here is to save money, if the goal here is to pay
down the debt, why are you firing the very people who actually
save us a lot of money when it comes to some of these programs?
Why are you firing the people who will actually do cutting-edge
research that will save us money on things, like, healthcare,
on defense later on? I mean, you know, look at what is
happening. We are having a brain drain in technologists at the
Department of Defense now. We are having a brain drain in
healthcare experts as well at HHS, and some of them have been
fired. Others have just left. And I have talked to many people
who are managers, who are leaders in the agencies who are being
told to cut people, the very people that they are begging to
try to keep.
And so, when you are trying to now look at cutting
retirement benefits for Federal workers, you are not going to
be able to attract and retain the best talent. A lot of these
Federal workers actually could make a lot more money in the
private sector, like the story that I told, but instead, they
are being told that we do not care about them, that we do not
want to protect their retirement, that now it depends on who is
President, whether or not they are valued, right? And so, what
we are doing here could end up being irreversible damage and
could put us in a position where we can no longer attract good
people, people who actually save the government money.
I mean, I heard someone say that this is going to save us
$30 billion, but think of all the money some of these folks we
are losing save us long-term. Probably a lot more than $30
billion, right? If you are in a department in charge of making
a trillion-dollar program or a multibillion dollar program
efficient and you are fired, who is going to make that program
efficient, right? So, again, we are doing things that we think
are saving money, but they are actually costing us a lot more
money long term, so this is bad not just for the Federal
workers, this is bad for every American taxpayer. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. [Presiding.] Does any other Member seek
recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, we will now vote on the
Subramanyam amendment. I was pronouncing it right. I have got
the phonetics and I still mispronounce it, I will be honest.
But all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, say no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. We would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Randall seek recognition?
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please distribute?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the amendment?
The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Ms. Randall from
Washington.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, in my
district, nearly a quarter of my constituents are enrolled in
Medicaid. That is around 188,000 people, and I have three
community health centers, seven rural hospitals, and 90 rural
health clinics. It takes, I do not know, about 5 hours to drive
from one corner of my district to the other, and sometimes one
of the roads is washed out because of storms, and having an
option to choose another healthcare facility is not always
available to people.
And Medicaid for not only the individuals who receive those
benefits, but also for the health clinics and the hospitals is
a lifeline. Our rural hospitals are struggling to keep their
doors open as they are. And with the potential cuts that might
be included in the, you know, budget instructions for this
reconciliation package, my rural health system threatens to
flounder, and I am not alone. It is not just my district or
Democratic districts where we rely so strongly on Medicaid. You
know, in Arizona 2, 263,276 people are on Medicaid; in North
Carolina 5, 201,163 people are on Medicaid; and in Louisiana 3,
265,604 people are on Medicaid, and the rural health centers,
the hospitals, the doctors' offices that serve those patients
rely on Medicaid, too.
And, you know, our neighbors, our healthcare providers, our
community members are telling me, the town halls we do in our
districts, and the emails they send to our office, and the
meetings we have, that they are worried. They are worried that
cutting $880 billion from the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
will mean cuts to Medicaid. In fact, the Congressional Budget
Office had has said that those level of cuts are not possible
without significant programmatic changes and benefit cuts to
Medicaid.
I know we have talked in the Government Operations
Subcommittee about improper payments and the efforts to root
out waste, fraud, and abuse. And I am speaking for myself, but
I think also my Democratic colleagues, none of us want to see a
wasteful and fraudulent system that takes away benefits from
the people and the providers who depend on them. But in
Washington State, we talked to our healthcare authority, and of
the 2 million Medicaid payments, only 30 to 40 percent of the
fraudulent or improper allegations were proven credible, which
is a .0002-percent fraud rate. That is a pretty satisfying
rate.
And I have heard colleagues on the other side say that they
are not actually trying to cut Medicaid, which I hope is the
truth, and this simple amendment says that if the
Administration makes any cuts to Medicaid or Medicare, it
requires the immediate expiration of the Republican budget
cuts. And I ask for support, and I yield the balance of my time
to Representative Simon.
Ms. Simon. Ms. Randall, thank you so much. You know, at
UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital in my district that I just
toured, 70 percent of the children who are being served by that
hospital are reliant on these services--heart transplants, stem
cell transplants, cancer patients--all under the age of 18. You
know, without us literally saying yes, we will make sure that
these families have medical support for their children in their
worst, their most harshest times, really, who are we? So, I
want to thank you for the amendment. Families deserve our
support, particularly families with sick children. Thank you,
Ms. Randall. I will yield my time.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition? You
seek recognition?
Ms. Crockett. I do.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and, you know,
I really want to break this down so that people understand what
the gentlelady is trying to do. She is not only fighting for
her constituents, and I do appreciate the fact that she is so
in tune and in touch with her constituents, that she is
listening to their very real stories, but she is honestly
trying to save all of our constituents, including yours, Mr.
Chair. When we look at your district, which is Kentucky 1, it
says that in your district, approximately 235,000 people are on
Medicaid, and they are at risk of losing their healthcare under
this budget plan, and here is the deal. For those of you
sitting at home and watching and wondering what exactly is
253,000, I think what I said is--yes, 253,000--that is
approximately one-third the size of our districts.
So, just imagine, Mr. Chair, what you could do by
supporting this amendment is make sure that you are protecting
one-third of your own constituents. Even if we are not looking
at anyone else's district, this is a lifeline for so many
people. And I just do not know why the theme has consistently
been beat up on those that need it the most instead of going
and finding the cuts where we know we can do it, which is
basically by making sure that we increase the tax rate on
certain people. Then we will have all the money we need. We
will be just fine.
But the idea that we are really solving anything, we are
not because we know that right now, we are going to take
resources away from people that literally may be the difference
between life and death, while at the same time, we know that we
still have to raise the debt ceiling because there is still so
much debt. We know that the last time Mr. Trump was in office,
that by the time he left, there was an additional $8 trillion
that was added to the budget. And just after this one first
budget situation that we are about to go through, we are
talking about adding another $5 trillion. And so, I think that
we need to really get to the heart of the problem.
We are a country that is continually growing, and that is
what makes us fantastic. In fact, you know, recently, they are
offering $5,000. I do not know where they are going to get this
$5,000 from to give everybody to have a baby, but that is the
new thing that is being offered because they want more people.
What we cannot do is keep saying things like, oh, we are pro-
life, we are pro-life, we are pro-life. But then once the life
is here, when it comes to making sure that we can literally
just be good Christians, if we want to go there with it, we are
not. It is more than just saying that we believe in God. It is
more than saying that we study the Word of God. It is actually
about what are we doing when it comes down to the policies. And
let me tell you, there is nothing godly about taking vulnerable
people and taking away their healthcare all in the name of
billionaires having more money in their pockets. I will yield.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Randall amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, we would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Randall seek recognition?
Ms. Randall. I have a second amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please distribute?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report?
The Clerk. A second amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Ms.
Randall of Washington.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, we have
already talked a little bit about retirement fairness in this
Committee, and I think there is some bipartisan support to
retirement fairness, to supporting the agreement that we have
made with Federal workers who have served our country. And the
amendment before us, it would attach the text of H.R. 1522, the
Federal Retirement Fairness Act, previously introduced by
Ranking Member Connolly.
You know, this is a bipartisan bill with 80 co-sponsors,
and I am proud to be one of them, and this legislation would
restore the option for Federal employees to buy back their time
spent as temporary or seasonal employees to count it toward
their retirement eligibility. And in a lot of worksites around
the country, a lot of Federal jobs, we have folks who begin
their work in the Postal Service, in the Forest Service as
temporary or seasonal and then get hired on as permanent, but
those months or years as temporary or seasonal employees do not
count toward their retirement eligibility. This is a cost-
neutral solution since employees fund their contributions. And
you know, we just deserve to make this promise to a Federal
workforce who is just getting attacked on a daily basis and
who, in the underlying amendment in the nature of a substitute,
are getting many of their retirement benefits decreased or
eliminated, getting their worker protections weakened.
But this is a way that we could ensure that rural post
offices in particular, who are struggling to hire workers can
continue recruiting temporary or seasonal employees, and then
allow them to stay by giving this retention, sort of a
retention promise that they are able to catch up those payments
to their retirement service. And I encourage our colleagues to
vote yes, and I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Randall Amendment Number 2.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. A recorded vote
will be dispensed with.
For what purpose does Ms. Randall seek recognition?
Ms. Randall. Thank you. I have a Randall Amendment Number 3
at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the Randall
Amendment Number 3?
The Clerk. Amendment Number 3 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Ms.
Randall of Washington.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, on behalf of
the 27,000 Federal employees I represent, I am working to
ensure that we are not increasing their costs of employment and
instituting new cost barriers for them to challenge agency
misconduct or wrongdoing. You know, I am incredibly concerned
that this bill, the underlying bill, would chill the reporting
and appeal process with the Merit System Protection Board by
requiring them to pay for the complaints that they may seek to
make.
The Merit System Protection Board filings already come with
costs such as attorney fees, but imposing, as the underlying
bill does, additional costs on employees who simply want to see
justice, creates barriers to justice and due process. This
would disproportionately target lower income employees, making
them more vulnerable to being mistreated at work. And that is
why I am filing this amendment to prevent any language that
would deter current or former employees from filing an appeal
with the Merit System Protection Board.
And, you know, our country and our communities cannot
thrive without safe workplaces and the ability for folks to
seek relief from being mistreated in the workforce, and, you
know, our strong Federal workforce is what ensures that, you
know, our democracy is protected and our future is bright, and
we owe it to them to have their backs. And I would encourage my
colleagues on this Committee to also vote in support of this
amendment, and I yield the remaining balance of my time to the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentlelady. Let me just try to
explain the impacts of not adopting the gentlelady's amendment.
So, right now, if an adverse decision is made initially by an
agency or employer, normally the person would be able to appeal
that directly to the Merit System Protection Board, and it is
not an expensive process, but absent that access, you drive
people to court, which is also expensive, both for the
government and the agency, but also for the employee. So, by
adopting this amendment, we avoid that eventuality. We actually
can handle it.
That is why the Merit System Protection Board works because
it is much, much cheaper than any alternative. It is already
the more cost effective way of doing this. It is also one step
removed from the workplace. In other words, you might have a
decision being made as a result of a reduction in force or a
decision made by one individual manager that may be totally
uncalled for and unjustified, and perhaps illegal or a
violation of a statutory protection. So, that next step is the
cheapest, most efficient, and most immediate way of resolving
that dispute. And as a former union president and a union labor
attorney, this does not save us money. This actually will cost
us money because of not just the $350 appeal fee. That is the
small part of this. The larger cost will be involvement of
multiple teams of lawyers and much longer, more expensive
involvement by the courts, the civil courts. So, I think the
gentlelady's amendment is well stated, and it makes a lot of
sense if we are actually trying to save money, and also, you
know, the primary concern is here is to give full rights to
these employees in their role as employees. And I yield back to
the gentlelady from Washington.
Chairman Comer. The time has expired. The time has expired.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Randall Amendment Number 3.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered.
For what purpose does Ms. Ansari seek recognition?
Ms. Ansari. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee
Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent
Resolution 14, offered by Ms. Ansari of Arizona.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is to
strike Section 90002, which would eliminate supplemental
retirement payments for the majority of Federal employees who
retire before age 62, even if they have served the American
people for 25 years or more.
This entire reconciliation print is a brazen attack on
Federal workers being used to fund billionaire tax cuts at the
expense of working families. Retirement is already so out of
reach for so many Americans, and one of the biggest reasons
that people historically wanted to work for the Federal
Government is because of the benefits. While the base pay may
not be as high as the private sector, they knew that they were
going to get the benefits that support their families, that
they could retire 1 day, and that they had better protections
against retaliation and wrongful termination. Now Republicans
are bowing down to President Trump and Elon Musk, who want to
completely dismantle and privatize the essential services that
the Federal Government provides. We already struggle to recruit
postal workers to get American families their mail on time. We
have a nurse and doctor shortage at the VA. And yet,
Republicans are making it even harder to recruit these
essential employees, cutting key benefits, slashing pay by
increasing pension contributions, making it easier to fire
employees for any reason, and making them pay a fee to appeal
wrongful terminations.
Making it less desirable to be a Federal employee means
that the most talented, hardworking Americans will seek
employment elsewhere. It means we will no longer be competitive
to hire the high-quality talent we need to modernize our IT
systems to make them run better for Americans who use them,
something that we just had a subcommittee hearing about
yesterday. Most importantly, gutting the Federal Government and
chasing away that talent pool will result in a poor quality of
services provided for our veterans, for our seniors, and for
our families, all of this just to cut taxes for the ultra-
wealthy while still increasing the Federal debt. I will yield
back to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Lynch. I think the gentlelady. This amendment is well
stated. The gentlelady from Arizona has identified an adverse
result of the bill as it is currently written. Up to now, the
law has been where an employee who is separating from Federal
employment prior to the age of 62 and who is eligible for
Social Security would have a supplemental payment to bridge
that gap until they can actually collect Social Security at
their full retirement age of 62. So, this leaves people in a
position where they would either have to, you know, hang in
there for a number of more years, you know, just for the fact
that there would be a severe penalty from doing otherwise, and,
you know, that is not an ideal situation. These are employees
who are in government service for 20 to 25 years that are in
this situation, and, you know, it is just one more aspect of
this that we are making it less attractive to get the talent
and the commitment that the gentlelady from Arizona is
identifying.
So, with that, I will yield to any other Member on the
Democratic side that wishes to speak. Otherwise, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other Member
seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Ansari amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. We would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered.
For what purpose does Ms. Simon seek recognition?
Ms. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have an amendment at
the desk, Simon Amendment 1.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please designate the
amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee
Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Concurrent
Resolution 14, offered by Ms. Simon of California.
Ms. Simon. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Simon. Thank you. I apologize for that, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the recognition. Today, I am offering a
commonsense amendment to protect access to critical food
assistance for not only my constituents, but families across
this country. Simply put, this amendment would restrict the
current Administration from reducing the budget of or provision
of assistance for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, or SNAP. Now, if the Trump Administration cuts SNAP,
by any means, even at $1, this provision being considered by
this Committee to cut Federal employee salaries, pensions, and
labor protections would immediately expire. My amendment would
force the Administration to choose between its attacks on
essential food benefits and their ongoing attacks on our non-
partisan Federal workforce.
Mr. Chair, I have mentioned in this Committee, some 29
years ago, when I was a single, yes, teen mom going to college,
that I was a recipient of a small SNAP allotment of about $26 a
month. I consistently was at the grocery store every other week
and I had to put food back because I could not afford to feed
my daughter and I even with those benefits. So, I know the
critical nature of these benefits. I am sitting before you
today as somebody who not only finished college, finished
graduate school, my daughter is an attorney and passed the bar
on her first attempt because we had a social safety net that
got us out of poverty for once and for all, and that is exactly
what programs like SNAP are intended to do. No one deserves to
be left behind because of an administration being hellbent on
destroying our Federal Government and cutting our social safety
nets.
Last week, I visited the Alameda County Food Bank where I
heard directly from constituents about the devastating cuts,
the potential cuts, the current cuts to Federal nutrition
programs, like SNAP, and what that would mean for them. I heard
time and time again on this visit about the unfortunate reality
that so many folks face. They are one paycheck away from being
in line at the food bank week after week. Federal workers,
including members of the Federal Coast Guard operating in
California, who have lost their paychecks, who have been fired,
they, too, are in line at our food banks. These are the same
Federal workers that the bill that we are considering today
would hurt. This bill would make it harder for workers and
their families to access food, to afford food, housing, and
higher education by cutting their salaries and pension.
Mr. Chair, I have made a promise to my constituents, and
all Americans, that I would do everything possible in my power
to protect our social safety net. My amendment today is about
the belief that food is a basic human right and that all human
rights cannot just be stripped away with a stroke of a pen.
This is a promise that no one will be hungry from losing their
SNAP benefits. And any reduction in these benefits or services
provided by SNAP would be the difference in being able to buy
groceries, pay for rent and utilities, and afford healthcare
that so many vulnerable Americans and families face every
single day, including the working people that we are talking
about today. According to the United States Department of
Agriculture, 15 percent of the households in my district rely
on SNAP benefits. In 2023, 44,000 households in California's 12
congressional District rely on SNAP benefits.
In closing, it is hard to close this conversation because
so many folks around the country are relying on us in this
moment to save the social safety net. Mr. Chair, voting for my
amendment is an easy way to demonstrate to our constituents
collectively, the full American public, that the critical
benefits that the working poor rely on to put food on their
table are not on the shopping block. As my colleagues from the
other side of the aisle have already pledged that we would not
have cuts to SNAP. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this
amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Does any Member
seek recognition? Ms. Pressley. Use the mic, please.
Ms. Pressley. Congresswoman Simon, I am so glad that you
are here. I always say the people closest to the pain should be
closest to the power. You have been closest to the pain, and we
are so glad that you were here. You never forget the plot and
the plot is the people. I appreciate the Congresswoman for
introducing this amendment.
SNAP is a true lifeline and this is a matter of life and
death. If Republicans have their way, this reconciliation bill
will increase hunger and food insecurity. More than 42 million
Americans participate in SNAP each month. This includes 16.9
million children, 4.5 million people with disabilities, and 1.2
million veterans. Over 1.1 million people in Massachusetts rely
on SNAP. Let us talk about economic impact. Every $1 in SNAP
benefits generates $1.50 in economic activity. SNAP dollars
help to pay the wages of grocery store clerks, of truckers who
deliver food, manufacturers who make food packaging, and the
farmer who grows food. There is nothing efficient about making
people hungrier and sicker. Is there any single Republican who
is willing to speak out to make sure that children, people with
disabilities, and veterans do not go hungry? Anyone?
Silence. This bill is a shame and a sham.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition?
Mr. Lynch. I do.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join in support with
the gentlelady from California's amendment. She has identified
a real gap in this legislation that would leave some of our
most vulnerable families exposed to hunger. In Massachusetts
alone, we have 62,477 children that are eligible for Mass
Health and living in households below the poverty line. We have
got 29,000 seniors as well relying on Meals on Wheels and other
food assistance programs. We have 1.1 million residents in
Massachusetts relying on SNAP. So, the idea that we would
remember, the overall goal here is for the Republicans to
provide a tax cut for some of the richest people in America,
and in order to do that, we are going to take the food out of
these children's mouths, and we are going to cut Meals on
Wheels to seniors who may have no other recourse and no other
source of nourishment, it just shows the obscene nature of this
measure. And I am just hoping that we have Members on the other
side of the aisle who have communities where people are
struggling like this.
And as the gentlelady from California said, this is a
common sense. You know, food is pretty basic, and to think
about the greatest country in the world and our priorities
being skewed now to the point where, you know, we are cutting
aid to veterans, where we are cutting Meals on Wheels. We are
cutting the Head Start Program, too. A lot of these kids, their
one meal of the day is when they go to school in the morning at
Head Start, but we are cutting Head Start in this bill, so you
are creating a crisis among these most vulnerable families,
these children, these senior citizens. And I think the
gentlelady from California's amendment is well stated. It
solves this on the matter of food. It carves this out so that
we do not cause the greatest level of harm among the most
vulnerable in our society.
You know, it has never been an American tradition to punch
down at the most vulnerable people in our society, punching
down at wounded veterans, punching down at seniors who are
relying on Meals on Wheels, punching down at kids who are going
to Head Start, taking the food away. I mean, is that really
where America is today? Is that why people voted for Donald
Trump? I do not think so. I do not think so. And I am hoping
that in addition to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Turner, there
will be other colleagues on the Republican side here who
recognize the wrongfulness and the obscene nature of what this
bill proposes.
Ms. Simon. Ranking Member, will you yield?
Mr. Lynch. I will yield to the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, Ranking Member, and thank you Mr.
Chair. I mean, for all of us, again, to summarize what this
amendment is saying, do what you will. Do not cut SNAP. For
foster parents throughout this Nation who are relying on SNAP,
as they do literally the most beautiful work in taking in
children who have been wards of the court. For young parents
who are working two and three jobs and their rent is over the
amount of what they are making. For the young college student
who has two babies, who is desperately trying to get out of
poverty, working two jobs and going to school at night. That
was me. I know that life.
All we are saying, as a collective, if we vote yes on this
amendment, do what you will. We do not want to have a hungrier
America. It is plain and simple. For the poorest among us, for
the poorest among us, the ones who work with their bodies and
their children are suffering because we are saying, food banks,
go to hell. Working people who have hungry children, we are not
going to worry about you. All I am saying in this amendment is,
please, with all that we have, do not touch the stomachs of
poor children, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition? Ms.
Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say
thank you to the gentlelady from California for bringing this
amendment forward and for highlighting the cruelty of what the
GOP is trying to do right now with this entire reconciliation
package. And I want to just point out once again, that in the
name of balancing the budget, but in the reality of actually
blowing a hole through the budget and the deficit, these guys
are proposing to give $7 trillion in tax breaks to
billionaires, millionaires, and their corporate donors by
taking away food from children. It is that simple, and it is
not even that much money that is going to save them on the tax
breaks for the rich, but it is literally going to take away
food from children, literally.
Now, I have been back in my district, meeting with our food
banks and people who are advocates for our families who are
struggling. And, I think, like others on this Committee, I grew
up in a household that struggled. I grew up in a household that
when the worst did occur, when my mother did lose her job, we
were on assistance. And I would not be sitting here as a
Congresswoman today if it was not for the grace of God and for
those programs that are designed to catch people when they need
it, to help people when they are their most vulnerable, to help
moms who have kids, to help the elderly who are barely
scratching by right now, to help people when they have
disabilities, to help people when they end up with a medical
emergency and there is nothing else to help them. That is what
these programs exist for. That is why they are there.
Now, I know that my friends across the aisle like to allege
that there is some sort of widespread waste, fraud and abuse
happening, but let me just tell you this. If you have ever been
on SNAP, you get an EBT card. This is like a credit card to go
grocery shopping. Do you know how much money you get? Six
bucks. You cannot even buy a single carton of eggs for 6 bucks
right now. Donald Trump is on television literally saying right
now that the price of eggs is down. That dude has probably
never been grocery shopping in his life, more or less in the
last week, and these guys want to steal food from children, and
that is what this amendment would prevent.
Now, my food banks in New Mexico, the food banks that serve
my population in New Mexico, are telling me that if these SNAP
cuts go through this reconciliation package, there will not be
enough funding or food in the supply chain to meet the need. It
will be not only worse than it was at the height of the
pandemic, it will be many times worse than it was during the
pandemic. So, I want all of you guys to remember what it was
like at the height of 2020 when, literally, our shelves were
empty because there was a supply chain crisis, and the cost of
food went through the roof, and people could not leave their
homes, and there was this huge financial crisis. Literally,
that is what we are hurdling toward right now, between the
tariffs, the cost of living, between what is happening to the
cost of food, and now they want to cut the most basic program
that helps to stretch the gap for our most vulnerable people in
our community.
If you think the lines that were long during the pandemic
were difficult to see, if you cut these food assistance
programs, that is what you are going to see all across America.
How can we claim to be the wealthiest country on planet earth
and we have got billionaires in the White House who are
literally talking about taking money out of the mouths of
children? It is not only unconscionable, it is disgusting. It
is disgusting. How do we live in a society where we are even
debating this? We are a country of plenty, and yet these guys
want to give tax breaks to billionaires by starving children.
It is ridiculous. In New Mexico, 1 in 5 children are on food
assistance. That is who your bill is going to hurt, and we will
vote no. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition on
the Simon amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Simon amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. A recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered. The vote
will be postponed.
For what purpose does Mr. Bell seek recognition?
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Mr. Bell of Missouri.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read. I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes to
explain the amendment.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking Member. As a
former public defender and elected prosecutor, I recognize when
systems are being manipulated to suppress rights, and this
provision sets a dangerous precedent. And so, I rise to strike
this section because it represents not only an unjust financial
burden on our Federal workforce, but also a direct attack on
their access to due process.
And when we talk about households that are struggling, as
my colleague so articulately pointed out, well, we were a level
under that when I was growing up. We were just broke. Syrup
sandwiches and fried bologna were like fine dining for us. And
so, I think there is a disconnect when people think that
things, such as a $350 filing fee, is inconsequential when the
average household income in my district is about $50,000 to
$55,000. There are a lot of people that are making $40 and $30
and even less than that, and when you do the math, and you have
lost your job, the math gets a lot easier. You are just broke.
So, imposing a $350 filing fee and adding new restrictions for
appeals sends the wrong message to working-class Federal
employees, and it tells them that their rights are negotiable.
The text makes clear that this fee would apply to appeals
not involving prohibited personnel practices, including matters
such as OPM suitability determinations, performance-based
removals, terminations of probationary employees, and denial of
reinstatement. So, to be clear, we are already witnessing the
consequences of this Administration's workforce reduction
agenda. An estimated 200,000 probationary employees have been
terminated, and over 75,000 have been pressured into resigning.
This is not cost cutting. It is an attack on the civil service.
Federal employees deserve the right to challenge unjust actions
without facing financial obstacles. By forcing workers to pay
hundreds of dollars to defend their employment, we are telling
them to choose between fighting a wrongful termination and
paying for groceries or paying for the rent. These cuts should
not come at the expense of our public servants, the very people
who keep our government running.
Now more than ever, we must uphold and strengthen the
protections available to our Federal workforce, which is why I
have introduced this amendment to protect workers' rights,
defend access to due process, and stand up for the values of
fairness and justice. And I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this amendment and standing with Federal workers and
with working-class families. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Does any Member
seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none----
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Mr. Chairman, in support of Mr. Bell's
amendment, I would like to use my time on this amendment as a
point of personal privilege.
Today, Oversight Democrats are issuing more than a hundred
letters to the Trump Administration demanding documents and
information related to the chaos, the corruption, and the
cruelty that has defined its first 100 days. In that short
period of time, the American people have already endured
unprecedented threats to democracy and repeated actions
undertaken by Donald Trump and Elon Musk to commercialize
government and public service into a for-profit venture.
The Trump Administration and DOGE have unlawfully slashed
funding of public programs, as we have discussed here today,
they have illegally fired hardworking Federal workers, exposed
Americans' private data to foreign actors, and have
deliberately defied congressional oversight. This
Administration has been unresponsive to Congress. It has been
unaccountable to the public, defiant of Federal court
decisions, and ignorant of the Constitution.
Oversight Committee Democrats are committed to holding the
government of Donald Trump accountable and demanding
transparency in government. Since January 20, Oversight
Democrats have sent the Trump Administration nearly 200
investigative letters, including over 1,500 requests for
information and documents. The vast majority of those letters
have gone unanswered. That is why today we are escalating our
investigation of the Trump Administration gross abuses of
power, and we are asking for our letters to be entered into the
record by unanimous consent.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my additional
time to Ms. Ansari, the gentlelady from Arizona.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, and I yield to Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Again, I want to reiterate, we are asking Federal
workers to pay for due process. And, again, as a former
prosecutor, as a former judge, as a former public defender,
that is not the values that our American system of government
believes in. That is not how we do things in this country, in
the greatest democracy on Earth. And so, everyone should have
the right to say something is wrong and not have to pay for the
access to be able to make that claim, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting this amendment. I yield the remainder
of my time back to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Lynch. Ms. Pressley or Ms. Ansari, would you like
additional time? Oh, we are good? All right. Thank you. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Bell amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. I request a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. A roll call vote has been requested, and as
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
For what purpose does Ms. Pressley seek recognition?
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Ms. Pressley of
Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read. I reserve a point of order.
The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Pressley. This should be a simple unanimous addition to
this bill. It directs the Government Accountability Office, the
GAO, to study how this bill will impact people across our
Federal workforce. It is about transparency. Specifically, we
need data on who is impacted, how many women, how many older
Americans, how many workers of color, veterans, workers with
disabilities, and something I know my colleagues across the
aisle will really appreciate, we need to know where they live,
because, despite the myths, most Federal workers do not live in
Washington, DC. They live in your districts. They live in your
communities, doing essential work for your constituents.
My colleagues across the aisle argue that this bill is a
good thing. They are advocating for a bill that cuts paychecks,
eliminates earned benefits, and rips away healthcare from
Federal employees and their families. Make no mistake, this
legislation is how Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Republicans
plan to give away even more tax cuts to billionaires by making
working-class folks fit the bill. Already, co-Presidents Trump
and Musk have attacked, fired, and intimidated Federal
employees, so it is no surprise that this plan continues that
reckless assault--that is what it is, assault--targeting the
public servants who safeguard the health, safety, and economic
well-being of our communities.
For decades, we have fought to build a civil service that
reflects the diversity of our country. Still, workers of color
disproportionately serve public service roles that are
physically demanding, lower paid, and often fewer pathways for
advancement. Older workers who have dedicated their lives to
serving this country are now nearing retirement. They are
counting on the pension rules and benefits that this bill aims
to tear apart. Veterans, many of whom transition into civil
service careers after military duty, they will see their
protection stripped away under new so-called at-will employment
schemes. So, yes, let me make it plain. This bill will hit our
most vulnerable, our most dedicated, and our most essential
workers, the hardest, all while making billionaires richer.
My amendment simply demands transparency. It ensures that
if my colleagues across the aisle go down this path of taking
away people's livelihoods, if Republicans want to strip away
their healthcare and retirement security, we have the data, the
data necessary to understand exactly who is being harmed. This
is the bare minimum that people deserve from their
representatives, so we understand exactly what we are doing and
whom we are doing it to. I have thousands of constituents in my
district, the Massachusetts 7, who are Federal workers and are
seeing their lives completely upended. So, my Republican
colleagues, think about the mail carriers in your hometown,
think about the VA nurses caring for veterans in your district,
think about the food inspectors ensuring that your constituents
are bringing home safe groceries to their children. Why are you
so desperate to ruin these people's lives when all they do is
make yours better?
If you truly think this bill is good and fair for everyone,
then you should have no fear about a GAO report confirming
that. But if you cannot support even a simple report, if
transparency is too much to ask, then maybe it is because you
know exactly who you are hurting, and perhaps you are worried
that yet another piece of damning evidence will show what
people already see, that you are attacking workers who have
dedicated their lives to this country all in the name of making
more money for the wealthy and well-connected. But if I am
wrong, vote for this amendment and prove it. I urge adoption,
and yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition on the Pressley
amendment? Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. I do. Mr. Chairman, I just want to support the
gentlelady from Massachusetts' amendment. We are always
striving to make fact-based decisions here in government, and
this amendment provides data that will guide us, hopefully. And
also, since there is a disagreement about the measure of pain
that this is going to visit upon the American people, this is
one way that we can have usable data. As the gentlelady has
suggested, it will identify location. It will identify
veterans, disabled, other classifications that will be
actionable intelligence that we will be able to measure the
negative impact on the families that we all represent. So, I
want to thank her for her wise amendment, and I ask Members to
support it as well, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlemen yields back. Any other
members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the Ms.
Pressley Amendment Number 1.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Pressley. A recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested.
Ms. Pressley. Please vote.
Chairman Comer. The vote will be postponed.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. For what purpose does Ms. Pressley seek
recognition?
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have another
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the Ms.
Pressley Amendment Number 2?
The Clerk. Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, offered by Ms.
Pressley of Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I recognize myself for a point of order. The gentlewoman
from Massachusetts is recognized.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. My amendment adds a basic measure
of decency to a bill that has none. Under current law, when a
Federal employee retires before they are eligible for Social
Security, usually around age 60, after 20 or more years of
service, they receive a monthly benefit to help bridge the gap
until Social Security kicks in. It is called the FERS annuity
supplement. It is not a bonus. It is not a handout. It is a
bridge, something that workers earned, that helps career public
servants, especially those in physically demanding or early
retirement roles, make ends meet after dedicating their lives
to this country. In my district, the Massachusetts' 7th, it
quite literally keeps them out of poverty. Shamefully, on page
4 of this bill, they eliminate this benefit entirely for every
Federal worker.
My amendment simply says, it is a carve-out, that veterans
and employees with disabilities can keep this earned benefit.
Every year, thousands of veterans transition into Federal jobs
after completing their military service. They become postal
workers, they become TSA agents, maintenance crews at national
parks, clerks at VA hospitals--you are nodding your head, so
you know that--inspectors at our ports. For many, this is a
second career taken on later in life, again after military
service, and they do not have 40 years to work in it before
hitting retirement age. Without this benefit, they will face a
cruel gap--retired, unable to work, but still too young to
receive Social Security. We owe our veterans better than that
after a lifetime of military and civil service. I am sure you
agree.
In the same vein, Federal employees with disabilities often
retire early under the same system their colleagues use, and
for them, this benefit helps them to make ends meet. It pays
the rent. It fills a prescription. It keeps the lights on.
Ripping this lifeline away from workers with disabilities is
not only cruel, it is unnecessary. These are not the people
driving up the deficit. They are doing what Republicans often
accuse them of not doing, working, working when they are able
to, and instead, they are getting punished for it. With this
Administration, the cruelty is the point. This is just void of
common sense and compassion, attacking, intimidating and
purging Federal workers.
So, it is no surprise that co-Presidents Trump and Musk are
turning to them to pay for more tax cuts to billionaires. We
should be striking this section, hell, altogether. Instead, we
should be putting forth a bill that affirms Federal workers as
the essential workers they are. Instead, here we are,
Republicans are gutting their benefits. All my amendment does
is protect our veterans. Good patriots across the aisle, I am
sure you want to join me in protecting our veterans and those
with disabilities are most vulnerable from these reckless cuts.
Now, if we cannot agree on that, then we are truly lost. We ask
our veterans to serve, and they do. We ask our community
members with disabilities to work if they can, and they do.
When their service ends, the least we can do is honor it with
dignity, and that is what my amendment ensures, and I urge
passage of it. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition? Mr.
Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support
of the gentlelady's amendment. She has correctly pointed out
that the way the bill is currently drafted, it penalizes
military service.
So, we have many sons and daughters who serve in the
military, and that length of service can be 10 or 15 years, in
some cases, 20, even longer. But as the gentlelady has
correctly pointed out, many, many, many of them end up in
service to the Federal Government, either the post office or
Defense Department. Just the entire spectrum of our Federal
Government is full of those who have served the country in
uniform.
What this amendment would do, would be to provide that
bridge, so when someone completes their military service and
goes on to serve the Federal Government, even though they may
retire, choose to retire at an earlier date where they are not
eligible for the full benefits that they might receive, this
supplemental payment closes that gap that they would have
otherwise received. It is a temporary bridge as well, until
they reach age 62 when they would receive their full Social
Security benefits. So, it is a good amendment, it provides
fairness, and it removes the penalty that would otherwise be
visited upon those who engage in military service on behalf of
this country, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition on
Ms. Pressley Amendment Number 2?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the Ms.
Pressley amendment No. 2.
All those in favor of supporting, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. I request a roll call.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested. For
what purpose does Mr. Lynch seek recognition?
Mr. Lynch. I believe I have an amendment at the desk,
Number 3.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please designate the Lynch
Amendment Number 3?
The Clerk. Amendment Number 3 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Reconciliation Committee Print providing for reconciliation
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 14, as offered by Mr.
Lynch of Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would
serve to protect the retirement benefits of Federal workers who
entered Federal service prior to the enactment of this bill and
its implementation of a revised retirement formula.
Currently, the Office of Personnel Management calculates
the retirement benefits of a Federal worker based on their
average highest 3 consecutive years of base pay during their
Federal service. In an attempt to unload the cost of proposed
Trump tax plan on the backs of Federal employees, the
underlying bill would unfairly revise the formula to base
retirement benefits on the average highest 5 years of Federal
workers' earnings. As reported by the American Federation of
Government Employees and other Federal employee unions, this
new formula will reduce the annual retirement received by
virtually all Federal employees by at least thousands of
dollars per year over the next decade. It will also severely
impact Federal workers whose retirement benefits have already
vested. I offer this amendment with the expectation that if my
Republican colleagues cannot agree to strike this unfair
formula from the bill in its entirety, we can at least hold
harmless our current employees and find common ground in a
commitment to preserve the retirement benefits that Federal
employees have already earned.
According to the National Active and Retired Federal
Employees Association, the high-5 calculation would
particularly reduce the value of earned retirement benefits for
individuals on the brink of retirement. Such individuals have
fulfilled their service to this country with the expectations
that retirement would be based on the high-3. And now this
Committee is aiming to roll back that promise, renege on that
promise, and take back a portion of the compensation that was
promised to them in exchange for their services already
rendered. Moreover, these pending retirees have already relied
on these benefits in planning for their retirement.
In the one hundred days since President Trump took office,
this Administration is engaged in an unprecedented attack on
the Federal civil service in the form of mass layoffs, forced
resignations, hiring freezes, and replacement of nonpartisan
Federal workers with political appointee loyalists. We simply
cannot continue to target dedicated Federal employees who have
already sacrificed earned pay and earned benefits and
consideration of their commitment to public service. In fact,
since 2011, Federal workers have contributed almost $300
billion to deficit reduction in the form of mandatory frozen
pay, increased pension contributions, and higher healthcare
premiums, and still they are on the job providing critical
services to the American people.
Members on both sides of the aisle also have long-serving
staff who are affected by this legislation. Think about the
best of your staff, especially those who have long service,
staff who are approaching retirement and whose retirement
benefits would be greatly reduced if this provision becomes
law. Think about your own employees. And I urge my colleagues
to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Does any other
Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
Lynch Amendment Number 3.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Before we recess, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the following statements of support from the following
organizations. This is letters in support of our Oversight
Committee Budget Reconciliation bill we will be voting on in a
few hours: the Americans for Limited Government, the Taxpayers
Protection Alliance, America First Policy Institute, Foundation
for Government Accountability, and the National Taxpayers
Union.
Without objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the
Committee in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. We will
reconvene at 3:30 p.m., and we should be able to get our votes
in electronically before the House Floor vote. So, the
Committee stands in recess until 3:30 p.m.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will be in order.
The Committee will now resume consideration of the Fiscal
Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee Print providing for
reconciliation pursuant to H.Con. Resolution 14.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Lynch from Massachusetts. This is the Lynch Amendment Number 1.
Members will record your votes using the electronic voting
system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the
amendment in the Committee [sic]. This is the Lynch Amendment
1.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change the vote?
[No response.]
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? I cannot see
that screen.
Chairman Comer. I cannot see it either.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? I cannot really
see that far. Can the clerk tell me how I am recorded?
Chairman Comer. Is Mr. Lynch recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch is recorded as voting aye.
Mr. Lynch. OK. How is Mr. Frost recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Frost is recorded as voting aye.
Mr. Lynch. OK.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Lynch. How about Ms. Stansbury, how is she recorded?
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, they can see this on the board.
Come on.
Chairman Comer. Yes, the clerk will close the vote and
report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the Perry, from Pennsylvania,
amendment to Reconciliation Committee Print ANS. Members will
record their vote using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment of the
Committee Print. The Chairman votes no.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 16. The
nays are 27.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Mr.
Mfume from Maryland. Members will record the votes using
electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the
amendment of the Committee Print by Mr. Mfume.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed the
amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute
offered by Mr. Mfume from Maryland. This will be the Mfume
Amendment 2. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Mr.
Lynch. This will be the Lynch amendment 2. Members will record
the votes using electronic voting system on the Lynch amendment
2. Clerk, please open the vote.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total. Clerk report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20, the
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of substitute, offered by Ms.
Stansbury from New Mexico. This will be the Stansbury Amendment
1. Members will record their votes using electronic voting
system on Stansbury Amendment 1.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20, the
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Ms.
Stansbury from New Mexico. Members will record the vote using
electronic voting system. This is on the Stansbury Amendment 2.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20, the
nays are 23.
Chairman Clerk. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Frost
from Florida. Members will record the votes using electronic
voting system on the Frost amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20, the
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Mr.
Casar. Members will record the votes using the electronic
voting system on the Casar Amendment Number 3.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20, the
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Mr.
Casar from Texas. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system on the Casar Amendment Number 2.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote
and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Mr.
Casar from Texas. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system on the Casar Amendment Number 4.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Lee from Pennsylvania. Members will record their vote using the
electronic voting system. This is on the Lee Amendment Number
1.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all the Members been recorded who wish
to be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote
and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Lee from Pennsylvania. Members will record their vote using the
electronic voting system on the Lee Amendment Number 2.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote
and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previous postponed amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. Lee
from Pennsylvania. Members will record their vote using the
electronic voting system on the Lee Amendment Number 3.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Lee from Pennsylvania. Members will record their vote using the
electronic voting system. This is on the Lee Amendment Number
4.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote
and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Mr.
Garcia from California. Members will record their votes using
electronic voting system on the Garcia amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, will the clerk report the vote
total?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Subramanyam. Members will record the vote using the electronic
voting system. The Subramanyam amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been record who wish to be
recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Randall. Members will record their votes using an electronic
voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the Randall
Amendment Number 1.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will please close the vote and
report to vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Randall. Members will record their vote using the electronic
voting system on the Randall Amendment Number 2.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will please close the vote and
report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Randall. Members will record the vote using the electronic
voting system. This is the Randall Amendment Number 3.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Ansari from Arizona. The Members will record their vote using
electronic voting system on the Ansari amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Ms.
Simon. Members will record their vote using the electronic
voting system on the Simon amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Bell from Missouri. Members will record their vote using the
electronic voting system on the Bell amendment.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Pressley from Massachusetts. Members will record their vote on
the electronic voting system on the Pressley Amendment Number
1.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote
and report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Pressley from Massachusetts. Members will record their vote
using the electronic voting system. This is on the Pressley
Amendment Number 2.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members voted who wish to be
recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report to
vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20, the
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Lynch from Massachusetts. Members will record their vote using
the electronic voting system. This is on the Lynch Amendment
Number 3.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20, the
nays are 23.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee
Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to House Resolution
14, as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to Fiscal Year
2025 Budget reconciliation print is agreed to.
Dr. Foxx. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Dr Foxx. Yes. The Chair recognizes Dr.
Foxx.
Dr. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the Committee to
now transmit the recommendations of this Committee and all
appropriate accompanying material, including Minority,
additional, supplemental, or dissenting views to the House
Committee on the Budget in order to comply with the
reconciliation directive included in Section 2001 of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 2025, H.
Con. Res. 14, and consistent with Section 310 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Chairman Comer. The motion has been made. The question is
on transmitting the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation
Committee Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to the
House Budget Committee. Members will record their votes using
the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on transmitting the Fiscal
Year 2025 Budget Reconciliation Committee Print providing for
reconciliation.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded? Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 22. The
nays are 21.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
transmitted to the House Budget Committee.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
And last, pursuant to notice, I now call up the following
en bloc postal naming bills which were distributed in advance
of this markup: H.R. 323, 397, 1372, and 1830.
Without objection, the bills are considered read.
If any Member would like to speak on any of the measures,
they may do so now. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. I am just
going to say I am going to call for a recorded vote, vote no,
and the reason for that is I oppose H.R. 397. I do not think we
should name a post office or any Federal building after a
person who was kicked out of his ministers conference for
encouraging violence and bloodshed. So, I will be voting no on
H.R. 397, for that reason.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. Members will
record their votes using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting the
en bloc postal naming package.
Mr. Lynch. Point of clarification.
Chairman Comer. OK. What is the question?
Mr. Cloud. We do not know what it is.
Chairman Comer. This is the en block postal naming bills.
We were going to----
Ms. Stansbury. Right, but what is the objection?
Chairman Comer. He objected to 397, but this is the en
bloc. We are voting on everything. He objected because of 397,
so he is voting against all the postal naming bills. Am I
correct on that?
This is an en bloc, so Republican and Democrat bills.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman, can the question be divided?
Chairman Comer. Do you want to----
Mr. Cloud. I would like to move to divide the question.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Perry, would you mind--is everyone OK
if Mr. Perry explains his opposition? Is that OK?
Mr. Perry. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would rather not
vote no on all of them. Because they are en bloc'd, I have
little choice. So, I would rather them not be en bloc'd, so I
can vote no on H.R. 397 because I do not think it is
appropriate to name a Federal post office after an individual
who was kicked out of his ministers conference for encouraging
violence and bloodshed.
Ms. Greene. I second that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perry. And with that, I yield.
Chairman Comer. All right. The vote is up.
Mr. Casar. Point of order.
Chairman Comer. State your point.
Mr. Casar. It is just a question, aren't we already voting
on this?
Chairman Comer. That is true. The vote has been open. This
was a courtesy for Ms. Stansbury and Mr. Perry. I try to make
everybody happy in this Committee. Isn't everybody happy?
Everybody happy? Everybody looks happy.
Has everyone voted who wishes to vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does anyone wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote tally and
report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 23, the
nays are 15, with 4 voting present.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it. The package is ordered
favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider
is laid on the table.
Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, I ask that Committee
Members have the right to file with the clerk of the Committee
supplemental, additional, Minority, and dissenting views,
without objection.
Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary
technical and conforming changes to the Committee Print,
subject to the approval of the Minority. Without objection, so
ordered.
If there is no further business before the Committee,
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]