Fiscal Year 2027 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Bill, Fiscal Year 2027 Financial Services and General Government Bill, and Interim Subcommittee Allocations
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
I oppose this amendment. This amendment attempts to strip out a bipartisan legacy provision that has been enacted into law every year since 2014. The existing provision simply prohibits agencies from finalizing the Obama administration's outdated nutritional guidance unless it undergoes and passes a comprehensive and thorough review that reduces regulatory burdens and includes a detailed cost benefit analysis. This amendment will require the FTC to publish and finalize 15-year-old nutrition guidance within 90 days, effectively ignoring any new data and scientific information that has been gathered since then. I urge my colleagues to support the existing bipartisan legacy provision, and I oppose this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Miss Hoyes, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 4
This is another amendment that seeks to give the American public information on what its government is doing. Simple as that. The FTC, like every other regulatory committee in our jurisdiction, has had no hearing before the committee. Zero. Zip.
They have not been subjected to questioning about anything they do. Surely, the appropriations committee does not believe that's how we ought to operate. Surely the appropriations committee and each one of our subcommittees should feel a responsibility to question, learn, and act upon facts that they have adduced at hearings. That's what hearings are for. This is a pattern, of course, of objecting to the disclosure of information.
So I rise and support this very important amendment. Parents are dealing with a lot of challenges, not the least of which are higher costs for necessities and gas as a result of President Trump's tariffs and war choice. And gasoline and tariffs have put them in a very tough position. Their government certainly ought to be telling parents, this is our best judgment on what foods are healthy for you. In the labor health committee, the secretary was asked a number of questions about Make America Healthy Again.
And then he was asked about the administration's policies on making more toxic air as a result of undermining regulations of coal and other toxic substances. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a pattern. In the Washington Post this morning, as I was reading my phone, we have one CDC delays publishing report showing COVID vaccine benefits. Now you may disagree with that report, but that report was provided with taxpayer money. And the taxpayers ought to have that information available to them.
The other story that I happened to read this morning, early this morning, Trump fought to keep the ballroom fundraising contract secret. Here's what's in it. Apparently, what we do is draft reports, and then if we don't like the results, we say, nope. We're not gonna issue them. That's what the general lady from Florida is saying.
There is a report. It is available. Should be available. This language refers back to the I'm not sure. The chairman said '94.
It's been in the bill since 94. Is that accurate, Miss Chairman? Would you '94?
Speaker 4
Okay. 2014. That's why I was surprised at '94, because, of course, we were in charge of congress that year. In 2014, we weren't. Again, this language is to cover up.
I hear so much talk about transparency and letting the public know what's going on, but here we have three instances where that's not the case. And very frankly, I was shocked when the secretary, I know that's not our subcommittee in health and human services, said that he had a condition preceding his being appointed secretary. What was it that he would not deal with, energy? No matter what the health consequences were, he would not deal with the energy. And a member of our subcommittee, not here right now, asked that question and pressed him on that question.
He said no. That's not my expertise. That's not my jurisdiction. So in that context, I would hope that we could have an amendment approved unanimously by this committee. Said, you got information that's important for parents to have their children healthy?
Then we ought to let them peruse that and make their decision on whether or not they believe that information should be followed. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Luria, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Two years ago, I led a bicameral letter urging the FTC to complete and release an updated version of its report titled Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents. The FTC's last major report was published in 2012, using data from 2009, meaning the most updated data we have on food marketing to children is nearly 20 years old. We know that American children are not meeting basic nutritional goals, and that companies aggressively market unhealthy food and sugary beverages to children. This aggressive marketing includes the food, beverage, and restaurant companies that spend nearly $14,000,000,000 per year on marketing in the United States, with more than 80% of the advertising promoting unhealthy food choices.
On top of that, they get a tax write off for these advertising practices that hurt our children's health, earn them billions in revenue. So we face a dual obesity and diabetes epidemic. It is time we do our part to stop it. I will soon be reintroducing the SOP subsidizing childhood obesity act, which would address the marketing of unhealthy foods by closing the tax loophole that companies use to advertise these products to children. I hope someone in this room will join me as a co-lead.
There is no reason why this legislation shouldn't be bipartisan. This amendment would provide even more information to policymakers so that we can understand what other practices companies are using to pad their bottom lines at the expense of our children's health. Crucially, modern data would also include the impact of the rise of social media and influencer marketing, which has supercharged the food advertising industry. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often claim they want to, quote, make America healthy again, end quote. What better place to start than holding accountable the system that pushes unhealthy food on our kids in the most deceptive way?
Congress must stop letting companies off the hook for negatively impacting children's nutritional health. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentlemen from Maryland's recognized.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. Look. I appreciate the comments. The fact of the matter is, you know, this committee knows for years I've been saying we have to stop the federal government subsidizing junk food. Now I went to add it through the SNAP program.
But these companies depend on the profits they get from those SNAP beverages, sweetened beverages that are sold and subsidized by the federal government. I'm not sure this is the right approach, but I'm glad we're talking about it. I'm glad we're talking about getting our children healthy food and not sending any messages from the government that are contrary to that. And I think that's what we've been doing over the years. So I wanna, you know, I wanna thank the general for bringing the topic up.
We have to talk about it. Is this, you know, this is titled junk food, but then it gets to a lot of other things. If it had been just about junk food, I might have bought into this. But then we went into all the other things at the end of this amendment. We have to have that discussion.
He'll be back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, are there other members wishing to address the amendment? If there's no further debate, I'd recognize the general lady for one minute to close. Thank.
Speaker 3
You, Mister Chairman. This amendment is simple. We've gotta bring transparency to the food marketed to our children. And, respectfully to Chairman Joyce, this is not about Obama era nutrition data. It is about junk food being marketed to our children.
It also directs the FTC to update their report and then publish it. Because our country's childhood obesity crisis continues to get worse, and it has deteriorated since the rider's first inclusion over a decade ago. Chairman Harris and I have discussed this issue over the years and look forward to working with you on this, you know, even beyond this amendment. Our children are not piggy banks for the processed food industry to exploit at the expense of their health and well-being. Parents deserve to know what's in the food their children are eating and that is being marketed to them.
They also deserve to know if these foods are filled with harmful substances, like microplastics and pesticides. If we truly want to make America healthy again, and keep America healthy, it starts with our children. It starts with prevention, and it starts with full, unbridled transparency. The Federal Trade Commission must be allowed to release the findings, update them, and release the findings of the interagency working group to protect the health and future of this country. I urge a yes vote, and I want to just underscore that it starts at the youngest stage of children's lives.
If they start life obese, it is a vexing, difficult challenge and obstacle that is in the way of that child for likely the rest of their life, and we have an opportunity to take steps towards eliminating and reducing those unhealthy eating habits. Thank you so much. I'll go back. Urge adoption.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All supposed to say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. A sufficient number of hands have been raised. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mr. Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar.
I. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday.
Mister Amaday. No. Missus Bice. Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert. Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mister Case.
Mister Siscamani. Mister Siskemani, no. Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Clyburn.
Speaker 7
Clyburn, I. Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mister Cole? No.
Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuéar, Mistine. Mistine, aye.
Mr. Lauro. Mr. Lauro, aye. Mr.
Diaz Bellart. Mr. Diaz Bellart, no. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Elsy? Mr. Elsy? No.
Ms. Escobar? Mr. Espeyat? Yes.
Mr. Espeyat, aye. Mr. Fleishman? No.
Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel? No. Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin?
No. Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest? Mr. Harter? Aye.
Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Mrs. Henson. Mrs.
Henson, no. Mr. Hoyer.
Speaker 7
Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy. Mr.
Joyce. Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Capture.
Mister Lolota? No. Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee?
Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Aye.
Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCollum?
Miss McCullum? I. Miss Ming? I. Ming?
Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore? Mister Morelli?
I. Mister Morelli? I. Mister Morvan? Mr. Newhouse?
Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree?
Aye. Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pokan? Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley?
Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no.
Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong, no. Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke.
Speaker 2
Does any member wish to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from West Virginia. I do not believe the gentleman is recorded.
Speaker 2
Are there other members wishing to record or change their vote? General lady from Oklahoma?
Speaker 2
Are there any other members wishing to record a change of vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. On this note, the ayes are 24, the noes are 30. The amendment is not adopted. Little lady from Maine, Miss Tingray, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My amendment also has to do with the release of a report. So I hope that we can come to an agreement on what is a very simple release of a report. And this amendment is about preserving our history, and I know there are many people in the room who care deeply about the history of this country, and particularly that history that is located here in Washington. Many of us walk or drive past the William J. Cohen federal building every single day.
It's right below the HHS Building here on Independence. It is currently home to the Voice of America. I bet many of you don't realize that it is the home of some of the most significant public art in American history. As part of the New Deal, several federal programs paid artists to create works reflecting American life. It was right after the end of the depression, and it was an important way to preserve our history and also to help put people back to work. The Cohen Building is home to so many masterpieces that were funded by this program.
It's often called the Sistine Chapel of the New Deal. Murals in there have been created by such influential painters as Ben Shahn, Seymour Fogel, Philip Guston. But here's the problem. This administration has put the Cohen Building on a list for accelerated sale. These murals cannot be removed.
They're painted directly on the walls, integral to the structure of the building. And there are many people very concerned that a developer will come in with this prime real estate, tear it down two blocks from the capital, demolish that building, including the priceless art inside. But it doesn't have to be this way. Before the Cohen Building went on sale, GSA did a feasibility study for what a renovation of the building could look like while preserving the murals. Once again, this study is taxpayer-funded.
It was done by federal employees, and it was completed in January 2024. But since then, its release has been prohibited. No one has seen it despite numerous requests, including from members of Congress. So my simple amendment just says to GSA, please release the study. Give us the opportunity to see how we can best preserve these murals.
Everyone, including many outside parties and others, would benefit from seeing what experts at the GSA think is possible to do with this building. I hope you will consider supporting this amendment, and I hope as you do so, you will also think about some of the things we've witnessed in the last year and a half. I won't make any comments about this administration because the administration and I may have slight differences on what we think is good taste or what should be done with the historical buildings. But just ask yourselves, you don't have to answer out loud. But when you heard that the East Wing of the White House had been torn down almost overnight before you'd even heard about it, didn't you feel a little bit bad that no one consulted members of Congress, no one consulted any agencies about what should be preserved or what was in there?
Didn't you feel a little bad that you wouldn't get to walk down those steps again like you had for so many Christmas parties, bringing your family in there, looking at the decorations, that suddenly it was just gone? And that no one consulted you about the ballroom plans that will be built there next? Didn't you feel a little bad when you saw that the Kennedy Center suddenly had a name change, and that we don't know exactly how that building will be renovated? Or the potential plans to paint the old Executive Office building white or build a massive arch at the entrance to Washington DC. These are big, complicated projects that are being done or proposed without the consultation of Congress.
And don't you feel like we should take a little more responsibility for the art and the history that is being changed without our say as co-equal branches? So this is an opportunity to just ask the administration to release a study before yet one more historic site is transformed. One more set of beautiful art is lost to everyone. That piece of our history is no longer preserved. All you have to do is vote yes and say, just preserve, just release this report.
We may choose not to preserve this building. We may choose to put it back on the market, but at least we will know what GSA with taxpayer dollars thought was the best thing to do, and how to best preserve these minerals before they are gone to everyone forever. So I urge a yes vote on this, and I yield back my time.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from Ohio, Mister Joyce, recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.
Speaker 1
But I oppose it. Cohen Building is one of the buildings recommended by the Public Building Reform Board, PBRB, for its disposal. The building has approximately 200,000,000 in deferred maintenance. It's estimated the cost to modernize the building would be over 590,000,000. The PBRB estimates that disposing of the building will save 843,000,000.
We need to make tough decisions now about what we can maintain in a cost effective way and to start the disposal process for those buildings such as Cohen that'll cost the taxpayer more in the long run. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Torris, to address the amendment. Again, as,
Speaker 4
The gentlelady from Maine observes, here's a report prepared at taxpayer expense on how something could be done. Voted upon, passed, and in this year, the report's availability was stifled. I don't know what's in the report. I don't know what it says. They may say what the chairman said, that, look, this is too expensive, and we've gotta get rid of this building.
However, what is wrong with seeing the report? What are you afraid of that we have the American people and the appropriations committee? This is under our jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman. We haven't had a single hearing. GSA has not been up here.
What are we afraid of, ladies and gentlemen? It's a report. It's prepared. This is not about spending more money on another report. It's done.
And we continue, apparently, along the long path of cover-up. Again, I don't know what's in the report. I don't have any idea. It may say, Bill, you ought to be torn down. We ought to do it tomorrow.
The one of the articles that I said that the information on, the removing the West Wing of the White House, excuse me, the East Wing of the White House. West Wing might not be a bad idea, just temporarily. The fact of the matter is that the president knew two months before he tore it down. He, singly, solely, alone, tore down a substantial portion of the White House without any consultation. Aren't we offended by that?
It is not Mar-a-Lago North. It is the White House, the people's house. And yet we put our head in the sand and say, well, Trump wanted to do it, and he's doing it with private sector money, that is secret, not disclose who the donors are. Some have been disclosed, apparently voluntarily. I just do not get it, Appropriations Committee.
If we wanna have any respect, not just in this administration, the next administration, administrations after that, then we will stop coddling this administration and the constituent agencies who refuse to give us information, refuse to testify, and we're in the dark. Is that what we want to be as an appropriations committee? We lament. Oh, well, they're not paying attention to us. Of course, they're not paying attention to us.
They have no consequences for not paying attention to us. This lady's the general woman from Maine offers an amendment which is again saying, we have a report. We'd like to have the information, and we are saying, oh no. We don't want the information. Can there be any conclusion other than we don't want the public to have the information?
I urge support of this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, I too rise in support of the Pingree amendment. Again, it is simply to release the paid-for-by-taxpayer study about this building. I wonder, in God's name, why would you not want that to happen? Amen. Why do we authorize these studies?
Taxpayers pay for these studies. What are you hoping to cover up? Why don't you want to know what's in the report? I commend to you. Take a look.
I went online to take a look at some of the artwork in the building. I actually ask each of you to take a look. It is extraordinary. And I have to admit, miss Pingri, I'll be going to the building soon if it's not shuttered, because I wanna make sure I get my eyes on this historic, gorgeous artwork that tells of a time in our country, a time of extraordinary economic and political challenge. Why would we not want to know what we could better do with this building?
I'll end with this story. In my district, we had a horrific fire in a 100-year-old building. It was a really beat-up building, to be very honest. It was a building that, for decades, people worked, SPS technologies. They worked in this factory.
Generations of people from my hometown worked in this factory, whether it was the World War two effort, right through today, doing really important work. But the building was not something you would think much of. Horrific fire. Fortunately, no one was hurt. But do you know what the manufacturer, the owner of this building, decided to do in honor of this legacy of 100 years of family after family after family having a career there.
They saved. They tore the whole thing down because it was a total loss. They saved signage that they could save, and they saved bricks. Just out of respect for what had happened there for 100 years. And in the redesign of the rebuild, which is magnificent, they are reusing the old signage and the original brick.
Unlike the East Wing, I don't know what was saved there. Can you imagine the history? What could you have done if you were going to repurpose? I remember the gorgeous floors, the gorgeous woodwork. So much there.
Why not make sure we know what the report says about this building, and do everything in our power to make sure we do not lose historic, magnificent art? I commend you. Go online, take a look at the artwork. It's amazing, and it's American. Well.
Speaker 2
Done. Thank you, gentle lady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady from Florida, excuse me, from Maine, is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 9
It's a very big temperature difference. We share an ocean. It's all good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just one more time.
I know I am in a room full of people who care deeply about history. We work in history every day. We have the incredible privilege to be in the building nearly every day of our working lives as we're members of Congress, and we know how important it is to preserve the murals, the structure. I see many of you, proponents of the things that come before our committee, the interior environment subcommittee, the battlefield monuments, the Smithsonian museum, museums and libraries around the country, your local historical society. I know all of you care deeply about history.
So to just blithely write off this huge part of American history because we won't look at the study, and I understand Mr. Joyce's point. This could be a very expensive building. Of course, we've got deferred maintenance. Of course, we haven't taken care of it. We're the federal government.
We're Congress. We don't spend money where we should. We haven't respected this valuable monument, but we don't know what is in this report. It may say, here's a way to preserve these murals. Here's a way to reuse this building for some other public use.
Here's a way to create a new museum that belongs in there, to protect those. We don't know exactly what that is, but we should read the report before we let it go and be torn down. And I yield back, and I urge you to vote yes.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Maine. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I think there is now sufficient numbers. So the recorded vote's been requested. The sufficient number of hands have been raised, the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, I. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday.
Mister Amaday, no. Mr. Spice. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop, aye.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert, no. Mr.
Carter. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Mr. Siscamani. Mr. Klein. Mr.
Klein. Mr. Mr. Cloud? No. Mister Clyburn?
Mister Clyburn? I. Mr. Clyde? Negative. Mister Clyde?
No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole? Cuellar?
Mister Cuellar? I. Mistine? Mistine? I.
Mister Lauro? I. Mister Lauro? Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mr.
Diaz Bollart, no. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards, no.
Mr. Elzy, Mr. Elzy, no. Ms. Escobar, Mr.
Espayat, Mister Espayat, aye. Mister Fleishman. Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel? Yes.
Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? No. Guest? Mr. Harter?
Mr. Harter, I. Doctor. Harris. Mrs.
Henson. Mrs. Henson. No. Mr.
Hoyer. I. Mr. Ivy. Mr.
Ivy. I. Mr. Joyce. No.
Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Captor? I.
Ms. Captor? Mr. Lolota? No.
Lolota? Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, I.
Ms. Letlow? Mhmm. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin, I. Ms. Malloy. Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCollum. Ay. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar? No. Moore? Mister Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? Mr Morelli. I. Mister Mervane. I.
Mervane. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse. No. Miss Perez.
Miss Perez. I. Miss Pingree. I. Miss Pingree.
I. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye.
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, no. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Simpson, aye. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres?
Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye.
Mister Valadao. Mister Valadao? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Aye.
Missus Wasserman, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack?
No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, aye. Miss, mister Shreev? Mister Shreev, no.
Speaker 2
Let's see. Sorry. I was interbanking this. Members wishing to record or change their vote. Gentlemen from Arizona.
Speaker 2
There are others. Seeing none, the clerk's felon. Wait a minute. Is the gentleman recorded? Okay.
Speaker 2
On this vote, the ayes are 29, and the noes are 31, and the amendment is not adopted. A gentleman from Wisconsin. Mister Pocan is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 12
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that it be considered read.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is actually a pretty straightforward amendment. It's saying that until Russ's vote, the director of OMB, comes before the full committee, we would withhold 70% of the funds. We did try to negotiate in the manager's amendment what we did in the MILCON, which was 25%, to have come before the committee. That wasn't agreed to, and maybe it's better because in some ways, we can have this full debate.
This is pretty unprecedented times where we have an executive branch. And, again, this isn't team red, team blue, Democrat versus Republican. We have an executive branch taking away the funds that Congress has approved. Us, both of us, our institution, has approved, whether it's impounding, and I kinda hate that term because it's so insider Washington, stealing the funds, canceling funds that we have through the process we have approved, which is what makes the appropriations committee relevant. Right?
Because we approve the bills, then Congress approves the spending. And if one branch of government that doesn't have that authority according to the constitution does that, then we are at a disadvantage. In fact, this entire process is more about fantasy congress than real congress because we spent 93 hours last year, by the way, in this room with each other, marking up bills. And then if the executive branch just steals the funds, well, that takes away our status as a coequal branch of government. And the reason I wanna have you for the full committee is because these are unprecedented times.
It's not just FSGG where we have the problem, him not coming in front and talking about the budgets that come before us. But, literally, it's every single one of our 12 bills. There have been funds that have been canceled, delayed, or just outright stolen, including, think about the last budget bill we passed unanimously, MillCon. They stole $20,000,000,000 in funds throughout the VA for 16,000 contracts or services. Go down each of our bills, ag, many but 1,000,000,000 in local food purchasing assistance.
CJS, impounded or delayed funding for NOAA for violence against women grants. Energy and water, 24 projects for 3,700,000,000 for clean energy. DHS, Homeland Security, previously impounded. But, again, why? Why did they previously impound?
Don't we have those questions? We should be curious enough. 5,000,000,000 for disaster recovery money. Canceled in the interior. NEA money, EPA money, in labor, health, and human services, LIHEAP money, and community service block grant money, either delayed or impounded.
You could just go down the list of what's out here. We also had Head Start money, NIH, SAMHSA, Milcon, I talked about. National Security state has $600,000,000 for vaccines around the world, polio vaccines, literally, taking away two years worth of funding, not being released by a different branch of government after we've approved it as Congress and HUD, some money around, the EV charging grant clawbacks that were canceled. So what this is really about is whether we as Congress, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but are willing to stand up for our powers. Otherwise, why do we spend 93 hours together?
I love you, some of you, most of you. But ninety-three hours is a lot of time to spend together, to then have another branch of government steal, impound, cancel, delay our funds. So all I'm saying is let's withhold funding until we have him come before all of us. Because in a way, I mean, we have five minutes in the FSGG. I could ask five minutes just about FSGG-related items, but there's a lot of other things that they're doing that we need to figure out.
And I just think this is one where it's pretty much down to whether or not we are gonna stand up for Congress or not. Don't forget, in the future, President Ocasio-Cortez could do things that you may not like. But if they're stealing the funding that you approved and we approved together, then we should stand up to that. But if we set the precedent that this is the new way Congress is gonna be treated, then as an institutionalist, what are we? Right?
We merely suggest this is a suggestion committee. That's not what the constitution says. Then we should change the constitution. But rather than change the constitution, we could just make sure that the appropriate person this is still happening. You know, a year ago, I had a record number of calls.
300 calls a day. We got to 500 calls a day when they were taking the funds. They're still taking the funds. We just don't have Elon Musk jumping in the air while they're doing it. So I just ask you, please take a hard look at this.
I think it's important that we do something different than maybe how we always operate. There's a reason people don't always love Congress. This would be doing something different and making sure we all get answers about the funds that are not going through that we have approved together. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Excuse me. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Spokane. And I oppose this amendment, but not because I disagree with you. I agree that he should come here, and it all should be testifying for we just happen to get our pushed up a little bit in the order this year, but it's not as though he's refused to come. And I told you last week in a hearing with the ranking member that he's gonna come. And a matter of fact, we've been in touch with him, that they're going to come forward.
So I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, that when they say they're gonna do something, they're gonna come do that. If there's an issue with that, then we'll address it. But in the meantime, I would oppose your emotion until Mr. Vote is given the opportunity to actually appear before our committee.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not saying I've had this discussion with, mister Pokem, my dear friend, who's gonna be probably the chair of this committee next year. That this is too high. 70%. We need the OMB.
We need it operating. I'm accused a lot of times, or perhaps not in a negative way, referred to as an institutionalist. I care a lot about this committee. I cared a lot about it when I served on it. And this committee, as you will ask the Ways and Means Committee or Energy Commerce when I was majority leader, got priority to make sure that time was available in June for the bills to be on the floor, so we could pursue regular order.
I offered an amendment on a report language last year, and one of the more senior members of the committee got up and said, well, you know, this is just report language. And very frankly, the administration doesn't pay any attention to the report language. This is why. Mister Vote has, first of all, said that we need a more partisan appropriations process. He's getting that.
That's not good for the committee, and it's not good for the institution. Now mister Vote got $100,000,000 in the reconciliation bill last time. There is talk about funding ICE and border patrol for 10 years in the reconciliation bill to come. I would hope the senior members of this committee, as well as the junior members, said, hell no. Now it's not before our subcommittee, but before another subcommittee, but it is before the appropriations committee.
And to allow the reconciliation process to be operated in lieu of the appropriation committee is I tell you, my friends, we are the authors of our own impotence. If we don't stand up, and it's been made very clear, the administration has no intent of standing up. We ought to fight for the border wall. President Trump, during his first term, wanted the border wall. We didn't want the border wall.
And then when Biden came in, it wasn't that if we had adopted the border wall, he was gonna say, well, the appropriations committee said we were gonna have the border wall, but we're not. Because if that's the case, then why are we spending those 93 hours to make judgments on what we believe pursuant to the constitution, pursuant to article one, it are the priorities of this country. Why are we doing that? I asked my friend, Mister Womack, and he and I are dear friends. I have great respect for.
Speaker 4
Why the hell are we doing this? If, as mister Vote presumes, under article one, we have some power to suggest, but it is article two that gives the president power to spend if we appropriate $100 anywhere between 1 and 100. They're authors of our own impotence. Now this, as I said to my friend, Mister Puquet, when he offered it 75%, I think, is not an appropriate figure. I suggested 25%.
Why? Because we just passed a 25% amendment. And Mister Carter, Judge Carter was for it. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't have happened without Judge Carter. And I applaud him for it, to tell the administration you have got to come before the appropriations committee.
And mister Boat has not called me and said, yeah. I'd like to come before the committee. And the chairman of my subcommittee, whom I have a great relationship with, said in our, well, I don't refer to it as a markup. It's our meeting. I did offer an amendment, a really adventurous activity in the subcommittee.
But I said to him, where's the vote? He said, I can't guarantee that he'll be here. Let me tell you. We cut him 75%. He's gonna get his rear end up here, as he should, as he has a responsibility to do.
In our committees, you know, we thank people for coming up here. Right? They have a responsibility and a duty to come up here. This is the appropriations committee, and very frankly, during my tenure, its authority has plummeted. Vote for this amendment.
It's not gonna pass. You know that's not gonna, the sentence is not gonna take it. And, ultimately, we're all gonna suggest it to be removed because that would not be the responsible thing to do, to cut a whole 75% of the agency. I thank the gentleman for his patience. And I think this is an important point. I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? There's no further debate. The gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the concern I think we have is, and I think we have a great subcommittee, but we wanted to have Doge come before us. And I know that the subcommittee chair tried to, and they never came.
Speaker 12
And now we see these doge bros, you know, with their deposition showing us why they never came. And, you know, mister subcommittee chair, when we did ask, you said I'm only human. I can't make him come. We have the power of subpoena. We can make him come.
But the fact that it's even you had to say that he may not come before us, all the more reason why we need to make sure that the person who's stealing the funds that we're appropriating and making us irrelevant has to show up to answer at least for this. So just trying to give you the tools by sending a message that we're serious. Damn it. Together, we're serious. I understand we're not gonna send that message today, but I do give you all the power we can to possibly get him before us.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any chair of the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Bokan, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this amendment, we're in a kind of unique situation. I again.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the situation that we have now, I'm asking you to try to think beyond it. Again, think about the institutions that were here. But this is an amendment that simply says you can't have a payout or a settlement in litigation with a sitting president. I am guessing our founders never thought this would come up, so it's not addressed.
And I'm not trying to make it about any current situation. But we do have to, every now and then, update statutes. I think, a session or two ago, the statute said, at a president and their wife throughout the law. Well, someday a woman could be president, hopefully sooner rather than later. And that wouldn't be correct unless that woman was a lesbian.
So we had to fix the language, and we did. And, occasionally, you've gotta do that. In this case, maybe our founders never thought of this. I never thought of this prior to about a year ago. But you should not be able to try to sue the government that you're in charge of running and have a person you've appointed making the decision whether or not you get the settlement, because that would be insane.
If I were to sue somehow Congress or my office, and then I'm asking my chief of staff to make the agreement to settle, that doesn't make any sense. Right? And it doesn't make sense for any president with any agency that they could be suing to be able to sue, especially for 10,000,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 or for $1, and then try to have a settlement come out of there that makes any sense, that's fair at all to us. So, again, try to take out any current situation. I've done my best not to mention any current situation, but I think the reality is every now and then we gotta upgrade our statutes, and this is something that our founders didn't plan on.
And maybe we need to fix this and try to take the politics out of it. And I would urge support for this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This language is broad and doesn't consider the impact on future presidents. I don't believe it's a business of the committee to remove any legal protections our public officials are entitled to. Concerns with the Department of Justice should be directed to our colleagues at CJS, and I oppose the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanna thank Representative Pokan for introducing this amendment. Never before in history, to the extent that I can determine, have we had a president so eager to siphon funding from the federal budget into his own bank account. Perhaps one of you will rise and say, oh no. Here's a prior historical example.
We also have never been in a position where the sitting president sues federal agencies and appoints officials who are able to settle these cases with him to his benefit. No president that I have served with has treated the Justice Department as his personal lawyer. In fact, his personal lawyer is heading the justice department. Does anybody care what we're doing with our government? Mister Pocan's amendment would prohibit any funds under this bill from being used to pay a sitting president for settling lawsuits.
He is the government in many ways, and Mister Vote thinks he's the only government. If I sue somebody that I control, who controls a lot of money, and I say to them, settle this case with me. Now that hasn't happened, but the specter of it exists. This amendment is essential to restoring trust in our government and ensuring that taxpayers' resources go to the benefit of taxpayers, not to the benefit of President Trump and his family. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Ivey, is recognized.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. I actually have a bill that I coauthored with Congress and Magaziner that takes an approach to this on a different track. It focuses on the president or vice president having settlements with the private sector for similar kind of reasons. But this is even more egregious, it seems to me.
It's really a fox guarding the hen house kinda scenario, except there's no guarding at all because, as you just heard from my colleague from Maryland, there's no party in the middle of this that can take an objective view and block it with respect to the court or any other party and say, you know what? This is too much of an, the settlement amount is too large. Or even more importantly, he has absolutely no right to the settlement, any dollar. In fact, in some of these instances that I've seen so far, he ought to be paying attorney's fees to the federal government for frivolous litigation. I think it's important for us to make sure that we have arm's length decision making somewhere in this process, and we don't given the current situation.
I think nobody really anticipated the president or the presidency, you know, seeking these kinds of settlements that would lead to personal enrichment. But here we are. And so I think it's important for us to make sure that we do everything we can to prevent that. This is important just from a good stewardship standpoint to make sure that we do this so that the taxpayer's money doesn't get used or misused in an inappropriate way. And with respect to, you know, removing powers from the presidency or the president, that's really not the goal.
It's just to delay it, until such point where he's a private citizen again. You know, statute of limitations on most of these don't run anyway, and I'm sure there's a way to state the statute of limitations if necessary or told the statute of limitations if necessary so that there can be a just stay in court if the president deserve the former president at that point deserves it. But just to allow it to happen like this, I think, is just an obvious risk to the public trust and to public funds. And so I urge support of the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? There's no further debate. The gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, I think when it was opposed by the subcommittee chair, he said it wouldn't affect future, it would affect future presidents. That's the whole idea. It's not just about this president. If we vote no, we make it just about this president.
But the way it's written would affect all future presidents, including President Ocasio-Cortez and others. Right? So just understand that it is actually what it says. And, also, as Mister Ivy said, it still allows them to have a suit after they're not president. But the person they appointed, either a DOJ or the IRS or in the future, could be, Labor or anywhere else, HHS secretary, they can't have their appointee deciding whether or not the person who made their appointment gets a settlement, gets a little financial gain.
So I hope we vote yes, so that we're not saying it is just about the current incident. But if we make it no, I clearly, unfortunately, that's what it's about. So I would urge support, and I yield.
Speaker 2
The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 2
Aye. I'll kind of add them all up. I'll do my best. All those in favor, or all those opposed, say no. No.
I think the no's have it.
Speaker 2
Gentleman has requested a vote. A sufficient number of hands have been raised. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday. Mister Amaday. No.
Mr. Spice. Missus Bice, no. Mr. Bishop? Yes. Mister Bishop, I.
Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter. Mister Carter, no. Mr. Case? Mister Case?
I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Cescamani, no. Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no.
Mr. Cloud. Mister Cloud, no. Mister Clyburn.
Speaker 7
Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole? No.
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuellar?
Speaker 7
Mistine. Mistine, I'm Mr. Lauro. I. Mister Lauro, I. Mister Diaz-Bollart.
No. Mister Diaz-Bollart, no. Mr Edwards. Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elze.
Mister Elze, no. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, aye. Mr. Espeyat ?
Aye. Mr. Espeyat, aye. Mr. Fleishman?
No. Mr. Fleishman? Mr. Frankel?
Yes. Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No.
Mr. Guest? No. Mister Guest? No.
Mr. Harter? I. Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? I.
Mister Hoyer? Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mr. Joyce?
No. Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. Aye. Miss Captor, aye.
Mister Lolota? No. Lolota? Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy, no.
Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar.
Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mister Moore, no. Mister Morelli. I Mister Morelli.
Mister Mervan. Skipped. Mr. Newhouse. Miss Perez. Yes.
Miss Perez, I. Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye.
Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Raschenthaler. Mister Raschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers.
Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong,
Speaker 7
Missus Torres. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Yes. Miss Underwood, aye.
Mister Valadayo? Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No.
Mister Zinke? No. Mister Zinke? No. Mister Shreev?
Mister Shreev? No.
Speaker 2
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Indiana. Mister.
Speaker 2
Are there other members wishing to change or record their vote? Seeing none, clerical tally. Oh, Mr. Calvert.
Speaker 2
Are there any others? Gore Cotali. On this vote, the ayes are 26. The notes are 33. The amendment is not adopted.
Obviously, we're beginning to vote, but we think we have sufficient time to go ahead and try to do another one. So the gentle lady from Florida.
Speaker 2
Frankel is recognized for an amendment. If we have to suspend because of the Vegas lively, we'll come back and resume.
Speaker 14
Alright. Whatever. Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I asked the reading to be dispensed with. Thank you. Before I get on with this very important amendment, which I want all of you to listen to, do not leave.
Yes. I did. Stendi, I do have a remark for you. I've been writing down what I admire about you, seriously. Your knowledge base is amazing.
How you articulate it, extraordinary. Your professionalism, your patriotism, your charisma, and most importantly, your memory. Does he have an amazing memory? I think we all like to have what you're drinking, really. You're fantastic, and it's just been such an honor to serve with you.
And, Mr. Joyce, thank you. I like you too. Not as much, but I do like you. So this is what my amendment does. It's not gonna surprise you.
It strikes the abortion riders in this bill that prohibit abortion coverage for federal employees, retirees, and their dependents under the federal employees' health benefits program, and ban the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide abortion services for low-income residents on Medicaid. And here we go again. My. How many top mister Amade, this was for you and for Guy. But listen.
How many times do we have to keep saying that women, not politicians, should decide whether or when to grow a family? It's I cannot think of a more life-changing decision. A more life-changing decision, whether to bring a precious little person into the world. These riders that I moved to strike are not policy. They are a punishment.
Punishment for federal employees who simply want to make their own private health care decisions. Look around. There were a few of them right here helping us every day. And this is punishment for low-income women in the District of Columbia, denying them care even when the District of Columbia is willing to use their own dollars. Think about it.
We're not just restricting federal funds. We are reaching into DC's own budget, saying, you don't get to decide. And this is just federal overreach at its worst. But let's be clear who these riders hurt the most. Women living paycheck to paycheck, women who cannot travel, women who are already struggling to make ends meet, now forced into impossible choices about their health, their families, and their futures.
And, folks, the majority of Americans support reproductive freedom because it's about dignity, the right to make deeply personal decisions without politicians interfering. It's about equality because without control over our own bodies, women cannot fully participate in the economy or plan their future. And, you know, I'm gonna say this again. The reality is this decision, whether or not to bring a child into the world, whether to start or grow a family, is the most important, probably, decision that a family will make. It's about health care.
It's about real health care guided by doctors, not dictated by the government. It's about freedom, the basic freedom there is. The ability to decide what's best for your own life. We must trust women. We must trust their families.
We must trust doctors, not politicians. Sorry about that, folks. And yet we're singling out federal employees and stripping away their options, and we're denying the District of Columbia the right to spend their own locally raised dollars as it sees fit. We all talk about supporting our workforce. We talk about respecting local control, but these riders do the exact opposite.
They are cruel. They are intrusive. They are wrong. This amendment is about restoring fairness, about restoring autonomy. It's about restoring the fundamental promise that this country, your health care decisions belong to you, not to the government.
I move that we strike these, that's what this amendment does, move to strike these provisions. Alright. Final thoughts on this. I want to ask everyone to stand on the side of freedom, dignity, and basic human rights, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My. I must oppose this general women's amendment. Title six, seven, eight include long-standing provisions that uphold the sanctity of human life, protect religious and moral beliefs, and protect taxpayer dollars from being used for elective abortions. The Hyde Amendment has been in place every year since fiscal year 1984.
Prohibitions on funding for abortions in DC date back to the fiscal year 1980. Removing these riders would set a dangerous precedent with respect to the role of the federal government and the use of taxpayer dollars with respect to the sanctity of life. Moreover, the outcome would be inconsistent with the posture this committee has taken for decades. I don't think that, as a result, my colleagues on the other side want. For these reasons, I will oppose the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Jorge, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I thank the chairman. This is a different amendment. I support the general ladies' amendment, and I want to thank her for her gracious and loving comments. She and I are very close friends, and she is one of the most outstanding, candor producing, people that I have known in this house. And I thank her for her service.
I say this is a different amendment because this is about conscience. This is not about issues on which we can make a determination based upon their practicality, their applicability, or something of that nature. I understand this is an issue on which there are deeply held moral commitments in one's mind, and one has to vote that way. I will vote, because as I have for 60 years, starting in 1967 in the Maryland senate, that a woman ought to have this choice. But I understand there are legitimate reasons in people's minds why that is not right, and so we'll have to vote that way.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentleman from Alabama is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, chairman. I'd just like to speak in opposition to the amendment. Of course, as we all know from what's already been said, the amendment strikes a long-standing funding provision, which responsibly ensures tax dollars are not used for abortion in violation of conscience of taxpayers. And just let me share with you, Marx's poll found that a majority of Americans, 54%, oppose or strongly oppose abortions paid for by tax dollars. And this includes 34% of individuals who identify themselves as pro-choice.
I don't think we need to hide the fact that abortion is a brutal procedure. It ends the life of the unborn and should not be paid for or encouraged in any way by the US government. These protections are common sense. They're longstanding. They're in place to protect life.
And for that reason, I would urge opposition to the amendment. Now you go back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Clyde, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's go back to the founding document that created this nation, our Declaration of Independence. What does it say? And we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Life is the very first right recognized by the Declaration of Independence that created this nation 250 years ago to secure, and it goes on to say, to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men. That means it's the responsibility of the government to protect and to secure life. So the question then is, when does life begin? Life begins at conception. That is when, so born or unborn, the government's responsibility is to protect life.
So I urge a strong no vote on this amendment in Ayl.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Nevada, Miss Lee, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to recognize the ranking member and thank you for your mentorship, your guidance, your friendship, and your leadership. And you will be sorely missed when you're gone. This is a deeply personal issue for me.
And, you know, I grew up in the Catholic faith. I understand the negative position with respect to abortion. But I also am a woman who had three miscarriages, and two of them required D&C. And so when you talk about the sanctity of life, I also want you to consider a woman's life. And, you know, when I look at many of these employees who work for us and work for the federal government, these women who may be in a horrific position like I was, and to say to them, you do not get access to essential medical care.
And I find it completely abhorrent. And I get it if you oppose abortion, but I also think that we owe it to the women who give their service to our country to have access to essential care when they need it. And for that, I support this amendment, I urge you to.
Speaker 2
Thank the general, lady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the general lady is recognized for one No.
Speaker 14
Thank you. I don't wanna embarrass any of the young ladies that are sitting out in the audience, but they too are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I want them to stay alive. Yeah. And you don't know what kind of health care issue is coming up for them.
They know, and their doctors know. And not only that, they are earning their benefits. They are working and paying into a health care system, and earning the benefits. And it is unfair to say a particular benefit's not gonna be allowed to use. And so I just wanna say I'm gonna say this to the young ladies out there on both sides of the aisle.
I don't know who's anywhere that you, I promise you that we're gonna continue to fight for your freedom, your reproductive freedom, and your ability to have a good life. We are trusting you with so many decisions that you make for us every day, and we should trust you with your health-care decisions. I urge everybody to vote for this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any of the chair of the noes have it. Amendment roll call has been requested. Sufficient number of hands. Risen of the clerk will call.
Speaker 7
Mr. Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar.
I. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday.
Mister Amaday. No. Missus Bice. Missus Bice. Missus Bice, no.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? No.
Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No.
Mr Case? Mister Case? I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani?
No. Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud, no, Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn, aye, Mr.
Clyde. Mr. Clyde, no, Mr. Cole. Mr.
Cole, no, Mr. Cuellar. Mistine, aye, Mr. Lauro. Aye.
Mr. Lauro, aye. Mr. Diaz Pollart. Mr Edwards?
No. Elzy? Mister Elzy? No. Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar? Aye. Mister Escobar? Aye. Aye.
Mister Fleishman? No. Fleishman? Miss Frankel? Aye.
Miss Frankel? Aye. Mr. Franklin? No. Guest?
Mister Guest? No. Mister Harter? Aye. Mr. Harter?
Aye. Doctor Harris?
Speaker 7
Mrs. Henson. Mrs. Henson, no. Mr.
Hoyer. Aye. Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr.
Ivy. Aye. Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr.
Joyce? No. Mr. Joyce? Mr.
Captor? Aye. Ms. Captor, aye. Mr.
Lolota? Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, I.
Miss Letlow. Miss Letlow, no. Mister Levin. Mister Levin. Miss Malloy.
Miss Malloy. No. Miss McCollum. I. Miss Ming.
Miss Ming. I. Mister Molinar. No. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. No. Mister Morelli. Mister Morelli. I.
Mister Mervann. Mr Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse. No. Miss Perez.
Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingry?
Speaker 7
Miss Pingry, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, I mister Rashenthaler.
Mister Rashenthaler, no. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mister Rutherford, no. Mr. Simpson?
Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres?
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo. Mister Valadayo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no.
Speaker 2
Are there any members wishing to record or change their vote? Gentlemen from Florida?
Speaker 2
Gentlemen from Tennessee. Okay. There are a lot of people standing here. Gentlemen from Nevada.
Speaker 2
Okay. Joan, okay. Gentlemen, members are advised not to leave again. K. Gentlemen from Indiana.
Speaker 2
Here's the situation we face as the clerk is telling the vote. We have members that I know will be gone for the next vote, unless we move immediately to the next vote. They have other commitments to make. They've advised me. So we're going to try and get the one we would have normally dealt with, Mister Aguilar's by them, you weren't here.
So, obviously, I just wanna make sure that's gonna be a very close vote, that members are all available. They could express their opinion on that. So when we're done, we'll move immediately to your amendment. Once we've dealt with that amendment, then we will immediately recess. Go, and I would ask you to come back as quickly as you can once the vote series is completed.
I'm sorry? We will advise the floor. But I suspect since this is a procedural vote, it's going to be close enough. They aren't doing anything with it until we show up. So they can wait on the appropriations committee with important. On this vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 35.
The amendment is not adopted. K. We'll now move to the gentleman from California, Mister Aguilar, who's recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank you, and I wanna thank the chair of the subcommittee for their professionalism and their conversations with me about this bill. And as my colleagues have said too, I wanna also thank mister Hoyer for his commitment to this committee, this subcommittee, the full committee, the congress, and the country. Steny's been a leader and a mentor for years, and I appreciate his support and friendship.
Steny also gave me the flexibility and the latitude to engage in a discharge petition in 2017 on this very issue, mister chairman. The fundamental language in this bill, colleagues, is unchanged. This is the same language that you have seen. This is the 10th time I have brought this issue to this committee. When Democrats were in control, it was embedded in the base bill.
When Republicans have hold the gavels, we have lost this vote, mister chairman. We have won this vote. We have even tied this amendment once. And I appreciate everyone's professionalism and their willingness to engage in this conversation with me. There are nearly 500,000 individuals who have DACA status.
Whether you agree with our immigration system or not, this the law of the land is that these individuals have a status, and they have had a status for over a decade. The question before this committee and the language in this bill are very simple. Should these individuals who have DACA status be allowed to work for the federal government? Right now, they are prohibited. Within the current laws, they are prohibited from being federal employees. Whether that is park rangers in Glacier National Park or whether that is FEMA workers who show up to disasters in Florida, they cannot work for the federal government.
Some of you may also recall I have a ledge branch bill that is similar language that allows individuals that lack a status to work here. This is government-wide. This is FSGG. And so the fundamental policy discussion is, should these individuals who know of no other country but The United States as their home, should they be allowed to work for the federal government? It's fundamentally that simple.
Some of you have raised issues in the past whether we should do immigration in any form in an appropriations bill. What I would argue to you is, a poison pill is generally a policy rider that we disagree with. We call it a rider when we agree to it. We call it a poison pill when we don't agree with it. And let me give you a few examples of some riders that have been part of our base bills over and over again.
They have become de facto policy because the Congress of the United States has been unwilling or unable to address the underlying issue. Whether it's H2B caps, which I would argue are immigration related, we have changed those caps in appropriations bills, those have lived on. Or whether it is NIH funding, and the overhead costs that the chair and the ranking member have worked on in the past, those changes were made, if I recall, in 2017. And those have lived on as policy, as de facto policy within the appropriations bill. That is the power of this committee, colleagues.
The power of this committee is we can embed language in an appropriations bill that guides the one year that we have, and it has the potential to live on if it is good policy and if the congress of the United States is dysfunctional and can't pass the underlying policy in and of itself. This is simple. This is language you have all seen before. Some of you have been supported. Some of you have been opposed to it.
Some of you have been opposed to it and grabbed me in the elevator, and said that you were supportive of it. Some of you have said that you wished it would have passed, even when you voted against it. I don't care. What I care about is giving these individuals the ability to know of The United States as their only home. The fundamental question that you are voting on today is, should they be allowed to work for the federal government in any capacity?
That's the question before us today. Mister chairman, I thank you for the time, and I thank you for allowing me to bring up this issue. I yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio, mister Joyce, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
I truly appreciate the gentleman's annual amendment. I would just remind my colleagues that restrictions on employment in the federal government have been around long before DACA. This includes limiting federal employment to US citizens, legal permanent residents, a person who has his refugee status or granted asylum who has indicated their intent to become an LPR or citizen, or a US national who owes allegiance to The United States. I appreciate that we're talking about children who have been in this country through no fault of their own. But this amendment deserves more than just an hour-long debate.
We should have our authorizing committees work with us rather than just inserting a line in the FSGG appropriation bill.
Speaker 2
Next gentleman, the gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer's recognized to address the issue.
Speaker 4
I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think, in the previous iterations of this amendment, which are frequent and appropriate in my opinion, I indicated I was sitting next to President Trump during his first term. I was then majority leader of the house and sat next to the president. We talked about DACA. And the president said to me, if you send me a DACA bill, I will sign it.
That was for a payout for just to work for this institution or for the federal government, but because at that point in time, at least, I can't read why he said that. But my presumption is because 80-some percent of the American public believes that these young people ought to be extended a path to citizenship and full inclusion in our country. I've met thousands of DACA students. I'm sure or not students, DACA-situated people. There are doctors, nurses, teachers, business people participating in every part of our society in a very positive way.
And as the gentleman from California says, this is their country. They went to elementary schools and junior high school, high school, colleges, medical school, law schools, other professional schools. They're technicians, business people. And that is why I think the president said to me, you send me a bill, I'll sign it. And we participated with mister McCarthy and some others, mister Durbin and I, and mister McCarthy, a member from the senate, and mister Kelly, who was then chief of staff of general Kelly, chief of staff of the armed forces, sat in that meeting with mister McCarthy and I.
And it was clear that the president had indicated to him, to me, he didn't say this to me, a sympathy for trying to resolve this matter because he had empathy for these young people. And most of them are still pretty young. Some are middle-aged at this point in time, which, of course, to me is pretty young. So I would urge that we extend this, and we oversee the Office of Personnel Management. Now this is broader than just the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Congress is an institution. It's broader. But we have authority over this, and I think this is an appropriate step for us to take, and it is a magnanimous step as well. And I would suggest that the Hispanic community and others are looking very closely at this issue, feeling that these are individuals who came to America. That was not a choice to do anything violative of our laws.
They did not have that option. And this is the right thing to do. It's the magnanimous thing to do. It's the thing that, very frankly, Ronald Reagan did in the 80s. Let's do it again.
Let's show that the heart of America is still open. Let's show the world that America still values this nation of immigrants.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from Florida, Miss Wasserman Schultz, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also rise in strong support for the amendment offered by my good friend, mister Aguilar. Dreamers have been barred from public service or, in most cases, even serving in our country, their country, and the military for far too long. This exclusion is clearly flawed and wrong, and treatment of dreamers has only gotten worse as the Trump administration halted processing, leaving hundreds of thousands without work authorizations, financial security, or certainty. We've heard report after report of DACA recipients being arrested, detained, or even deported by this administration despite following the law.
That is shameful. And rejecting this amendment would add insult to injury. Since I was first elected, I've had the honor and privilege to represent Dreamers, and I've had Dreamers as interns and fellows in my office. I can personally attest, as nearly all of us could, that dreamers are just as patriotic, dedicated, and capable as any other person I've hired in my office or your offices, if not more so. These are people who are every bit as American and who want to answer the call to serve their country in public service.
They are also eligible to work in this country, and they pay taxes in this country. Why should they be excluded? The average DACA recipient arrived in the United States at age seven and has lived here for more than 20 years. Not only have they lived here for longer than in their country of birth, but that also means that many dreamers wouldn't even remember life before they arrived in the United States. The United States is their home.
Our laws currently require that people working in the United States are lawfully present to live and work here. Well, DACA provides protections that allow a recipient to live and work here. So what is the issue if dreamers are legally allowed to work for the United States? The treatment of dreamers in the federal government has nothing to do with protecting the institutions of government or fixing our immigration system. It is just another way to embed anti-immigrant extremism in our government.
It is a dereliction of duty to turn away qualified applicants simply because they are DACA recipients, leaving talented applicants behind in favor of another candidate. We should break down barriers to employing qualified legal immigrants. It makes all of us better off, and it encourages people to pursue legal status in the United States. We should encourage dreamers to contribute to our country, not threaten to kick them out and separate them from the only country and communities that they know. This bill carries over a grievous mistake that we can fix, and brings us one step closer to ending the grave miscarriage of justice that has shut dreamers out for far too long.
For all of these reasons, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Alright, gentlemen, lady. The gentleman from Texas, Mister Cuellar, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Look. These are the types of individuals that we want. They don't have criminal records.
They're working. They got an education. And if there's anybody that we are allowing or the folks that have been here, and they really don't know their own country. I've talked to dreamers. If they go back to Mexico or wherever they might be from, they don't know the country.
The only thing they've known is the United States of America. You can't say where they broke the law. I mean, literally, what happened was their parents brought them over. They brought them over here. And, again, the only thing they know is the United States of America.
And, again, if we are gonna be allowing anybody to come in, those are the folks that don't have a criminal record. They're young. They're, you know, they provide a lot to our economy. They're soldiers. They're nurses.
They're teachers. They're providing to our economy. So let's, please, I ask you to please consider supporting this amendment. This is something that I know in your heart, it's the right thing to do. So I ask you to please protect the gentlemen, the, you know, the young men and women that have been here, and ask you to support this amendment.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York, mister Espriot, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 19
I rise in support of this amendment. Mister chairman, I wanna commend the gentleman from California for introducing this amendment again. This is an amendment that has been introduced and passed in the past. It is a common-sense amendment that says that DACA has been a transformative aspect of the lives of 500,000 young people. Half a million young people that are nurses, teachers, small business owners, homeowners, and close to a thousand of them have been members of the armed forces.
Now hear that. Here are young people that don't have that are not US citizens and yet are seeking to give up their lives and be part of the United States Army. And the army recruited them because of their expertise in the medical field or command of languages that was needed in the armed forces. And they went there, and they put their lives on the line for the only nation that they really know. In fact, as was said by my colleague previously, some of them don't even speak the language of their native country.
They have no connection whatsoever with family members or the towns or villages where their parents were born. They are Americans, for one thing, a piece of paper, a green card. And so these young people are also some of the most law-abiding residents in the country. The numbers show that they abide by the law in far greater terms than the average American, and I may add, probably even than members of Congress. And so what a great thing to do for America, to give these young people a chance, an opportunity to be part of this great experiment.
And, they choose to work in federal employment, which is not a place where you're gonna get, you're gonna become a millionaire. It's a service. It's a public service. The nature of it, the mystique of it is that the public sector, you give back. You work, yes, you get pay, yes, you get benefits, but you also give back.
So these young people also want to give back. I believe that they are important to the future of our nation. In fact, I believe that they are an intricate part of our nation. And for that reason, I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
Speaker 2
That you might. Thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen from Wisconsin, mister Pokem is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, there's a vote on the floor, but I don't give a damn, because I think this is something that deserves the debate. We should have had the time for it, so I'm gonna make the time for it. In fact, I should have debated this every year that Mr. Aguilar has brought this up. You know, we had an intern in our office who's a DACA recipient and talked to her very much about how her life is affected every day, and seeing DACA recipients that now are getting deported in some cases, and then there's a lawsuit on it, all the rest.
I mean, these are people who, in many cases, could have been here since 2 weeks old, 2 years old. They don't know the country they have come from. They don't speak the language of the country they've come from, and they are here. And as all the other folks who've talked about this said, are an important, in many ways, more important part of our society because they are living their life under this risk of what everyone has to deal with these days. If you look a little different or if you sound a little different, you might be at risk.
But to allow people into our federal employment, I mean, if I have someone now as an intern because we now pay, I can't necessarily do that. And that doesn't make any sense. So, you know, to rush a debate about this is a choice, but I'm choosing to stand up, and I should've, quite honestly, every single year. And I think we all should stand up for folks in our districts who are in this situation. But for us to not act on this in a way that respects the many constituents that each and every one of us has in our districts, this is not about the immigration debate itself at all.
This is about people who, again, have been here virtually all their lives, and now suddenly we are making a decision to treat them very differently, I think, than they had signed up for. And, I hope more people will talk out about this. I don't wanna make this a rushed debate because of a previous question. This is important. It's worthy of the respect of this committee and this congress, and, I think it's something that is worthy of having a thorough debate about.
And, I know the subcommittee chair said it'd be an hour-long debate. We're not at an hour. I don't know if they'll wait for an hour, but I'm looking at the numbers, and it hasn't moved for a while from 179 to 179. So I hope this is something that we can just do the right thing on. We did the right thing yesterday on a bill.
We passed one of the 12 bills out unanimously, because we did our jobs. And this is something we could do again to show the importance of the committee, that we're doing our jobs. So, I just urge everyone to not rush this, to give it the full consideration it deserves. And, I wanna thank Mister Aguilar for introducing this, and I will yield back, Mister Chairman.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. A gentlelady from California. Miss Torres is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 20
Thank you, chairman. The average DACA recipient arrived in the US at age seven and has lived here more than 20 years. Twenty years. Why? No fault of their own.
Our government has failed them in many ways to approve their application and has kept their dream in a black box. It is unfortunate in my office. Right now, within the last two weeks, we have had 28 calls due to a five month backlog, a backlog created by this administration. These are public servants. They know no other country.
This is where they grew up. They don't have a criminal record. They have a public service record, a long, lifelong public service record of volunteering in their communities, in their church, in their school, doing any job to help improve the quality of life for the people in their community, their neighbors. The least that we can do is ensure that the people who are so committed to our country and have such great ethical work priorities that we give them an opportunity to fulfill their dreams. And if not now, then when?
And with that, mister chairman, I urge my colleagues to finally support this amendment from my colleague from California. Let's move forward. Let's not continue to be the speed humps and the walls into the future of these young people that are as American as any one of our children. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Jim Lately. The gentleman from Texas, Miss Escobar, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I get to the amendment, I want to join in the chorus of colleagues who are praising the ranking member, Mr. Hoyer. I don't know if I'm gonna speak on any other amendment, so this is my one opportunity to say thank you, Steny, for your leadership and for how you have served our country, how you have served your colleagues, and for the friendship that I have. And I know many of us have really enjoyed it. You will really be missed.
I'm glad we have the rest of the year to work together, but, seeing as this is your last markup, just or leading the last markup, really appreciate your service. And thank you to my colleague, Miss Draguilad, for bringing up this amendment. To the subcommittee chairman who mentioned that this is better debated in an authorizing committee. I am so eager to debate this in an authorizing committee. I am so eager for us to come together and talk about this as a Congress.
I am the coauthor of the only comprehensive immigration reform bill in the House right now, which is bipartisan. And I can tell you the American public is eager for congress to do its job on this issue and to bring some common sense reform to our outdated immigration system. But this amendment really is not about that broader debate. This amendment is about an opportunity that we have as appropriations members to send a message and to right a wrong. Miss Torres, our colleague from California, talked about the average age that DACA recipients are when they come to this country.
Seven years old. And there's over half a million DACA recipients in the country. There, by some estimates, there are as many as 800,000 in our country. And if you've ever Betty and I were just talking about the stories that we've heard from DACA recipients about when they discovered that they were not like all the other kids in their school or all the other kids on the playground, the moment that they discovered that they're different because they were brought to our country by their parents who were seeking a better life for them. And the limitations that they live with, the discrimination that they live with, the struggles that they live with, are pretty extraordinary.
It creates a resiliency that I'm sure they would love not to have to create, but it creates an incredible resiliency among these young people. And when they want to serve their nation by serving here in the capital with us, the barriers that have been put in front of them, despite the discrimination they've had to endure, despite the obstacles, they want to come and serve. And as Mister Espayat mentioned, it's not like it's buckets of money. You can ask any of the young people who sacrifice to come and work for us and with us. They do it for the love of country.
So I know we're not gonna fix the broken immigration system here today, in this committee. I hope anyone who's interested in a bipartisan common sense fix will come and talk to me or any of the cosponsors in this room of the only bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill we have. And I hope we get to that one day. I hope we get to that in this congress. But what we can do today, right now, is open up the opportunity for those young people who want to come and serve their country by working with us and for us.
Thank you, Miss Draguilad, for your persistence in bringing this forward. I'm proud to support this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentle lady from New Jersey. Miss Watson Coleman is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 22
Little did I think I'd be speaking today, but I cannot speak. First of all, let me say to Steny Hoyer, you've always been kind and a mentor and just true to your beliefs, and a true Democrat in the good times and the bad times. To Representative Aguilar, thank you for your steadfastness. If anybody doesn't know it, look at me. I'm a black woman in America, and I know what discrimination looks like.
And this denial of individuals who've come from other countries, countries of color, countries of torture and fear and everything necessary to make sure that the babies you have, the children that you can, you get them out, and you get them to this place that says, give me your tired, your poor, your heart. Mass is yearning to be free. To a nation that says it's Christian in so many respects but fails to deal with Jesus said in terms of dealing with your strangers and dealing with those who are least among us. This is backdoor discrimination because the people who are being denied the opportunity to do the work that they're qualified to do are brown people. I know the president of the United States wants to whiten America because he somehow thinks that America was ever just white.
It never was. It never is, and it never will be. And to deny these young people and not so young people who've been here from the age of seven, even brought here in swaddling clothes, even brought here in, just infancy, to deny them the opportunity to work anywhere, that they're capable, able, and qualified to do so. Is it because they are not white and not born in this country? That is discrimination.
It ought to be disgusting to you all. It ought to be absolutely disgusting. It is hypocritical, and it's not about America making America great again. It's about trying to make it wider. I support this amendment.
I am happy to associate with this amendment. And if I miss a vote because of this amendment, then so be it. We'll survive that, but we need to survive this. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. If there is no further debate, the gentleman from California is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 17
Mister Chairman. And I wanna thank all my colleagues, for caring about this issue, listening about this issue, to my colleagues who supported, and spoke in favor of this. I thank you. Again, back to, we can't solve every immigration piece in this room. We understand that.
And I don't know if we trust the judiciary committee to solve all of these issues in the next couple of months either. This is an opportunity for us to solve this issue. As I mentioned, the H2B caps have been solved in this room before. I know maybe the ranking member cares about this issue. In 2014, the Blooming Hour Rohrbacher, writer, was included that ensures that doctors prescribing medical marijuana are not held responsible for decisions made.
All of these have been done in this room. And the fundamental question before this group, what we'll be asked to vote on now, is whether you want young people who were brought here to this country at no fault of their own to be penalized and to have roadblocks put in front of them that would only allow them to work for the federal government. That's the fundamental issue. I wanna thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I appreciate that we have all now missed a vote, having this debate. And thank you, mister chairman, and yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 2
All opposed, say no. No. Continue to chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. A sufficient number of hands have been raised.
The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, I, mister Alford. Mr. Alford?
No. Mister Amadeus? Mister Amadeus? No. Mr. Spice?
No. Mister Bishop? Yes. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert?
Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No.
Mister Case? Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, aye. Mister Klein.
Mister Klein, no. Mr. Cloud. Mister Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, aye.
Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar? I. Miss Dean?
I. Mister Lauro? I. Mister Lauro? Mister Diaz-Bollart?
Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Mister Edwards? Mr. Edwards, no.
Mr. Elzy. Mr. Elzy, no. Ms.
Escobar. Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espeyat.
Mr. Espeyat, aye. Mr. Fleishman. Mr.
Fleishman, no. Ms. Frankel. Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mister Guest? No.
Mr. Harder? Mr. Harder? I. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer?
Aye. Mr. Hoyer, I. Mr. Ivy.
Mr. Ivy. Aye. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Captor. Aye.
Mr. Lolota. Mr. Lolota. No.
Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye. Ms.
Letlow. Miss Letlow? No. Mr. Levin?
I, mister Levin? I miss Molloy. Miss Molloy? No. Miss McCullum?
Miss McCullum? I miss Ming. I, mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No.
Mr. Moore? Mister Moore, no. Mister Morelli. Mister Morelli, I'm Mister Mervann.
Mister Mervann, I'm Mister Newhouse.
Speaker 7
Miss Perez. Yes. Miss Perez, I'm Miss Pingree. Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pocan?
Aye. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley? Aye. Mister Rashenthaler?
Mister Rashenthaler? No. Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? No.
Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford? No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson?
No. Mr Strong? Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Speaker 7
Missus Torres, I'm Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, I'm Mr. Valadao. Mister Valadao, I'm Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, I'm Mrs. Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I'm Mr. Womack.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? No. Mister Zinke? No.
Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev? No.
Speaker 2
Does any member wish to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical talent. I think that is correct.
Speaker 2
On this vote, the ayes are 30, the noes are 32. The amendment is not adopted. We'll reassemble after the vote series is done. So the committee is now in recess. Please return quickly after the vote series, if you can.
Thank you. The great luncheon rebellion, which is fine. And, sorry again about what happened, but it was just timing, trying to make sure everybody had an opportunity to vote and participate in an important issue. So with that, the gentle lady from California is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer an amendment, and ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 20
Thank you. My amendment, chairman, would prohibit the federal government from hiring or employing anyone, including those included in president Trump's pardon of January 6 insurrectionists. Individuals who violently forced entry and attacked our Capitol police officers in a failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election. January 6 was a violent attack by a vicious mob trying to overturn a free and fair election. They set up a noose and gallows on the Capitol grounds and called for the hanging of Republican vice president Pence and the killing of police officers, the same US Capitol police that kept us safe here every day.
Five Capitol police officers lost their lives as a result of January. More than 150 officers sustained injuries. Yet President Trump, on the first day and the first hour of that day, after being inaugurated, pardoned more than 1,550 participants of the January 6 insurrection, including those convicted of violently assaulting police officers. Daniel DJ Rodriguez plunged a stun gun into the neck of US Capitol Police officer Michael Fanon, causing the officer to suffer a heart attack and traumatic brain injuries. Rodríguez was sentenced to over 12 years in prison for attacking a police officer with a taser, and Trump pardoned him.
Patrick McCoy the third used a stolen police riot shield to crush officer Daniel Hodges in a metal door frame, leaving the officer trapped, bleeding, and unable to breathe. He was given a 7 year sentence. But last week, Trump's DOJ moved to throw out the seditious conspiracy conviction of 12 leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, the far-right extremist groups who coordinated the insurrection. For those, pardon, dozens had prior convictions or pending charges for crimes, including rape, sexual abuse of a child, domestic violence, manslaughter, production of child sexual abuse material, and drug trafficking. Last week, David Daniel, a man pardoned by Donald Trump, pled guilty to child sexual abuse of multiple victims, one of them under the age of 12.
And just this past March, Andrew Paul Johnson, another insurrectionist, was sentenced to life in prison for child sex crimes. Johnson had promised hush money to one of his little victims, money he expected to receive from the DOJ moving to throw out the seditious convictions. In April, David Toxxi was sentenced for possessing more than 100000 child sexual abuse images and videos. His lawyer tried to argue that the case should be dismissed because of the pardon Trump gave him. That is despicable.
Last October, nine months after Trump's pardon, John Ibanuelos was arrested on charges of kidnapping, and guess what? Yes. Sexual assault. He is accused of trapping his victim in his home, beating her, strangling her, and sexually assaulting her. January belongs in a prison, full stop.
They have absolutely no right to be working in our federal government. We denied federal opportunities for young people obeying the law, DACA, dreamers. But yet, we give a license to continue to commit crimes to these January friends of insurrectionists. Hardworking taxpayers' dollars should never be funding the salaries of criminal sexual predators who try to overthrow our democracy. But that's already happened.
Last summer, the Trump administration hired Jared Weiss, a January 6 insurrectionist who was caught on police body-cam footage urging riders to kill police officers on the Capitol grounds, calling the officers Nazis and Gestapo. Members, I urge you to support this amendment. We cannot continue to utilize hardworking taxpayers' dollars to pay these disgusting people that try to overthrow our government. And with that, I yield to the chair.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlelady. Before we go on, I know many members will be aware of this, but we just lost one of our most valued colleagues, David Scott, who passed away. I know many of you obviously knew and worked with David. I actually should say Chairman Scott, distinguished chairman of the AG committee, just a remarkable guy. And, I would ask before we go on, we observe a moment of silence for him.
So, thank you very much. Very sad. With that, chair recognizes Mr. Joyce to respond to the amendment. I oppose this amendment.
Speaker 1
Article two of the constitution provides the president of The United States with the sole authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against The United States. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to include the power to grant pardons and combinations of sentences. Every president except William Henry Harrison and James Garfield has used this unique authority, and they have no requirement to consult anyone on such decisions. Hours before his administration ended, President Biden set a precedent by pardoning individuals he determined were vulnerable. Regardless of our personal opinions on the actions of an individual, the constitution provides for this process, and the legal system upholds it.
Nothing in the current law prevents convicted felons from working within the United States government, let alone persons who have had their sentences legally commuted. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
The question is not whether the president had the authority to do what he did. The question is, what did people do? What did these people who were either convicted or pled guilty and found guilty do? Mister chairman, 01/06/2021 was one of the darkest days in the history of our country and of our institution. The president of the United States invited people to Washington DC for the express purpose of stopping the steel.
He then proceeded to incite those people in front of the White House, the White House that he is now dismembering. He then, after inciting that mob, said, I want you to go down to the Capitol, stop the steal, and a direct quote is, fight like hell. This was not an act of a president of the United States to suggest that people involve themselves in petitioning their government. It was an incitement to destroy their government, undermine the constitution of The United States, and to have the result, the loss of life by some officers, the inbed injury of others, and to send a message around the country that the constitution should be undermined by force. That is treason.
And the rationalization of treason is a danger to our nation, and an excitement to others to do the same. The president said that he would pardon some 1,500 people who were found guilty or pleaded guilty, either by a jury of their peers or by a judge or by their own admission. The president had said during the course of the campaign to the Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. Why did he pardon these people over the objections of some of his supporters? In my view, it is because he wanted them to stand by and stand back.
And as a result, he pardoned them so that they would be out of prison. I don't think there's a previous example of this action by any president of the United States. This is an incitement to the extent that people can rationalize, well, if he calls us again to Washington, if he loses his hope to violate the constitution again and be elected a third time. Or perhaps, as he said, if you elect me, you won't have another election. That's a quote.
I don't know exactly what he meant by that, but it is ominous. And if we, as a congress, continue to pretend that was just another day in Washington, we undermine our oath and our country. This amendment says we will not rationalize it by having people who plead guilty, found guilty, pardon or not, serve in the institution that they threatened on January 26. Excuse me. 01/06/2021.
But I fear that group of 1,500 people is gonna watch this committee and see some 33 or 34 people say it was okay. We'll forget it. Come work with us. The ladies' amendment simply says we are not going to rationalize insurrection. We're not gonna stand by, stand back, and stand by while this occurs.
I urge us all to stand united and say this conduct is impermissible in America. You go to the ballot box, you debate, you resolve differences peacefully. Support this amendment.
Speaker 2
Are there other, excuse me, members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry. Gentlemen from New York.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, before I begin, I wanna add my voice to those who've already spoken on behalf of the ranking member of the subcommittee on his extraordinary leadership and service to this country. He's been a great friend and a mentor to all of us, and just appreciate his passion and dedication, commitment to this country, and his long service to the institution, which we care deeply about, and to our country. So thank you, Mr. Hoyer. I rise.
Just to add my voice to my friend and colleague, Miss Torres, who I have the privilege of serving. Committee on house administration has responsibility for federal elections under our jurisdiction and to that of mister Hoyer's. You know, it's remarkable for those of us and many of us in this room. We're here on January 6, 2021. It's remarkable to recount those days and to think about the extraordinary events that unfolded where people would come into this sacred citadel of democracy, the US Capitol, by force, breaking windows, pushing past police officers, leading to, as Miss Torres has recounted, the death of those charged with defending this place on the day that we were going to certify the electoral college results.
And the idea that for February and, at that point, 26 years or so under this constitution, we had observed the peaceful transfer of power from party to party, from literally the day that John Adams turned the keys to the presidency over to Thomas Jefferson. First time a party had transferred authority, and we did it without a single bullet being fired, without a drop of blood. And that day was traumatic not only to those of us here, but traumatic to all Americans. And then the notion that the president would offer a pardon. By the way, some of these pardons were the most violent acts you can imagine.
Some of these people were pardoned have been since pardoned a second time for additional violations of law. These are people who the justice department has suggested should receive pardons for acts completely unrelated to January 6. One as far as commission of crimes in California. I mean, it is the insanity of the whole response. The notion that the president wants, first of all, to not even put any basis or to have any faith in our democracy and the transfer of power.
Him even suggesting a few weeks ago that he regrets not calling out the national guard in 2020 following his defeat. Can you imagine the National Guard being called out because you didn't like the results of an election? It's astonishing. And yet many of us sit and act as this is a normal day. First of a normal day at the Capitol, and secondly, a normal event that the president would call out a mob to attack the president's search for the vice president with the chant of hang Mike Pence, and we act as though it didn't happen.
And the president would like to believe it didn't happen. He'd like to believe the 2020 election didn't happen. It's what, you know, my five-year-old grandson would do about something he didn't like that happened. Just kinda, you know? But that's about the emotional maturity right now of someone who would have done this, would have issued these pardons.
But, ultimately, it's about this. What's the accountability going to be? We don't deny the president has the power and the constitution to issue pardons. Okay, he doesn't want to hold them accountable. He's willing to look past it.
He's willing to, in fact, encourage them perhaps to do something very similar. But what accountability will we hold these people to? This is the way we do it. This is the most meaningful thing we can do. Certainly not, the thing that will meet the moment, certainly not commensurate with what they did that day.
But this is a small gesture to the American people to say, we remember, we understand, we recognize the danger and the fragility that our democracy went through on that day. It seems like a very small gesture. The least we could do is say they're not going to come back into employment. This government is not gonna pay them for the service after what they did. It seems an entirely appropriate response.
I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote in the affirmative. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 20
Thank you, sheriff. Members, I'm not asking for us to block the president from pardoning anyone, including these people that committed these horrific crimes, cop killers, people that try to undermine our election. Government workers, federal workers, are public servants who should be respected. And it is sickening to think that a violent insurrectionist, someone who was part of a violent mob, who urged the killing of our officers, was actually paid, a federal employee paid by my constituents' hard working tax dollars. We cannot allow that.
And today, I'm asking you to stand up for those public servants that come here every single day and ought to have the honor to work side by side with colleagues that respect the law, that respect public service, not sexual child predators. Please vote for the bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentle lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Pain and the chair of the nose have it. Hands have been raised. A few more, please. Sufficient number.
The, for a roll call vote. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mr. Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford. Mister Amaday? Mr. Spice? Mr. Spice?
No. Mister Bishop?
Speaker 7
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
No. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Siscamani.
Mister Klein. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud. No. Mr. Clyburn.
Mister Clyburn, I. Mr. Clyde. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar, aye. Mistine? Mistine, aye.
Mister Loro? Mister Loro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mister Diaz-Bollart? No.
Mister Edwards? Mister Elsy? Mister Elsy? No. Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar? I'm Mr. Esbayat? Mister Esbayat? I'm Mr. Fleishman. Mister Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel? Mr. Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest, no. Mr. Harter? Aye.
Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson, no. Mr. Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy?
Mister Ivy? Aye. Mr. Joyce? Aye. Mr. Joyce?
No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor? Aye.
Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee? Miss Lee, I.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. I. Mr. Levin. I.
Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy. No. Miss McCollum. I.
Ming. Aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Mister Molinar?
No. Mr. Moore? No. Mr. Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Mervane?
Aye. Mister Mervane? Aye. Mr Newhouse? Mister Newhouse, no.
Miss Perez? Aye. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree? Aye.
Miss Pingree? Mister Pocan? Aye. Pocan? Aye.
Mister Quigley? Aye. Mister Russenthaler? Mister Russenthaler? No.
Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers, no. Mister Rutherford? Mr. Rutherford? No.
Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong? Mr Strong?
No. Mister Torres? Mister Torres? I. Miss Underwood?
I. Miss Underwood? I. Mister Valadayo? Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke? No. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev?
No.
Speaker 2
Any members wish to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Missouri?
Speaker 2
We have other members wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. Thank you. On this vote, the i's are 27 and the o's are 31. The amendment is not adopted.
General lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 20
I rise to offer an amendment, and ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 20
Chairman, my amendment would direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate surveillance pricing, so families are not ripped off at the grocery store. Surveillance pricing is when retailers use digital tools and your data, like the location data on your phone, shopping history, and other information, to quickly change prices or offer different prices to people for the same goods and services. A December 2025 report revealed that Instacart, for example, the largest online grocery market, used surveillance pricing without customers knowing anything. Grocery prices varied by as much as 23% for each item from one Instacart user to the next. After the report came out, they were caught.
Instacart stopped using that tool. But there are reports that the practice is coming to our grocery stores. Big grocery stores like Walmart and Kroger are already rolling out digital price tags, so-called electronic shelf labels that can change prices in an instant. Imagine if the price of eggs changed between the time that you enter the grocery store to when you get to the aisle, or the price of milk going up because the store knows that you're driving back from picking up your kids and you're in a hurry. Americans are already struggling to afford groceries.
Surveillance pricing means unexpected price hikes for our constituents who are just trying to get by. Families should not have to worry about prices going up and down every minute or changing based on the data that is on your phone. My amendment directs the FTC to investigate predatory surveillance, pricing, and report back to us. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. The FTC is already in the process of conducting a study on surveillance pricing, and adopting this provision will be duplicative and divert important resources from the commission's ongoing work. In addition, last year's House report included a provision directing the FTC to report to the committee on the state of retail competition in the United States, with a specific focus on the grocery industry. This report will provide Congress with important information on the factors inhibiting robust competition and how to lower prices for consumers.
While I appreciate the general ladies' amendment, the FTC is already doing important work in that area. I believe we should wait until we receive the forthcoming 6 p report on surveillance pricing and the report on retail competition from the FY '26 bill before we require them to do a potentially duplicative study. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If they're already doing this research, then they won't have anything to duplicate. They can continue their study, come up with findings, submit it to us. If they are doing this study, they're doing it because it's a problem, and they should be doing it. And this amendment will encourage them to continue to do it and to get us a copy of it.
Mister chairman, at 10 PM when a child is sick and their parents are in need of cough syrup, the prices online, in many instances, are somehow at that hour drastically higher than they typically are during the day when urgent care and the drugstores are open. Those are facts. I don't think that's fair, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any American that thinks it's fair. Dynamic pricing is a dangerous to our free and fair marketplace of goods and services. It risks discrimination and unfair targeting of certain groups by manipulating the digital price tag.
You get one price, I get another. Somebody else gets another. American families need to know what the price of an item is. I'll have the item change its price based on who is buying. Now nothing stops people from changing their prices.
I don't know about your gas stations, but almost invariably, they change the price at the same time. And if it's $3.99 at one station, I find it's almost $3.99 or 98 or 97 at every other gas station. They can do that. But having you go into the gas station and find out who you are, what you are, do you have a lot of money, that price at the pump going up or down depending upon that, that's what this amendment deals with. I wanna thank the gentlelady from California for offering this amendment, which directs the Federal Trade Commission.
And if they're already doing, hooray. To study the hazards posed by dynamic pricing, particularly in the grocery stores. Why particularly in grocery stores? Because families have to eat, and families have to have perhaps late at night medical services or prescription drugs or nonprescription drugs. And it shouldn't be higher at 3 AM or 3 PM than it is at 3 PM.
Unless, of course, prices have been changed for everybody twenty-four hours a day. So I urge us to, even if we're sending a message, we're not good at sending messages anymore. But even if we're sending messages about this dynamic pricing, it is discriminatory. And I think we ought to send this message that the lady wants to send, and I think it's probably useless to urge us all to vote, but I'm gonna do it anyway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? General Lady from Washington is Perez recognized.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've spoken before about what it's like right now to raise a small child. I've got a four-year-old, and let me tell you, cough syrup is $20 a bottle right now. Prices are just they have gone through the roof, and I can absolutely see the reality where you go at 3AM and things cost more than they ought because they know they can. And then let me tell you, if you're not as sensitive to prices, they're still coming for you.
Your neck is still on the line. Just wait and see what happens to your favorite, you know, power tool supply store. My grandpa, Ed Grizzly. I think about him going into Grizzly and buying a table saw, or a band saw, or some new bits. That is actually where a lot of this is happening, also.
Charging quilters more, shutting down craft stores, losing the tactical art, the tactile arts out of this country. This is going to spread like wildfire, and we have a chance to nip it in the bud now. And I urge you all to consider voting yes on this. And I thank the general lady for bringing this very important resolution to the floor. Amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, General Lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the general reading is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 20
Thank you. Surveillance pricing is something that affects every single one of us and our constituents, and it's something that we need to investigate and understand before we see it at every grocery store. If the Federal Trade Commission is already doing a report, they should say so when we ask these questions. They should come to the committee and answer some of these questions. But none of that is happening.
So unless we ask them directly to provide this report to Congress, we are never going to know if our constituents are being ripped off at the grocery store, online sales, or anywhere else. And, you know, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And thank you so much, Steni, for all that you have done. You continue to be the one and only member of congress that I've invited, and welcome to my district. Your pride program of making it in America resonated very loudly in my community where hardworking individuals are not looking for a handout.
They're looking for a good middle-class job to help them get ahead. So thank you for all of the work and your service to our country. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. The opinion to share the nose habit?
Speaker 2
Every shot. Just a few more hands up, please. Just okay. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
The clerk will call.
Speaker 7
the roll. Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mr. Aguilar.
Mister Aguilar. I. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No.
Mister Amaday. Missus Bice. Missus Bice, no. Mr. Bishop?
Speaker 7
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case? Aye.
Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Klein? Mister Cloud?
Mr Cloud? No. Mister Clyburn? Alright. Mister Clyburn, aye.
Mister Clyde? Mister Clyde? No. Mister Cole?
Speaker 7
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuellar? No. Miss Dean?
Miss Dean? I. Mister Lauro? I. I.
Mister Lauro, I. Mister Diaz Ballard? Mr Edwards? No. Mr Edwards?
No. Mister Elzy? No. Mister Elzy? No.
Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar? Ay. Mister Esbat? Escobar?
Ay. Ay. Esbat? Mister Fleishman?
Speaker 7
Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? Mr. Franklin. Mister Franklin, no.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest, no. Mister Harter? Aye.
Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Mrs. Henson, no. Mr. Hoyer?
Speaker 7
Mr. Hoyer, I. Mr. Ivy? I.
Mr. I. Joyce? No. Mr.
Joyce? No. Ms. Captor? I.
Captor, I. Mr. Lolota? Miss Lee? Aye.
Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Miss Molloy? Miss Molloy?
No. Miss McCullum. Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming? Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar? No. Mr Moore. Mr. Moore. No.
Mister Morelli? Mister Mervann? Mister Mervann, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no.
Miss Perez? Miss Perez, I miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, I, Mr. Pokan. Mister Pokan, I, Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, I, mister Russian.
No. Mr Russian. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers? No.
Mister Rutherford? Mr Rutherford? No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson?
No. Mr Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres?
Speaker 7
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood, I. Mister Valadayo. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, I. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Are.
Speaker 2
Are there any members wishing to record or change their vote to a gentleman from California?
Speaker 7
Mister Mervand votes aye. Gentlemen from Florida? I'm sorry. Mister Levin votes aye. Mister Diaz Pollart votes no.
Speaker 2
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
Speaker 2
What do they want? Okay. On this vote, the ayes are 27 and the noes are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlemen from New York, mister Escrowds, recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
Okay. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from New York is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna join the chorus of acknowledgements for the distinguished gentleman from the state of Maryland, congressmember Steny Hoyer, who has been a caballero, a gentleman. Always well dressed, well spoken, always concerned about all of us. And somehow he found the time to mentor all of us as we came in. So I want to acknowledge that we will always remember him with fond memories.
And, of course, not an empty suit either. As we've seen today, he brings it here, and his ideas are heard, and they're often eloquent and correct. So, congratulations, Stani. Mister chairman, earlier this year, the Small Business Administration released a new rule that would change eligibility requirements for access to 7(a) loans. It basically said that if you were a legal resident and you own a small business or a green card holder, as there are thousands of folks in all of our districts that are small business owners, that are legal residents, and green card holders, that if you were that person, you cannot have access to a SBA loan.
What a horrible time to implement this rule, precisely when the economy is hurting, where inflation continues to batter our pockets, when grocery stores and small businesses across the nation continue to find it hard to move forward. They shut the door on the ability of legal residents and green card holders who are small business owners, not undocumented, but people that are here playing by the rules. And I suspect that unless you're a Native American in this room, each one of us has a route going somewhere across the world. And probably each one of us has had a member of our family who's been a small business owner that has helped us get here today, all of us. Each I certainly did.
My grandfather was on a gas station in Brooklyn. And so to say that the people that help us get here should today, those individuals that are like them today should not access seven 8 loans is a travesty. I think it's on in some ways, un American. There is no evidence, credible or otherwise, that the SBA or any other entity has shown that the large number of individuals in the US without legal authorization are receiving these loans or finances. So this is squarely hurting small businesses owned by legal residents and green card holders.
The main purpose of the seven eight program is to provide creditworthy small business borrowers that demonstrate an ability to repay and who cannot find credit elsewhere access to these loans and loan guarantees. That is the purpose, and very often these businesses need that help. The citizenship status of a borrower has absolutely no bearing on their creditworthiness or their ability to repay. The SBA is doing nothing except making it harder for small businesses to access capital. Now, mister chairman, I understand there is an amendment that will be presented later, an amendment that will ask for the justification for this exclusion and that, in essence, will ask the SBA to provide data showing how many businesses have defaulted on their loans and their credit worthiness.
Now I have no objection to that amendment. It should be a friendly amendment to my amendment. Surely, I wanna have that data too. But that amendment should not prevent these businesses, these small businesses that are legal residents, that are owned by legal residents and green card holders from the ability to access these law. It's almost amassed our ability to do bipartisan work.
Here I am asking for these small businesses to get access to seven, eight loans, and an amendment is being presented asking for data showing how many of them have defaulted in other data. I have no problems with that amendment. They should both be part of this amendment. And it is a clear testament of how difficult it is in this body to work together. So, mister chairman, immigrant-owned businesses routinely bring in millions and millions of dollars to our communities and help turn America's economic injury around.
They provide millions of jobs at a time when the president's tariff and trade policies are putting immense pressure on American small businesses. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. So I ask, mister chairman, that we consider this amendment. I'm open to a friendly amendment from my colleague, so that we can work together, both sides of the aisle, in helping small businesses survive across this great nation. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to respond to this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. The House Small Business Committee passed a bill on the floor earlier this year that codified giving these loans to green card holders. We should encourage our colleagues in the Senate to consider that legislation and pass it in a timely manner. This committee works together with our authorizing counterparts to fund their directives.
We can't do that till a clear path is set forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyas, recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank.
Speaker 4
You, mister chairman. This is in the best interest of our country. I'll tell you a little story, and I'm not gonna mention the name, either of the restaurant or the gentleman in question. But I was at a, an event up on Long Island, as a matter of fact. And he came up to me, and he said to me, you know, I was an illegal immigrant for 20 years in this country.
He was Irish. And he said, you know, I started this restaurant. And when he told me the name of the restaurant, which is not his name but another name, I said, well, I know the restaurant. That's right, he said, yes. I started that 25 years ago.
Now it's one of the most successful restaurants in Washington. Why do people come to America to make it? Whatever their status, they want it to be better. They wanna improve it for themselves and their children. They come to America in many cases to make it, and they are some of the most courageous, innovative, entrepreneurial people in the world.
That's why America was really so great, because people showed the courage to leave their home, come to America to make it. And they made it. Not only did they manufacture things, make things, sew things, grow things, and sell them, but they made it. That's when you get a high five. We've made it.
We've aced the test. We won the game, or we got the job. And what this amendment says is let us not shut off to people who are legally here. Opportunity to see them grow jobs in America, to employ people in America, you know, to buy things from people because they're making them in America. And, therefore, they have the ability to do what our economy does so well, allow them to purchase goods that make their lives better, and make the lives of those who produce those goods better.
I was reading, and I was a little late answering the call here of what a small percentage. It's either 2 or 4% of the 85,000 loans that this would affect. Although there may be growth, which would be good. I don't know what it takes to get a yay vote on any of the amendments. I can't imagine that intellectually everybody automatically thinks if it's offered on this side, it's a bad amendment, or it threatens somehow the politics of this committee or the politics of the House.
But I do get the sense that there's an order out vote, no, whatever it is, no matter what the merits of the amendment may be. That the message is vote no. Now, frankly, I understand that on some things. As majority leader, I said vote no on the previous question because that turns over the floor to the other side, and you don't want to have the majority do that. We're 435 people here.
We're now down to 4:33, I guess, or 4:32. And each of us has been elected by individuals who voted for us to go up and use our judgment on the merits of pieces of legislation or proposals that come before us. This is a pretty simple, straightforward amendment that says, let's grow America. Immigrants grew America. Let's give them an opportunity.
They're legally here, and they can create jobs here. The president, of course, wants to do that as well. And I forget the figure off the top of my head, but if you bring $5,000,000 to the game, you're okay. But if you're in a garage and you put something together and you wanna have a little stand and sell it, and you wanna maybe even rent a little store, so you want an SBA loan, no way. Say it.
So I urge you to at least consider this amendment without necessarily saying the only vote is no. It's a good amendment. It's an American amendment. It's about opportunity. It's about entrepreneurship.
It's about doing what may have made our country great. Please support it.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. And I appreciate my friend Mister Espiat's efforts on this amendment. And, Mister Hoyer, thank you for your argumentation there. But I wanna explain why this is not just a no, to be a no on this particular amendment. In addition to serving on this esteemed committee, I also had the privilege of being the chairman of the Small Business Committee's Oversight investigations and regulations subcommittee.
The Trump administration and House Republicans have been very clear that we are not just putting America first, but we are putting Americans first. And we have shown a consistent commitment to driving economic growth and job creation for the citizens of the United States of America. And that's why administrator Loeffler implemented citizenship verification across all of its loan programs. We, on this committee, and particularly the FSGG subcommittee, cap the SBA's lending authority each and every year. And at the same time, our great nation's small businesses, which are really the backbone of this country, 34 million small businesses in America, are showing a record demand for the capital that is available each year.
In fiscal year 2025, largely under the Biden administration, the SBA approved a whopping 3,358 loans for small businesses owned at least in part by foreign nationals. With a finite lending authority and record demand for capital, to Republicans' economic agenda, why should we taxpayers' back financing go to foreign nationals over US citizens? The answer is simple. It should not, and that's why we're voting against this amendment. The limited resources of taxpayer-backed SBA financing must prioritize American citizens who are building businesses, who are investing in our communities, who are creating jobs here at home.
Mister Hoyer and mister Espiott, I think all of us respect those who come from other countries, come here the right way, and want to be part of the fabric of America.
Speaker 25
But when we have a limited capacity, as we do in these loan programs, American citizens must come first. That's why we're voting no. I think it's a very reasoned position on this amendment, and I appreciate your respect for our decision. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to speak on this amendment? Seeing none there at the desk, an amendment in oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Gentlemen from California is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to be brief. I wanted to thank Mister Esbayat for bringing this up and just underscore what Mister Hoyer said. This is about opportunity. Many of us in this room will engage in political activity more than likely between now and November, and many of us will go back home and talk about the opportunities that we're trying to unlock for our friends and neighbors, that we support business in our community, that we support job growth, that we support employees and employers.
I don't know how we can do that without supporting an amendment that meets the goals that Mr. Esbayat is talking about here. I'm not aware of any liquidity crisis at SBA, although I'm happy to yield to the chair of the subcommittee if there is such a liquidity crisis. This is about unlocking opportunity here. And I'm happy to yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Speaker 4
I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate the remarks of my good friend, Mark Alfred, from Missouri. This budget you're gonna be asked to vote on cuts Small Business Administration 22.3%. If there's limited money currently, you're gonna make it more limited tomorrow. This amendment, again, is for legal residents of this country that we have given, have gone through the process, and are legitimate. My point of the Irishman that I talked about, he was not here legally.
But he was at a time when people wanted to invest in and grow America and small businesses. He got a loan, and he now has, and I don't want to mention his name or his restaurant, but one of the most successful restaurants in our capital. That's what we're talking about. And if we have a limited sum, then cutting it 22.3%. The ramifications of that, there'll be less loans, less growth, less employees, and you will not have helped either bring prices down or to make sure that people can afford the prices.
I thank the gentleman Howard for his comments.
Speaker 17
I wanna thank the ranking member. This amendment is about opportunity and job growth. That's fundamentally what this is about. The ranking member talked about the line items in this budget, that are being cut under the proposal that is, in front of us. This gives us an opportunity to unlock jobs, create benefits for folks back home in our community.
And I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment, and I encourage an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? The gentleman from Maryland,
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too commend my colleague, mister Espiott, for bringing this amendment. Also, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, Mr. Alford. I think that's an important point. But let me say this.
In my district, and it's Prince George's County, just a few miles from here, many of the entrepreneurs there are from other countries. We have a lot of people from Africa. India is another one, who have been drawn there by NASA Goddard and the scientific needs that that community can provide, and they're doing it on an entrepreneurial basis. In fact, many of the absolute best jobs we have in Prince George's County are provided by those companies. We also have a lot of people from South and Central America who are also doing great work too, and other sectors, you know, restaurants, construction, and the like, doing great work and have become a real backbone for our economy there.
So I take the gentleman's point. And I actually, when I started as a staffer here in '87, I worked on the small business committee. And one of the things that we focused on was trying to find ways to help small businesses, really small businesses, get started and grow. And I realized credit and capital are the keys to that. But, you know, saying no just because somebody has a green card is really kinda, you know, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
We could really employ a lot more people who are American in many instances, and these folks who own these companies are paying taxes into our coffers here. And the next generation I've seen from many of them who become American citizens, and they're doing outstanding work, I think we really wanna have them grow, pushing the talent away from The United States. And we're doing way too much of that right now, but it's really not the right way for us to go, especially in some of these science, engineering, and high-tech sectors. Let's take advantage of that. And so if there is a liquidity challenge, as Mister Aguilar said, with respect to SBA, let's find ways to address that, and I appreciate Mister Hoyer's comments about maybe putting some funding there.
I think for most people here in this room, economic development and growth through private entrepreneurial activity, we all support that. We all see the benefit of that. It's part of what makes America great, and some of those small businesses really turn into the giants that have been, you know, leading the way for the United States over the years. I, you know, I think we should take advantage of what we've got. We got a lot of talent here.
Let's help it rise. Let's help it make us better, make those communities better. We'll all rise up together. And so with that, I rise back, but I encourage support of this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Miss Dolores, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
I just I'll be very quick. I had no intention of speaking on this. But if we don't have funds for the SBA and for folks who are legal, to be able to access the SBA, they are on their way to becoming Americans. It's the legal process that we go through to do that. But let me just reflect if there is not enough money for SBA.
We're talking about a 22% cut in the funding for the SBA. I just take a look at we have a trillion and a half dollars is being asked for defense and for next year. And right now, defense has $1,000,000,000,000 already. So it's 2.5 trillion dollars. Let's take a look at ICE and what they received from the last reconciliation bill. They've got this one pending.
It's, you know, $75,000,000,000, you know, plus $10,000,000,000 in a slush fund. And then you've got another, which is pending. The senate just did this yesterday, another $70,000,000,000. And the thing is that we do not have the resources to invest in small businesses to help grow our economy. I mean, that is very perplexing and puzzling that we would not focus on what are the resources that are necessary in order for us to be able to.
We all say in whatever form, and that small businesses are the backbone of our country. I say that about the state of Connecticut all the time. Well, if that is the case, then let us invest in small businesses. We can. There isn't a liquidity problem.
We can address that, and this committee can address that. And maybe what we ought to do is to say no to a 22% cut for the SBA. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address this amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Oklahoma is recognized for an amendment in the second degree.
Speaker 26
Alright. Mister Turman, I have a second degree amendment to the gentleman's amendment, and I ask you to dispense with the reading as
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the second-degree amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her second degree amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying to my colleague from New York, I believe this to be a friendly amendment. It was offered in good faith to try to, I think, provide data for us to be able to properly address the issue. And so I hope he knows that. This amendment ensures that the most qualified small business owners continue to have access to SBA-guaranteed loans.
You know, there is no secret that waste, fraud, and abuse have been rampant with agencies across the federal government, including the SBA. If you just look at the Paycheck Protection Program, better known as the PPP, it was rife with fraud, including access to loans by non-US citizens. And I do ask you to consent, mister chairman, to insert an article about that particular fraud into the record.
Speaker 26
My second degree amendment would simply direct the SBA to give us their justification for preventing access to SBA-guaranteed loans to foreign nationals so that we can better understand the reasoning and act from there, which is our job in Congress. It was discussed yesterday that there was lots of language put forward, amendments put forward to put reports up. And I think this is exactly what we're looking at, is putting a report up to make sure that we have the data to be able to make the right decisions. And so with that, I would ask support of my second-degree amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
I thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from Maryland, oh, excuse me. You wanna address this? Yeah. The gentleman from Ohio, mister Joyce. What's your name?
Joyce. I know. Mister Joyce is recognized to address the issue.
Speaker 1
I've obviously made quite an impression on my chairman or my name tag next time. I support the gentlewoman's amendment. This committee needs additional information from the SBA to better understand the reasoning behind the changes made. We know the SBA loan program has been rife with fraud, and this language allows us to make informed decisions about the nature of the problem. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Speaker 2
I thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen from Maryland Tory is recognized to address this second degree amendment. Thank you very much. I
Speaker 4
I think it may be friendly and intent, but it is believed by this. A language says in fiscal year 25, SBA approved 3,358 loans. To lawful permanent residents, largely during the Biden administration. Now, why is that language in there? That language, in my view, is to make sure that everybody knows that Trump did not do this in his first term.
I don't know what he did. I haven't had enough time to find out. But the fact of the matter is that it implies that somehow Biden did something wrong. What Biden did was he give the opportunities. Now, very frankly, I want all of you to know, I think we have to have a rational immigration policy.
And we have not had a rational immigration policy for a long time. And we ought to have that bill, which has been talked about. Four, and then the amendment goes on to say, 4%. Not a hemorrhaging, I would say, of these funds to legal residents. A small percentage.
And very frankly, I would suggest to you that if you look at the record, one of the largest companies in this country, somebody who contributed some $270,000,000 to the welfare of working people, in his company, mister Musk, from South Africa. Now I doubt that he got a small loan. I think he got a very big loan.
Speaker 4
And wasn't that wonderful? Not so much because I agree with mister Musk, but it is because he's created a lot of good jobs, a lot of good economic activity, and made us more competitive in international fields than we otherwise would have been. With the gentleman glad to, we'd be glad to yield to my friend.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. I would just offer that. I hope my father is listening right now, because I'm about to talk about him.
Speaker 26
My father is an immigrant to this nation. He came here in 1970. He became a citizen in 1975. And in the early 2000s, he took out an SBA loan, and he is an employer. And so he does represent the American dream.
And I think he was a US citizen when he did that. And if I were to call him on the phone and I were to ask him, do you think that you should be a US citizen to be able to access these SBA loans? He too would say yes. We are not, you know, demeaning.
Speaker 4
Can I repeat my time? I have three daughters of my own, and I hope if I call them, they will also agree with me. But my experience has been
Speaker 4
It's not quite as consistent as apparently. You have confidence that your dad would agree with you. But we're claiming my time. I understand what the woman is saying. I'm that Miss Bice is saying, I'm glad your father had become a citizen by that point in time.
But that's the point. Let's say he asked for that loan a week before he became a citizen. Apparently, he's been pretty successful. Is that accurate? I mean, I don't know your father, and I don't know the background.
But I think you make the point. He was an immigrant. He came here. He applied his talent, and he's been successful and supported his family. And that's what this gentleman is saying about his amendment.
4%. This is not like we're hemorrhaging at 15 or 25 or 30%, that, my friend, mister Alfred, and he is my friend. We have a great relationship, and I'm proud of that. It's not like we're crowding out Americans. And particularly when we're cutting it by 23%, it seems contrary to the assessment of the need that exists.
But I appreciate the general ladies' amendment, but it's sort of like, I love the shark tank. I don't know anybody, Mark, who watches the shark tank. But, unfortunately, I'm out.
Speaker 2
What you, gentlemen. The gentleman from New York, mister Espiat, is recognized to address the second degree amendment.
Speaker 19
And, of course, I appreciate the gentlelady's aspiration that this amendment be a friendly amendment. But it's not because it shuts people out. Unlike, for example, the US armed forces, when you come as a legal resident, a green card holder, they don't shut you out. They say you could come in and serve the nation. In fact, I have a constituent family in my district who saw their son, staff sergeant Ryan Tejada, be killed in Baghdad in 2003.
And he was a legal resident, a green card holder. In fact, he was given his citizenship posthumously. And that, there is no shutting the door on that. America says, come in service. You can put your life on the line if you're a legal resident, green card holder.
And in this case, unfortunately, Staff Sergeant Rantahala was killing Baghdad. We just had tax day on the 14th of this month. I didn't see anybody say, oh, don't pay your taxes. You're a green card holder. In fact, millions of green card holders pay the taxes, and they do that religiously, because for you to become a US citizen five years later, you have to show a record of paying your taxes.
So if you are a green card holder, business, small business owner, you're gonna handle your books meticulously, because the day you wanna become a US citizen, you gotta show Uncle Sam that you have played by the rules. But yet the SBA says today that you should not have access to a seven a law. And so I'd, I appreciate the gentle lady's intention, but I don't think this is a friendly member at all. It shuts down the door. And in fact, if you look at the percentages, you're talking about 4% of the loans, not a whopping 50%, 25%, 4% of the loans that are issued by SBA.
And if you look at the number of businesses, despite making up 14% of the population, 19% of the businesses with employers are immigrant-run businesses in America. Any of us, I'm sure, could walk down Main Street, because this is a Main Street amendment. This is not a Wall Street amendment. There's plenty of those that happen here in this body. This is a Main Street amendment.
If you walk around any of your neighborhoods, whether it is an Iranian neighborhood in Los Angeles, a very entrepreneurial community, or whether it is a Portuguese restaurant in the Ironbound district of Newark, very good food, or a Mexican amendment Mexican community where you have great businesses as well. You're gonna see that you have people paying their taxes. And the businesses are trying to hire local residents, including U.S. citizens. So if we want to address the unemployment surge, the best way is to create jobs. And these small businesses are creating jobs, and yet the Small Business Administration chooses to say no and slams the door at a critical time in our economy to small business owners that are legal residents and green cardholders.
I think this was a wonderful opportunity to have a bipartisan effort. And although some may interpret it as being a friendly amendment, I think it's mean spirited. When you shut down the dreams of a small business owner, I think it's mean-spirited. And so, mister chairman, I will ask that you and others vote against the amendment to the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. And, are there others wishing to address the amendment? Gentleman from California is recognized.
Speaker 17
Mister chairman. I wanted to make two points. First, to mister Alford. I know when Mister Hoyer said he was a friend of yours, I don't want that used against you in the political context. So I want to clean that up.
Only if it's in your best interest. You can be friends, potentially.
Speaker 17
Just wanna make sure everybody goes into this with the right spirit in mind. As mister Esbayat mentioned, we're talking 4%. But if we wanna use the same standard here, are is this body how would this body treat a restriction on lawful permanent residents serving in the military? Are we now Americans first, that only US citizens can serve in the military? Maybe that's an amendment that chairman Calvert wants to consider.
This is ridiculous to close this door and close this opportunity. Lawful permanent residents, many of whom, just like Miss Bice's father, are on their way to become US citizens. What about that time period between 1970 and 1975 that she mentioned, where her father was an LPR and was working to become a US citizen? Should an individual in that scenario have a door closed on utilizing SBA and creating jobs in their community? I don't believe that to be the case.
I don't think that's what this body wants. But if you're truly, you know, US citizens first, lawful permanent residents can own property. They can receive assistance at public universities. Those are the benefits that currently are the law. This is a slippery slope.
If you wanna close this door, you're closing doors that hurt our military, hurt our country, and hurt our economy. Yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Ohio, Miss Captain, is recognized to address the second degree of medical. I'm okay. Thank you. Noah?
Okay. Then the gentleman from Maryland, Mister Ivy, is recognized to address the second-degree amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the amendment, I'll just say two quick things. I hear the waste fraud and abuse issue come up frequently. And the point I would make there is if we're really concerned about it, and obviously, it does exist and we need to stamp it out, increase the number of investigators that we have that are focused on sniffing this out. And at the Department of Justice, stop cutting back on the number of prosecutors who handle these kinds of cases, especially at the fraud division, which has been decimated in the past year and a half.
Let's beef those up, and let's have them go after these cases. Secondly, with respect to the SBA, and I had a chance to represent a number of companies and advise a number of companies who were trying to navigate their way through this process, it's difficult for many of them to figure out all of the red tape and requirements that, you know, go with the federal government, doing work with the federal government, getting a loan from the federal government, meeting those requirements. And I know that my Republican colleagues are very sensitive to the issue of red tape and bureaucracy. One of the things that would help that got cut was the SBA had entities and departments that would help small business owners with technical assistance, and they would provide it for free. You could come in and get advice, and it was tremendously helpful to many of these businesses because they didn't have the ability to go out and hire expensive lawyers who would provide the work and do provide that kind of advice and guidance for major corporations at 1,000 dollars an hour or more.
So let's do the whole piece. Let's make sure that if we are gonna try and address that issue, I think, you know, getting the data collected is never a bad thing. And I think to the extent there is waste, fraud, and abuse out there, let's go after it. I think it's an important function for us to make sure we carry out. But, let's also see if we can help small businesses navigate the challenges that we all know that are faced by businesses in The United States dealing with whether it's whatever type of bureaucracy you wanna talk about or, you know, health care coverage or the like.
Let's help them instead of getting in the way. And let's use some of the resources that have been discussed earlier to help provide those kinds of resources, because we get it back over and over again in tax revenue that we get, in employment from these folks hiring. Many of them also do a lot of charitable work in the community. They're great givers through their places of worship, into their communities, through other means. These are great citizens or soon-to-be citizens.
Let's help them help us in that process. Last point on this. I've got a big family. Some of my kids have married people from overseas, and watching them go through this process has been a real eye opener for me, and it takes years. I think Pete just Mr. Willard just mentioned something about seven years.
It can take even longer than that with people doing all of the right things, coming to the country with all of the skill sets that are beneficial to the nation, married to an American, in some instances, having American children here, and it still takes years. There's no reason for us to force them to wait years before they can start a business and get the legal or the technical assistance and loan assistance that they need to have a thriving business that's gonna benefit all of us in our communities. Let's expedite it. Let's facilitate it. Let's make it happen.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlemen. I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Alfred, is recognized.
Speaker 25
Mister Chair, I'll be very brief. I just wanna correct the record, Mr. Hoyer. The 22% cut in the SBA funding is cuts in personnel, rightsizing the SBA under Kelly Loeffler, making it more efficient, moving personnel out into the heartland, including Kansas City, Missouri, which I appreciate. The seven a loan program is fully funded, but it is at a capacity where US citizens must come first in this. This has nothing to do with the loan program itself being underfunded.
Otherwise, I would certainly be fighting for more funding. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4
Will the gentleman yield? Would you yield? Yes. The only comment I would have to you, why didn't you move the 22.3% resources over to the loan program?
Speaker 2
I hesitate to ask, but our other members seek recognition to address the amendment. Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been brought up on several different occasions here. Only 4%. Only 4%.
Speaker 26
Know what the total number of SBA loans approved last year was? $37,000,000,000. So 4% is almost $1,500,000,000. It seems reasonable to me that we would ask for a report to make sure that the data we are wanting to change policy on makes sense. That's all this is.
And I would just underscore that the amendment is a more prudent approach, by better understanding the administration's reasoning for acting, rather than just banning something. So with that, Mister Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the second-degree amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. The question is now on the second-degree amendment offered by Miss Bice. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Opinion of the air of the chair, the ayes have it.
Speaker 2
Roll call has been requested. A sufficient number of hands have been raised. Corporal, call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, aye. Mister Aguilar? No. Mister Aguilar?
No. Mr. Alford? Mister Alford, aye. Mister Amaday? Yes.
Amaday, aye. Missus Bice? Yes. Mister Spice, aye. Mister Bishop?
No. Mr Bishop? No. Mister Calvert? Aye.
Mister Calvert, aye. Mr. Carter? Aye. Mr. Case? No.
Mister Case? No. Mister Siscamani? Mister Klein? Mister Cloud?
Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? No. Mister Clyde?
Speaker 7
Mister Cuéar? No. Miss Dean? Miss Dean? No.
Mister Lauro? Mister Diaz Pollart? Mister Diaz Ballard, I'm Mr. Edwards. Mister Edwards, I'm Mister Elzy. Mister Elzy, I'm Miss Escobar.
Miss Escobar, no. Mister Esbat? No. Mister Esbat? No.
No. Mister Fleishman?
Speaker 7
Mister Fleishman, aye. Miss Frankel? No. Miss Frankel? No.
Mr. Franklin? Aye. Mister Franklin? Aye. Mister Guest?
Aye. Mister Guest? Aye. Mr. Harter? No.
Mr. Harter? No. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? Aye.
Missus Henson? Mrs. Henson. Mrs. Henson votes aye.
Mr. Hoyer. Aye. Mr. Hoyer, aye.
Chairman,
Speaker 7
Hoyer votes no. Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy, no.
Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce. Miss Captor?
Speaker 7
Miss Captor? No. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota, I. Miss Lee?
Miss Lee? No. Miss Letlow? Miss Letlow? Letlow?
I. Mister Levin? No. Mister Levin? No.
Miss Malloy? Yes. Miss Molloy, aye. Miss McCollum? No.
Miss McCollum? No. Miss Ming? No. Ming?
Mister Molinar? Aye. Mister Molinar, aye. Mister Moore? Aye.
Moore? Aye. Mister Morelli? No. Mister No.
Mister No. Mr. Mervan? No. Mister Newhouse? Miss Mister Newhouse, I'm Miss Perez.
Miss Perez, I'm Miss Pingry. No. Miss Pingry? No. Mister Pocan?
No. Mr. Pocan? No. Mister Quigley? Mister Quigley, no.
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, aye. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, aye. Mister Rutherford?
Aye. Mister Rutherford, aye. Mr. Simpson? Mister Simpson, aye. Mr Strong?
Mister Strong, aye. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, no. Miss Underwood? No.
Miss Underwood, no. Mister Valladeo. Mister Valladeo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman. Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, no.
Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, aye. Mister Zinke?
Speaker 2
My good friend from Florida knows she was misled by the distinguished ranking member. So we know. We know.
Speaker 2
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? General lady from Connecticut. I do not believe the gentle lady is recorded.
Speaker 2
Is the gentleman from Mississippi just standing around, or is he recorded?
Speaker 2
Reported? Okay. Very good. Are there others wishing to be recorded or to change their votes? Seeing none, a clerk will valley.
On this vote, the ayes are 34. The nose is 28. The amendment in the second degree is adopted. We will now return to the amendment offered by Mister Espiat as amended. Do any members seek recognition to speak on the amendment, as amended?
Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 2
There seem to be none, but the gentleman is recognized for a minute to close.
Speaker 19
Thank you all for this robust debate. And, I hope that this debate has created the possibilities for a future discussion about bipartisan work on this issue. And I look forward to members from both sides of the aisle working with me on that. And I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by mister Espiotte as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is accepted. A gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized for the purposes of amendment.
Speaker 28
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent that the reading of this amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I wanna also take a moment to thank my friend, Steny Heuer. He is one of the great statesmen and modern leaders of this institution. I'm a better member of Congress from watching his example, as I know many of us are. So thank you, Steny.
Colleagues, this is the simplest amendment you're going to see today. It's one sentence. It says, quote, none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used to cancel or pause grant funding based on the perceived political leanings of the state in which the recipient is located, end quote. That's it. I wanna speak directly to my Republican colleagues for a moment, because I'm not here to score points.
I'm here to ask you to protect something that we all swore an oath to protect. A federal judge recently found that this administration, quote, made grant termination decisions primarily, if not exclusively, based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2020, end quote. The judge ruled that this violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. That's not my characterization. That's a finding of fact from the federal bench.
Now I understand the politics of the moment that we're in. When your party holds the White House and holds both chambers, it's tempting to let the executive branch do whatever it wants, because most of what it wants is what you want. I get it. I've seen Democrats make the same mistake. But there's an old saying, don't dig a hole you're not willing to fall into.
Every majority digs, and every majority eventually falls. Think about what's actually happening here. The Office of Management and Budget, on its own authority, is deciding which states get the money Congress appropriated and which states don't, based on how those states voted. Not based on need, not based on merit, not based on the statutory criteria this committee wrote into law, based only on the electoral map. So let that sink in.
We, the appropriations committee, wrote the law. We decided where the money was to go, and the OMB is overriding us. It's not a Trump issue. It's not a Russia vote issue. It's an article one issue.
The framers gave the power of the purse to Congress for a reason. They understood that if the executive could spend or withhold money based on political favoritism, the legislature would become decorative, would become irrelevant. That's exactly, sadly, the road that we're on. And here's the part I really want my Republican colleagues to hear. The precedent that you let stand today is the precedent you live under tomorrow.
I can't tell you when the next Democratic president will be sworn in. None of us can, but one will be someday. It might be in three years, might be in seven years. Who knows? But when that day comes, every tool that you allow this administration to use will be sitting on the desk in the Oval Office, waiting.
So imagine disaster relief to any of your states getting held up because your state voted red. Imagine a highway project in your district sitting frozen because of your state's political preference. If that sounds outrageous to you, good. It should. And it's outrageous right now, too.
The only difference is who's holding the shovel. So this amendment doesn't stop a single dollar from being appropriated. It doesn't favor one party over the other. It doesn't tie the president's hands on policy. All it says is that the money we appropriate has to be distributed based on the law, not based on which way a state voted.
If you believe in the constitution that we all swore to uphold, you should be able to vote for this. If you believe article one means something, you should be able to vote on this. And if you believe that one day, there is even a remote possibility that you might be sitting in the minority watching a democratic White House do this to your constituents, you should definitely be able to vote for this. Don't dig a hole you're not willing to fall into. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Mister Joyce of Ohio is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the amendment. I know there's a shared frustration regarding the administration's decision on the cancellation of grant programs. We should address these frustrations and oversight work in working with our authorizers. Issuing directives and appropriation bills is not the answer.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Gentlemen, the gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I think, as the gentleman says, it's pretty straightforward. Nobody in this committee would think that political affiliation was totally unknown to either party. The president has articulated this premise of partisan grand mission on a number of occasions. That's even one of his strengths or one of his weaknesses. He says, yeah.
That's what I'm gonna do. Like it or lump it. In the energy grants, some 63% went to red states out of the infrastructure bill. Of the energy grants, 63% went to red states. Why?
Because they had a need. Highway funding. Rural states have a lot of highways going long ways. The big states, a lot of them. And smaller states don't have as much need.
And what the gentleman's saying is, when we appropriate x number of dollars, those dollars ought to be distributed toward the objective that America needs. Now America is divided into 50 states and a jurisdiction that ought to be a state, the District of Columbia. And that's all this amendment does, that we should distribute our resources based on the needs of our country, and the needs of our constituent states and localities. I think in that sense, it's a very good, honest, straightforward amendment, and I support it.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. A general agent from Ohio's captors recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just reread the 11th amendment. None of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used to cancel or pause grant funding based on the perceived political leanings of the state in which the recipient is located. Prohibiting federal agencies from denying, restricting, or canceling grant funding based on the applicant's perceived political ideology or viewpoints. Who defines that?
Politically driven funding decisions strip resources from essential services that the American people depend on. So we supposedly act on the basis that federal grants have to be awarded on merit and on community need. The way I look at the world, the federal government owes my region a lot of money because of what happened years ago with the passage of really bad trade agreements: NAFTA, CAFTA, China, PNTR. There's a lot of places in the country that got kicked in the gut over and over again because of those terrible agreements. Now in Ohio, we're trying to catch up to all the damage.
My whole career has been about catching up for the damage that was done. The Department of Health and Human Services here at the federal level failed to provide funding recently for the Toledo Public School System Head Start program, causing temporary closure of the program, leading to chaos for tots, teachers, families. That's wrong. That's wrong. No matter how you look at it, harming kids, not getting their education, throwing school systems into chaos, large school systems that have thousands of children, is absolutely un-American.
The Trump administration canceled more than $100,000,000 to the region I represent in places like the city of Toledo. Grants that had already been passed by both chambers of congress went over to the administration. They approved it. They awarded it, and then they took it back. Okay.
So the federal government's kicking us again. We're used to it, and we don't like it. We're still digging out of the industrial and manufacturing depletion. Depletion. Ours is the major city I represent, it is not a capital city.
K? Doesn't have a lot of friends here in Washington. It costs a lot of money to get here. Whether you drive or whether you go on an airplane, a lot of our people don't come here. And, our manufacturing and workforce development programs rely heavily on federal partnerships, particularly for workforce development, where our people have been robbed for years, sending money into the federal government and not getting it back.
So when millions of tax dollars that people paid in here don't come back home, especially for education and workforce development, there's something very uneven about the way this country is performing, and there are fewer and fewer opportunities for Ohio workers who don't happen to live in a capital city or a university town or a financial center. So these cuts that are going on impact opportunity, public health, and safety for sure. And, I wanted to mention, there's something called the manufacturing extension partnership that's over at the department of commerce. I don't know who runs that place. All I know is they cut the program out, cut the legs out from under people who were trying to reestablish some manufacturing.
People talk about the defense industrial base. Well, I'll tell you what. If you lose all your tooling companies, if you lose your steel companies, if you lose all of the manufacturing companies that we had before, you're not going to be successful. In fact, you're gonna fail. And that's why China, right now, if they dumped all their $10,000 cars into this country, we would wipe out our automotive industry tomorrow.
Okay. So I'm angry because to underfund education cuts off the future, to underfund workforce development, to kill the manufacturing extension partnership is un-American. So I oppose, I support the 11th amendment, and I oppose those, and I'll end with this. I was educated in Catholic schools, but our parents always paid the property tax for the other schools. And I see that some people want to put Catholic practices in public schools.
That's not the way Catholics perform. We go to our own churches, and we believe in the public schools. So the people who have this funny conflation of thinking that you're gonna do something special, no. Just to choose a religion is your own business. You don't want the government involved in that.
So I really support the Levin amendment, and I don't support the damage that the other side of the aisle is doing to the separation of church and state in this country. I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentle lady from Minnesota, Miss McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 29
Chair. I just did some quick research on what other states besides Minnesota were affected by cuts. And these are cuts to health care. On February 11, there were several states, four of us in total, who had a five-year CDC grant cut. It was Minnesota, California, Illinois, and Colorado.
We're not given any reasons. They were just cut. And what was happening in Minnesota with these CDC grants wasn't going, these grants weren't focused on the Twin Cities. They were focused on Greater Minnesota, Pete Stauber's district, Michelle's district, Tom's district, you know, Brad's district, and the 11 tribal nations that we serve there. We work together.
Minnesota Department of Health and the CDC. No explanation. No, nothing. Just cut. So I support this amendment because I don't think it should, in the future, if it would be a Republican president and they disagreed with what you were doing or how you voted on the election to certify or anything like that, that that should happen to anyone.
Five-year grant in the middle of it, just cut. Our state legislators, especially the out-of-state legislators, and I served on the health and human services committee when I was in the Minnesota State House. That was baked into some of the work that we were doing for the Minnesota Department of Health when we did our budget. Just cut. No explanation.
No reason. Other than that, it was Minnesota. With that, I support the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, Ginnelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, if there's no further debate, the gentleman is recognized for 1 minute to close.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, let me leave you with this. Every one of us took the same oath to the Constitution, and that Constitution gives the power of the purse to us, to this committee, to this Congress, not to OMB, not to the White House, to us. A federal judge has already ruled that withholding funds on the basis of political preference violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That's not my opinion.
That's a finding of fact from the federal bench. And a no vote on this amendment is a vote to let that unconstitutional practice continue on our watch, with our money in our name. So I'm asking you to protect your own district, because the next democratic president will come eventually. And as I said before, when they do, every tool you hand this White House will be sitting on the desk of that democratic president, pointed at your constituents, pointed at your grants, pointed at your roads, pointed at your hospitals. Defend your districts.
Defend article one. Vote yes. The
Speaker 2
Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No.
Any of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been shown. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford?
Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No.
Missus Bice? Mr Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert?
Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter? No. Mister Carter, no. Mister Case?
Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani? Mister Klein? Mister Cloud? Mr. Clyburn.
Mister Clyburn, I'm Mister Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole.
Speaker 7
Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuellar. Mister Cuellar, I'm Miss Dean. Mister Lauro?
Speaker 7
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Diaz-Bollart? Mister Edwards?
Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elzy? No. Elzy?
Miss Escobar? Aye. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espéyat? Aye.
Mister Espéyat, aye. Mister Fleishman? Miss Frankel? Aye. Frankel, aye.
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Franklin? Mister Guest? Mister Guest?
No. Mister Harter? Aye. Mr. Harter? Aye.
Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Speaker 7
Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivy. Aye. Mister Ivy, aye.
Mr. Joyce. No. Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. Aye.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota. No. Mister Lolota. No.
Miss Lee. Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Lutlow. Mr. Levin.
Mister Levin, I. Miss Molloy. Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, I. Miss Ming.
Miss Ming, I. Mister Molinar? No. Mister Molinar? No.
Mister Moore? Mr Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Mister Mervan?
Aye. Mister Mervan, aye. Mr. Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse? No.
Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingry? Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye.
Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Russenthaler. Mister Russienthaler, no. Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford?
Mr. Rutherford? No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No.
Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Mrs. Torres?
Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye.
Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, I.
Miss Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I. Mister Romach. Mister Romach, no. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke? No. Mister Shreev? No. Mister Shreev, no.
Speaker 2
Do any members wish to record or change their vote? Gentle lady from Iowa?
Speaker 2
Gentleman from Tennessee. Mister Fleishman, no. Gentleman from Oklahoma?
Speaker 2
Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tow.
Speaker 2
On this vote, the eyes are 28, the nose are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Gentleman from Indiana, mister, Mervann is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the member is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 30
Northwest Indiana is the largest steel-producing hub in the country. Maintaining a strong domestic steel industry and unionized workforce is vital for strengthening our economy, protecting American jobs, and defending our national security. Despite promises to bolster the American steel industry, the current administration has accepted tens of millions of dollars' worth of donated foreign steel from his expensive ballroom project. Right after the president announced this donation, the administration also adjusted the tariff policy in a way that benefits the same donor by cutting certain automotive steel tariffs in half. As vice chairman of the congressional steel caucus, I'm fighting every day to defend American steelworkers, strengthen by American requirements, and prevent unfairly traded steel products from being dumped on our shores.
To truly support domestic producers and steelworkers, government construction projects at iconic American buildings should only use American-made steel, iron, and manufactured materials. Accepting donations from foreign companies sends a mixed message to American steel producers. American steel workers, it affects our economic strength, our steel capacity, and our national security. My amendment directs that all iron, steel manufactured products, and construction materials used in construction projects on the White House grounds be produced in the United States. This includes materials procured through appropriated funds and received through private donations.
I urge the committee to support my amendment and stand up for the domestic steel industry in America and American workers.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I agree that we should prioritize the use of American-made iron, steel, and other materials in construction projects, which is why these products are already covered under section 606 of this act, which requires compliance with the Buy American Act of 1933. This amendment will be duplicative and unnecessary. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoy, is recognized to address the amendment. Amendment.
Speaker 4
Well, in a body that says things again and again on the same subject, duplicative, not bad, apparently. This amendment says what the president of the United States says he wants. America first. I don't know that he says America only, although he acts that way.
Speaker 4
America first would mean American steel. That's what this amendment says. Now we're gonna have a second-degree amendment, for which I think probably most of the other side will vote. It is what I call a clever amendment. It takes mister Mervins directing them to do this to urging them to do this, otherwise known as the vote premise.
Not vote, but vought premise. That what we do is suggest, urge, plead, prostrate ourselves. Mister Mervand's amendment says, do it. What this is, I won't say that, but it's a pretend substitute for this bill because it says that we urge you to do this, but you're not required to do it. And very frankly, we know that they're already talking to foreign steel makers.
Maybe they have business with other people as well. And then it says, at the end, to look like we're saying something. This includes any materials procured with funds made available by this act. Obviously, what the president said is we're doing it all with donated funds. Now as I said earlier in the day, we've got a headline here in The Washington Post that Trump fought to keep the ballroom fundraising contracts secret. Judge told him you can't keep it a secret.
So maybe we'll know whether they can use American steel or not, and maybe we won't because they have attempted to keep this very secret. So I would suggest, when we vote on the amendment, which is not a friendly amendment at all, but an amendment which will allow you to go and say, well, I voted to have American steel there. No. You don't. You're urging.
Doesn't have any legal effect. None. Zero zip. And then you say, nothing in this bill knowing full well there is nothing in this bill to fund this, nor did the president ask us. He didn't ask us for our leave.
I don't mean our subcommittee. I mean anybody. He just tore down a significant part of the White House, and said we're gonna do something else. And then we find in a story that occurred not too long ago that they're making deals with foreign steel makers. So it's not a question of urging.
They're not doing it, and they don't want us to know they're not doing it. So watering down this as a pretense that we're mandating steel be used from America won't wash. Or as speaker Wright, you say that dog won't hunt. So I support the gentleman's amendment who's standing up not for his area. He's doing that as we all ought to, but he's standing up for the premise of America being first when we spend the money.
We haven't authorized this money. We haven't played a role in getting this money, but it is gotten because the president of the United States asked for it in large sums. So, mister chairman, I would urge rejection of the second-degree amendment and the adoption of the gentleman from Indiana's amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, whose deans are recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank Mister Mervand for bringing this amendment forward. It seems like exactly what Donald Trump wants. After all, this is all about making it in America. So if you are choosing to tear down a chunk of the White House because you have a better idea, wouldn't you think everything in this thing would be showcasing the greatness of American manufacturing and craftsmanship and technology and you name it?
It's all about making it in America. Mister chairman, I rise in support of Mister Mervand's amendment. It adds report language directing that, quote, all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials, end quote, used for the White House complex must be domestically produced. Who could be against that? Mister Trump should be for this.
This shouldn't be partisan. It should not be controversial. This administration has made increasing domestic manufacturing a priority. Bolstering domestic steel has been a featured part of the agenda. Tariffs on foreign steel are currently at 50%.
You see the influence of tariffs here to prefer American steel. Yet according to a recent New York Times article that I have right here, the reporting is, quote, the White House has secured tens of millions of dollars worth of donated foreign steel for Mr. Trump's $400,000,000 ballroom project, end quote. It reads that the White House has not disclosed details of the donation, but Mr. Trump said last October he had been offered a donation of steel for the ballroom valued at $37,000,000. $37,000,000. And, of course, opaque.
Don't wanna show us it, but that is what he boasted about before. Further, it would appear that coinciding with this donation, the White House made adjustments to its tariffs that could benefit the foreign donor company. This whole affair is unethical. It's enigma. It's unpresidential.
It's just plain bonkers. If my colleagues were serious about wanting to support domestic steel, they should join me. I invite you to join Mr. Mervann in this amendment. Vote yes, promote US Steel, and we'll deal with the ballroom later. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, lady. There's an amendment at the desk in the second for others? Okay. There's at the desk an amendment in the second degree offered by Mr. Russian. Gentlemen, see here.
Gentlemen's recognized to explain his amendment.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer a second-degree amendment to the gentleman's amendment, and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 2
Valid mention the reading is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This amendment is really nothing than just a veiled attack on the ballroom. I'm from Pittsburgh, and I can tell you that there's no president that's been better for US steel production than President Trump. I'll give you a good example.
The Nippon steel deal, this deal was going nowhere before President Trump came in. This is a deal that's bringing in roughly a billion dollars in the Mon Valley, honoring all the labor agreements that were in place, and it's gonna greatly increase the amount of domestic steel production. This amendment currently at hand will not do anything to help the American steelworker. The underlying bill makes it clear that we support US steel production. Chairman Joyce made that clear.
I associate myself with his remarks. So I offer this second-degree amendment to just further reiterate our support for federal funds to be used for American steel production, and I urge this adoption.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized. Okay. Alright. Gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoy, is recognized to address the amendment in the second degree.
Speaker 4
I already addressed the amendment, of course. And I suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that it's nice to urge nothing in his amendment requires the use of US products in this project. Nothing. Nothing in our bill requires that. If I'm wrong on that, Mr. Chairman, you can correct me.
But I don't believe there is anything in that bill that requires.
Speaker 4
It is as I suggested before, we are the authors of our own impotence. We say we want steel used to come from America. Fine. We have the authority to say that. Mister Mervann has put an amendment that gives us the ability to say that.
And you wanna substitute it for Pablam, with Pablam, that doesn't do anything. And that last line in it, no funds in this bill would be spent on it. There are no funds in this bill because the president's gone off and told us he was gonna spend 300,000,000. Now it's 400000000. Of course, heaven knows what it would be at the end.
And maybe a future president can tell us, I don't need your money. I'm gonna get billions from this country. I'm gonna get billions from the other country. Maybe Russia and Saudi Arabia fall in that category. I don't need you.
I can go off and fund anything I want, including tearing down part of the people's house we call the White House. Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, at some point in time, I won't be here. But at some point in time, I hope this committee stands up and says to any administration, and let me tell you, I've been on this committee. See that picture up there? Guy's name is David Obey.
He was one of the toughest chairmen with whom I've served. I think, Hal, you probably can agree with that. You were a chairman, a good chairman. David Obey is tough. And by my god, when the administration wanted to do something like this, they said, mister Obi, what do you think?
Why? Because they knew he would say this is our responsibility. I frankly think that it is a travesty that we have in effect asked private sector companies that are doing business with the government of the United States of America on a daily basis. Hey. Give us 400000000.
It's a little bit like Carr muscling in the communications companies. I won't go into that this time. And by the way, he hasn't come before our committee either. He's under our jurisdiction. So I urge rejection of the secondary amendment, passage of the Mirvan amendment, and let us say, mister president, you need to spend money on American products.
Speaker 2
Alright, gentlemen. The gentleman from Indiana, Mister Mavad, is recognized to address the amendment in the second degree.
Speaker 30
So I'm co-chair of the steel caucus, come from Gary, Indiana. I have committed the last six years to making sure that steel production is something that we take very seriously. People in my district, when they drive by something, the steel workers, the tradesmen, the iron workers, the sheet metal workers take a great deal of pride in saying they helped build that, and they helped build that with American steel. I personally don't believe in missing bills. I am not a theatrical type person.
I believe wholeheartedly that the steel industry is worth fighting for. It's worth fighting for and making sure that every ounce of capacity of steel that is made is made in America. And so when we talk about that there is an existing law that protects this, why is there the contradiction that the acceptance of foreign steel for this project is accepted? So the law that the amendment that I am trying to pass is to make sure that we produce the most American steel capacity, so that families in my community, in the nation, in Gary, and in Pittsburgh are working, and their families are working. So, ultimately, there is a great difference between urging and directing.
And to the point, I wanna work with my colleague from Pittsburgh. He had mentioned the US-Nippon deal. We should hold Nippon accountable for the investments that they are going to make in these steel-producing manufacturing plants, keeping their corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh. But in 2025, and as a candidate, president Trump opposed the deal. And then in May 2025, he absolutely embraced the deal.
And we have billions of dollars of infrastructure going into plants in Gary, Indiana, and Pittsburgh that are producing American-made steel. So, ultimately, what I'm trying to say is put your money where your mouth is. And if you're going to walk the walk and talk about America first, then let's use American steel in every project that we possibly can, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the second-degree amendment? A gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Harris, is recognized.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. And I wanna thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing up a point that we should, whenever possible, be using America. I don't care whether it's food or Snap. I don't care whether it's steel in this building. But my way I read the underlying amendment and the secondary amendment is they're not statute.
It's a committee report. They can do whatever they want with it. It's not a statute. We are, in fact, not requiring the steel to be used. And perhaps the subcommittee chair would, if I, I'll yield you some time if you can answer that question.
My understanding is both of them are in the committee report. So in fact, do we statutorily require American steel to be used in the original amendment?
Speaker 4
You remember I mentioned just a few, maybe an hour ago, about how somebody had raised that issue in commenting on an amendment I offered on report language. They said, really, they don't pay any attention to it. The gentleman may be correct, but the difference between urging and direct has a meaning. And direct is saying, this committee tells you to do that. They don't have to do it.
You're right. I agree with you. But by golly, if they don't do it, David Obey would cut them 10% or 25%, as you voted in that amendment.
Speaker 4
There would be a I'll recall my time. There'd be a country without happening.
Speaker 6
The fact is we're not providing funds for this. We're not providing public funds. So what are we gonna do? Withhold private funds? You can't do that.
So, and again, this is a great, we should require whenever we're spending money from the federal government, we should require that we prioritize American products. But the fact of the matter is we're not spending money from the federal government yet. That's why the report language is the only way we could do this.
Speaker 4
Tell my friend that we are sending money for the operations of the White House.
Speaker 6
And by the way, while I'm up, I do wanna thank the gentleman from across the Chesapeake Bay for his service because you have the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. I have the Eastern Shore, and we try to take care of the bay. And I appreciate what you've done over time. My only point is none of this requires it. It's a committee report.
Yeah. There's direct and there's urge. But in the end, it makes some difference, but it's not a statutory difference. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Do any other members speak recognition, speak on the second degree? If not, the gentleman, mister Russian Trawler, is recognized for one minute to close on his second degree amendment.
Speaker 23
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And just to clarify the record, there was opposition to the Nippon deal prior to the current agreement. The reason is because Nippon was gonna purchase US deal, move the headquarters to Tokyo or to Japan rather, and we were gonna lose the opportunity to have US steel as a domestic US steel producer. The reason why myself and others support the current deal is because it's a merger, between the two, and US Steel is able to stay headquartered in Pittsburgh, and the steel mills are still, obviously, producing steel in The United States.
But I just wanted to clarify that. But I urge support for my second degree amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the second degree amendment offered by Mister Russian dollar. All those in favor, say.
Speaker 2
And the amendment is accept a roll call. Okay. Fine. Just give me enough hands. Roll call has been requested.
Sufficient support has been shown. The clerk will call the roll on the Russian dollar second-degree amendment.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. Mr. Aguilar. No. Mister Aguilar, no. Mr. Alford.
Mister Alford, I. Mister Amaday. Mister Amaday, I. Missus Bice. Missus Bice, aye.
Mr Bishop? No. Mister Bishop, no. Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter?
Mister Carter, aye. Mr. Case? Mr. Case? No. Mister Siscamani?
Yes. Mister Cescamani, I. Mister Klein? Mr. Cloud? Mister Clyburn?
Mister Clyburn? No. Mister Clyde? Yes. Mister Clyde, I.
Mr. Cole? Yes. Mister Cole, I. Mister Cuéar? No.
Mister Cuéar? No. Mistine? Mistine? No.
Mister Lauro? No. Mister Lauro? No. Mister Diaz Ballard?
Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards, I. Mister Elzey? Miss Escobar? No.
Miss Escobar? No. Mister Esbat? No. Mister Esbat?
No. Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman, aye. Miss Frankel? No.
Mr. Franklin? Mister Franklin, aye. Mister Guest? Mister Guest, aye. Mister Harder?
No. Harder? No. Doctor Harris? Ay, doctor Harris, aye.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson, I. Mr. Hoyer? No.
Mr. Hoyer? No. Mr. Ivy?
No. Mr. Joyce?
Speaker 7
Mr. Joyce, I. Ms. Captor? Mister Lolota.
Mister Lolota, I. Miss Lee? Miss Lee? No. Miss Leetlow?
Mister Levin? Miss Malloy? Yes. Miss Malloy, I. Miss McCullum?
Miss Ming? Miss Ming? No. No. Miss Ming, no.
Mister Molinar? Yes. Mister Molinar, aye. Mr Moore? Mister Moore, aye.
Mister Morelli?
Speaker 7
Mister Morelli, no. Mister Mervann? No. Mervann? No.
Mr Newhouse? Aye. Mister Newhouse, aye. Miss Perez? No.
Miss Pingree? Miss Ping, Miss Pingree, no. Mister Pocan? No. Mister Pocan?
No. Mister Quigley? No. Mister Quigley? No.
Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rashenthaler, aye. Mister Rogers? Aye. Mister Rogers, aye.
Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford, I. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, I. Mr Strong.
Mister Strong, I. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, no. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, no.
Mister Valadao. Mister Valadao, I. Miss Wasserman Schultz, Mrs. Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman. No.
Mr. Womack. Yes. Mister Womack, aye. Mister Zinke. Aye.
Mister Zinke, aye. Mister Shreev. Aye. Mister Shreev, aye.
Speaker 2
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Florida. I.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen from Mississippi. Voted. I already You just seem to be standing a lot. So, gentle lady from Florida. I do not believe the gentle lady is recorded.
Speaker 4
Defeat us. The amendment, and I'd like to go on a voice vote. Correct? Yeah. Yes, ma'am.
Because it urges at least.
Speaker 2
On this vote, the ayes are 31, the noes are 27. The amendment in the second degree is adopted. We now return to the amendment offered by Mister Mervane as amended. Do any members wish to speak to that? If not, gentlemen, is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 30
I just wanna take 30 seconds, mister Hoyer. You were the first phone call that I received when I was elected 6 years ago. Your commitment to made in America, your depth of knowledge, the dignity that you bring to the office is something that I admire and look to as a mentor. I thank you for everything that you have done for domestic manufacturing, our country, and this district, and your perspective of history and for sharing. With that, I urge you to vote for this amendment.
Again, I'm standing up for the American steel industry, American jobs. I yield back, and a voice vote, please.
Speaker 2
Well, any member can call for a recorded vote, but I would reinforce the wisdom of your suggestion. Questions now in the event that is offered by mister Marvin. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any opinion of the chair? The ayes have it, the amendment is adopted.
Speaker 2
The general lady from Washington, is she here? Not here right now. We'll move on, but we'll come back. But somebody could alert her. It's time for her a minute to be coming up.
Speaker 2
Gentleman from Maryland, mister Ivy, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 13
I thank you, mister chairman. I asked to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, without objection. The gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would restore collective bargaining rights for unionized federal employees affected by the March 27 executive order entitled exclusions from the federal labor management relations program. This executive order basically extended the national security exemption to nearly all departments and agencies. And as a result, about 700,000 federal employees' contracts have been voided, in the wake of that administrator executive order. This is an amendment that parallels the language of HR 2550, which was offered by Mister Golden.
I think lead cosponsors were Joyce Lelota and Valdeo, and it is from this committee. And it passed the house two thirty-one to one ninety-five. It's in the Senate, but it hasn't moved. So we're asking to move this language just to make sure this moves forward, and to restore these voting rights for these federal government employees. I, you know, I represent the district, Mister Hoyer shares another big part of it where we have tens of thousands of federal government employees, many of whom were impacted, all of whom were impacted by that executive order.
And these people are hardworking, patriotic Americans who dedicated their lives to serving the United States of America. Many of them are veterans, who decided to continue their public service and patriotic activity by becoming federal government employees, after they had left military service. And, you know, I think it's important to make sure we treat all these federal government employees fairly. One of the big attractions that brings people to the federal government is patriotism. To some extent, job security, but, you know, making sure for them that they have some sort of stability with respect to what kind of work environment they're going into.
And that's been totally upset by things that have happened in the past year or so. And, you know, I'll go back to this again. I've really been focused on the impact on science and technology in the United States, much of which is pushed forward by federal government employees at NASA and other agencies. And I know Congressman Strong has a strong interest in this as well because of the assets in his district. But one of the issues that came out the other day, in the Washington Post, it was an article entitled American science is rapidly shrinking.
And there was another one that was brought to my attention by one of my former colleagues from the Homeland Security Committee, a Republican. And it's entitled what the Chinese robot that ran a half marathon says about America. Now I had to pick the marathon one because of our marathon champion over there from the other day. I'm still marveling at the fact that you could run a marathon in three hours, show up the next day in heels, no less, and I commend you again for that effort. But seriously, on this point, let me read just a part of this.
I know it's The Washington Post and everybody we used to assume it was a liberal outlet, but it's more like The Wall Street Journal these days. But in any event, Chinese firms have held roughly two thirds of the world's effective robotics patents, more than 190,000 of them as of 2024. The special competitive studies project, an initiative set up by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, sees the United States holding only a narrow edge in frontier innovation while lagging on industrial capacity and talent pipeline. The talent pipeline is being very much affected by what we're doing with respect to hiring and the treatment of our federal government employees, and it's certainly undermining our efforts to build and maintain it. Recruitment and retention are being seriously hurt.
Now I'll finish with this. If China's running robots aren't scary enough, consider what's happening in the Russia-Ukraine war. Last week, Ukrainian president Zelensky announced the first capture of a Russian-held position exclusively by unmanned platforms. We're falling behind on all of these fronts, and the military applications are critical. So I ask that we move forward with this language.
It's bipartisan. It's been accepted by the House. We wanna make sure that whatever the outcome of this, on the senate side, that we still have a chance to get this done so we can preserve the protections that we put in place, to bring, and retain top talent to the federal government workforce. So I heard it's support of this amendment. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen from Ohio. Mister Joyce is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. Labor relations collective bargaining work should be done by the Education and Workforce Committee and the Oversight Committee. Moreover, this issue is being litigated.
We should let the courts do their work. Those are the reasons I oppose this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Gentlemen from Maryland. Mister Hoy is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I appreciate the chairman's remarks, but we do this all the time. None of the funds, which is not authorized on a bill, it's simply saying and I hump I tremble at the temerity of us to say you can't spend funds. Mister Vote would not appreciate that at all. None of the funds can be spent to violate a contract. Now very frankly, that's not necessarily the position of the president of the United States that you can't violate contracts.
Does he have the ability to do it? Because most contracts are severable at the convenience of the government. But people who do business with us and the unions themselves who do business with us in terms of negotiating with the government had reached contracts. And those contracts will expire, and the government will have to renegotiate. The unions will have to renegotiate.
And they don't negotiate, as you know, for wages, because that is still with us. We still make that decision, and you turn down an amendment. Of course, I suggested to raise them by 3.1%. But this amendment simply says that we're not gonna spend money to abrogate contracts that were entered into voluntarily by the government, voluntarily by the unions that set the parameters of work and relationships between employer and employee for a specified period of time. But those contracts will expire.
But that wasn't good enough for the president, so he simply abrogated them. And so people who presumably relied on the contract in some way or another to either come to work, stay at work, and not leave work. And the president simply said those contracts are no longer any good as of 03/26/25. We don't say that they have to enter into a particular contract in the future, either the unions or the employer in this place, the government. All we say is these contracts should remain in effect.
And if the gentleman will yield to me, you indicated this passed the House, and who supported that?
Speaker 13
On this comedic, Joyce Lelota Valdeo. Joyce, Lelota, Valdeo were the three on this committee. Yes. Who are co-sponsors with Congressman Goldman?
Speaker 4
Well, they made a good judgment at that time. I urge the committee to adopt this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlemen. The gentleman from Florida, Miss Washington Schultz, for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 3
you to both of the chairmen. I rise in strong support of this amendment to protect the collective bargaining rights of more than 500,000 American civil servants. When the United States government signs a contract, it ought to respect the terms. It's that simple. Anything less is a clear affront to the rule of law that undercuts our national credibility.
And there's nothing more critical to workers' rights than the ability to unite in solidarity and negotiate collectively with their employer, especially under this administration, which has been eager to break promises to our federal workforce and flagrantly violate the law. Binding contracts ratified by the workforce are essential. And it's clear to me that this administration won't be satisfied with ripping away the hard-earned rights of federal employees. They're just the first in line. Trump and Republicans want to gut unions and silence the voices of working people, so their billionaire corporate friends can get the final say.
If we allow this administration to arbitrarily vacate their obligations to civil servants who dedicated their lives to our country, undermining their retirement, health care, child care, and more, it will harm all workers, union or non-union. Most importantly, it will mean higher costs and declining quality of government services for all Americans. Anybody who has interfaced with a federal agency this year has encountered more delays and denials than ever. My constituents are furious, and I'm sure many of yours are too. That's the direct result of project 2025 efforts to leave federal workers, quote, traumatically affected, unquote, according to OMB director Russ Vote.
And the civil servants who have been pushed out or forced into retirement will not be replaced in their roles. You think people will line up to work at federal agencies once Trump takes away all the benefits? After the way hardworking career employees have been treated by unqualified and disqualified political appointees, there's apparently plenty of money to spend on signing bonuses for unvetted ICE hires, but not enough to fulfill our promises to the people who have dedicated their careers to serving the public at other agencies. Americans can't afford the consequences of the Republican purge of public servants. That's why I proudly support this amendment, commend the gentleman for offering it, and yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentle lady. Are there any other members seeking recognition to speak on the amendment? If there's no further debate, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close on his amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I wanna emphasize this is not a partisan provision. The house floor vote was 231 to 195, so there was a good deal of Republican support with respect to this legislation. And I'll close with this, as congressman Golden's floor remarks, just briefly. This majority includes Democrats and Republicans who recognize that collective bargaining is not a partisan issue.
It's about fairness, dignity on the job, and a voice in the workplace. I think that's very well put. I think it's an amendment that deserves bipartisan support, and I ask that you support this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 2
Recorded vote has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt. No. Mr. Aguilar. Mister Aguilar?
I. Mr. Alford? Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No.
Missus Bice? Missus Bice? No. Mister Bishop?
Speaker 7
Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case, I. Mister Siscamani?
Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud?
Mister Clyburn.
Speaker 7
Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar, aye. Miss Dean? Mister Lauro?
Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Diaz-Bollart?
Mister Edwards? No. Edwards? Mister Elzy? Miss Escobar.
Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espéyat. Mister Espéyat, aye. Mister Fleishman. Mister Fleishman, no.
Miss Frankel? I. Franklin? Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest?
Mister Guest, no. Mr. Harter? Mr. Harter? Mr. Harter? I.
Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? Missus Henson?
No. Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy?
Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce? No. Mister Joyce, no.
Miss Captor? Aye. Captor? Aye. Mister Lolota?
Aye.
Speaker 7
Miss Lee votes aye. Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, I. Miss Malloy.
Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye.
Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar?
No. Mister Moore? Mister Morelli? Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervan.
Aye. Mister Mervan, aye. Mr Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse. No.
Miss Perez. Aye. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingry. Aye.
Miss Pingry, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley? Mister Quigley, aye.
Mister Russenthaler? Mister Russenthaler? No. Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers?
No. Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Simpson, no.
Mister Strong, no. Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood, I. Mister Valadao.
Speaker 7
Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Washington Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no. Mister Shreev, no.
Speaker 2
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? The gentleman from California?
Speaker 2
Are there other members wishing to change their vote or to cast their vote? Seeing none, the clerks will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 29 and the noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from Washington, Miss Perez is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that I talked about last year, I think, is worth repeating, is that of the couples in the lowest tax bracket in this country, only 23% file their taxes for free. That means the vast majority of them are paying for tax preparation services. The lowest income people in our country are paying for a service that they're required to fulfill. Working people often don't have the time to navigate burdensome filing processes, and the money to pay somebody else to do it for them.
And I will tell you, this is terrifying. I have my husband, and I have spent a lot of time looking at these forms and asking ourselves, what the hell are they asking us here? And I know that is a very common experience in America today. The underlying problem, the underlying bill prohibits the IRS from developing or providing taxpayers with a free public electronic return filing service option without approval from Congress. The problem with that clause in the underlying bill we're voting on is that the IRS has already developed a free filing service option, and people really like it.
This was really popular in the States where it was rolled out. Mine was one of them. Many of you here also, in 2025, it was rolled out. And according to the GAO, taxpayers who use this direct file service reported that it was an easier tax preparation method and that they than which they'd previously used. And 90% of respondents said that it increased their trust in the IRS.
Let me tell you and remind you all that trust in Congress right now is at 10%. It's at 10%. And this is one of the bills. This service is one that improved trust in the IRS. You know how hard that is to do?
This was a resoundingly popular and effective service that we've already paid for, that we could, in this body choose to provide again and save money for working Americans who are trying to fulfill their patriotic duty to file their taxes. In 2025, the direct file program saved 11,600,000 for families and tax prep fees. Not accounting for the time they saved or for the refunds they got or the increase in refunds they got because their returns were, you know, properly filed. This was a good thing. If so this service was not pulled because of the cost to develop or administer.
That was a sunk cost. This wasn't this clause in the underlying bill was not about making services easier for our constituents. But I will leave you with one question and this little factoid. Just yesterday, quarterly lobbying disclosures indicated that Intuit, publisher of the popular, quote-unquote, popular tax preparation software, TurboTax, spent nearly $1,000,000 last year in lobbying fees for this body. Just a little factoid.
Filing your taxes is not optional. It's an American duty, and you shouldn't have to pay tax preparers to fulfill it. We shouldn't backtrack one of the most popular services that we've developed in this body in recent memory, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. Congress did not give the IRS approval to move forward with a costly and unnecessary direct file program. I'm uncomfortable, and my colleagues should be too, given the IRS sweeping control and authority to not only be the tax collector, but enforcer all at once. Estimates have shown the direct file program was more than 15 times more expensive than originally projected.
These resources could have been spent more wisely than improve existing taxpayer services, improve core technology services. This amendment would strike a provision that simply requires the IRS to carry out activities for which they've been authorized by Congress. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Haure, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say, and you will have heard it here, the analysis of this tax season is gonna be a very negative one. We have totally untrained people who have been moved, large numbers of people who've been moved because the IRS personnel were reduced so drastically, 20, in a short period of time with Mr. Musk's chainsaw. And I'm just saying you're gonna hear it, and it's gonna be probably in three or four months where the analysis comes up, we're gonna see that this tax season was not affected very efficiently on behalf of the American people. Number two, you're gonna see that the services have been substantially undermined.
That the call times and wait times, I should say, gonna be a lot longer, a lot less calls answered, and service undermined. When you say, mister chairman, that IRS didn't ask us, somewhat ironic, this administration doesn't ask us about anything. The fact of the matter, they didn't ask us, and I won't go through the litany of things they have done on their own. But the direct file system essentially was a system that was to help those least able. Now you've all called and said, you know, I want some information.
Well, hit 2, and then 2 tells you to hit 5, and then 5 tells you to hit 9. And these are folks I don't do my own taxes. Now I have a very simple, I've got three things on my places of income. That's it. I have no stocks or bonds.
Have no investments that I'm making money from, etc. So I have a great, but I have an accountant doing it because I wanna make sure it's right. Now I could spend the time to do it, and mine's pretty cheap to do relatively speaking, because it's simple. But we have a lot of people in this country. Don't fall in that category.
After all, I have, like many of you, I have a degree. I have a graduate degree. I'll be able to fill it out. Bang bang bang. And I'll tell you, I look at it and I say, what do they mean by that? What are they looking for?
And that's us. My friend, mister Harris, is laughing, and he's got more degrees than, well, the same number of degrees, but he's a very well educated guy. And we both look at that and say, jeez, they'll flip. How do our constituents know what the heck is going on? So what IRS did say, we're gonna make sure you know what's going on because we're gonna help you.
And they didn't rush into it. They said we're gonna have, I think it was 10, but it may have been more. 10 states. Try it out. See whether it works.
So it wasn't headlong. 94 of the people came back and said, thank god somebody's assuring me that when I find my taxes, it's right. And you guys are all afraid of these guys and guns coming to their doors and saying, pay your taxes or else we're gonna shoot you, apparently because of the gun thing. But the fact is that this is a system that says to people, you want to voluntarily pay your taxes. We're gonna help you.
Now very few people think that we may tell them we're from the federal government, but they're here to help you, that we mean it. In this case, they found out we met it. One of the first things the administration did was to eliminate it, and there was a lot of lobbying about that. Now I pay for mine. And very frankly, I have the resources to pay for it.
A lot of people don't have those. And then they say, well, we'll do it free for you. Uh-huh. Fade and switch. I don't accuse everybody of doing that.
That's not the case, but there is a significant part of that. So we're gonna lose this just like we've lost all the rest. But direct file was a way to say to Americans, you may be only paying $500, a thousand dollars, 1,500 in the taxes, but we're gonna help you do it, so you're not worried that you're making a mistake. That's what they did. It was a success.
We should not jettison. Please support this amendment.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Connecticut. Mister Lawrence recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I just wanna compliment the general lady for this bill. I think we had a discussion about this in the last go-around. I support this amendment and the direct file program. By the way, can I just step back for a second?
I just wanna say hello to Free DC. Thank you for being here, guys. You're great. So Americans collectively spend more than seven billion hours, $133,000,000,000 preparing taxes every year. The IRS reports that the average taxpayer spends about 13 hours and $270 to prepare their taxes.
Nearly every other advanced economy in the world has a free filing option. We are the outlier in the worst way. During the last administration, Democrats created the direct file program, rolled out the pilot to 12 states, helping more than 140,000 Americans file their taxes. In total, they claimed more than $90,000,000 in refunds, all while saving roughly $5,600,000 in tax filing fees. Connecticut was supposed to join the 2025 tax filing season, but then the Trump administration chose to stop the program, bowing to the multibillion dollar tax prep industry and their army of lobbyists.
Let's talk TurboTax, as our colleague did. H and R Block. They make a ton of money in this effort. And you know what? If anybody is not or maybe the president thinks it's a hoax, or affordability is an issue.
Just talk to the American people. Don't talk to billionaires and the millionaires. Affordability is a big issue today. People live paycheck to paycheck. Why is it that we don't want to help families?
How can we help them put money back in their pocket? That's what this is about. You know, if with regard to Connecticut, had direct file been an option. Connecticut taxpayers would have saved $87,000,000 in filing fees. Why don't we want to help taxpayers?
But heaven help us if we cannot help middle-class, working-class families with the filing costs. Unfortunately, they are not your buddies, Tesla and Palantir. And actually, those guys don't have to pay any taxes. They're not doing it. These folks are paying taxes, and what we wanna do is add to their difficulty and say, hey.
You gotta go to these companies who are making a fortune when you could do direct file, and you could be saving money. And you could spend that money somewhere else. Maybe buy groceries, maybe help pay the utility bills, maybe deal with rent or housing, you know, and prescription drug costs here. Look, Americans overwhelmingly supported a free tax filing option. We should join the rest of the developed world in providing an easy, free, and reliable way for people to file their taxes.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentleman from Wisconsin, mister Pokan, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, miss Gluden Scamperez, for introducing this. Last year, we had this amendment up as well. And I think I took my five minutes and asked anyone on the other side of the aisle to give a reason why this is a good idea. And I believe the only conversations I had were with Miss Deloro and Mister Hoyer because no one on the other side of the aisle wanted to argue on it. I did hear what our subcommittee chairman said, and that sounds like something I might read in the Intuit, you know, annual report as a reason.
But the reality is we've already paid that money out for the thing. So if it costs a little more, okay. But we've paid that money, and now we're shelving the project. Are we trying to make the IRS the Pentagon? You know?
Like, I know they do that quite often, and they failed eight audits. But we've got a program that works, that saves people millions of dollars, the average person hours of their time. And, you know, I did a little research since last year, and it's not just that this was popular. Think it's already been said. 94% of the people who use it said it's excellent or above average.
70% of people said they would use it if they were eligible, and it was rolled out across the country. That's a high, it's a big number of people that would use this. But the only thing that seems to make sense is I look at Intuit and H and R Block, and I look at how much they spent on lobbying the last two decades. Intuit, $43,300,000. H and R Block, $42,000,000.
In one year, Intuit made $12,700,000,000. If you take that twenty years of lobbying and put that cost into one year's profit, the 12,700,000,000, that's what's called 17 thousands. To make it understandable, that means it cost them 17¢ for every 1,000 dollars they made. That is called a pretty freaking good investment. 17¢ per thousand.
That's the only thing that makes sense. So if anyone has a different reason other than folks that make a lot of money off the people that were asking to pay their taxes, I would love to hear it. Once again, I will be glad to yield time to anyone who wants to explain why we've already spent the money on this program, why we are now shelving it, and not allowing the American people to use it. It's popular. It saves money.
It saves people time. So I will open it up for anyone who would like. I would be glad to yield the time. Crickets. If I'm missing it, I don't hear real well.
Just go, you just raise your hand and then I can see it. That's okay, too. I'll anyone? You know, if we really just think about it. If we honestly don't have a reason, why wouldn't we do this?
Right? And I don't wanna think it's because Intuit spent $43,300,000 on lobbying or the H and R block spent 42,000,000. But I can't think of any other answer why we wouldn't allow the American people to do this. You know, one of the things I love about Marine sitting on a committee with her is she's common sense, pragmatic, talks about people who bluntly are like us, are not the richest people in the world who came here, and what we need. And, you know, the people I know, it's a lot of work.
No one enjoys filling out our tax forms. They're complicated. But if we've put the money into it, this is our opportunity to let the American people have a little easier way to give us their money, our taxes that are due. So I got 58 seconds. I wanna make sure I didn't miss anyone.
I will yield as much time as I have left. No one? Alright. Well, I just hope that we keep this in mind as we take this vote because this is one where I really, I mean, we're throwing away the millions and millions of dollars that we put into putting this together to not help our constituents. It's really that simple.
I urge a yes vote. Last chance, 22 seconds. Alright, Mr. Chair. I guess that's it. I yield back.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentle lady from Nevada is pleased to address the amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This, first of all, I thank the gentlelady from Washington for this practical amendment. And this whole debate just reminds me of the saying, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I mean, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed their purely partisan big beautiful bill projecting to refund the average American a thousand dollars when, in fact, it's about $350. You now have a tool that allows people to file their taxes and not spend money filing them.
Do you know the average cost for a taxpayer to file taxes, just a simple tax form, is 200 to $300. So that refund that you gave to the American public is gone. You just handed it to tax preparers. And when you're sitting there thinking about Americans who are being crushed with housing costs, crushed with increased tax, gas prices, crushed with not being able to afford childcare. And you passed a bill to give them a tax refund.
And now you're saying we're gonna take it back because we don't want to basically make life simple for your average Joe American who is filing their tax forms. And my friend from Ohio, the chairman, I love you to death. But when you basically said one of your reasons for opposing this is that we have spent too much developing it. It breaks, you know, just it seems so nonsensical that we've already spent the money. We have the tool to make life more affordable for Americans, and we're just blowing it.
And like I said, you know, congratulations. You're on your ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And with that, I yield.
Speaker 2
Excuse me. Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady is recognized for one minute to close on her amendment.
Speaker 24
Don't think it's, you know, I'm not here to assume malfeasance or bad action on any side, but I think it is very, very easy, deceptively easy to find yourself in sort of a social silo where you're not hanging out with people who are struggling to file their taxes themselves, who are cussing the federal government, trying to navigate these systems. You know, maybe you grew up and your parents taught you how to do this stuff. Maybe you handle it for your kids. Maybe you've got a cousin who does it for you. But I'm telling you that the vast majority of Americans do not feel grateful to us for having given them this great gift.
They are angry that they're doing it, and then they're angry. B, we made it so complicated. And, c, they're also angry at yanking back what the Direct File program did, which was trying to make things right and fair by them, providing a free filing service. I would love your support on this. Thank you so much for your consideration of the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Washington. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. The enthusiasm on both sides is overwhelming, but I think the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Just before you start, just so you know, we have two amendments left. We will obviously try to get at least one done. We'll kind of judge time. We don't have difficulties we had earlier. We will have to come back regardless to approve the six bills that we have allocations for.
So just be aware of that. So once we do break, whether we've got one amendment, that what you will have to come back. Come back as quickly as you can. We'll get done as quickly as we can. With that, again, clerk, call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aguilar?
Mister Aguilar? I. Mr. Alford? Mr Alford? No.
Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No. Mr. Spice? Mr. Spice?
No. Mister Bishop? Yes. Mister Bishop? I.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter?
No. Mr Case? Mister Case? I. Mister Siscamani?
Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Klein? Mister Cloud? Mister Cloud?
No. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? I. Mr. Clyde?
Mister Clyde? No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar? I. Miss Dean?
I. Mister Lauro? I. Lauro, I. Mister Diaz-Bollart?
Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Mr Edwards? No. Edwards?
No. Mister Elze? Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbat?
Mister Esbat? Aye. Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? No.
Mister Guest? Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harder? Aye.
Mister Harder, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye.
Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce?
Mr. Joyce? No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye.
Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee? Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Pardon? Mister Levin, no. Mister Levin votes, aye.
Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCullum?
Speaker 7
Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming? Miss Ming? Aye. Mister Molinar?
Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore? No. Mister Morelli?
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Morvan. Mister Morvan, aye. Mr Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no.
Miss Perez. Aye. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingry. Aye.
Poggan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley? Mister Quigley? Aye.
Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? Rogers? No.
Mister Rutherford? Mr Rutherford? No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson?
No. Mister Strong? Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres.
Hi. Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood. Hi. Miss Underwood, I.
Mister Valadayo. Mister Valadayo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman.
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Welmak. Mister Zinke. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no.
Speaker 2
Do any members wish to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Virginia?
Speaker 2
panning up. Let's see. Are there other members wishing to record or change their vote? I know they required a few that were missed. Oh, yeah.
Here we go. How is the gentleman recorded, Mr. Womack?
Speaker 2
Are there other members wishing to change or sure. Cast their vote? Looks like Gavarino's Barringill is doing good business today. Okay. The clerk will tally.
While the clerk is doing that, just looking ahead, we have two amendments. My judgment is that Mr. Harris's will be pretty quick. So if we can, Mister President, we'll jump to that and come back. We're coming back anyway. Well, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. But we had members that wanted to vote who could not stay.
Speaker 2
They were procedural votes. That is fine. Well, what I'm suggesting would actually save you time. We would get out of here quicker. So I'm gonna make an executive decision on that.
I think I have the authority to decide what amendment is coming up. So the gentleman from Maryland is recognized too well, we haven't finished the, let me just announce. On this vote, their eyes are 28, the nose are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Doctor Harris is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I move that the amendment be considered read by.
Speaker 2
Objection. The amendment have a copy? Reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Don't know.
Speaker 6
Yeah. Yeah. It's one of the ones with the big rate late stamp on it, which is a new thing this year. And I think mister Mervans had a little late on it too, and better late than never, I guess.
Speaker 2
It is pretty brief. So if that's all, I will allow the gentleman to explain his amendment.
Speaker 6
Thank you, very briefly. We discussed this a little bit yesterday that because of the regulatory conditions for local small banks, they are set to a $3,000,000,000 capitalization, including their holding company. That's the community banks are suffering. They just can't afford the regulations for the big banks, the too-big-to-fail banks. This raises the limit.
Yesterday, it was 15. Brought it in at 12 today, dollars 12,000,000,000. I think that's reasonable. I think that protects a lot of our local banks from complaints. Probably all of you have heard that these local banks perform very important functions in our local communities.
I don't want them to get taken over because of the regulatory burden of being considered, you know, treated like a large bank. So I would ask the body to approve the amendment and heal back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen from Ohio, Mister Joyce is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
Appreciate the amendment from the gentleman from Maryland and support its goals. As I said yesterday, we need to ensure that we are not creating a barbell banking system, rather one that meets the needs of all banks, big, regional and small. I appreciate the work the doctor has done to consult with the authorizers on this amendment, and I'm happy to support it.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen from Maryland, Mister Hoyer is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Well, I'm somewhat taken aback by the chairman's remarks. That's my chairman, I'm surprised that unlike so many amendments that we were offering and that you said were not within the ambit of our authority and were not appropriate. This is legislation on a bill. This is not any of the funds. This is authorizing authority or directive authority to reduce it.
As I said, I'm sympathetic to the gentleman's amendment because I've heard this from our small banks as well and CDFI banks. But I will tell my friend that I'm with you. I think this figure may be too, I don't know what the figure ought to be. I do know, however, having followed up from the First Amendment, that there is some committee on the, there's some concern on the committee, at least on my side, as to the number. They had suggested a figure of 4 or 5 billion.
I don't know whether that accomplished the objective. And because of that, because this is legislation on a bill, I really think we at least ought to hear from the financial services committee as to what they think the proper level is, because I think the gentleman from Maryland, as I said earlier, is correct. There is a problem, and we ought to address it. I just don't know that this figure may be too high, and that's what we hear from our side of the committee. So for that reason, I won't be unable to support this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that I think it is a problem.
We ought to deal with it, but we ought to have more information. And I think the authorizing committee really ought to deal with it.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The general lady from Minnesota is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 29
Thank you for yielding. I wanna thank doctor Harris for bringing this forward, and I don't know what the outcome of the amendment is going to be. But we've all heard from our community banks. And from my community banks, I heard from my small businesses in particular. They are very concerned about what's going on.
So this is gonna help, you know, with mortgages in my communities, but it's really gonna help our small businesses. I was just with them in Minnesota last week too. They were asking for relief in this area. They were asking for it, besides the banks. And the banks hadn't put them up to it.
They were just asking for it. So I thank the gentleman for bringing forward the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. And, you know, to address the ranking member. Yeah. This is not a conventional way this should be done. We're doing a lot of stuff not the conventional way right now, but this is something that I just feel has to be done.
A lot of banks and the downstream recipients, the small businesses, the mortgage holders, they are calling for this relief, so I would ask us support for the amendment.
Speaker 2
In fact, the gentleman, the questions now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it, and the amendment is adopted. With that, the committee is in recess. Please come back right after. We'll deal with the one amendment we have left, and then the allocations. The committee will reconvene.
Give everybody a chance to get seated. General Lady from Washington, Miss Perez, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 24
I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that the clerk read the amendment.
Speaker 7
An amendment offered by Miss Perez in the appropriate place in the bill. Insert, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce any action by a federal agency that would restrict access to mail-in voting eligible citizen voters in federal elections.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that language can be a little bit confusing, but what this bill does is it says that none of the money that we are allocating today will be used to stop states who use vote by mail from doing that. I have never voted any other way. Washington state, we know that it is the gold standard. And I will also say as someone that, you know, has worked in the trades that most of us don't have time to stand around all day in a line waiting to vote.
If you're trying to pour concrete, if you're working on any kind of timeline, if you're trying to pay a mortgage, it's really not conducive to democracy and a representative body being delivered here. If you're expecting people with young kids, with time cards, to take the day off to vote. This amendment simply ensures that funding in this bill can't be used to implement, administer, or enforce any action by a federal agency that would restrict access to mail-in voting for eligible citizens in federal elections. As my colleague, Mister Newhouse, knows, Washington state has been using this for decades. Because you're so much older than me, Dan, I think you can testify to that better than I can.
Mail-in voting ensures that all Americans, whether working shift jobs, raising young kids, or living in rural areas, have their ballots counted. I also wanna recognize these are the gold standard in election security. I look, paper ballots, you know, on American-made Washington state-grown paper, where we grow trees for a living, are the gold standard in election security. You cannot, you know, beam in with a satellite and mess with some numbers. And people know that.
Bad actors know that. And, actually, as a point of proof, I had two ballot boxes firebombed in the last election to try to destroy ballots. Spoiler alert, it didn't really work. We were able to recover them. But that shows you the links that you have to go and the scale, that it's just not feasible to influence elections on a wide scale.
Is it perfect? No. But no voting system is, and this gets pretty dang close, and we should not be impeding the rights and the access of younger families, of people working in the trades, rural Americans from exercising their right to vote, and doing so with paper ballots. So thank you for your consideration of this bill. And with that, I will yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentle lady and just to my friend, Mr. Newhouse. Now you know how they treat you when they know you're leaving. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mister Joyce, to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my colleague's amendment. However, we are still obtaining information from the administration on the EO and its implementation. USPS is largely funded out of the Postal Service Fund, a revolving fund, and the EO does not make clear how this will be supported, nor have they been asked to fund this EO or its directives. The FSGG appropriation primarily focuses on mail for the blind and overseas voting.
We do not fund USPS operations. The appropriation meant to give the USPS relief for specific mandated services that are provided free. Given the unique structure and organization of the USPS, implementation of the EO is really an issue that would be best discussed in an authorizing committee setting. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Speaker 2
In fact, gentlemen, the gentleman from Maryland, mister Hore, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Here we go. Well, for those of you who'd like to follow the president, he voted by mail ballot. Now he said I have a very important job. I can't leave the White House, and we know how infrequently he's at Mar-a-Lago. So it would have been impossible perhaps for him to vote in presence in Mar-a-Lago.
Or maybe he just didn't wanna go out with the folks who vote at the ballot box. Mail voting has been with us for a very long time. And if there had been fraud over the years of substantial, our elections are largely run by volunteers. They may get paid for that day. They get paid a nominal sum for that day, but our elections are run by volunteers mostly at the polling places, not so much in the central office.
And, therefore, there are mistakes. But the good news in America is, there has been very little fraud. Has there been some? Of course. There's been some fraud in Congress.
There's been fraud in the Senate. There's been fraud in the administration, not all administrations, because it's run by human beings. They're imperfect, and they try to get sometimes advantages that aren't consistent with the rules. But the fact of the matter is that numerous lawyers, accountants, election experts have looked at this system and think it is not one that has consequential misdeeds perpetrated in the course of an election. Those are the facts.
And those were the facts when the president alleged the election had been stolen and had some 60 cases heard in multiple jurisdictions, some by Trump-appointed lawyers, some by Biden or Obama or maybe even Clinton lawyers, judges. And what we wanna do is have more people voting, not less. And mail balloting, as the president so amply demonstrated, is a way that if you have reasons that it's difficult for you to get to the polls, that you're out of town, or you simply don't wanna be in the crush of a line that you have to wait in a half an hour, maybe because you just have trouble standing. Mail ballot has been a part of our election system for a long time, and some states use only mail ballots. It's only Oregon?
Speaker 4
Washington. Washington only, Dan. Yeah. Yeah. They only use that because it facilitates the ease with which people can get to the ballot box by mail.
Now the president utilized that. He was caught. In one of the elections, you guys, on your side of the aisle thought maybe this was okay. One of the reasons for that was you found out in ballots, we were ahead of the game. And in my district, certainly, four years ago, it's, I guess, six years ago now, there were more Republicans at the polls than Democrats.
And the Democrats voted by mail a lot. This will preclude people from having easy access to exercising their franchise. And I think the president, I'm surprised he's in Mar-a-Lago a lot. I'm surprised he didn't vote in person if he wants to take the position that voting by mail should not occur. Talk is cheap.
If you really think that's a bad system, then you ought not to use it yourself. And what the general lady is saying is, we don't want any money spent in this bill. And I was the author, by the way, of the Election Assistance Commission. Bob Nave and I are from Ohio. Bob Nave from Ohio.
From the administration house administration committee. When I was the ranking member, he was the chairman. We authored that bill to make sure that the hanging chads did not happen again, and we had better technology, etcetera, etcetera. So I would urge the adoption of this amendment in the conviction that we want to enable voters to have the easiest access to the ballot that they can have, and express their opinions. That's what democracy is about.
And I urge us to continue to commit to using that option that people want to use. And I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mister Lawrence, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I want to thank the gentleman for introducing this amendment. I wanna start by noting first and foremost, president Trump who has crusaded against mail-in voting for years, calling it mail-in cheating, quote, also votes by mail. He said that he can do it, quote, because I am the president, quote, and, quote, I have a lot of different things to do, end quote. Height of hypocrisy that a man who voted by mail himself is now trying to limit that right for everyone else.
His reasoning is transparent to anyone with eyes. He claims with no evidence that it is because of rampant fraud, and there is none. Now I would ask my colleagues in California, in Nevada, Utah, and Washington state if they view their own election as male in cheating, seeing as they were elected in states that allow where all elections to be conducted entirely by mail. In California, there are 7 Republicans who are on this committee. Colorado, four Republicans.
Hawaii, no Republicans. Nevada, one Republican, one on our committee. Oregon, one Republican. Utah, 4 Republicans. The entire delegation, one on our committee.
Vermont, no Republicans. And Washington, two Republicans. And one on this committee here. So the truth is that President Trump wants to limit access to the ballot box to keep himself and Republicans in power. That is antidemocratic and against the values that this nation was built on.
Values that have sustained our democracy for February. This administration has an established track record of discriminating against states and local governments based solely on who they voted for. Last fall, the administration canceled $53,000,000 in grants to organizations in my state working on clean energy projects. Part of nearly $8,000,000,000 that was canceled for projects in 16 states, all states that voted for the president's opponent in the last election. The president has also withheld disaster relief from democratic states, approving only 23% of requests from states with democratic governors, and 90% of requests from states with republican governors.
This is political retaliation, pure and simple. We cannot allow the president to continue playing partisan games with our elections. The American people are stuck in the cost of living crisis, made worse by the reckless actions of this administration. President Trump knows he has failed, and that the American people will hold him and Republicans accountable at the ballot box this fall. His attempts to escape this accountability, curtail the right to vote, will fail.
And I ask my colleagues who are on this committee who are in states that have all of voting if they think that their elections were illegal and that whether or not they really should be sitting in this institution. As a matter of fact, they should. They were elected and legally elected. That is the fact, and we should not lose track of that. We cannot curtail the right of people to be able to vote.
It is a founding principle of this nation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from California, Mister Levine, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, and I just wanna start with some data from the Heritage Foundation, hardly a liberal source. They maintain a database of proven voter fraud cases all across the country. Analyses of that database show that over decades and across literally billions of ballots cast, cases involving fraudulent mail ballots are extraordinarily rare, amounting to a tiny fraction of the total votes. In Utah, a state that conducts elections primarily by mail, a recent legislative audit reviewed more than 2,000,000 ballots cast in 2023 and 2024 and identified two out of 2,000,000 that were problematic.
Utah voters themselves have reported extraordinarily high confidence in the integrity of their elections. They've mailed ballots to voters for years. Nevada's done the same. They're not experimental systems. They're established systems that are used in democratic and Republican-controlled states.
And let's be clear about who uses them. Active duty military stationed overseas, their families, seniors, voters with disabilities, rural Americans who live far from a polling place, shift workers who can't leave a job during voting hours. So it's not about partisanship. It's about access. And in states all across the country, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, my home of California, tens of millions of voters, Republican voters, Democratic voters.
They cast ballots by mail with virtually no problems anywhere across the country. That's a matter of public record. So this is just about preserving an option that states already administer under their own laws, and states use safeguards as they administer the laws. Signature verification, ballot tracking, secure barcoded envelopes, chain of custody procedures. These are standard practices across states that use mail-in voting.
And when state officials, again, Republican and Democratic officials testify, they consistently describe these systems as secure and workable. The leaders in this body have acknowledged that they say certain states handle it well. Certain states have strong systems in place. So the question then becomes one of consistency. And if a state system with these safeguards is considered secure in one place, it's difficult, if not impossible, to argue that the same safeguards are inherently insecure somewhere else.
I think we should also be clear that mail voting is widely used, including by prominent public officials of both parties, as has been said ad nauseam, including the president of the United States himself. It underscores a basic point. It's not a fringe practice. It's a mainstream method of voting that tens of millions rely on. So it comes down to a simple principle.
Do we trust states to run their own elections using systems that they have built, that they have tested, that they have administered over time? Or do we continue down this road of trying to take away a lawful option that tens of millions of eligible voters use? I think we need to keep faith with the voters who depend on that option. We need to respect the role of the states in administering elections under the Constitution. I yield support or I urge support, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen from New York, Mister Morelli is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate mister Joyce's comments, but I do wanna talk about the executive order which the president issued, which is unconstitutional, illegal, and is unserious. And I would just refer everyone to article one, section four of the United States Constitution. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. It's pretty clear.
The president of the United States has no role to play. The Constitution says it. So an executive order from a president which purports to take on responsibilities, duties, and powers that the constitution doesn't give them is unserious. And, actually, the executive order is serious for so many other reasons. It calls on the Department of Homeland Security to use one database.
It calls on the United States Postal Service to use another database which doesn't even exist. The truth is that we need, in this moment, not to rely on an executive order, not to wait for someone to do an analysis of an executive order, which has as much force of law as my six-year-old grandson, Gabriel, who might write an executive order and pass it off about elections because he doesn't have the power to do it. The truth is president Trump has demonized mail-in voting for reasons that are entirely unclear. In fact, as people have said, he chose to utilize that himself even though he was in Florida during early voting for much of the time early voting was going on. And for people who would say, well, the president can't go to a polling place, you know, security issues, etc.
But somehow, he did manage to find time to go to a UFC mixed martial arts championship bout. Apparently, you can't mail that in, so you actually have to attend. But the truth is it's unserious, but it's more than it. It's darker than that. In that, this is an attempt.
By the way, he's done no research. He doesn't even know how many people or Republicans vote by mail versus Democrats. He's just gone off on trying to make sure he cast aspersions on a form of voting because he has the emotional maturity of a five year old and simply cannot get to the point where he can acknowledge he lost the 2020 election. Many of us have been involved in politics, have lost elections. We've had friends lose elections.
You accept the fact that happens. And the truth is he simply can't accept it. So he's taken, Mister Chairman, the gentleman's out of order. House rules.
Speaker 11
Let me finish without, you know, suggesting anything about the president's mental state. I will say this. What we really ought to be worried about is 90,000,000 Americans did not vote in the last presidential election. We're voting-age eligible, US citizens. We care deeply about putting truth behind the words of the people, by the people, for the people.
We would be desperately working to make sure every single American voted, whether by mail or by early vote or by in person. The point isn't the manner in which you cast your vote. The point is to make sure you're able to cast your vote. I strongly support the amendment, and urge my colleagues to vote in the affirmative. I yield back my time.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. The press amendment number two calls for no funding to be used to implement, administer, or enforce any action by a federal agency that would restrict access to mail voting for eligible citizens voters in federal elections. This amendment is needed because in March, President Trump signed an illegal executive order which seeks to crack down on mail-in voting by creating an approved list of absentee voters. The order also threatens to withhold federal funds to states that don't comply with the order. That's unconstitutional.
So this is a threat to voting rights, and could disenfranchise voters. The president believes will vote for Democrats or not support his agenda based on other collected data points and data surrendered by states. We see some of that happening in what he's done with the misallocation of grant monies. So, this amendment will help prevent the disenfranchisement of voters who rely on this essential method of mail-in voting to cast their ballots. We have a mobile population.
People I meet all the time on airplanes. Mail-in voting is a convenience for them. Many work at home with the new electronic systems and so forth. Ohio's secretary of state sends out absentee ballot applications to all households in Ohio. So states are complying with the laws that the constitution allows them to pass and to implement.
In 2024, nearly 1 in 3 Americans voted by mail. One in three Americans voted by mail. Older Americans, particularly those age 65 and older. And I took care of a mother and a brother in my life, and they were able to vote so long as they were coherent. And it was so important, and that says nothing about our service members overseas who depend on mail voting to access the ballot.
Voting by mail is one of the most widely used and trusted methods of voting in the United States. Every state offers it in some form. It's a secure, reliable, and proven way for our citizens to make their voices heard. So we shouldn't break what's working. Thank you, and I yield back.
Support the prism in.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlelady. Gentlemen from South Carolina. Mister Clyburn is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, I don't know of anything that's more important to me than voting. I grew up in South Carolina. My parents go back all the way to the slave ship that brought them, my family, into this country. I've lived with the history of voting in South Carolina.
Remember, when the state had the democratic primary as a white-only club. Can you imagine? A white-only club. And that was up until I was 9 years old. I was nine years old when the courts declared that illegal.
The first time I ran for office, I ran for office under something called the full slate law. That has nothing to do with politics. That had to do with the fact that you had to vote for every vacant office. If a county had 11 representatives, which is the way I ran the first time from Charleston County, 11 representatives, I was not allowed to vote just for myself and go back home. I had to vote for 10 others in order for my vote to count, which meant my vote was actually neutralized.
It was designed that way. We've always given the states the right to conduct the elections. That's in the constitution. So why are we doing something up here that would impose a federal standard on the states who have decided, over time. It's time for us to be fair.
That's what this is, in the South, to be fair. And now we're gonna say we're gonna spend money in order to be unfair. The greatness of this country, I agree with Alexis de Tocque when he says that we are great as a country, not because we are more enlightened than any other nation, but because we have always been able to repair our faults. We found a fault with our voting system and repaired it. And here we are today saying we're gonna use federal money to prevent a state that decide that the fair thing to do is to make sure that everybody gets not just the right to vote, but to be able to vote.
Someone asked me, you what kind of representation do you give to your people? I said a. Triple A representation. Accessible, affordable, and accountable. That's what this is all about, and I thank you very much for bringing this forward.
I would hope that we will see it within ourselves to stop this charade and let this perfection that we're in pursuit of continue, and not reverse it with a law like this. And I'll hear back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, are there other people or other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady is one minute recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not a referendum on the president. I am begging us all to please put the knife down and back away. People where I live are sick of a partisan lens on everything. This is if about anything, this is about this being a great country, a large country.
Like, I can understand that if you were raised in New York City, you might think that something's different. Why would you need to vote by mail? But I'm telling you, this is a great country. This is a large country. Gas money is expensive.
People do a lot of different things for a living. And states make rules that make sense. This is one of them. Not always, but this is one of them. And let's be prudent with our taxpayer dollars, please.
Let's not go wasting it on something, chasing a wild goose. We don't need to be doing that. We have a lot of other things we ought to be doing. This is a great country. This is a great place, and it is built and made more great by good representation, by ensuring that if you have got young kids, if you are working a job, if you are living rurally, if you don't have gas money, you're voting.
You're still informing the leadership of this country. And with that, I’m begging you to consider supporting this. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentle lady. The questions now, and the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Washington. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. The opinion of the chair, the nos have it, but, ma'am, a vote has been requested, sufficient support having been demonstrated. Clerk will call.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday, miss Bice. Missus Bice, no. Mr. Bishop? Aye.
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter? Mister Carter, no.
Mr Case? Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani? Mister Klein? Mister Cloud?
Mr. Clyburn.
Speaker 7
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuéar. Mister Cuéar, aye. Miss Dean?
Ms. Dean, aye. Mr. Lauro? Aye.
Mr. Lauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Bollart? No.
Edwards? Mr. Edwards? No. Mr.
Elzy? Mr. Elzy? No. Ms.
Escobar? Ms. Escobar? Mr. Mr.
Escobar? Mister Fleishman. Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest, mister Harder, Mister Harter. I. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no. Missus Henson.
Missus Henson, no. Mr. Hoyer. I. Mister Ivy. I.
Ivy. Mr. Joyce. No. Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor?
Aye. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? No. Lolota?
Miss Lee? Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Letlow? Miss Letlow?
No. Mister Levin?
Speaker 7
Mister Levin? Aye. Miss Malloy? Aye. Miss Malloy?
No. Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum? Aye.
Miss Ming? Aye. Mr Mullinar? No. Mister Moore?
Mr. Moore? No. Mister Morelli?
Speaker 7
Mr Morelli. Aye. Mister Morvan. Aye. Mister Morvan.
Aye. Mr. Newhouse. Aye. Mr. Newhouse. Aye.
Miss Perez. Aye. Miss Pingree. Aye. Pingree.
Aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan? Aye. Mister Quigley?
Aye. Mister Russenthaler? Mister Russenthaler? No. Mister Rogers?
Speaker 7
Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford? No. Mr. Rutherford?
No. Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong?
Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres? Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Welmak.
Mister Welmak, no. Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no. Mister Shreev, no.
Speaker 2
Are there any members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Georgia. Mister.
Speaker 2
Are there other members wishing to cast their vote or change their votes? Seeing none, a corporal talent. On this vote, the eyes are 29, the nose are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Before we move into our this is the last minute, so we're done with the amendments.
We saw the allocations. But my Democratic friends might not know, my Republican friends will know that we have a fantastic communications director on our side of the aisle. I stole her from mister Womack years ago, took her to the rules committee, then liberated her from the rules committee, and brought her here. And this is her birthday. I ask no democrat to participate in the Boehner birthday song if you choose, but we wanted to have a chance to bring her in here in a surprise.
Oh. And, actually give her the Boehner birthday song. I'm not gonna tell you how old she is, but she's somewhere between 30 and 40. So you get it. So, my colleagues, this is your birthday song.
It doesn't last too long. Hey. Thank you. My friend from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, is this the appropriate time to recognize your point you were concerned with?
Speaker 2
Let me just quickly, gentlemen, ask for five minutes to address the committee. We're certainly gonna accommodate, thank you very much. That consideration.
Speaker 4
And I'm gonna have a few other words to say. But right now, what I want to do, I've had this discussion with a few of you. And as you all know, I'm very concerned about our committee bringing unity to our committee, not necessarily voting all the time, but unity of purpose in terms of making the status within this institution and within this government, dealing with the executive department a meaningful, important, critical component of how we make decisions. And, if my interns are you here? I'm gonna have them hand out something to each one of you, because I think it's an important concept.
And when you hear me talk, it may or may not have relevance. I'm a Democrat. I'm a former leader. I'm an activist in my party. But I want you to read this, and I don't want you to necessarily read it now.
Take it home. It's two pages, pretty short. And it's a speech that somebody who I do not think is accused of being a rhino made. His name is Newt Gingrich. He made it in 1998.
He made it after he and Bill Clinton reached a deal on a budget, which resulted that year in a balanced budget. We haven't had too many of those. I think, hopefully, that you will find Newt's words at least instructive in terms of his experience from being a very confrontational, tough, no nonsense, the other side is bad, we're good guy, to what you will see in his speech is saying, look, the American people elected a lot of different kinds of people. Here, we have a lot of different kinds of ideas, and we need to work together. So I wanted to hand this out to you.
I keep it in my briefcase. Again, it's 98. So it's some years old. It's 28 years old, but it's relevant today. So I thank you for giving it attention, and I'll have some other words to say about the bill and the 302 b's.
But I thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity because, hopefully, it being Newt Gingrich, it being somebody who clearly was a real hard-nosed opponent of the Democratic Party. And his reflections after having been here for twenty years and in, being speaker at that point in time, I guess, from '95 to '98, four years, let's say, and working with president Clinton and with the democrats and republicans in the congress. So I thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity, and I hope you'll read it, reflect upon it, and see if it has anything that you feel is relevant to our work today. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Now we'll go back to our normal proceedings. So seeing no further amendments, I now recognize Chairman Rogers for the purpose of a motion. Mister chair, I move to favorably report to the house the fiscal year 2027 financial services and general government appropriations bill. Question is now in the motion to favorably report the fiscal year 2027 financial services and general government appropriations bill to the house.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The opinion chair, the ayes have it.
Has Roll been requested? Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. Aye. Mister Aderholt, aye. Mister Aguilar? No.
Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, aye. Mister Amade. Mister Amaday, aye. Missus Bice?
Missus Bice, aye. Mr Bishop? Mr. Bishop? No. Mister Calvert?
Mister Calvert, aye. Mr. Carter? Mister Carter, aye. Mr Case? Mr Case?
No. Mister Siscamani? Mister Klein? Mister Klein? Mr. Cloud?
Mister Cloud, aye. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, no. Mister Clyde? Aye.
Mister Clyde, aye. Mister Cole?
Speaker 7
Mister Cole, aye. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar? No. Miss Dean?
Mister Lauro? No. Mister Lauro, no. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Yes.
Mister Diaz Bollart, aye. Mister Edwards, aye. Edwards, Mister Elzy, Miss Escobar? Ms. Escobar, no.
Mr. Espéyat ? Mr. Espéyat, no. Mr.
Fleishman? Mr. Fleishman, aye. Ms. Frankel?
Ms. Frankel? No. Mr. Franklin?
Mr. Franklin, aye. Mr. Guest? Mr. Harter?
Mr. Harter? No. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris. Missus Henson?
I. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer? No. Mister Hoyer?
No. Mister Ivy? Mister Ivy. Mister Ivy, no. Mr. Joyce.
Aye. Mister Joyce, aye. Miss Captor.
Speaker 7
Miss Lee, no. Miss Letlow. Aye. Miss Letlow, aye. Mr. Levin.
Mister Levin, no. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, aye. Miss McCullum? Miss McCollum?
No. Miss Ming? No. Miss Ming? No.
Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar, aye. Mister Moore? Aye. Morelli?
Speaker 7
Morelli, no. Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, no. Mr. Newhouse? Mister Newhouse, aye.
Miss Perez? No. Miss Pingry? No. Miss Pingry?
No. Mister Pocan? No. Quigley? Mister Quigley?
No. Mr Rashenthaler? Mister Rashenthaler? I. Mister Rogers?
Mister Rogers? I. Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford? I.
Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? Mister Strong? Mister Strong? Aye.
Missus Torres? Missus Torres? No. Miss Underwood? No.
Underwood? Mister Valadao? Mister Valadao, aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, no.
Miss Watson Coleman. Miss Watson Coleman, no. Mr. Womack. Aye. Mister Womack, aye.
Mister Zinke, aye. Mister Shreev, aye.
Speaker 2
Are there any other members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? General lady from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2
On this vote, the ayes are 34. The notes are 28. The motion is agreed to. We'll next move to the, you know, technical changes. Well, first, I ask unanimous consent the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and the report just approved.
Seeing no objections, so ordered.
Speaker 2
Three days without objections, so ordered. Okay. Our final order of business is consideration of the interim 302b subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 2027 for our first six bills. These interim allocations will allow us to begin our work. As we move forward, the committee is prepared to do the hard work, line by line, and uphold the fiscal discipline and effective governance.
Our FY27 process will target resources where they are needed most, reinforce the safety and security of the American people, and invest in high impact missions. We will take every step to ensure strong stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Charting a responsible fiscal path requires discipline and discretionary spending, while also acknowledging that mandatory spending is the primary driver of our long-term debt. Both are part of the conversations Republicans are having across committees of jurisdiction, because securing America's future prosperity is a goal we all share. So as we turn to our responsibility on the discretionary side of the ledger, today, these allocations not only demonstrate responsible governance, but they also represent our core commitments to advancing the American First agenda, to strengthen our national defense, supporting the safety and security of the American people, fully funding health care for our nation's veterans, and ensure that the government remains focused on its core mission.
I look forward to a robust debate today, and I urge all members to support the 302b allocations. That's my prepared statement. Let me add a couple of other things real quick. These six bills are only about 20% of the discretionary spending. So this is not much different than last year, where we started with the small stuff that, honestly, we can adjust.
And remember, these things are not final products that we're gonna do in the house, but the senate's gonna do something else, and at some point down the road, we'll negotiate. I like to release all of these. We will release the rest of them. Our intention is to be able to do it immediately after the May recess, so we'll get them a lot quicker to you, so you can look at the totality. You know, I've had broad discussions with my friend, the ranking member.
So she has kind of a general idea, but we want, obviously, the whole committee to see everything as quickly as we can. The military part of the situation is difficult to project right now. So that's why we're giving ourselves a little bit more time to see what happens and what additional information comes available. I will tell you my goal is pretty much what it was last time. I wanna get all these bills out of committee as quickly as we can.
But I don't look at any of them as final products. The rally is we're gonna be in a negotiating posture, at some point, both with the folks in this room and certainly our counterparts in the United States Senate and with the president of the United States who has to sign these bills as they pass both houses and, frankly, has the ability to sustain any veto. So everybody's got a role here. My hope would be at the end of this process, whenever it is, could be the end of fiscal year, could be the end of the calendar year, that we arrive at what we did last time. That is something that is bicameral, bipartisan, and that we'll have members of both sides of the aisle feel comfortable voting for.
What the proportions will be, who knows? But this is the beginning of the process. The one thing I will guarantee you is if we sit around and wait on everybody else to do what they're supposed to do, we will be sitting here five months from now. I'm not gonna let that happen. We're gonna move product, and that will help force action, I think, in the other places where we need it.
As I said earlier, and I'll just go through this. Look. This is pretty simple stuff. We should have a budget committee resolution that passes the floor of the House. Whatever happens, I'll mark to that.
It just hadn't happened in five congresses, no matter who is in control. And I've told our friends, and they have worked very well with chairman Arrington, and I know he's doing his best. I said, don't give me something that just passes a committee. If it can't get across the floor of the house, then I can't possibly write 12 bills to that number, that top line number, which is the most important thing for us as this committee. The second thing would be, I would tell you, if the president and the leaders of both parties and both chambers came to an agreement, I'd mark to that number, because we can pass that number.
And, frankly, if that didn't happen last time, may not happen this time. But if that were to happen, that would be the mark. If, since Republicans control, for the time being, both chambers, if there were an agreement between the speaker and the majority leader, I would mark to that number. We don't have any of those three things right now. But, we were able to work together last time, moving things through and eventually get to top lines that I thought were reasonable, and that the majority of both houses thought were reasonable, and that the president was willing to sign in all but one case.
And, honestly, the disputes we have on the Department of Homeland Security are not appropriations disputes. We aren't disagreeing about the amount of money being spent or what have you. They are policy disputes. Frankly, these are things I think for the most part ought to be settled outside this committee elsewhere. But that's neither here nor there.
We'll continue to struggle with that because I would hope we can find common ground on that and come to an agreement. But we are going to move this process forward. And as I think I reported to you last time, I do talk pretty extensively with our senate counterparts. I know the ranking member does as well, and we talk together quite a bit. So, you know, the Senate's request was pretty simple.
They said, I said, what can we do to help you guys? Not that we don't have our own problems. And they said, just move bills. That'll create pressure for us to move bills. And they will move it in their process and their way.
And my guess would be their numbers will come in higher than ours at the allocation level, because they usually start with the idea they gotta get to 60. And guess what? We somehow magically negotiate between where we're at and they're at, come out with something that can go. So, yeah, I'm just being as candid with you as I can. That's the way I see it unfolding right now.
It could change. So, again, don't take these numbers as coming down from Mount Sinai in stone. They're gonna change. But we have to have some place to start, and we want to get you the complete picture as rapidly as we can. So early May, we will come back, and we will have for you based on, you know, the information that we've received where we're gonna be on the other 80% of the allocations, which is prime, you know, we all know the drill here.
This is gonna be a defense labor kind of discussion and debate, probably the rest of the way, and that's okay. And, I take some comfort in the thought that the ranking member and I have gotten to the point many times over the years in labor HVA. And we never started in the same place. We've somehow got to the same place, and we're able to pass the products that were bipartisan, bicameral. Our friend, Patty Murray, was always part of that process in the eight years we did it.
And frankly, Susan Collins is a superb legislator in her own right, and a good person to work with. So, we'll see where we go from here, but that's where we're at. It gives you sort of a framework to at least evaluate these first six and to think about the process that's going on ahead of us. So, I'd now like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, my good friend, for her remarks.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And just before I make my remarks, I just would like to say on that last vote that we took on Viscos and Campares' vote, my thought is that probably my colleagues who are in states that have mail-in voting, maybe you're gonna send a note out to your constituents that I'm not gonna accept any of your vote if it's a mail-in vote. You know, think twice about, you know, what we do in that regard. But I wanna start by saying, I agree, with my really very good friend, Tom Cole, that we should get all 12 bills through the committee. Particularly pleased at what happened in the last go-round.
11 out of 12, and we're still deliberating on homeland, but 11 out of 12 bills. I was stopped by one member of the, actually, the other side of the aisle who said to me, when we're discussing something, don't you know how to compromise? Well, we wouldn't have had 11 out of 12 bills if neither of us knew, you know, that we did know how to compromise. And the value of that, of what we did the last go around, and is it, I think it's instructive as to where we go in the future, here, is that I take my position, and I know that Tom Cole takes his position on the appropriations committee. And I believe that people who wanna sit on the appropriations committee understand its centrality to the federal government.
For my part, I believe it is the soul of that. I get in trouble with my friends on ways and means, but this is where it's a nerve center. Without it, the government does not function. And so I'm committed. I am committed day in and day out to make sure that the strength of this committee, its centrality to our government, is maintained and am willing and will continue to fight for that every single day and will not have others who think that this power of the purse belongs elsewhere, that we are not gonna allow that to happen.
And I believe that's where Tom Cole and I come down on these efforts, which is why we were clear about what we were doing in the last go-round. And that in the absence of passing appropriations bills, we could have all had a wonderful sabbatical. Do what you wanna do, because the relevance of this committee will have been squandered. None of this in the room want to squander the relevance of the appropriations committee. And so we'll work hard to get that done.
I might say, though, that with regard to I wanna get the bills done by July 4. We can do that. We can do that. We're moving, and we'll get it done. And that's everybody working together as we have.
But in order to do our job and for me to deal with my job, I believe that we do need to see all 12 allocations. I think it's important that happen. And, again, I thank the chairman. But, you know, recently, the president said that he instructed the White House budget director, Russ Vought, to quote, I'm quoting. I don't make this up.
God help me. You couldn't make it up. Don't send any money for daycare, end quote. The president went on to say, and I quote, we are fighting wars. We cannot take care of daycare, end quote, before adding, and again, a quote, it is not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, end quote.
Programs which he later referred to as, quote, little scams. In case anyone may have forgotten, the president previously said during an interview on Fox News that, quote, Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched, end quote. That was before his one big beautiful bill cut more than $900,000,000,000 to Medicaid. I understand the unprecedented political moment we are in, but we cannot lose sight of the simple truth that the president of the United States wants to spend more taxpayer dollars on open-ended, costly foreign wars while making drastic cuts to domestic programs that provide food, education, and medicine to the American people. The president said the quiet part out loud.
The policy priorities he articulated in those comments are laid down in the funding allocations we are considering today. The agriculture allocation cuts non-defense spending by $1,100,000,000. In commerce, justice, science, they cut $1,900,000,000 from nondefense funding, while increasing defense spending under that subcommittee by $600,000,000. Financial services, a $600,000,000 cut to non-defense fund funding. State and foreign operations, a $2,700,000,000 cut.
We have only received 6 of the 12 allocations. That is the problem in and of itself. But across the six allocations we have so far, the cut non-defense spending, the cut is $2,000,000,000 and increase defense spending by $100,000,000 in the agencies that deal with that. And that is before we even get to the Pentagon budget, 1.5 trillion dollars, which public reporting and the president's own comics make clear that this is an astronomical increase. I do not believe that child care, Medicare, and Medicaid are, quote, little scams.
And I do not believe we must spend so much money on foreign wars that we have to cut public services for Americans here at home to pay for them. So I will encourage my colleagues to reject the proposed allocations. I also want to express my strong opposition to considering allocations for only six bills, which represent less than a quarter of the total discretionary funding. And I take, you know, the goodwill of the chair of saying we'll know something in early May. But the purpose of our committee is to have one body that examines all potential trade-offs.
We cannot make those determinations if we do not know the allocations for all 12 bills. For example, we do not know the total allocation yet for the Labor HHS bill. Last year, the Republican majority proposed to cut the Labor HHS bill by $24,000,000,000. And this year, the CBO was predicting a $17,000,000,000 shortfall in the Pell Grant program, the signature federal program that helps students attend college who otherwise could not afford it. How is this Republican majority planning to address this shortfall?
If we do not have a total top line, how do we propose an amount to allocate for any one bill? We cannot make informed choices, informed decisions if we only have half of the information necessary to vote on subcommittee allocations. It is the way we have tried to proceed in the past, and it's the way we need to try to proceed in the future. We cannot pit one subcommittee against another. We cannot provide substantial amounts in one area, thereby shortchanging other critically important areas that make a difference in the lives of the people that we represent and help them create their opportunity for their success and their future for themselves and their families.
So, mister chairman, I say to you, with all the goodwill in my heart to propose and to move forward, I cannot vote for these allocations. I will encourage my colleagues to vote no. I thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank you, gentlelady. And now, recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, for any remarks he cares to make.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief because I'll share the views of our ranking member, mister Laurel. I said at the start of this that we were doing it backwards, that we'd put the cart before the horse. What do you mean by that? The way this process is supposed to work, and the chairman is absolutely right, hasn't worked on either side.
Democrats couldn't get a budget done. Republicans can't get a budget done. But that's the way it's supposed to start. And so what happens is we have to make up a number. As the chairman said, we got a mark to something.
The problem is the first two committees that you've just heard and we've just considered had no 302b. That's why I offered amendment and committee to add 1,800,000,000, which is less than is needed, but it was the 75 number that we had adopted previously. The next thing you do, you have to set a number, and then you have to take from that number, which is generically called the 302a, and transit to 12 component parts of a 302b, the 12 subcommittees. The problem with doing it the way we're doing it is none of us on 11 subcommittees essentially know what we're gonna have. Mister Calvin has a different advantage because, normally, his 302 is the first number.
My subcommittee, I believe, as the ranking member, is underfunded by at least $6,000,000,000. And that's a drop in the bucket to the numbers we talk about. But it is the difference between what I think, is a number that will allow the committee, the, excuse me, the treasury department to perform at least adequately some of the duties that we have given to them. But without knowing what the 302a is and then dividing it into 12 302b allocations, I can't effectively argue. And, mister chairman, I don't know that there was any forum in which me to argue that my committee needs x number.
Every other committee comes in and says, I next need x number. That number presumably would be more than we have a 3024, whatever the 3024. And then we'd have to somehow negotiate and see what our priorities are. But the way we're doing it, first of all, we put the cart before the horse. We didn't have a 302b.
We had a number that was given to us or given to mister Joyce. And so we marked to that number. I was forgoing beyond that number, you know, $1,800,000,000 be above it, which would have been less, in terms of a baseline, than we've had. Now you can disparage the baseline, but very frankly, on defense, mister Calvert has to deal with all time because the budget of 2026, you cannot purchase the same things that you need at the 2026 budget. Why could the cost go up?
That's what baseline is all about. Baseline simply says, you have a budget, and you can purchase 25 goods, at 26 prices, which are a cost of living adjustment above that. That's inflation. We all understand that. But we can't do it the way we're doing it because we don't know what the allocations are going to be and what the trade-offs are.
Between defense and labor, health are the two biggest bills and all the rest of us. So, mister chairman, I wanna thank you for your thoughtful recitation of the problem that confronts us. And it is very difficult. As majority leader, we had to decide what we were gonna put on the floor as a number. And so we deemed it, as you pointed out, because we couldn't get the budget through.
So we had to have a number, but that number was voted upon in the house. We don't have that yet either, you know, on either side. But, I would urge us to try to come to grips with and explain to the leadership of the house that we have to have some semblance of order in terms of knowing what the appropriations committee has to mark to, whatever it is. And then have some debate and discussion within the committee as to how to allocate that. Hard choices have to be made.
And so that would be the observation I would make. And if you would allow me to do it because I didn't do it at the end, I want to thank Kim Bates, Betts, Mike Patterson, Alex Dose, and James Golkowski, of the Republican side for their work. They're a pleasure to work with. We don't work enough together. I wanna work more together because I wanna know what those three zero two A's are, what I can argue about, what my allocation, our allocation could be.
But having said that, and on the minority side, Matt Smith, there's a clerk, Philip, Tezani. Quinn Hirsch is my, and Angel Naglione, who is the two people that helped me on my bills. I know all of us are advantaged to have staff who work with us who are much more able than their pay reflects. And, very frankly, members, you know, my view is you are worth more than your pay reflects, and I'm always working on it. Thank you.
Speaker 2
What an obvious play for popularity. I mean, come on. But just quickly before I, because I wanna recognize my good friends from Minnesota. But, number one, thanks both of you for what you had to say and message received. We will have the other numbers here in comparatively short order.
If I could have done them all at once, I would. But they're gonna be here right after we get back, and just please know that. And my friend from Maryland mentioned he likes to argue, you're gonna get your wish. You know, you're gonna have your opportunity. If that makes you happy, you're gonna be the happiest guy on the committee.
But the faith is better. Well, and that's fair, because nobody's better at my friend. But I'll tell you one other thing. There's a wonderful saying, that there is a wonderful Churchill quote, particularly dark moment in the Second World War. And he said, the future is uncertain, but the past should give us hope.
And I would just tell all of you, just don't. There's a reason why 11 out of 12 of these bills got done through both chambers and signed by the president. And all 12 got through, and the final argument we're having over the last bill is not an appropriations argument. It is an argument on policy, other things like that, trust, what have you. But it's not an appropriation argument. So, and this will be a more difficult year.
It's an election year, and that's just the reality of it. And people are gonna wanna wait until they see what happens in the election before they make a lot of other final decisions. But I am really comfortable because of what we did last time. Look. If my friend, the ranking member, and I've mentioned this to you before, and my friend, the majority leader, and my friend Mister Clyburn had not made, and all and 20 others had not made some decision.
We'd be sitting here right now with a total government shutdown in the middle of military action. That was a bipartisan accomplishment to avoid that. And it just meant there's enough trust and goodwill on the committee to work across the line. That was not a reconciliation deal. It was an appropriation deal.
And, again, for almost everything, even worked in the United States Senate. So that's what we're going to work toward. We'll see where we end up. And, look, I know everybody approaches this, I think, honestly, with goodwill and the intention to try and get the job done because what the ranking member said is true. You know, this is the power of the purse here.
The constitution puts it here. And for any of you, you may not agree with where we end up, and that's fine. But any of you that think we're gonna end up exactly where the administration is didn't look at what the OMB proposals were last year, what the initial proposals from the Republican side were in this committee, and then where we ended up. And by the way, the president supported all those proposals, at the end, to his credit. We would not have had the bill if he had not helped us get the rule.
And that's just the truth. And because no rule, no bill. And that bill got there. So, again, I expect lots of twists and turns along the way. I don't have any tricks to play.
You'll kind of see what we're doing. You know the general broad roadmap. You've walked it before, and we'll just see where we end up. But at the end of the day, anybody that, number one, thinks we can't do it hasn't thought about the past and hasn't thought about what we've gotten through. Anybody that thinks everybody is in stone or can't move didn't look at last year, because we did move on both sides.
You know? So, I don't think what we've got in front of us is beyond the ability of this committee to accomplish or on or beyond the ability of this congress to get done. But I will certainly grant you these are unusual times and difficult circumstances, and we are not moving in quite the way I would like. I would like to have a budget resolution that passed the floor of the House. I just don't think that's likely.
I would like to have an agreement between the president and the leadership of both chambers of Congress on both sides of the aisle, but that doesn't appear likely at this moment either. I would love it if there was a speaker in-house agreement, but you see we have big differences on DHS right now between the majorities in each chamber. So you gotta kinda navigate it the best way you can, and we'll be transparent with you about that and honest with you about what the challenges are. But, again, we got there once, almost all. And I think we'll get the rest of that done, hopefully, in relatively short order.
And I think this committee is capable of doing that again. But, if it doesn't work, it won't be because we weren't honest with one another or we couldn't bargain with one another, and we didn't deal. And last point I'll make, probably saying more than I should, again, these decisions have worked best because most of them have been moved down to the ranking members and the cardinals. You know, in each of these 12 subcommittees, we had very few things come up because on both sides of the aisle, we trusted our people in the committees to come to a deal. You guys know one another.
You know the issues better than anybody else in your jurisdiction, and your staff knows them better than anybody else. And every step, it moves up the chain. Even to us at the Four Corners, it's less informed and more political. And if it gets out of here through the leadership level on both sides, it's all political and not very well informed. Not because they don't have great staff, but their staff, our staff, works appropriations.
They know it better. I guarantee you, no speaker staff, no minority leader staff is anywhere as good on these issues. And so if we can keep the key bargains down at that level, you saw a pretty good example of it yesterday, when judge Carter and, miss Washington Shult, came to an agreement. I mean, it was like, it was kind of a miracle. I wasn't expecting it that soon.
I kinda thought they'd eventually get there. But, you know, the goal is to try and get to something that's workable on each side that can pass. And, again, I know the senate well enough that they ever get to 60 over there. I lose 30 on my side. So it's not like, you know, we're not gonna end up in the same places.
If this succeeds, there's gonna be, as there was, you know, a lot of legitimate give-and-take. So, again, more than you want to hear. My friend from Minnesota asked for recognition, so gentlelady is recognized for any comments she cares to make.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, we're stuck in this pattern. And, it's been a problem, as you said, for the four appropriation cycles. And I appreciate your comments. I know this is not how you want to have things go.
It moves much smoother. And believe it or not, I was here at a point when I got elected to Congress where we did have the allocations, and we did know what was moving forward. And the appropriations committee passed a lot of bills bipartisanly off the floor because of the way that it started out from the beginning. Not your fault, Mr. Chair. Totally get it.
The ranking member said it best, though. However, some of us still have to stand up and speak on behalf of our constituents in a process we want you to be able to get back to. So, six bills. That's what we're being asked to consider, and we know we're going to fund the rest of them. Right?
But I'm just gonna talk about the defense bill for a minute. Now I'm not worried about our allocation. I'm not. And people in my district are worried that it's too big. And we have work to do in passing audits and doing better oversight and everything in defense.
They're absolutely correct, and I'd like to get back to working and focusing on that. Now, I think the request is going to be very close to the president's. But here's my concern. That's before we even get to a supplement, which the chairman and I, when we were at the Pentagon last week, said, hey. What’s the buzz?
What's happening with the number? We didn't hear anything. And then we also hear that there might be another reconciliation bill floating around. So that could even be more money for defense. And, we are at war, mister chair, and that's something that we take very seriously.
But this is a war that Congress had no input in, and we haven't been able to see a plan or really know how this war is going to affect the bottom line of our national security. Not just the money in our national security, but our national security and standing in the world. But I believe when we shortchange domestic policies, it is my strong belief that we also start shortchanging our national security in the end. And that goes to the education, health, and labor bill, which I know you and the ranking member will do your best to get the most dollars going in the right direction. But I wanted to let you know why I feel so strongly about this.
And those of you who serve on the defense committee, you hear me start most of the committee meetings talking about this. We've got engineering. We have math. We have science. We have cyber.
We have computer programming. And they're all cut in the president's budget. And every single one of those jobs and the schooling that's necessary for them, whether it's an apprenticeship program, whether it's more money into, and we say STEAM in Minnesota because we include the arts in the STEM. That all has to do with our next generation of leaders coming up. The apprenticeship programs for the building trades, for the people who are doing the welding on our submarines, for the people who are coming up and designing what the future is going to be like, as we're watching warfare change.
All of that requires a highly educated group of people, our citizens, our future. And what do we see happening in K-12? Well, we see the cuts there, and then we see the cuts happening at the grants and at the universities. So we talked about that, earlier on some of the things that the administration just, you know, arbitrarily cutting because of what state you live in. That's a serious issue.
Workforce is a serious issue for the defense committee right now. We talk about it all the time. And without workforce, it even costs more to build the submarines, to build the airplanes, to build the equipment that our warfighters need. And whether you're a private first class or the chairman of the joint staff, you want a well-rounded, well-educated workforce. And then to the daycare.
I have yet been on a military base, and I know some of you have traveled with me where daycare hasn't come up. Daycare is a problem on our military bases. We don't have enough people going in to even supply the need that we have on our bases. And we're trying to be creative in solving that, and working with parents. So when it comes to Medicaid and Medicare too, if you're worried about your parents being taken care of and you're off being deployed, that's a worry on those families too.
So it's all interconnected to our national security, our economic security, and for many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, their personal security. So, I don't know how these cuts are gonna turn out at the end, but I am concerned about what happens in the other bills, especially in the bill that the two of you are in charge of. So considering that this is a partial state, it's not a coherent approach at this time, and it's not transparent enough for me to make an informed decision. At this time, I'll be voting no on the allocations. But, Mister Chair, Ranking Member Delora, I look forward to working with you.
And as always, my chair, Mr. Calvert. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Florida, Miss Washington Schultz, is recognized for the remarks she cares to make.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gonna rearrange the dictators' chairs here. I know, the Milcon VA bill has passed out a committee, and it passed out 58 to nothing. And that's something that I know Judge Carter and I both are very proud of.
But I still rise to oppose these allocations, because they're not real. They were, by circumstance, made up out of whole cloth because we had to mark to something. And I feel for the chairman, this is not your bill, Mr. Joyce. So just note that for the record. I feel for the chairman, but we in the milk hand billet bill, we're the only subcommittee of the six under consideration yesterday to receive an increase in our allocation compared to the current funding.
And that's a positive step. The defense portion, though, of our allocation was severely underfunded. And I mentioned that in our remarks yesterday. We have a huge milcon problem. The military isn't asking for enough.
We aren't providing enough funding. 30% of their infrastructure is in fair or poor condition, and our allocation was more than $9,000,000,000 less than what the President requested for military construction. So the president asked for $9,000,000 more than we had provided in our bill. But it's impossible to understand how the majority's funding decisions were even made for military construction because we don't know what the defense subcommittee top line will be. And the massive increases in defense programs that appear to be on the way will come naturally with a commensurate milcon need.
And it's no way to prudently plan and budget by underfunding one portion of the defense budget, severely while massively increasing the rest of it and then not being able to have an even further gap in the infrastructure deficit. We on the VA side always need more funding. But I know every increase that we get in nondefense dollars means less funding for other domestic programs that veterans rely on when they come home. And as our economy stalls and prices rise, those needs just grow. That includes domestic programs at the departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Education.
I can't support cuts to these programs, especially with the deep cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and Medicare that Americans are now facing. And if you look past Milcon VA, I'm deeply concerned by the impact that the cuts to our other bills will have on services and programs that our country relies on. Mister chairman, when we're being asked to cut the office of terrorism and financial intelligence at the Department of the Treasury as our brave service members wage a war with the leading state sponsor of terror, something is deeply wrong. For my Florida constituents, slashing the Small Business Administration as unemployment climbs, we're losing jobs, and costs for entrepreneurs are skyrocketing. That's like trying to put out a fire with jet fuel.
Mister chairman, the administration has not finished their part of the group project to use a little kid analogy. And that's not isolated to my subcommittee. It's true across the board. Agency heads haven't testified. Staff and member questions have been left unanswered.
The full justifications and details, as we've talked about for the first two bills, for many of these budget requests are MIA. Nobody in this room, especially after Doge, believes this administration can be trusted with a blank check. I can't turn around and tell my constituents, don't worry about the money. President Trump is good for it because he's not. I oppose these allocations because they are both insufficient and utterly incomplete.
I hope we can do better. I am confident that we will do better as we progress. But at this moment, I'm not able to support the three zero two b's, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Florida. Miss Frankel's recognized for whatever remarks she cares to make.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. I'll just first say I'm into my colleague, Debbie Watson and Rosa, your remarks, and, of course, Betty's remarks. And I wanna speak as the ranking member of the National Security Department of State and related programs, and just say that, first of all, we have a really fine chairman, Mister Diaz Ballard, and a really good bipartisan committee. And but I wanna first start by telling you what drew me to this committee. I had said this before.
I have a son, my only son, who I'm very proud of, who served eight years in the marines. He was a captain, and he had a tour both in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I can tell you that during those times, it was agonizing for me. You, every night, you just wait. You're afraid that someone's going to knock on your door.
He's home, and he's safe. But I will tell you this. When I ran for congress, I did have a mission, and my mission was to keep any other person's child from ever going to war. And that's what drew me to this committee. It used to be called SFOBS because it's about soft power.
And I'm not against a strong military. I like a strong military. But bombs and drones, they respond to threats. They don't prevent them. It's soft power that prevents them.
It's our diplomats defusing conflicts before they explode. It's global health programs stopping outbreaks before they reach our shores. It's food aid and development assistance that reduces desperation, that fuels extremism and mass migration. It's strong alliances so we don't face threats alone. Every dollar we invest in diplomacy and development is a down payment on stability and helps avoid far more costly military intervention later.
And it is quite stunning to me that the president's budget is asking for a 44% increase, $440,000,000,000 just in this budget. Well, everything else, just about everything else, is being downgraded. So what I wanna say is that when we retreat from soft power, and I know we have members of this committee who know this well, we don't save money. We create vacuums, and adversaries like China are ready to fill in, and they are filling in. So, we should not have a choice between strength and restraint.
We have to be smart as well as strong. And, if we wanna have a safer America, a more prosperous America, a more stable world, we need both. We need the strength of our military and the power of our leadership. And, for that reason, and the many articulate reasons of my democratic colleagues today, I am sad to say that I will be voting no on this allocation. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to make comments on the allocations? Gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Speaker 27
Thank you. First of all, mister chairman and ranking member, Deloro. Thank you so very much for your strong natures and your desire to achieve regular order in a very disordered world right now. I wanted to make a comment as a member of our leadership on the budget committee because I've had a chance now to sit through all the hearings that we've had thus far. And I served on the budget committee over a number of years.
I have never seen an administration that is so fast and loose with the numbers. We're not exactly dealing with a very squared-off group of folks over there, and there really isn't a budget. We had a Russell vote before the committee a few weeks ago, and it really wasn't a presentation. It was kind of a tennis match back and forth on both sides of the aisle. And I find it hard to move forward if I look at the Trump administration, take tariffs.
The president said that some of those would be rebated. We don't know how much tariff money he has over there. Secretary of Treasury is not telling us, whoever's ever got it. Now there are articles in the paper that are going to go to some corporations that file with the Department of Treasury. I was thinking that some of those tariff dollars would be spent for programs under our jurisdictions and to pay down some of the debt, but it's very rubber numbers.
The administration, meanwhile, is rescinding programs that have already been passed by this Congress. One of those that really affects us in the Midwest is the manufacturing extension partnership of the Department of Commerce. And all of a sudden, it vaporized. But we have an administration that talks about building up the defense industrial base and trying to restore steel, automotive and so forth in this country. But they're hiding their expenditures, and they're not telling us what they're doing with some of the revenues that are coming in.
We don't really have a budget from the administration. I wouldn't wanna have to bet my life on what's in it because I don't really know who has it. So I guess my point is we are trying to create something of regular order in here, when we have complete disorder on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue. I will also say that in terms of, I'm on the defense subcommittee. In trying to ask questions of a department that has taken us to war, the manner in which questions are not answered and the dismissive manner of the highest individuals in that department, I find deeply concerning.
Then we read that 1,500,000,000,000, that's gonna be maybe the defense asked. I don't know. But I'm saying to myself, not so much as a member of this subcommittee, but I look at these sovereign wealth funds that the president talks about, and some of his sons and so forth, what they're investing in and who they're talking to. I'm thinking, hey, wait a minute. You're gonna tax my people for a war that I didn't vote for?
Go to these friends who are gonna benefit from the oil industry. I mean, this has to go to some of the highest levels of governance in this country, and I don't have a charging at all. We know we're going 100 billions of dollars into debt because of this war, and it's undeclared, and we don't have a budget for it. So it's really breathtaking what is occurring, and I want to be a party to the efforts to try to structure this for the nation in this committee. And I have such high respect for the members who are chair, ranking member, all of the cardinals.
You know it better than the administration. And the chief person in charge up the street, Mister Vote, has not sent us the proper paper. We don't have anything to work from. So we are trying to be creative, but I just wanted to place those remarks on the record. I was very proud of several of our committees last year when we were able to get our legislation to the floor and move it through, and maybe we can do that again.
But I have never seen in my career, anyway, maybe I missed it, you know, maybe I missed something along the way. I have never seen such an irresponsible executive branch when lives are at stake. And for us from Ohio, three of the 12 killed came from Ohio. Wouldn't you know it? And so these issues remain on my mind.
I hold them close to my heart. But the way we cannot get answers from the executive branch. And we are trying to create a structure for the federal government of this country that will function. And we don't have really faithful dance partners from the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue. And when you see all the cabinet secretaries leaving, you're wondering who's in charge.
Who's in charge up there? So this really is a serious time. Just know for our committee on energy and water. We know how to compromise. We know how to work together.
My time is up, but just know that we have a serious national challenge here. We can't solve a loan, but we somehow have to move our bills forward. Thank you all.
Speaker 2
Thanks, gentle lady. Gentle lady from New York. Mister Ming's recognized for any comments she needs to make about the allocations.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too rise in strong opposition to the interim 302b allocations. We should not be considering these allocations on a piecemeal basis. We need to see the House majority's proposal for all of the subcommittee allocations. In particular, we need to see the allocation for defense relative to fiscal year 2026 compared to the allocations for the various nondefense subcommittees.
A defense subcommittee allocation isn't listed in here, and
Speaker 31
Largest nondefense appropriations bill, Labor H, is also not yet listed. At a time when our constituents are struggling with the costs of gas, groceries, housing, and health care, we should be prioritizing funding that meets the needs of average Americans. We need to see how the majority proposes to balance these priorities across the government and, in particular, outside of the Pentagon. We should not agree to these six subcommittee allocations, some of which, including the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee allocation, already appear to be inadequate compared to the need. I urge a no vote.
Speaker 2
Thanks, General Lady. Are there any others wishing to make comments? Gentlemen from New York is recognized.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also oppose these 302b allocations. This committee is responsible, obviously, for setting funding across the full scope, not a piecemeal approach. We are proceeding without a budget resolution, without an enforceable top line, and without key budget information. Families across the country, in my district and yours, are facing real economic pressure, and the programs they rely on should not be subject to incomplete processes.
An increase of just over one half or 1% in the legislative branch bill will not adequately address our aging facilities and growing security needs. We should be doing more, and we should be doing this work right away. This is not a complete plan. It is not a responsible plan, and I will not support it. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Hi, gentlemen. Are there any other members wishing to comment? If not, alright. Give me one quick. Alright.
Just give me the K. Seeing no further amendments or comments, I now ask, my good friend, Mister Aderholt from Alabama, make a motion.
Speaker 15
Mister chairman, I move to adopt the interim suballocation of the budget for FY 2027.
Speaker 2
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. No.
Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the allocations are accepted.
Speaker 2
I will do it. But remember, when I ask that, please respond quickly. Of course, we'll do it. The roll call has been requested, and the court will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Aderholt. Aye. Mister Aderholt, aye. Mister Aguilar? No.
Mister No. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, aye. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday?
I. Mr. Spice? Missus Bice, I. Mr. Bishop. Mister Bishop, no.
Mr. Calvert. Mister Calvert, I. Mr. Carter? Yes. Mister Carter, I.
Mr Case. Mister Case, no. Mister Siskemani. Mister Siskemani, I. Mister Klein.
Mister Klein, I. Mr. Cloud. Mister Cloud, I. Mr. Clyburn. I'm sorry.
Mister Clyburn, no. Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, aye. Mister Cole?
Speaker 7
Mister Cole, aye. Mister Cuellar? Mistine? Mistine? No.
Mister Lauro? No. Mister Lauro? No. Mister Diaz Bellart?
Mister Diaz Bollart, aye. Mister Edwards? Mister Elsi? Mister Elsi, aye. Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar? No. Mister Espayat? Mister Espéyat? No.
Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? I. Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel?
No. Mr. Franklin. Mister Franklin, I. Mister Guest. Mister Guest, I.
Mr. Harder. Mister Harder, no. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, I. Mrs. Henson.
Mrs. Henson, I. Mr. Hoyer. Mr.
Hoyer, no. Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy, no.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, I. Ms.
Captor. Ms. Captor, no. Mr. Lolota.
Mr. Lolota, I. Ms. Lee. Ms.
Lee, no. Ms. Letlow. Ms. Letlow, aye.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, no. Ms.
Malloy. Ms. Malloy, aye. Ms. McCullum, Miss McCullum, no.
Ms. Ming. Miss Ming, no. Mister Molinar? Aye.
Mister Molinar, aye. Mr. Moore? Aye. Mister Moore, aye. Mister Morelli?
Speaker 7
Mister Morelli? No. Mister Mervann? No. No.
Mister Mervann, no. Mister Newhouse? Mister Newhouse? I. Miss Perez?
No. Miss Pingree? Miss Pingree? No. Mister Pocan?
Mister Pokan. No. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley. No.
Mister Raschenthaler.
Speaker 2
I don't know what I mean. Do we have somebody coming over to the office?
Speaker 7
Mister Raschenthaler. Is he here? No. Mister Rogers. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, I. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, I. Mister Strong. Mister Strong, I.
Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, no. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, no. Mister Valadayo.
Yeah. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, no. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, no.
Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, aye. Mister Zinki, aye. Zinki, aye. Mister Shreev, aye.
Mister, aye.
Speaker 2
Are there any other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Texas? No.
Speaker 2
Are there other members? Some of you are standing, some of you are not. It looks like clerical tally. On this vote, the ayes are 32, the noes are 20, and 28. The motion is agreed to.
I ask unanimous consent that the staff be permitted to make technical and performing changes to the report just approved. Seeing no objections, ordered.
Speaker 2
Three days without objections, ordered. There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.