Fiscal Year 2027 Financial Services and General Government Bill

Subcommittee on Financial Services of General Government will come to order.

Oh welcome.

Welcome to the subcommittee mark-up. For the fiscal year twenty twenty seven, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill. Uh before we begin, I'd like to point out that uh Vice Chairman Lalota has been so kind as to provide some uh uh material for your breakfast, uh should you need some here before as we start the day. Uh if you're all as you all recover from your power nap from last night. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. I'd like to thank Chairman Cole and uh I'm sure Ranking Member DeLauro would be here. And of course I would like to thank Ranking Member uh Hoyer. I value his insights on and off the subcommittee. First let me say once again I appreciate the work the subcommittee did at the beginning of the year for this fiscal year twenty twenty-six bill enacted. The bill we are marking up today builds on those efforts. Financial Services in Govern uh in General Government or FSGG Appropriation builds funds much of the federal government including the Department of Treasury the Executive Office of the President, the Federal Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and more than twenty independent commissions, departments, and agencies. The FSGG top-line allocation for the fiscal year twenty twenty-seven is twenty-five point four billion, which includes a hundred and forty-three million in new disaster funding for the SBA small business administration, excuse me. Without the disaster money, this bill cuts one billion dollars from the fiscal year twenty twenty-six enacted bill. This bill is also consistent with the President's fiscal year twenty twenty-seven budget request. for FSGG which proposes approximately twenty-six billion dollars in the new budget authority without the rescissions budget authority cancellations and fees it proposes last year I focused on three priorities drafting our bill and report number one insuring fiscal responsibility two leveraging new technology and three strength strengthening national security this year the bill prioritized the elimination elimination of waste fraud and abuse and other improper payments in both federal and state governments These are priorities on which all members of both sides of the aisle should agree in support. I'll take a moment to briefly describe the bill title by title. Title one provides the funding for the Department of Treasury. The top line number for the Treasury is twelve billion dollars, a one point one billion or eight point three percent cut from the fiscal year twenty twenty six in active levels. Within the Department of Treasury, the bill funds the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at twenty two million an increase of one million, holds the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence constant at two hundred thirty eight million. Cuts the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund to two hundred seventy-six point six million. Cuts the IRS by eight point uh five percent from fiscal year twenty twenty-six in active levels to ten point two billion. Title two funds the Executive Office of the President, or EOP. The funding for that is eight hundred and seventy-two million, which is consistent with the twenty-six in active levels. Within the EOP, it holds the Office of Management and Budget constant at one hundred and twenty-nine million. Holds the Information Technology Oversight and and Reform account, also known as ITOR, constant to eight million. Increases the high intensity drug trafficking program within the National, uh Office of National Drug Control Policy to nearly three hundred million, and increases the drug free community program to a hundred and forty-two million, to help support anti-doping efforts at the twenty-eight Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Title three of the bill funds the federal judiciary. Just as we do for the legislative and executive branches, We need to ensure that effective operations of our third branch of government, including physical uh and cyber security protections are m are met. Title four of the bill cuts federal funding to the District of Columbia by almost ten percent to seven hundred and ninety-two million from fiscal year twenty twenty-six in active levels. This includes a fifty percent cut to the tuition assistance program and a more than forty percent cut to the emergency planning and security costs account. Title five funds our independent agencies. This includes the SEC, FTC, FCC, GSA, USPS, SBA, and our smaller agencies. Total funding for Title five is approximately two point two billion, which is twenty three percent cut from the fiscal year twenty twenty six enacted. Finally, the bill continues to uh contains the important policies that apply across the uh federal government and the District of Columbia in Title six, seven, and eight. Most of these provisions are legacy riders which have been around for years and if not decades. These provisions reaffirm important pro-life protections, defund the disastrous climate rule, stop the Biden era divisive social policies, prohibit mask and vaccine mandates, protect traditional marriage, codify the Raines Act, and other critical executive orders. As I said at the beginning, I'm proud of all the work the subcommittee has accomplished today. I'll close by encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and I yield back and I will now recognize Ranking Member Hoyer for his five minutes for opening remarks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an unusual process to say the least. Um we have had essentially two hearings uh and only one d- department had other than the GAO uh testify. Uh and that was um Mr. Cooper of the um OM OMB, uh excuse me, OPM. Uh this bill uh cuts uh from the previous fiscal year uh revenue. This bill uh w we have no three O two B allocations at this point in time. Uh I'm not sure, Mister Chairman, where the a n a number came from, but um we have not adopted a a a three O two B allocation, although I understand there is some plan to do so, and that this bill is within th the suggestion. But we haven't passed it. Uh so uh I'm gonna be offering an amendment later today, uh which uh funds uh uh an increase in the IRS uh enforcement. The IR enforce IR our IRS budget uh in twenty ten was ten point two billion dollars. Uh if it were to be funded uh at the rate that it was funded in twenty ten, it would be eighteen point three billion dollars. Obviously a lot of progress has been made in terms of mechanization, uh and that figure is probably not an accurate figure, but it is clearly indicative of how robustly the IRS enforcement and other uh aspects of the taxpayer service which is what funded uh during the course uh of uh sixteen twenty sixteen years ago. So um we believe that uh this budget substantially underfunds many of the objects which are critically important. Now we don't know because we have not said Secretary Besson which is the one large department that we fund. We fund a lot of other very important enterprises, including GSA. uh and OPM and OMB and the White House, uh none of whom have testified before our committee. So we had no uh opportunity to ask questions, uh determine uh what the priorities should be, to determine what is not being done by the cuts that have been suggested, and so uh to some degree we're flying in the blind. Now this this is our bill, and I know all of us have read this, uh and have taken it to heart. This is the report, the bill, uh and uh uh uh the uh I I'm not sure exactly what this is. What's this?

Section by section.

That's a section by section analysis.

Just

Which just just for me apparently, the chairman says. What is the point I'm making? The point I'm making is this process is backwards. What theoretically this subcommittee does, and I know our ch- our chairman is here and our ranking member said numerous times d- during the course of the passage of the budget for last year, which still hasn't been completed, uh obviously, um that they relied on the work of the subcommittee and the expertise of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, the big chairman, uh uh respectfully, um this subcommittee, if it's expert, has not been given the information it needs at this point in time, and I think you probably uh I well, I don't wanna speak for you, but we're flying blind. Um because we have not had the overwhelming majority, but ninety plus percent of the agencies we've fund testify before us uh to justify the expenditures that they're asking for, uh and tell us what the trade-offs are. Um as a result uh uh uh this is essentially a pro forma session. Uh and I raise that issue because I think it impacts the result, the substance. Yes, it's process. But the substance is affected because we have not had the opportunity to question, to learn, to make a decision on what the trade-offs are, what the s alternatives are. And again, we have not adopted a three O two B. Now the problem with not adopting a three O two B, this subcommittee in particular, and I've been on it for a very long time as all of you know, and uh Mister Womack chaired this subcommittee, we get a very low we're we're on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to resources necessary. And I'm I'm make this p I'll I'll make this when we have the real mark-up uh i in uh uh the full committee, I'll make this point, that we are substantially underfunded in terms of what we expect the agencies under our jurisdiction to do. Now the chairman um has gone through and given us the information in in digest form of what this bill will do. Uh and obviously we do fund uh the agencies at some level, but we don't know whether that level is sufficient, and we haven't asked questions of the people who are we've assigned to run those agencies, whether it is or not. So, Mr. Chairman, as you know, because I've told you, At at the end of the discussions that we're having, um uh I will offer an amendment uh to increase IRS enforcement so that uh whether it's the big bad bill, good bill, depending upon your perspective, uh that we'll know that people are in fact at least paying that which they owe under law. Not any increases, but we have so decimated IRS enforcement Frankly, to some degree on both sides of the aisle, we want to fund an enforcement, that uh as I've told you uh in the last year, six tenths of a percent of the uh returns over a million dollars are audited. Six tenths. Which means if I have an uh uh uh uh uh return over a million dollars, I am ninety nine point four percent sure that nobody's gonna look at it. Because of the lack of personnel to effect that end. If that is true, and I believe it to be true, uh then I have no incentive to be very worried about paying what I owe. And particularly at that level, eh, we're all concerned about the debt, uh I'm concerned about the debt, I think we look at a small percentage of the expenditures, and and and the chairman has said that, Mister Womack has said it, who chaired the budget committee. If that is uh true, we're looking at fifteen percent to solve a thirty eight trillion dollar problem, or thirty nine trillion dollar problem. That's unfair uh to the appropriators, uh and it is dishonest with the American people. So uh, Miss Chairman, I'm I'm concerned about A, we and you and I have discussed this, we haven't had the opportunity to have the hearings, that we need to do the work that uh the big chairman and uh the ranking member talked about the subcommittee doing. I don't think we've done that. I don't think we've had the opportunity to do it. I don't think it's anybody's uh well let me put it this way, I think it's somebody's fault, but not here. Um and I think frankly it is intentional. It is intentional to marginalize the work of the Congress generally and the Appropriations Committee specifically. So, Mister Chairman, uh we'll have this mark-up, we'll we'll we'll report it out, uh and we'll consider other amendments uh in the big committee. But I think it's unfortunate that we've been put in this position. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Uh, Ranking Member, and as we have discussed for the r- so to put it on the record, I'm not allergic to having hearings uh post a bill. So we could certainly continue to do that and if necessary, uh approach about modifications moving forward. With that, I now recognize the Distinguished Chairman of our full committee, Mister Cole, for his remarks.

Thank you very much uh Chairman Joyce, and thank you to Ranking Member Hoyer, Ranking Member DeLauro, and all the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle. After advancing a bill centered on those who serve earlier this morning, we now take up the fiscal year twenty twenty-seven financial services and general government appropriations bill, ensuring that the nation they protect is supported by a government that is accountable, disciplined, and results-oriented. This legislation funds the core institutions that underpin our economy, uphold the rule of law, and support security efforts across departments. From the executive office of the president to the federal judiciary, its reach is broad and its impact is consequential. Importantly, Washington excess is replaced by America's first priorities. The bill eliminates wasteful spending, rains in bureaucratic overreach, and restores accountability across the government. It codifies several of President Trump's executive orders to ensure the mandate of the American people is comprehensively implemented. And even with a strong focus on physical discipline, we do not neglect what matters most. This measure strengthens our national security by countering cyber threats, scrutinizing foreign investment from adversaries like China, and preventing terrorists and criminals from exploiting our financial system. It also uh invests in the drivers of American prosperity, uh consumer freedom, entrepreneurship, small business growth, and the liberties that sustain them. Americans expect us to be responsible stewards of their tax dollars. Thanks to the work of Chairman Joyce, this bill cuts roughly a billion dollars from the previous fiscal year. This is a smart, principled bill that delivers a government that works smarter, faster, and more efficiently. I again thank uh Chairman Joyce and Ranking Member Hoyer, as well as the members of this subcommittee and the majority and minority staff who've worked so hard to get us here. I look forward to consideration of this bill, and with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Chairman Cole. I now recognize the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Miss DeLauro, for her remarks.

I thank you, Mister Chairman, and I know I did not get a nap. Uh, just for a second, I'd just like to give a acknowledgement or shout-out to free DC. Thank you for being here. Guys are great, thanks. Thank you, Mister Chairman, ranking member Hoyer. Uh and to my uh uh friend uh Chairman Cole, you know the second Trump t- uh term has been a tale of two constituencies. One is the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of the rising cost of living. Families who are struggling to make ends meet, juggling the high cost of housing, groceries, gas, child care, and health insurance. They are stretched thin and in dire need of relief. The other is a small, insulated group of exceptionally wealthy individuals. These are the folks who sat smiling behind the president as he was inaugurated, the tech CEOs, the hedge fund managers, the leaders of global corporations who are swallowing up more and more of the market every day. These folks are not struggling. In fact, they are doing better than they have ever done before. The bill we are considering today tilts the scales even further in favor of the wealthy while putting even more pressure on everyday working families. This bill guts the funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That means large corporations will have wider leeway to push dangerous products on American consumers, putting children and families at risk. That is great news if you are a CEO who wants to pad your profits by cutting back on compliance. It is terrible news if you are a working parent trying to make sure that your kids are safe and healthy while you try to stay on top of the increasing demands on your daily life. This bill cuts funding for the Small Business Administration and Entrepreneurial Development programs paring back support for hard-working Americans trying to get their businesses off the ground. That is a big help if you're a big company trying to corner the market, and do not want any competition to cut in on your profits. It is a stick in the eye if you have a fresh idea to meet a need in your community, and want to avoid being crushed by the corporate giant down the block. Even after passing trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy and large corporations that's four and a half trillion dollars, I repeat, four and a half trillion dollars. paid for by stripping away health care access from working families. This bill cuts funding for IRS enforcement, meaning that these large corporations and wealthy individuals will get away with paying even less, while working families continue to pay far more in taxes as a percentage of their wealth than do the richest Americans. We are seeing a striking pattern of market consolidation across a variety of sectors. mega-mergers in tech, medicine, and energy have weakened the competition that brings prices down and allowed corporate giants to emerge on a scale we have not seen since the Gilded Age. Yet, this bill would defund the Federal Trade Commission, clearing the way for even larger acquisitions, less competition, and higher prices for American consumers. This bill is a boon for the very rich and large corporations. It has nothing to alleviate this training on working families who are struggling just to get by. as the cost of living continues unabated. In fact, it makes this problem even worse. I would hazard a guess that cutting funding for the agencies that stop big corporations from squeezing working families for all they are worth would probably not be very popular with American voters it is not the kind of thing you want to campaign on uh if you are a Republican. So it is interesting to see that this bill also takes aim at our election infrastructure, defunding the Election Assistance Commission, weakening political fundraising guardrails, allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread unchecked. As a reminder, the midterm elections will take place in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. And if I am being frank, the odds do not look very good for the president and his allies. We should be taking steps to shore up our election infrastructure from any and all interference, and make sure that our states and our localities have the resources they need to conduct elections, that are free and that are fair, that the American people can have faith in. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the legislation before us today and to craft a bill that offers relief for working families, cracks down on big corporations, not the other way around. Thank you and I yield back.

Uh thank you. Uh, Miss DeLauro? Uh, do any other members wish to make an opening remark? Good. Oh.

Mister Bishop. Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh Chairman George, Ranking Member Hoyer, uh for your hard work and of course uh thanks to uh Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro. That said, I'm disappointed uh that after polls the FY twenty-seven financial services and general government bill uh it severely undermines uh important government agencies that serve the American people including the Federal Trade Commission, Small Business Administration, RRS, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The bill cuts the RRS's enforcement budget drastically yet again. I don't understand why uh you continue to axe the agency's budget each year while recklessly increasing the national debt. How can we expect to pay our bills if we can't even invest in collecting what's owed to the national coffers. It's painfully clear that this is a green light for billionaires to dodge that fair share while sticking hard-working Americans with higher costs, and worse service. If you take issue with our tax laws, then change 'em through the legislative process. We saw it last year when the reconciliation bill was rammed through on the slimmest of margins. But it should not be done by disarming the Internal Revenue Service and taken away the tools it uses to go after billionaire and multimillionaire tax cheats. And certainly Congress should not make it harder for everyday folks who simply want to pay what's due but find themselves unable to connect with a representative over the phone by slashing support for the Small Business Administration cut and clean energy programs that help entrepreneurs save money, The bill makes it harder for hard-working uh small business owners to grow their businesses and to create jobs. On top of the harmful funding cuts, it's loaded with extreme policy writers that take aim at reproductive rights, rolling back DC's home rule, and forcing uh a far right agenda into what should be a straightforward government funding bill. Finally, the election security funding is yet again treated as an afterthought. The majority endlessly harps on virtually non-existent election issues, like the supposed masses of illegal immigrants risking committing a crime with possible jail time in order to register to vote or cast a ballot, which is demonstrably false. Uh they know that election security grants provide funding for critical equipment upgrades, and harden security against our adversaries like Russia, China and Iran, who are opposed to our democratic institutions. My colleagues at Quattro S. R. would rather leave us vulnerable to foreign interference while putting the fundamental right to vote for Americans at risk. The bill turns its back on the very people that we will sit here to represent. It protects the powerful while weakening the institution's ordinary family's count on, and I'm dismayed to say that I oppose this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to vote no, and hopefully before this process is over, to recraft this bill to more effectively address the resource needs this subcommittee is supposed to provide for these agencies adequately so we can serve the American people. That are your back.

Thank you, Mister Bishop, any other members who wish to be heard? Seeing none.

Oh.

Sorry? Okay. Mister Bokin?

I'll be really quick, cuz I know everyone would like to get out of here.

Work out my peripheral vision.

Um, yeah, no worries, no worries. The only thing I'm gonna say, I think you've you outlined the cuts, our ranking member of the full committee outlined the cuts, our ranking member of the subcommittee outlined the cuts. The only cut I didn't hear uh was anything about OMB. In fact, we didn't hear any of it, cuz they haven't come to our subcommittee yet. And I do hope that even if it is after the fact, which isn't the best way to do it, but it's before it goes to the floor, we do get Secretary Bessant and Russ Vogt and others before our subcommittee because um a year ago, yeah I was getting record calls when money was being stolen that we approved, Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Um and then this week I've had multiple meetings where people are still not getting their money, just it's without the fanfare, without Elon Musk jumping in the air, it's just but we're still being disrespected by the executive branch on the funding that we have agreed as bipartisan uh members of Congress, our article one uh responsibility. So I, you know, I just really hope we do get him here, the fact that he got a hundred million extra in reconciliation, not getting any cuts, not showing up, makes it much harder to do this as, in my opinion, as serious as it it res- it deserves. Um, from Congress, and I am glad you said that you will be inviting him then to come before us.

So you sort of can have those hearings and we can put it on the actual results and then we can come.

Well, I hope so. I mean, I, this is one where again, you know, we may, you may be the caretakers right now, the majority, we may be in the next session, but at the end of the day, we're only caretakers, right? Other people are gonna be taking over this institution and we've gotta show the respect for it and I I am an institutionalist maybe to a fault, but in this case, uh, we've gotta make sure the executive branch, the people that have to come before us come before us. And in particular, like I said, I've had three groups this week, hundreds of millions of dollars being held up that we've approved. And if our process, our institution has that respect, we have to have that. So that's all I wanted to say. I do appreciate that we're gonna try to have them. I I will yield.

Mr. Chairman, uh, your comment back was uh, if they come.

I, I can't guarantee anything.

No, no, no, I knew Yes, we can guarantee that. And then they can just get in. Let let me say something. And no money. Uh we all thank a witness for coming. Thank you very much for being here. We did that to Senator Kennedy yesterday in the labor health bill, and I and we do that with most of these witness. I think that's polite. But they should be here. That is their responsibility to be here. This is not an uh optional uh uh exercise for them. We are Article one. We fund them. And by golly, if we're gonna have respect, Mister Chairman and Mister Chairman, and and ranking member, uh we're gonna subpoena them. When Newt Gingrich was elected to the Congress and we had appropriation hearings, he had the witnesses sworn in under oath. And his message to them was we're not messing around. We're gonna have you here, you're gonna tell us the truth, and we're gonna make decisions OMB is not doing us a favor by coming down here. Doge should be subpoenaed. Yesterday we had a labor health hearing and I asked Senator Kennedy uh Senator Kenny uh Secretary Kenny directly Oh man, I've done this. how many people do you have? They had fired twelve thousand. You know how many they've hired back? Not they may not have fi hired back the same people, twelve thousand. I was stunned by that answer. Doge went through this process of eliminating people. They've hired back almost exactly the same number of people. My point is hearings are meant to elicit information on which we can make sound judgments. And neither Doge nor nor vote nor anybody else in the administration is doing us a favor by coming down here. And very frankly, uh I think if they don't come down here, there ought to be a financial penalty for them. Thank you. Thank you for yielding.

M- Mr. Chairman.

Can I yield some time to uh

Not that I have any time, but A yield upon a yield I'm not sure of, but uh out of courtesy I will certainly recognize the ranking member.

Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh and I I

I I I want to um re- reinforce that we provide the funds if they cannot tell us what they're about, what the money is for, why then do we feel obliged to say okay, unseen, no oversight at all. I'll throw in an- another um uh a agency, as I will call it, We - we provide money for the Supreme Court. I've been here a long time. They've never come up and tell us what they're doing with the money that we appropriate. And I - I - I had a conversation not that long ago because there's - I - I wanna give them all the security they need. I believe we ought to have all the security that we need. And I had a conversation with Justice Kagan. And I said to her, happy to provide the security, but you have to come up. The court has to come up here, tell us what you're doing. We have no idea what you spend the money on, et cetera. She said, I'll call you back. She called me back two hours later, and she spoke to the Chief Justice, and he said they'd be happy to come and do it. We need to have them here. Russ Vogt needs to be here. He testified before the House and the Senate Budget Committee. Wouldn't provide a hell of a lot of information, but he was, you know, he was there. We have, that is the power of this committee, and we have to exercise the power of that purse. And that's gotta be known, and we've gotta do it now before they will continue to try to run. Try, as I say, because we're not gonna let them do it, and I think that is a bipartisan commitment. That's what I feel about this. We've had it, we made our, we made our voices heard in in the last go-round. We'll do that now and be even stronger as to who we are, what we're about, and what our responsibilities are in making sure we are guardians of taxpayers' dollars and hold people accountable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to my colleagues.

And thank you. And and just for purposes uh uh I when I spoke to Mr. Hoyer and said, you know, well, I just can't guarantee anything. No one can, right? I'm certainly want to have those hearings, will certainly request their subpoena, or do what's necessary, but you know, I'm not

I got the same powers you all have.

We got it.

You're just a human. Any other speakers?

Any other speakers? Okay, noticing none.

Mister, Mister Chairman.

For what purpose does a gentleman from Maryland seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk.

There's an amendment at the desk, the clerk will read the amendment.

Amendment to financial services appropriation bill offered by Mister Hoyer of Maryland. In the bill on page seventeen, line seven, increase the dollar amount by one eight three seven six one six zero zero zero. In the report, make conforming changes.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.

I thank uh the Chairman. Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this figure gets the IRS to where we all passed a budget uh in twenty-five to give them. Uh, so this is not it one point eight Billion dollars is a lot of money. But it is their budget in seventy five. Um. We keep cutting enforcement, we keep cutting the IRS because of the hostility towards the concept of paying taxes or the concept that the IRS would look at returns and seek collection of taxes due, particularly for the wealthiest. Now why do I say the wealthiest? Of which by the way uh all of us around this table fall. The fact of the matter is I'm not sure the exact percentage, but I would guess it's somewhere in the eighty percent category. They don't have an option. Every week their taxes are paid. Proportional share and fifty-two weeks or twelve months if they're paid monthly, uh we withdraw the taxes uh proportionally due from their pay. Now that's not true of corporations. Uh uh for the most part it's not true for capital gains recipient. For the most part it's not g- due for some of the partnerships for the most part. And the point I was making at the beginning, if you're only checking point six tenths percent of returns over a million dollars. If I'm the accountant or the lawyer, I say, you know, there's not much shot that they're gonna look at you. And some of the returns, of course, are stacks. And the problem we have is that it takes a very long time to review those returns. And therefore, Uh, it is personnel intensive. Now, maybe AI is gonna get to a place where it'll make it a lot faster, but right now they're not there yet. And so if we cut their taxes deeply, and then we eliminate oversight of their returns, we are placing all the burden on those whose taxes we withdraw every time they get a check. Now I don't have any illusions that this amendment's gonna pass, which is a shame, because this is the seventy-five fig- excuse me, the twenty-five figure, just two years ago. We reduced them, uh we did five uh on on enforcement on uh on our IRS. So I would urge us at least to start considering whether or not we're going to give uh the IRS the ability to do what they say. Now, experts uh uh uh in the academic community have said for every one dollar of enforcement money you spend uh on wealthy taxpayers, a million dollar tax return or more, you get twelve dollars in return. Now if you're consert- That by the way, is not where you're gonna get the money to balance our budget. I'm d- I have no illusions because there aren't enough people who do that mu- make that much. But if they pay a fair share, every other taxpayer's gonna feel well at least all of us are paying a fair share. And if you can't enforce it and you have less than one percent uh Audits, there is no incentive or, I'm gonna let people put it a different way, there's no there's no disincentive not to cheat. And so I believe that we oughta at least fund at the level we funded in twenty twenty five. And that was the first uh year we really started talking about this fully, I think. Um so, Mr. Chairman, that's why I offer this amendment. And because I think it's gives the resources necessary for IRS to do its work, that we expect them to do, and the American people expect them to do.

Thank you. Any other members r- uh wish to be recognized to speak on the amendment? Of course you do, Mr. Ivey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, ranking members. I I speak in support of the amendment. I Just a couple of quick points. I I think that the um issue that popped up this week that's related, different subcommittee, but the Department of Justice is uh shrinking the the tax um division, which are the prosecutors that would handle these kinds of cases. So from the standpoint of uh eliminating or reducing the deterrent effect, it sort of compounds because you've got this up front piece where you've got um especially major do uh major tax uh I was gonna say cheats, but that would be remaining to be seen, but but people over ten million dollars, for example, who are realizing that they don't have to uh or that that it's very like unlikely that they're gonna have a t uh an audit done. And so it undermines the incentive for compliance. And also at the back-end of that, if you do have people who are actually cheating on their taxes, it's harder to prosecute them because you don't have the uh experience uh from the standpoint of investigators and prosecutors to actually handle the cases so one of the Mister Hoyer did a shadow hearing last year and one of the former uh IRC commissioners came in and said that these kinds of cuts are uh tax cuts for tax cheats and I I think it's important for us to understand that if we wanna make sure we're actually getting the funds that we can and You pointed out the the ratio of of uh funds that can be received from the standpoint of uh the enforcement dollars that we commit. Um and it just makes sense, not gonna balance the budget, but it'd be a big and important step in the right direction. And from a fairness standpoint for people who do uh pay their taxes, working folks who are uh really fighting with burdens on from a number of fronts as well. It just from a fairness standpoint I think it would make sense to move forward with this kind of uh amendment. and put the enforcement piece in place so we do have um more and better compliance across the board. And with that I yield back.

Anyone else? Now recognize myself to speak on the amendment. I appreciate the ranking members' passion for the IRS, but I oppose this amendment. Without a corresponding out offset, the additional one point eight billion would exceed our top line. It would also defeat the purpose of the current number, which is to take us back to pre-COVID funding at the IRS. I would also just point out to the ranking member the FY twenty-seven bill retains the broad transfer authority that we worked on together in the FY twenty-six and acted bill giving the IRS access to any funding it might need to accomplish its mission I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Do any other members wish to be heard? No further debate. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for one minute to close.

Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um there is no top line. Exceeds what top line? There's no top line. The way the process should work, we should decide how much each committee is gonna get, and that ought to be subject to some debate. This committee is underfunded. This is not a sexy committee.

Oh, come on now, Lord.

This committee is almost always the last committee to get the resources. Why? Because we're perceived as a uh a small committee,

The committee.

uh but we do some very important things and very frankly oversee OMB, the White House, OPM, GSA, we have some huge consequential agencies under our aegis. And there's no top line. There was no debate about how much money we need. First of all, we didn't know how much because we haven't had the witnesses testify, we need this, we need that. We have h not been able to ask what are the consequences of cutting another billion dollars from IRS? What are the consequences? Uh now, I know there's some talk about where we're gonna have technology that will solve that. Well, I've heard that almost all the time I've been on this committee. So I would respectfully say, and it's it I'm there's no point in beating a dead horse, I get that. But the fact of the matter is we have no top line. So I don't need an offset. There are about four hundred billion dollars that are not included in the supposed three suggested three O two Bs. Cuz four hundred billion hasn't been allocated yet. And very frankly, ironically, Every one of those three O two B's relies for the most part, except on a little uh uh tariff money that has now been told by the Supreme Court that we have to decide that issue, uh every other dollar is collected by the IRS. And to the extent that they cannot do their job properly, the little guy has to play either a higher percentage or has more costs uh uh of his groceries and uh uh uh uh utilities and gas

Utilities. Yes.

gasoline, et cetera, et cetera. So, Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I don't need a offset on this, uh, because there's a lot of money that has y- yet been distributed, and I believe that this is a priority for every other subcommittee. And I urge its adoption.

Uh, question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say no. Aye.

Aye. Oh.

Aye. Give us a minute here. Give us a minute.

Mister Chairman, you apparently think this voting is like our mark-up, putting the cart before the horse.

All those opposed say no.

No. No. Oh.

Thank you. An opinion of the chair of the no's have it the amendment is not adopted.

You okay with the vote? You okay with the vote?

A recorded vote uh

Recorded vote.

Recorded vote has been requested. All those in favor of recorded vote.

Mister Alford. Mister Alford votes nay. Mister Amade.

No.

Mister Amade votes nay. Mister Bishop.

I'm betting on eight to five.

Mister Bishop votes yea.

No. No.

Mister Cloud.

No.

Mister Cloud votes nay. Mister Edwards.

No.

Mister Edwards votes no. Misses Hinson. Misses Hinson votes no. Mister Hoyer.

Aye.

Mister Hoyer votes aye. Mister Ivey.

Aye.

Mister Ivey votes aye. Mister Joyce.

No.

Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Lalota.

No.

Mister Lalota votes no. Mrs. Gluesen-Kamp-Perez.

Aye.

Aye. Mrs. Gluesen-Kamp-Perez votes aye. Mister Pocan.

Aye.

Mister Pocan votes aye. Mister Womack.

No.

Mister Womack votes no. Mister Cole.

No.

Mister Cole votes no. Mrs. Delora.

Aye.

It's dollar over a pie.

Eight to five.

What's a lucky number in the Maryland lottery?

Maybe it's it y on the lottery can we do thirty four twenty seven in the full committee?

The clerk will tally.

Let me just

Nine to six.

Oh nine to six, nine to six.

Nine, nine, it doesn't seem like

Oh, ro roger, but that's you.

That's me. Jennings. Hey Jennings, I might have been wicked, except that Paul, you were almost just Hope I'm missing term, this will occur.

I I really

Seven.

gave a lot of thought to that line. And I won't use it in full committee.

Oh nine, it's nine. I thought that you guys were having this conversation.

The eyes are nine and the nays are six. It um

Oh yeah. We didn't bring the six, six.

Oh the eyes are six. Eh I can't, how the hell can anybody read that? And the eyes are six and the nays are nine and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any further amendments? Searing none, uh we now uh call on uh Mr. Alford.

Cheers.

Mister Chair, I move the bill be favorably reported to the full committee.

Thank you for that motion. Question is on the motion. Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

A vote.

Roll. Roll call.

A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favor of recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand in support. A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will

Mister Alford.

Aye.

Mister Alford votes aye. Mister Amade.

Yes. Aye.

Mister Amade votes aye. Mister Bishop.

No.

Mister Bishop votes no. Mister Cloud.

No. Aye.

Mister Cloud votes aye. Mister Edwards.

Aye.

Mister Edwards votes aye. Mrs. Hinson. Mrs. Hinson votes aye. Mister Hoyer.

No.

Mister Hoyer votes no. Mister Ivy.

No.

Mister Ivy votes no. Mister Joyce.

Uh aye.

Mr. Joyce votes aye, Mr. Lalota.

I was hoping that

Mr. Lalota votes aye, Mrs. Glussen-Camperez.

No.

Mrs. Glussen-Camperez votes no, Mr. Pocan.

I have one note.

Mr. Pocan votes no, Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack votes aye, Mr. Cole.

Aye.

Mr. Cole votes aye, Mrs. Delauro.

No.

Mrs. Delauro votes no.

The ayes are nine.

I I got this now.

Yeah, I got this now.

The clerk will tally. On his vote the ayes are nine, the noes are six. The bill is favorably reported to the full committee. Without objection, I ask the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and report. Uh, copies of bill and report with technical and conforming changes will be delivered to all full committee members' office no later than three business days before full committee. Thank you very much for everyone here, this concludes today's mark-up. Thank you again to Mister Lalota for the fine breakfast that you provided for the members, very thoughtful of you,

Welcome.

and the committee now stands adjourned.