Various Measures

non-protect consumers or help workers. In fact, Republicans are advancing legislation that goes in the exact opposite direction. One bill would actually, actually tell the Federal Reserve to ignore unemployment in this country and the real economic pain families are experiencing every single day. Are any of my Republican colleagues Paying attention? Really? Well, I and Democrats on this committee are paying attention. We know that to address the affordability crisis, we must have the entire government using every tool to help. Mister Chairman, fifty years ago the reason Congress required the Fed to prioritize both full employment and price stability was because unemployment is a primary driver of poverty, racial injustice, and major social problems. Coretta Scott King knew that a job can be the difference for someone between economic stability and ruin, and that every government tool should be used to create the conditions for full employment. She knew that the powerful tools that the Fed wills wou could be used to prioritize job creation in this country, especially for underserved population. And she was right. Now Republicans wanna take us back to the nineteen seventies. Do you know what also happened in the nineteen seventies? Soaring gas prices, endless foreign wars, and rampant government corruption. Mister Chairman, the American people are not asking Congress to protect powerful corporations using AI. to weaken oversight of AI or to tell the Fed to ignore the plight of workers. They're asking us to lower costs, protect consumers, strengthen economic security, and make sure new technology actually works for working families instead of against them. That is exactly what committee Democrats are standing up for today, and so can you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlewoman yields back. Miss Presley. Are you asking for a question or what You're ea the record the record shows the gentleman is eager and prepared for the day's mark-up. Grateful for that. Pursuant to notice, I'd like to call up H R fifty three ninety six, the Price Stability Act of twenty twenty five, which I introduced. The clerk will report the bill which has been distributed in advance.

H R fifty three ninety six, to amend the Federal Reserve Act to remove the mandate on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee to focus on maximum employment.

Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with, without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any time. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which were been distributed in advance. Clerk will report that amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifty three ninety six, offered by Minister Hill of Arkansas, designated as Hill AR zero nine zero.

Uh, without objection, the amendment's considered read and will serve as the base text for the purposes of amendment. I'll recognize myself for five minutes to discuss this bill, HR fifty-three ninety-six, the Price Stability Act of twenty twenty five. It's very straightforward. It simply replaces the Federal Reserve's current dual mandate with a single mandate centered on price stability, and I'd like to explain why and I I love my ranking member, but we don't wanna go back to disco music and the economy of the nineteen seventies, and I agree with her on that. But in the ensuing fifty years, many policymakers have sought to reorient the Fed's focus to a single inflation prevention focus mandate, uh, since it was first adopted back in those, uh, uh, middle years of the nineteen seventies. Why? Well, first, because success is more achievable with fewer mandates. and prices will never fall back after a policy mistake. And I think that focus is so important to the mission of the central bank and to all of our households across the country. Secondly, the Federal Reserve does not influence and has no control over the factors that contribute to the levels of employment or macroeconomic growth. They focus essentially, their tool is targeting short-term interest rates only. Therefore, focusing solely on prevention of inflation is the long-term best medicine for the Fed and for all of our families and business. But let me be clear. The single price uh stabil- or the single price stability mandate is in no way repeat no way anti-employment. Rather, a superfluous employment mandate sets the Fed up for failure. In the eyes of monetary policy, a maximum employment goal is nothing but a mirage, and we've seen that for five decades. But don't take my word for it. How about let's look at the Fed's own statements on longer-run goals and monetary policy strategy. Their statement, the Federal Reserve Consensus statement confesses that maximum employment is, and I quote, "not directly measurable and changes over time owing to largely and I note this for emphasis, non-monetary factors, close quote. Unmeasurable, unstable, and therefore, in my judgment, unachievable. Therefore, let's recognize reality. It's Congress and the executive branch, through their regulatory, revenue policy, spending's decisions that have a dramatic and significant influence over the growth of the economy and labor market conditions. But let's set economic theory aside and get down to just plain talk about it. Inflation is a tax on everyone, all of us. Yet it does not tax everyone equally. It disproportionately punishes and hurts the poor and minority communities more, which then begs the question, why don't more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle consider supporting the Price Stability Act, the very legislation that marginalized communities would benefit financially from the most if we were successful in targeting inflation and not have it run rampant, as it does periodically, most recently in the twenty, uh, late twenty twenty to twenty twenty-two time frame. My colleagues should take a cue from the American public. Studies have found that Americans would rather cope with facing their own uh temporary unemployment challenge than higher inflation. And of course if you think about that, that's common sense. If I'm hurt by a job layoff, I can take actions to find another position, advance my skills, work two jobs temporarily, team up with family members, draw on unemployment insurance compensation, safety net provided by the federal government. In other words, my personal actions can change the outcome. But with inflation, the opposite is true. No action I can take can offset the financial damage caused by a cost of living shock. Whether it's due to the oil price shock of nineteen seventy-two and the terrible policies of the Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administration that led to rampant inflation, or what we experienced coming out of the pandemic with a supply disruption, inflation, and too much federal spending, and too lax a Federal Reserve policy. Don't believe me or my assertion? How about the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, President Neel Kashkari, a real life example. A few years back he met at one of his district's local labor leaders who represents low income grocery store and hotel workers. He told you, the labor leaders said they preferred not to experience inflation. Inflation is worse than a recession, was his quote. So, no one wants unemployment or inflation, but I believe the Fed's tools can be only prevent and fight inflation, not structural unemployment, and I yield back. Uh, who seeks recognition? Uh, the ranking member.

Uh, thank you very much. I move to strike the last word.

Recognize for five minutes.

Mister Chairman, I'm deeply uh disappointed that in response to an escalating affordability crisis and rising unemployment rates, Republicans respond by telling the Fed to stop caring about workers. This legislation removes the maximum employment mandate from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Markets Committee. Maximum unemployment, or employment rather, has been part of the Fed's dual mandate since nineteen seventy-seven, and requires the Fed to prioritize reducing unemployment. while also maintaining stable prices. Coretta Scott King again championed this mandate because she knew that unemployment was a primary factor causing poverty and social problems, and how it disproportionately hurt black and brown communities. She knew then we have learned uh what we have learned for the past fifty years was that federal reserve's powerful monetary policy tools could be deployed to reduce unemployment while also maintaining stable prices. This was an important part of the civil rights movement, and not surprisingly, we haven't seen the large unemployment rates common earlier in our country's history, even as we have navigated pandemics and financial crisis. Decades after establishing the maximum employment mandated under democratic leadership, Unemployment remained at historic lows below four percent for the longest stretch in fifty years however now after Trump's trade policy unemployment is again creeping up to four point three percent or seven point four million people unemployed, doing away, doing absolutely away the full employment mandate at this time. is just foolish. Unemployment rates are higher for teenage workers at fourteen point four percent, black workers at seven point three percent, and Hispanic workers at five point zero percent in twenty twenty five. Now, black women face the largest employment losses, especially for college graduates and workers in the public sector. The maximum unemployment rate serves America's workforce in a time of major instability. This bill clearly demonstrates Republican priorities, which do not include people who are struggling to make ends meet with high prices, working multiple jobs, and facing a difficult job market. If my colleagues really want to address inflation, they should go to the root cause, Trump's failed economic agenda, his tariffs, this war in Iran, and his government dysfunction, and raising and rising housing and grocery prices, driving up the cost at the pump, and forcing small businesses and nonprofits to shut their doors, reversing just one of those actions, would help Americans. So I urge everyone to reject this harmful bill And well, I respect my friend, Mister Hill. He did not make a good case for why that mandate should be uh stripped away from the feds. I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back who seeks recognition. The gentleman from uh Indiana, Mister Tussman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'll try and see if I can make a good case.

You, gentleman moves to strike the last word.

Move to strike last word, yes.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Alright, thank you. First of all, Mister Chairman, thank you for the I don't know who put the flowers in the uh the um motion, what is that? Thank you, yeah, for Mister Scott, but I just wanna recognize his service and he was such a gentle man and he'll be sorely missed uh here on the committee, and appreciate the uh the flowers that honor him. But uh anyway I wanna uh talk a little about the history of the mandate and appreciate the chairman carrying this particular bill. Many forget that the original Federal Reserve Act of nineteen thirteen did not have a dual mandate. No price stability goal, no maximum employment goal, just a goal to maintain elastic currency. People also forget that the Senate originally had drafted the Federal Reserve Act of nineteen thirteen to have the Federal Reserve to promote a stable price level. In fact, since nineteen nineteen, Congress has introduced at least a hundred and three bills related to price stability. Seventy-one of those bills were led by Democrats. Price stability was on Congress's collective mind well before the introduction of the Fed's dual mandate. Not until the seventies did Congress provide the Fed with the mandate, with the dual mandate. Unfortunately, the dual mandate was not born from economic necessity, it was born from the politics of the great society era. So I urge those who are watching at home to take a deeper look at the political environment of the time this change was made. I think it's hard to ignore the persistent influence of LBJ's great society reforms and the idea that the federal government should have its hand in every aspect of the economy. For instance, Hubert Humphrey included a great society style government jobs program in his draft of what would become the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. If the Fed didn't hit the unemployment target set by Congress, Humphrey's idea was for the federal government to act as an employer of last resort, and create jobs for all who wanted one. That sounds to me like a decision driven by bad politics, not just bad economics. Instead of having the Fed focus on inflation, as it should have since day one, the creation of the dual mandate injected big government politics into the Fed's decisions and forced it to balance two often-competing goals. Even worse is that maximum employment itself cannot be directly measured and fluctuates over time as the economy evolves. Unfortunately, those hurt the most are the American people. Because when the Fed gets the balance between the two mandates wrong, the American people pay the price, whether it's in high prices or higher unemployment. Back in two thousand fifteen, I introduced la legislation that would end this confusing dual mandate and return the Fed to its original mission of protecting price stability. I'm very happy to see that this legislation lived on and has been introduced by our Chairman of the Committee in the years since. It's long past time for the Fed to have a single mandate. And I believe that Chairman Hill's Price Stability Act will accomplish that goal and will help the American people and keep the government focused where it should focus. Thank you, and I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back, who seeks recognition.

Uh.

Uh, Mr. Lynch, you're recognized.

I thank the gentlemen. Uh. Let me support uh the ranking members' comments on this. Uh first of all, the dual mandate that is contained in Humphrey Hawkins and which governs the Fed today was put in for for reasons that are are keenly relevant to what we're going through right now. Uh right now we have a threat to millions and millions and millions of jobs all across the country because of AI. We're seeing driverless cars, there's probably over a million truck drivers that that are employed right now, that do long-haul driving and and with the improvements of being that are being made right now on driverless vehicles, those jobs are under threat. In the financial services industry, a lot of the back office jobs that that we see in the business right now are going away as we speak. This is not the time to remove the the the mandate of a full employment from the Federal Reserve. And as far as, and I have great respect for the for the chairman, I really do. He is a good man. But the Federal Reserve is our chief lender. And when we have seen high periods of unemployment in this country, the Federal Reserve pulls out its tool that is allowed to use because of the dual mandate It lowers interest rates, it often uh drives economic growth, and it lowers the the employment levels, it lowers the unemployment levels in this country. So it it is perfectly uh appropriate for them for them to do that. Now, the dual mandate also requires balance, price stability, looking at inflation, but but in a corresponding way, looking at the ability of Americans to go to work. There are a lot of people out there in various industries. There are kids in college right now who are choosing their majors and, and, and, and wondering if it is, if it is worthwhile to go to college because they're afraid that the, the line of uh employment that they're looking at is going away. Whether, so this is a a period of extreme uncertainty right now. for people in the job market. This is this is the worst possible time for us to suggest to the Federal Reserve, forget about full employment. Forget about it's not your job. The the other impact on that this bill will have is as we know right now, the Fed's the Fed has very specific mandates because of this, the Humphrey Hawkins bill. while it has many jobs to do, the mandate from Congress to the Fed is focus on price stability, focus on employment. Those are very specific targets. Those are objectives. Those are goals. And it guides the Fed in their job. Right now, as it stands, the Federal Reserve priority is employment as well as as well as price stability. What your bill would do is, is completely delete that. Full employment would no longer be a priority for, for the Federal Reserve. That is so reckless right now because of the risk on a lot of jobs in this, in this country and around the world. This is the worst possible time for you to be suggesting, uh, something like this, to remove the explicit goal of actually putting people to work. The Fed has powerful tools. And and if you did talk to, if you did talk to labor leaders and and and worker advocates around this country, they see that mandate as something that protects every American worker, not just union workers or non-union workers, every single worker, because the the levers that that the Fed controls in allowing businesses to to get loans that are that are actually uh that that allow them to invest and grow their business, that's all controlled by the interest rate of that the that is set by the Federal Reserve Bank. So this this is a terrible, terrible idea. This is this is one of the one of the worst bills I've seen come up in a long time, uh not only because of its its inherent object, but also because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in with so many millions and millions of jobs in this country right now at risk. This is not the time to tell the Fed that full employment doesn't matter. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back who seeks recognition. Uh, gentleman from uh, California, Miss, Mister Vargas.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, I moved to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I agree with my Democratic colleagues, although I would agree with uh two things that my Republican colleagues did and said, and that is I wanna thank you, Mister Chairman, and of course Mister Stutzman for recognizing Mister Scott, the flowers you've placed there. He was a beloved member of this committee, and thank you for recognizing, we appreciate that. With all that being said, in nineteen seventy-seven Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act to give our central bank a dual mandate, maximum employment and stable prices. But that achievement was decades in the making, as the ranking members said. It began with FDR's nineteen forty-four State of the Union, in which he famously called for an economic bill of rights. It continued with President Truman signing the Employment Act of nineteen forty-six, affirming that the federal government has a responsibility to promote maximum employment. And the civil rights leaders, including Coretta Scott King, as was mentioned once again by the ranking member, helped lead the fight to full employment goals in the Humphrey Hawkins Act. Through the civil, through the work of the civil rights and labor leaders, maximum employment became an equal pillar of the Fed's max, Fed's mandate. That equal footing, it matters. Most Americans don't experience the economy through the markets. They experience through their paycheck. Whether they have one, whether they have a job. When working families in San Diego and across the country ask if the economy is working for them, they're asking, " Can I find work? Does it pay enough?" Well, I still have it next year. And of course, with all that we've heard, with AI and all the other fear that people have out there right now, because the economy is changing, this is a terrible time to make this change. A strong labor market gives workers bargaining power to ask for a raise, leave a bad job, or demand better conditions. And with labor markets weakened, Black and Latino families feel it most acutely. In April of this year, Black unemployment was at seven point three percent. seven point three percent. And Latino unemployment was at five percent, both above the national average of four point three percent. Any effort to eliminate the Fed's commitment to maximum employment will disproportionately impact working families. Now, we do, I think, Mister Chairman, hear hear testimony differently, because I heard hear the Chairman of the Fed, Chairman Powell, tell this committee on July of twenty twenty four, and I wanna quote, My view has been that the dual mandate has served us well. And I agree. Congress established the dual mandate for a reason. And we should not do away with it now. I would also say that, Mister Chairman, you asked us to quote, take a cue from the American public. I I think that we are taking a cue from the American public. When they see the h the harm that's happening right now in the economy because of the policies of this administration. And sadly, and I say this very sadly, I also hear what the President say says, and I think that my Republican colleagues are taking a cue from what he said. And he said this, "I don't think about the Americans about Americans' financial situation." That's what he said. I don't think about it. I don't care about Americans' financial situation. And I think that's what's in this bill. American's financial situation for most people depends on a job, having that opportunity to work, working families, being able to pay for the food, for the gas that they need, for their families. So, Mister Chairman, I, again, I have great respect for you. Um, I really do, but I, in this case, I think you're wrong. And I hope that, uh, we oppose this.

Chairman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Casti.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair, and uh

You're moving to strike the last word.

Oh, sorry, yeah, I will move to strike the last word.

Oh, you're broken house for five minutes.

Uh, uh, thank you. Um. I'm just really concerned by the irresponsibility of this conversation. I I get it, like getting rid of the dual mandate was in project twenty twenty five. Um, it's been a, you know, it's been a wish list for a long time. And we could we could be economically theoretical about this, and I think it's appropriate to remember that theory, right? There is a tension between do d do corporate gains flow to labor or to capital? Um, the idea of the dual mandate is to balance that. We could we could get into the economic theory or we could all go back to our district where we're all hearing people saying, would you like to make it easier for us to build a data center so that we can automate your job and increase corporate profits that will not be inflationary, um but will put you out of work. Um, make that speech at home and try to get elected. I think we all understand that tension between where do gains flow between capital and labor. And the whole reason that the Fed has a dual mandate is so that the Fed can cannot take a side in that debate. Um, I'm not saying this to be opposed to AI. I'm not saying this to be opposed to labor productivity. I am happy that I don't have to churn my own butter, right? But but the Fed still has to make a decision around when the economy gets going too hot one way, what do we do when it gets going too hot the other way? And if we take that away, what are we left with? And the reason I say that this is so irresponsible is that there was this, there was this New Republic article this week that I would encourage you all to read, that described the leadership of the Republican party right now as the last gasps of a cult who are staying to the bitter end. You all can't talk about the fact that the president can't stay awake in a pr- press conference. You all can't talk about the fact that he's starting needless wars that are driving up the price of gasoline, um, and all energy sources. You all can't talk about the fact that he's a convicted felon. The most critical thing that I think you are allowed to say about him and still be a member of the cult in good standing is that he's a latter-day Cyrus sent by Jesus to bring about the second coming. You gotta work through all that. But in the meantime there is a practical reality. That whatever you do with interest rates right now, you are still stuck in a situation where inflation is being driven by energy costs that are the result of dumb foreign policy, um, and is driven by high tariffs that are the result of dumb economic policy. In the words of that great philosopher Ron White, you can't fix stupid and you certainly can't fix it with interest rates. You have a practical reality in labor markets right now. The last, Obama's second term there were ten million jobs created. Trump's first term there were almost three million jobs destroyed. Biden, sixteen million jobs created. Trump so far, kudos for him. He's created a hundred and twenty thousand jobs through February. If he stays on pace, maybe he'll break four hundred thousand dollars by the end of his term, but the trend line isn't looking that way. You are sitting here watching employment in the United States collapse. Hiring is at at historic lows. Inflation is at historic highs. You can't fix that with interest rates. You can fix that with oversight. You can fix that by getting out of the cult. You can fix that by taking your oath to the constitution and this institution seriously. And someday, when you're out of the cult, you are going to want an independent fed. To make sure that that bias doesn't sit here. So I'm left saying this is not complicated. There are a number of laws that were passed in the nineteen twenties that you all really seem to like. Don't get rid of this one. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, seeks recognition. Gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um

Are you moving to strike the last word or do you have an amendment at the desk or what

Yes, we'll Just looking to participate in general debate.

Very good.

We'll just try to get the last word.

You you're moving to strike what you're recognized for five minutes.

Yes, thank you. Um, like Ranking Member Waters and my uh democratic colleagues, I vigorously oppose this legislation to strip the mandate Of the federal government. for maximum employment from the mission of the Federal Reserve. I mean, I never thought that my republican colleagues would need a lesson on the importance of gainful employment and having a job. Even Ronald Reagan said that he believed the best social program is a job. Um, and yet, here we are. The best way to support working families is to keep them working. Plain and simple. Maximizing employment is good for our economy, it's good for our communities, it's good for our families. And to deny that truth is to deny reality. So I'm confident that the American people will see through these, um, baseless talking points and agree with Democrats that everyone should be able to get a job. to work a job, and to earn a living. Work is, is pride, it's dignity, it's essential to survive, to thrive, to provide, even to dream. I've been uh working, I've been employed since I was uh thirteen, fourteen years old. Um many young people pursue jobs, whether it's um being a bagger at a grocery store or working retail, not just for enrichment or for exposure, but because it is essential. I was working at the age of fourteen to contribute to my household income. Or what of young adults, recent graduates, uh, from college or a trade school, who wanna save for a house or maybe even start a business one day? Or You know, as a mother, I think about what it means to be able to see the light behind my child's eyes when I can uh provide them with a vacation or uh some gift that they've been uh begging for. And and for our elders, increasingly so under uh Trump administration and economy, retirement is farther and farther out of reach, and uh many of our elders have no choice but to work. in order to pay for lifesaving medication and to keep a roof over their head. So all this to say that having a job is not a statistic. It is essential, it is dignity, dignity of work is transformational. That's what the Fed's mandate for maximum employment is about. This mission was not created in a vacuum. It dates back to the Great Depression in recognition that people should be able to earn a living, provide for themselves and their family. There was nearly unanimous support by Republicans and Democrats for maximum employment when the mandate passed Congress. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is the only independent agency that works on improving employment. Some argue that this is the role of the Department of Labor, but in Trump's America, the Labor Department is a joke. We don't even have a secretary of labor right now. So the Fed's mandate is essential and always has been. During the great recession of two thousand eight, massive job loss, the Fed stepped in to maximize employment. During the COVID-19 pandemic and record layoffs, the Fed once again pursued its mandament its mandate of maximum employment. And in in this moment, we need the Fed to do more, not less. For months I've been sounding the alarm about the current unemployment crisis. The unemployment rate has increased to four point three percent due to Trump's reckless policies like firing government workers, attacking small businesses. And when you analyze the data, black unemployment specifically is at seven point three percent. These are the worst rates we've seen since the pandemic. Black workers are the canaries in the coal mine. What happens to our community first happens to everyone next. So folks should take heed. People are looking for jobs. People wanna work, but Trump's economy won't let them. Just last week, Fed Chair Jerome Powell announced the jobs numbers and said something my Republicans need to hear. There is little hiring going on. And for many Americans, it doesn't feel like a good labor market. So the solution to the current unemployment problem is not to tell the Fed to abandon the goal of maximum employment, The solution is to empower the Fed to do even more. Recent graduates deserve more. Having a job and earning a paycheck is a beautiful and essential thing. So I just wanna say this to folks at home, in the midst of all of this, this anti-worker policies against paid leave, child care, supporting tariffs, suppressing wages, To those who keep applying the jobs but still aren't hearing back. To those who are wondering how they're going to pay their bills without a paycheck. To those who are doing everything right but the economy is all wrong. To those who know and appreciate the dignity of work, I see you. I'm fighting for you. And that is why I pose this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Iowa.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair. I move to strike last word.

Gentleman's recognized for five minutes.

I think the chairman's bill speaks directly to the ability of the Fed to help in not only lowering our interest rates but the job creation

I appreciate the the gentleman from Iowa's help. I've been listening to this debate. I find it uh truly fascinating that some on the other side of the aisle somehow think that this bill is anti-full employment. Completely wrong. This bill is about stopping inflation from punishing every household. And I argue that the Fed's ability to influence maximum employment is not a reality. And Neel Kashkari, President of the Bank in Minneapolis agrees, many former governors agree, and you know, let's look at the world. Uh, this is not the standard of global central banking. I mean, most central banks focus on fighting inflation. Who had the worst inflation in the twentieth century? The Germans. They have a single mandate. The, uh, European Central Bank, single mandate, Swiss National Bank, single mandate, Bank of New Zealand, single mandate, the polls, single mandate. So this is not some out of the out of thinking concept to fight inflation as the principal mandate of the central bank. My point is that that should be the principal mandate of the bank, and that these issues about influencing the level of employment, the maximum level of employment, all are impacted by decisions we take here in Congress. in fiscal policy, regulatory policy. And my friends on the other aisle may talk about, well what about those with, who have child care needs, those who have lower monthly earnings. But many on the other side, they all voted against doubling the child tax credit just last year. They voted against tax cuts for uh families uh here. And so this is not about uh maximum employment versus price stability, it's about the role. in government to achieve that. And I argue that the central bank in our country's main mission should be fighting inflation which is that punishing tax on all Americans in all business that's so disruptive and so helplessness creating and that if you are for faster economic growth, more careers, faster employment growth, higher real wages, then you should have perhaps voted last year with House Republicans to lower income tax burdens on working families, double the child tax credit, lower regulatory burdens on business to create jobs. And in this committee, I must say that that theme has been bipartisan. Just yesterday on the House floor, we had a marvelous debate where Democrats and Republicans came together recognizing that if we want a vigorous economy with more careers, more jobs, more higher real wage growth, we should facilitate our Main Street community banks. to uh tackle that with a lower compliance burden for well-managed banks. Four thousand banks

Will the judge be in here?

will benefit uh the I will not you know I'm finishing my point, but I thank the gentlewoman. Um and so I just wanna echo the comment that uh Mister Kasten of Illinois made, that you can't fix stupid with interest rates, I believe was his quote. I agree. You can't achieve maximum employment by relying quote unquote on a dual mandate in the Fed. That instead you need to recognize that if you want maximum economic growth in the country, that our regulatory policy, our tax policy, yes, our trade policy, our budget deficit policy, all those things influence that greater picture about maximum uh employment. And so I really uh I wanna thank the gentleman from uh Iowa for yielding some time and I yield back to him.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield the remainder of my time.

The gentleman from Iowa yields back. Who seeks recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk.

The desk.

The ranking member has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while it's uh distributed.

Good.

Mister Chairman, I'd like to reserve a point of order.

A gentleman reserves a point of order. Mister Musier reserves a point of order.

What? Just a procedure that they don't

So, if there is also a

Okay, just leave it at that. Yep. And then there was a separate rule that just stayed clear, It just allows us to respond and Yeah. Should I do the strike word? Yield stage? Ah, I just have one more question.

Oh, it's a

Yeah, go ahead.

Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR fifty-three ninety-six offered by Miss Waters of California designated as HR fifty-three, ninety-six, zero one.

The uh without objection, the amendment is considered read, and I recognize the gentleman from California to describe her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to be reforming the Federal Reserve, we should adopt reforms to strengthen the independence of the Fed, especially given the constant threats and attacks the President has launched on it. It is absolutely shameful the way the President has tried to take over the Fed, tried hard to get rid of Chairman Powell, just brazenly and openly wanted to take over the Fed, the way he's taken over the Justice Department, and the SCC and other agencies of government. So my amendment adds a sense of Congress, supporting the independence of maintaining the Fed's independence, and that the Department of Justice is prohibited from opening an investigation into Federal Reserve officials without due process and designed to intimidate the officials into carrying out the President's wishes. I believe everyone in this room supports maintaining the independence of our central bank. the Federal Reserve. We know the evidence from other countries that when a central bank's independence is compromised the economy often suffers from hyperinflation and massive price increases that hurts consumers. As I've said before, the Department of Justice's criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jay Powell was baseless, politically motivated, and an abuse of power from one day from day one. And it was the unlawful, unlawful attempt to fire Governor Lisa Cook. These and other actions were clearly designed to intimidate the leaders of the Federal Reserve and bend one of the most important economic institutions in the world to Trump's will. And while the Senate confirmed a new chair after Trump's DOG was paused, this is far from over. Trump has not dropped his effort to remove Governor Cook of the bogus investigation of her mortgage files. And the threat to reopen the investigation into chair power is still hanging over the Federal Reserve like a cloud sending a chilling message to any Fed official who refuses to fall in line with this administration's political agenda. Let us be very clear. The Federal Reserve s- it serves the American people, not Donald Trump. The administration must immediately drop all efforts targeting any Federal Reserve official, including the continued tax on Governor Lisa Cook. And I urge members to join me in standing up for a strong independent Federal Reserve that serves as a cornerstone of the greatest economy in the world and remains uh accountable to Congress and the American people and support this amendment. Let me just say this. Everybody knows, Democrats, Republicans, the people out there, knows that this president has brazenly taken over our agencies and wanted to determine the interest rates singularly by himself. Everybody knows uh that they have bent uh to the president his chances for the heads of these agencies the Justice Department, uh the Federal Reserve, the SCC, on and on and on. Stop hiding the truth. Stop ignoring the truth. It is getting very irritating. And when you come talking about you want to do something uh about changing the mandate, is that what the president asked you to do? Are you following his orders? Because that's what he determined, that he wants to run all of these agencies. I am going to stop uh being uh nice about these issues. The fact of the matter is, your bringing this up today helps to focus on what this president is doing. I'm sick and tired of it. Americans are sick and tired of it. He does not own this country. He's the president of the United States of America. He does not own all of the federal agency. And what he has done to try to eliminate Powell is absolutely unconscionable. And we've gotta let stop it. We've got to stop this president from acting in this manner. And members of his party, I think it's time for you to step up to the plate. and deal with this issue in a real way. And so you go after reform cuz you wanna remove the mandate. Give me a break. That's not a real issue. Deal with what the president is trying to do to Lisa Cook and to Powell right now, because he think he owns the bed. He wants to determine interest rates. He doesn't give a darn about the constitution of the United States of America. And so I ask all of the members on both side of the aisle, step up and do what you were elected to do. and defend the defend these agencies and I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlewoman yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?

No, Chairman, I do not.

Gentleman withdraws his point of order, seeks recognition. Vargas?

Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move the strike for last word.

Recognized. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I think it was very well said by the ranking member. that the president has attacked quite blatantly the independence of the Fed by going after the Fed chair. We saw that, everyone saw that. Um, certainly also Governor Cook. Everybody saw that. In fact, uh, the only thing that I would disagree with the ranking member is this. You said that the other side should step up to the plate. They do when they're leaving. They do when they're leaving, not running for another office. I see the senator now on the other side saying what the president's doing, what his department of justice is doing, the pal is wrong, and I'm not gonna support anybody until they drop the criminal investigation. He somehow got courage when he was leaving. Because he's not running for anything else. He's not running for reelection. He's not running for another position. So all of a sudden, He stood up on his hind feet, pi- finally, and said what everybody knew, that this was a terrible thing that the president was doing. He was really demanding that the Department of Justice go after him. He took over the Department of Justice. He he really is normalizing these processes that we would think are crazy, that somehow the president can just say, prosecute that person because I don't like him. And finally, the onl- again, the only thing I would disagree with you, um, ranking member through the chair is that, oh no, they they step up to the plate when they're leaving. I'd also have to say, it's obvious to me, there's a couple, at least one member who is leaving on the other side of the aisle, who certainly is starting to speak up too, um, from one of the northern states. He's leaving now and he's saying some of these things also. So again, I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would stand up, because some of the stuff the president's doing, you know that if a democratic president was doing it, you would stand up and say, " This is crazy. You can't do these things." And yet, you don't say a darn thing until again you're leaving and not running for another office. Then you do step up to the plate. And that's sad. Now, I do have to say that I heard some comments about why didn't we, you know, stand up and cut taxes and the big ugly bill for working families. Well, we wanna cut taxes for working families, but we also know that most of that money, the tax went to billionaire families. It didn't go to working families, it went to billionaire families. And in fact, the six hundred, seven hundred dollar tax cut that they got was replaced now with higher tax pri- higher prices on the gas, gas prices. So all of a sudden they don't have a break at all. That big ugly bill didn't do a damn thing for them. In fact, ask any working family in America and they say, " Are you better off?" this year than you were last year, no, because the prices are up because of all the policies of this administration of this president. So no, we didn't vote for that big ugly bill, because we knew that all the good stuff went to the billionaire class and the scraps went to everybody else. That's why we didn't vote for it and wouldn't vote for it. If it had been a a true bill where you tried to work tried to help the working class and those that are poor We would have all supported that. But we saw what this was, this was a smoke screen. To give a working class six hundred buck, eight hundred bucks cut on their taxes, and then again charge them a thousand dollars more for gas the next damn year. So with that, uh I yield back, and again I thank the ranking members.