Committee on the Budget | Reconsideration of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act FY2025

Committee on the Budget

2025-05-19

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The House Budget Committee convened to vote on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" after an unusual weekend recess, with the Chair offering apologies for the inconvenience caused by the late Sunday night meeting.[ 00:35:56-00:36:06 ] The meeting proceeded with significant debate over transparency and procedural matters before the committee ultimately voted to favorably report the bill to the House of Representatives.

Themes

Transparency and Bill Changes

Members of the committee, particularly Representative Brendan F. Boyle, raised concerns about a lack of transparency regarding potential "side agreements" or changes to the bill that may have occurred during the recess. Boyle emphasized the importance of full disclosure of any changes for members to understand what they were voting on.[ 00:37:39-00:37:41 ] Chairman Jodey C. Arrington acknowledged ongoing deliberations but declined to disclose them, stating that the bill itself had not formally changed and that any future modifications would be reflected in a manager's amendment.[ 00:38:14-00:38:38 ]

CBO Scoring and Impact Assessments

A key point of contention was the absence of an updated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score for the bill, which Representative Boyle highlighted as crucial for informed voting, citing the 1974 Budget and Empowerment Control Act. Representative Bobby C. Scott specifically questioned the bill's impact, noting CBO estimates that a policy within it could reduce participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by 3 million people and affect school lunch certifications.[ 00:45:51-00:46:02 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Chairman Arrington assured that outstanding CBO scores would be disclosed before a floor vote but dismissed further inquiries on the matter during the committee meeting.

Procedural Conduct and Partisanship

The meeting was marked by procedural challenges and partisan exchanges, starting with Representative Boyle questioning the highly unusual recess and Sunday night session.[ 00:36:42-00:36:55 ] Chairman Arrington defended the committee's process as following "regular order," drawing comparisons to past legislative actions that he claimed lacked such scrutiny.[ 00:41:06-00:41:10 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 The Chair had to repeatedly cut off parliamentary inquiries to proceed with the agenda, signaling a strained atmosphere.[ 00:46:56-00:46:57 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Voting on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" and Motions to Instruct

The committee first voted to reconsider the prior failed vote on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which passed 21-16.[ 00:44:59 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Subsequently, the main motion to favorably report the bill to the House passed with 17 ayes, 16 noes, and 4 present votes.[ 00:48:54 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Several motions to instruct, proposed by Democratic members, were also brought to a vote; these included measures to protect Medicaid, raise income taxes for millionaires, and strike provisions reducing SNAP participation.[ 00:50:02 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 All of these motions were defeated, typically with a 16-21 vote count.[ 00:51:52 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely contentious and partisan, despite an initial apology from Chairman Arrington for the late hour.[ 00:35:56-00:36:06 ] Democrats expressed frustration over perceived lack of transparency and the impact of the bill, while Republicans emphasized their adherence to process and their policy objectives. The exchanges were sharp, particularly during parliamentary inquiries, indicating deep divisions on the committee.[ 00:46:56-00:46:57 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 The closing remarks further highlighted this division, with the Chair celebrating a "critical step" towards an "America First vision" and the Ranking Member condemning the bill for potentially causing millions to lose healthcare.

Participants

Transcript

Bye.
Okay, the committee will now come to order.  Let me start out of courtesy for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.   Um, thank you for your patience, uh, and, and for being flexible.  And I, uh, uh, sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.  I never want to cut your time short with your families because it's so precious and few those moments.  Uh, I know that as a dad of three young children.  So anyway, I know it, this, it, you know, will happen.  I'm sure on both sides from time to time, but, um, I want to just acknowledge that.  And if there's.   Any way in the future that we can avoid these things, you know I will, you know I'll do it, Mr. Ranking Member.  So, any quick comment?
Yeah, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I do have just a couple of parliamentary inquiries.  Obviously, this is highly unusual, the fact that we recessed after a failed vote.   Friday morning, around lunchtime Friday, and now we're back here late Sunday night.  So presumably we are voting again because some folks on your side of the aisle may have changed their mind due to some side agreements.  So my parliamentary inquiry is, will the committee be able to see what side agreements have been reached?  Will they be added as either an MTI or just here verbally?   reflecting the ways in which now apparently the bill has changed.
The deliberations have continued up to this point where we judge this reconciliation bill.   or the many component parts as it relates to the budget targets that we've set, and that is what we're voting on.  Deliberations continue at this very moment.  They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House.  So that's what we're here to do.   And we're not going to disclose the deliberations.  I'm not sure I could disclose all the deliberations.
If I might, I certainly wouldn't.
I don't know anything about side deals or any deals.  I just know we're at a place where we can take a vote today and not have to be back here for multiple votes.
Yeah, I would just, in the interest of transparency, if the bill has changed and there's been some side agreement reached, I think it's important that all the members have the full details on that in advance of any vote.  So that way we know in a transparent, honest way exactly what we're voting on.
You will get it in the manager's amendment like many of the   or like most of the members here.  So, I couldn't tell you what is in flux, what is fixed, what might change or not change.  As you all well know, this process is fluid, and it will go to the Rules Committee.  Most likely, there will be some changes, and that's the way the process goes.  So, I know you appreciate that, having been through it before many times.
WELL, I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE CHAIR, BUT I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO THAT YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW.   Finally, my other parliamentary inquiry, and again, a very serious point.  As you know, we all operate under the 1974 Budget and Empowerment Control Act.  It's what set up these committees, what set up Congressional Budget Office, requires a CBO score.  We don't have, unless something has happened this weekend that I'm unaware of, we don't have that CBO score in front of us.   Do you know when we will get the CBO score, both of the budget bill that we're voting in front of us and the scoring of any changes that it looks like are going to happen?
I will look into the timing of any outstanding CBO scores, and I'm certain that if there are outstanding scores, that those will be disclosed before our members vote, before our members collectively, both Democrats and Republicans.
Before you vote on the floor.
Yeah, yeah.  But just let's appreciate how far we've come.  And since you're asking me these, I think, relevant questions,   We didn't even have, the last time we did reconciliation and the Democrats were in charge and had unified control of Congress, it never even went through regular order, didn't even come to this committee so that we could even have this dialogue.  We couldn't even have asked that question.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up