Political Vindictiveness

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, many years ago there was a rule adopted called the Holman rule. It allows the arbitrary and capricious cutting of a salary if you don't agree with what the person does. It is somewhat like if the Speaker of the House, who didn't like a vote of one of the Members, could cut their salary to $1. Now, there are a number of citizens who would probably like that, but in fact it would be unfair, capricious, and undermining of our democracy.

Punishing someone for a difference of opinion is the antithesis of American democracy. For years, however, Republicans have made it their policy to vilify Federal workers. The Holman rule is their tool of choice. They use it as an instrument of political vengeance to cut the salaries of specific Federal officials who don't share their partisan agenda; not for misfeasance or malfeasance, but because they didn't agree.

In the past 2 months, Republicans used the Holman rule to advance 64 amendments targeting individual Federal workers. Fifty-five of those were voted on. Two were withdrawn, and all 53 were defeated. What it is is essentially pandering to their rightwing, to allow their rightwing to pretend that they are doing policy. Every one of them has been defeated by over 250 votes.

They have wasted over 9 hours of floor time on these pointless amendments, time that we could have and should have spent funding our government, time that we should have spent funding Ukraine, our ally, which is under siege from a dictator who has broken international law. Yet, we vote on reducing salaries to $1. How capricious.

They are about settling political vendettas. It is sheer, petty, and irrational political posturing.

Among those Federal officials singled out were the FDA officials tasked with ensuring the safety of America's medicine and food. There was no finding that they weren't doing that properly. It was just because they didn't like the policy.

Others were Federal employees who administer crucial food assistance programs and other services upon which American people rely.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans also took aim at DOD, Homeland Security, cybersecurity, and infrastructure security agencies. These men and women are in charge of promoting military readiness, gathering vital intelligence, and protecting our national security. There were no arguments that they weren't performing those services. It was that Republicans didn't like the policies.

Trying to eliminate their pay signals to America and to the world that their essential work, their services don't matter. It also gives the answer to what Texas Congressman Chip Roy said, that the Republicans have not done anything. Chip Roy, a Republican, a conservative.

Republicans attack Federal employees only to advance extreme policies that are out of step with the American people, from restricting reproductive care to undermining diversity and inclusion efforts. Their vindictive behavior is nothing new.

In 2017, House Republicans tried using the Holman rule to eliminate one-third of the Congressional Budget Office's staff, a nonpartisan, impartial agency. Why? It was because they didn't like the scores their bills were receiving. They didn't say they were wrong, but they said they didn't like them, and they had a way to go beyond them to fund projects they wanted to fund or policies they wanted to pursue.

The people responsible for government oversight and transparency should not have to face reprisals for their thorough and objective work. That is no way to run a country. No business on Earth would conduct itself in this way. No employer that threatens to cut its employees' pay to $1 on a whim can expect to recruit and retain top talent. They would simply walk out the door, and properly so.

The Holman rule is not only vindictive, as I said, but it endangers our democracy and our separation of powers. It is part of the politics of vindictiveness, the so-called revenge tour President Trump promises to unleash on America. It is just another way he and his followers can, in his own words, and I quote Mr. Trump: ``root out the . . . radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.''

What kind of rhetoric is that? What kind of objective is that for somebody who might responsibly be the head of the greatest government on Earth?

Though these amendments have no chance of becoming law, we must not ignore them.

They force our Government to serve the political interests of their authors.

Instead, we must allow our Government to serve the people.

Thank you, and I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source