[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 .                               ------                               
                  H R. 1, ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON RULES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

                               ----------  
                               
                               
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              
                               





                   H.R. 1, ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT
                   
                   
                   
                   

 


                               



                   H.R. 1, ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON RULES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

                               __________

       [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     
                               

                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
             
             
             
                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
61-207                  WASHINGTON : 2025            
             
             
             
             
             
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts,
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina           Ranking Member
CHIP ROY, Texas                      MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia, Vice 
    Chair
BRIAN JACK, Georgia

                    Steve Waskiewicz, Staff Director
                  Don Sisson, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House

               MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota, Chairwoman
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, 
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia             Ranking Member
BRIAN JACK, Georgia                  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts

             Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process

               NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York, Chairman
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina         TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Mexico, Ranking Member
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                              May 21, 2025

                                                                   Page
Opening Statements:
    Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina and Chair of the Committee on Rules     1
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................     4
Witness Testimony Panel 1:
    The Hon. Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Alabama...........................................     8
    Hon. Adam Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Washington..............................................     9
    Hon. J. French Hill, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................    10
    The Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................    11
    Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Texas.........................................    13
    Hon. Brendan F. Boyle, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................    14
    Hon. James Comer, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Kentucky................................................    15
    Hon. Stephen F. Lynch, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts.....................................    16
Questions and Additional Testimony Panel 1:
    Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina and Chair of the Committee on Rules    18
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................    19
    Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia...........................................    31
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................    33
    Hon. Brian Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Georgia.................................................    39
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................    42
    Hon. Erin Houchin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Indiana...........................................    55
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................    73
    Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................    89
Witness Testimony Panel 2:
    Hon. Mark E. Green, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Tennessee.........................................    95
    Hon. Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Mississippi...................................    97
        Prepared Statement.......................................    99
    Hon. Jim Jordan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Ohio....................................................   102
    Hon. Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maryland..........................................   103
    Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................   105
    Hon. Jared Huffman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   107
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Missouri................................................   108
    Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Washington..............................................   109
        Prepared Statement.......................................   112
Questions and Additional Testimony Panel 2:
    Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina and Chair of the Committee on Rules   121
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   121
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   127
    Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia...........................................   131
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   132
    Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................   139
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   141
    Hon. Michelle Fischbach, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Minnesota.....................................   152
    Hon. Erin Houchin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Indiana...........................................   153
Witness Testimony Panel 3:
    Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   154
    Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Minnesota...............................................   155
    Hon. Tim Walberg, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Michigan................................................   156
    Hon. Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Virginia..........................................   157
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Kentucky..........................................   159
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New Jersey....................................   161
    Hon. Jason Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Missouri................................................   164
    Hon. Gwen Moore, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Wisconsin...............................................   166
        Prepared Statement.......................................   170
Questions and Additional Testimony Panel 3:
    Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina and Chair of the Committee on Rules   175
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   176
    Hon. Michelle Fischbach, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Minnesota.....................................   184
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   186
    Hon. Ralph Norman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of South Carolina....................................   195
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   197
    Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia...........................................   204
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   206
    Hon. Erin Houchin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Indiana...........................................   230
    Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................   233
    Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................   236
    Hon. Brian Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Georgia.................................................   239
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
    Letter from Phillip L. Swagel, Director of the Congressional 
      Budget Office, to Democratic Leader Hakeen Jefferies and 
      Hon. Brendan F. Boyle, Ranking Member Committee on the 
      Budget, dated May 20, 2025.................................    20
    Article by Peter J. Wallison entitled ``A Crisis Caused by 
      Housing Policies, Not Lack of Regulation''.................    56
    Article by Norbert Michel entitled ``Consumers will be safe 
      without the CFPB''.........................................    68
    Article by Adam Michel entitled ``Republicans One Big 
      Beautiful Tax Bill Needs Makeover''........................    77
    Article by Andrew Glass entitled ``Clinton Signs `Welfare to 
      Work' Bill, August 22, 1996''..............................    90
    Article by Erwin Chemerinsky entitled ``A Terrible Idea''....   147
    Letter from 31 national religious organizations to Hon. Mike 
      Crapo, Chairman Senate Finance Committee, Hon. Ron Wyden, 
      Ranking Member Senate Finance Committee, Hon. Brett 
      Gutherie, Chairman House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
      Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member House Committee on 
      Energy and Commerce, Hon. John Boozman, Chairman Senate 
      Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Hon. Amy 
      Klobucher, Ranking Member Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
      Nutrition, and Forestry, Hon. GT Thompson, Chairman House 
      Committee on Agriculture, and Hon. Angie Craig, Ranking 
      Member House Committee on Agriculture dated March 26, 2025.   215
    Article by Kierra B. Jones, Natasha Murphy, and Andrea Ducas 
      entitled ``Medicaid Cuts Would Threaten Rural Hospitals''..   219
    Article by Harold Brubaker entitled ``Pennsylvania hospitals 
      like Crozer Chester with a lot of Medicaid patients keep 
      closing. Budget cuts would speed up that trend''...........   227
    Article by Paul J. Gessing entitled ``Rich State, Poor 
      People''...................................................   251
    Article by Bobby Kogan entitled ``The GOP's budget plan makes 
      it hard to conceal its lies about Medicaid and SNAP''......   270
    Article by Sarah Gantz entitled ``80 percent of pregnancy-
      related deaths are preventable, CDC says, highlighting a 
      problem in Philadelphia''..................................   288
    Chart published by Joint Committee on Taxation on May 13, 
      2025 entitled ``Distribution of the Estimated Effects of 
      the Tax Provisions of the Chairman's Amendment in the 
      Nature of a Substitute to the Budget Reconciliation 
      Legislative Recommendations Related to Tax''...............   296
    Letter from Jason Furman, an economist and the former chair 
      of the Council of Economic Advisers and the deputy director 
      of the National Economic Council, to the Rules Committee, 
      dated May 21, 2025.........................................   320
    Letter from business leaders and economic development leaders 
      in the Long Island to Hon. Nick LaLota, Hon. Andrew 
      Garbarino, Hon. Thomas Suozzi, and Hon. Laura Gillen.......   371
    Letter from leading health advocates to Speaker Mike Johnson, 
      Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Majority Leader John 
      Thune, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dated May 13, 2025   393
    Article by Jennifer Berry Hawes and Mollie Simon entitled 
      ``Segregation Academies Across the South Are Getting 
      Millions in Taxpayer Dollars''.............................   398
    Letter from Demand Progress to Speaker Mike Johnson, Minority 
      Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Members of Congress dated May 
      19, 2025...................................................   445
    Letter from Minnesota State Senators Jim Abler, Bill Lieske, 
      Mark Koran, Carla Nelson, Paula Utke, Glenn Gruenhagen to 
      President Donald J. Trump, Hon. Brad Finstad, Hon. Michelle 
      Fischbach, Hon. Tom Emmer, Hon. Pete Stauber, and Stephanie 
      Carlton, Acting Administrator for Centers for Medicare and 
      Medicaid Services..........................................   453
    Letter from Bob Hume, Vice President, Policy and 
      Communications for Minnesota Hospital Association to Hon. 
      Tom Emmer, Hon. Michelle Fischbach, Hon. Brad Finstad, Hon. 
      Pete Stauber, Hon. Angie Craig, Hon. Betty McCollum, Hon. 
      Kelly Morrison, and Hon. Illhan Omar.......................   457
    Article by Patrick Tucker entitled ``Immigrants Show Greater 
      Willingness to Join the Military, Study Shows''............   512
    Article by Jeremy Bogaisky entitled ``Why the Qataris are 
      Happy to Dump Their 747 on Trump''.........................   525
    Remarks from Hon. Luz Rivas..................................   613
    Remarks from Hon. Kelly Morrison.............................   615
    Letter from The Partnership to Protect Coverage urging 
      Congress to Not Cut Our Health Care dated May 20, 2025.....   618
    Letter from the American Academy of Nursing to Hon. Brett 
      Guthrie, Hon. Frank Pallone, Hon. Jodey Arrington, and Hon. 
      Brendan Boyle dated May 9, 2025............................   621
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................   242
    Hon. Katherine Clark, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts.....................................   244
        Prepared Statement.......................................   246
    Hon. Pete Aguilar, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   249
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina and Chair of the Committee on Rules   250
    Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia...........................................   250
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   254
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   256
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   257
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   258
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Tim Kennedy, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of New York................................................   261
    Hon. Norma Torres, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   263
    Hon. Al Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
      Texas......................................................   264
    Hon. Steven Horsford, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Nevada............................................   266
    Hon. Joyce Beatty, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Ohio..............................................   268
    Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Michigan..........................................   272
        Prepared Statement.......................................   274
    Hon. Jimmy Gomez, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................   276
        Prepared Statement.......................................   278
    Hon. Robin Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Illinois................................................   280
        Prepared Statement.......................................   282
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   286
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   287
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   294
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Maxine Dexter, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................   297
    Hon. Troy A. Carter, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Louisiana.........................................   299
    Hon. Jill N. Tokuda, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Hawaii............................................   300
    Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................   302
    Hon. Maggie Goodlander, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New Hampshire.....................................   304
        Prepared Statement.......................................   306
    Hon. Melanie A. Stansbury, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New Mexico....................................   308
    Hon. April McClain Delaney, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Maryland......................................   309
        Prepared Statement.......................................   312
    Hon. Rashida Tlaib, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Michigan..........................................   314
        Prepared Statement.......................................   316
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   319
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   321
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   321
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Jonathan L. Jackson, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Illinois......................................   322
    Hon. Cleo Fields, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Louisiana...............................................   323
    Hon. Madeleine Dean, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   324
    Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Michigan......................................   326
        Prepared Statement.......................................   328
    Hon. Frank J. Mrvan, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Indiana...........................................   331
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of New York................................................   332
        Prepared Statement.......................................   334
    Hon. John W. Mannion, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................   337
    Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Florida..................................   337
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   339
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   340
    Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia...........................................   340
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   340
    Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................   340
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   341
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Nanette Diaz Barragan, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California....................................   342
    Hon. Emily Randall, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington........................................   343
    Hon. John B. Larson, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Connecticut.......................................   345
    Hon. George Whitesides, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   346
    Hon. Sean Casten, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Illinois................................................   348
    Hon. Nikki Budzinski, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois..........................................   350
        Prepared Statement.......................................   353
    Hon. Lori Trahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Massachusetts...........................................   356
    Hon. Danny K. Davis, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois..........................................   357
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   359
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. David Schweikert, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................   359
    Hon. Johnny Olszewski, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maryland..........................................   360
    Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Illinois.................................   362
    Hon. Emilia Strong Sykes, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Ohio..........................................   363
    Hon. Mike Thompson, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   365
    Hon. Lateefah Simon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   367
    Hon. Morgan McGarvey, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Kentucky..........................................   368
    Hon. Laura Gillen, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................   369
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Ralph Norman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of South Carolina....................................   373
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   375
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   378
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   380
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................   382
        Prepared Statement.......................................   384
    Hon. Mike Levin, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................   395
    Hon. Terri A. Sewell, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Alabama...........................................   396
        Prepared Statement.......................................   406
    Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Nevada..................................................   414
    Hon. Suzan Delbene, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington........................................   415
    Hon. Adriano Espaillat, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................   417
    Hon. Gabe Amo, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
      Rhode Island...............................................   418
        Prepared Statement.......................................   420
    Hon. Susie Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Nevada..................................................   423
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   424
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   425
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   426
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   429
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................   431
    Hon. Chrissy Houlahan, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   432
    Hon. Lauren Underwood, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois..........................................   434
        Prepared Statement.......................................   436
    Hon. Thomas Suozzi, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................   439
    Hon. Luz Rivas, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................   440
        Prepared Statement.......................................   442
    Hon. Daniel Goldman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................   448
    Hon. Jared Moskowitz, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................   449
    Hon. Kelly Morrison, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................   451
        Prepared Statement.......................................   461
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   464
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   465
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Yassamin Ansari, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................   466
    Hon. Julie Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Texas.............................................   468
    Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Connecticut.......................................   469
    Hon. Greg Casar, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Texas...................................................   471
    Hon. Nikema Williams, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia...........................................   472
    Hon. Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr., a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of California...............................   474
        Prepared Statement.......................................   476
    Hon. Mark Takano, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................   480
    Hon. Andre Carson, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Indiana...........................................   481
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   483
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   484
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   484
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Raul Ruiz, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................   486
    Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina....................................   487
    Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   488
        Prepared Statement.......................................   490
    Hon. Shontel M. Brown, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Ohio..............................................   499
    Hon. Sam T. Liccardo, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   500
    Hon. J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   501
    Hon. Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   503
        Prepared Statement.......................................   505
    Hon. Robert Menendez, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New Jersey........................................   509
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   510
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   510
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   511
    Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia...........................................   515
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Ro Khanna, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................   516
    Hon. Jennifer McClellan, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................   517
    Hon. Joe Courtney, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Connecticut.......................................   518
        Prepared Statement.......................................   521
    Hon. Sarah Elfreth, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maryland..........................................   529
    Hon. Maxwell Frost, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................   530
    Hon. Seth Magaziner, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Rhode Island......................................   532
    Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   533
    Hon. Julia Brownley, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   535
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Jim McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................   536
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   536
    Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................   538
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   539
Amendment Testimony:
    Hon. Janelle S. Bynum, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................   540
    Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Georgia.........................   541
        Prepared Statement.......................................   543
    Hon. Nellie Pou, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of New Jersey..............................................   549
    Hon. Greg Landsman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Ohio..............................................   550
    Hon. Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................   551
    Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Georgia..................................   552
    Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts.....................................   554
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................   555
    Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................   555
    Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina and Chair of the Committee on Rules   556

 
                   H.R. 1, ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

                          House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Rules,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:09 a.m., in Room 
H-313, The Capitol, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the 
committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Foxx, Fischbach, Norman, Roy, 
Houchin, Langworthy, Scott, Griffith, Jack, McGovern, Scanlon, 
Neguse, and Leger Fernandez.
    The Chairwoman. Good morning.
    The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider H.R. 1, 
the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
    Before we discuss the legislation that is before us, I want 
to respond to a letter I received earlier yesterday from the 
Democratic leader and the ranking member of the committee. The 
letter calls the decision to hold a hearing at 1 a.m., quote, 
``unprecedented,'' end quote.
    However, let's look at the record.
    In the 110th Congress, Democrats held a meeting beginning 
at precisely the same time, 1 a.m., on August 2007, on the 
Children's Health and Protection Act. I was there.
    When this was discussed on the floor earlier yesterday, Mr. 
McGovern responded that this was decades ago.
    However, we have looked back and observed that you did 
indeed convene a hearing at 1:30 a.m. only a short time ago, in 
2022. It was for an omnibus in addition to a short-term CR.
    Once again, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw 
stones.
    Secondly, the letter asked, ``What else are you hiding?''
    I want to be clear. I have been as open and transparent as 
possible throughout this entire process, as has the Speaker and 
everyone else involved. We posted the text of the Rules 
Committee print late Sunday night after the Budget Committee 
ordered the legislation reported, and we posted a comparative 
print at the same time showing the changes between the reported 
bill and the Rules Committee print.
    There have been many complaints from my friends on the 
other side about not knowing about whether there will be a 
manager's amendment and what will be in it.
    There will be a manager's amendment. It is how 
reconciliation has operated under both Republican and Democrat 
control.
    I certainly can't control the time that it will be ready. 
But I can assure my Democrat colleagues that they will 
certainly have more time than we were given in 2009 when a 309-
page manager's amendment was dropped on us when the ranking 
member began reading the motion to report a rule for H.R. 2454.
    A 309-page manager's amendment was dropped on us when the 
now-ranking member began reading the motion to report a rule 
for H.R. 2454. The record is there.
    Our friends on the other side of the aisle love to cherry-
pick the fact about how this meeting is taking place in the 
dark of night. They have done it for several committee markups 
thus far, never mind the fact that the only reason the hearings 
went as long as they did was because Democrats engaged in the 
legislative process, which is their right.
    But here is the thing: They can't have their cake and eat 
it too. They cannot complain about reporting legislation in the 
dark of night when the only reason it went so late was because 
of their own actions.
    Now, in the case of the Rules Committee the same holds 
true. The Rules Committee has a long tradition of meeting late 
into the evening and reporting legislation long after most of 
America has gone to bed.
    It is our duty to advance the agenda of the House of 
Representatives, the people's House. Let's roll the clocks back 
to when Democrats held the majority in the 110th and 111th 
Congress. They reported legislation out of the Rules Committee 
well into the twilight hours.
    I know of what I speak. I was on the Rules Committee then. 
For example, H. Res. 587, 3:47 a.m.; H. Res. 481, 2:09 a.m.; H. 
Res. 597, 3:43 a.m.; H. Res. 903, 2:25 a.m.; and H. Res. 445 in 
the 116th Congress, 12:20 a.m.
    I do not think there is anything wrong with this. It is how 
the committee has operated when necessary. It has occurred 
under Democrat and Republican control.
    In this case, I do believe we will be reporting not in the 
dark of night but after the day has dawned. I encourage my 
colleagues on the other side to prove me wrong.
    Now to the business that is before us this morning.
    There will be a lot of commentary from our friends across 
the aisle about what is not within this legislation. We will 
experience ad nauseam a lot of granular-level grievances, 
legislative indigestion, and I am sure what are considerable 
hypoallergic reactions to everything under the sun. It will be 
the same song-and-dance routine that we have seen and heard for 
months, likely with more drama than ``Shakespeare on the 
Hill.''
    Despite their misleading rhetoric and talking points, 
Democrats had their opportunities to deliver when they had full 
control and passed their own reconciliation packages. They did 
nothing to make the middle-class-centered Trump tax permanent.
    Despite the existence of the expiration of these tax cuts 
within their 10-year window, they refused. They even refused to 
raise the top income tax bracket, despite all their campaign 
talking points.
    Instead, they passed the so-called Inflation Reduction Act 
and the so-called American Rescue Plan Act that led to reckless 
spending and record inflation.
    But Republicans are here to do our jobs, and our jobs in 
this case isn't out of discretion. It is grounded in statute.
    We are considering legislation that executes the 
instructions given to the committees pursuant to the budget 
resolution, one that passed both Chambers and is binding on 
this body and the Senate.
    And our express purpose is this: to ensure that our Federal 
spending, taxation, and other revenue-generating concepts align 
with the current needs of the American people.
    The American people--and this government, by extension--
cannot afford inaction. Americans need this legislation to 
ensure our economic survival and the sustainability of this 
republican government.
    Americans cannot afford the largest tax hike in our 
Nation's history. Americans cannot afford the runaway, endless 
spending machines that Democrats have enshrined via their 
policies. Americans cannot afford the inflation caused by the 
Democrats in the last 4 years.
    Americans cannot afford a soft, fragile embrace of 
President Trump's successful policies on the border, national 
security, and growth.
    Inflation has fallen to the lowest level in more than 4 
years, as April's Consumer Price Index smashed expectations for 
the third straight month.
    Workers' real wages are up 1.9 percent, increasing each of 
the last 3 months.
    Encounters with gotaways, the top threat to public safety, 
are down by 95 percent.
    In March of 2025, fentanyl traffic at the southern border 
fell by 54 percent compared to March of 2024.
    Lastly, Americans and this government cannot afford to 
ignore the specific pro-growth provisions that President Trump 
campaigned on.
    Our bill delivers on the specific acute policies American 
workers embrace. We end taxes on tips. We end taxes on 
overtime. We boost tax deductions for seniors. We expand 
family-centered tax incentives like the child tax credit, the 
standard deduction, and family leave.
    The One Big Beautiful Bill is our answer to the American 
people's mandate from November. It is a clear, full-throated 
response to the millions of hardworking men and women across 
the entire Nation who demand a serious course correction from 
the last 4 years and the setting of our fiscal situation on a 
sustainable footing.
    The committees within the House have all completed their 
respective parts, and all the pieces have come together. I 
commend all the committees--chairmen, members, and staff--who 
worked for months, often well into the night and early hours of 
the morning, to craft the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. We are 
here to finish the job and ship this legislation to the House 
floor.
    With that, I look forward to the discussion.
    I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any 
comments he wishes to make.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, that is a lot to digest. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, before we get into the substance here, I have 
got a simple question.
    What the hell are Republicans so afraid of? What the hell 
are you so scared of that you guys are holding this hearing at 
1 o'clock in the morning?
    It is a simple question that speaks to the heart of what is 
going on here and one that I am going to keep on asking.
    If Republicans are so proud of what is in this bill, then 
why are you trying to ram it through in the dead of night?
    If you guys are so proud to kick 14 million people off 
Medicaid, if you guys are so proud to rip food assistance out 
of the refrigerators of moms and dads and their kids, if you 
guys are so proud of shutting down rural hospitals and hurting 
our farmers, if you guys really think these are such great, 
awesome, beautiful things to do, like Trump keeps saying, then 
why not hold this hearing at 1 p.m. and not 1 a.m.? Why not 
debate this bill in prime time when most of the American people 
can watch?
    It is 1 o'clock in the morning. I think it is prime time in 
Guam. And I think it is crystal clear to everyone what this is 
all about.
    Now, the chairwoman wants to pretend like meeting at 1 
o'clock in the morning is business as usual around here. It is 
not. This is not normal at all.
    She had to go back 20 years into the archives to dig up a 
single example of Rules meeting at 1 a.m., and I guess is that 
supposed to be some kind of gotcha?
    I am actually glad she went back two decades to bring it up 
because in 2007 Democrats convened the Rules Committee at 1 
a.m. to protect people's healthcare. You guys have us meeting 
at 1 a.m. to rip it away.
    Now, look at the record. George W. Bush was President and 
the Children's Health Insurance Program was about to expire. 
That is an actual emergency, not a fake emergency like this. He 
vetoed not one but two of the bills that we sent him because he 
didn't want to cover those additional kids.
    So you guys caught us doing what exactly? Trying to protect 
coverage for uninsured kids. Great. We are proud of that. There 
is no comparison here.
    This is a 1,000-page bill, for God's sake, a thousand-plus 
pages, and you want to shove it through in the dead of night 
because Trump said close your eyes and vote for it.
    You are using emergency procedures to jam this through 
Congress to meet an artificial deadline that you created 
yourselves because the billionaires just couldn't wait for 
their tax cut.
    It is astonishing really. It takes my breath away. It is 
just over a hundred days and you guys have gone from promising 
to lower costs to ripping away people's healthcare.
    Now, of course you don't want anyone to know what you are 
doing here. It is because you know that this bill betrays the 
people who voted for you.
    You have the most ineffective Congress in a century. You 
have passed almost no legislation into law. And this, this is 
how you want to roll out your big centerpiece legislation, at 1 
o'clock in the morning?
    This isn't just incompetence. It is much more nefarious 
than that. You are intentionally hiding what you are doing.
    What an insult to the people of this country. What disdain 
you guys must have for the people who voted for you.
    You know, people are so, so tired of getting screwed over 
by a system that doesn't work for them. America is fed up with 
this BS, and people want change. And I don't blame them. I am 
fed up, too. They want us to make things better for regular 
people, and what your big ugly bill does is the exact opposite.
    You guys and Trump are perpetuating the exact broken system 
that people hate. You are rigging things for the rich and 
powerful, more tax breaks for billionaires while regular people 
get screwed, more giveaways for those at the top while moms and 
dads struggle to get by, more loopholes into the Tax Code for 
Wall Street CEOs and bankers while working families fall 
further and further behind.
    That is the Republican agenda, that is what you guys think 
is big and beautiful, greed, corruption, and tax breaks for 
billionaires.
    You want to steal from the wallets of working-class people, 
steal from their ability to buy food and get healthcare, and 
then you have the nerve to claim that this bill is about 
cutting costs and reducing waste. Give me a break. This bill 
raises the debt limit by $4 trillion--$4 trillion with a ``t.''
    Even your own Members, budget hawks in the House and 
Senate, weren't happy with the latest version of this bill 
because they know it will blow up our deficit, and the true 
cost is likely trillions of dollars higher, a cost shouldered 
by the American taxpayer.
    So you want to cut taxes for the rich and pay for it by 
exploding the debt and stealing from the American people, 
stealing from people with the least so you guys can give more 
to those with the most.
    And I just find that fundamentally wrong, fundamentally 
cruel, totally out of touch, and totally and fundamentally 
immoral.
    Now, let me walk through what your bill does since you guys 
are so eager to sweep it under the rug.
    First, you are making the biggest cuts to Medicaid in 
American history. As a result of this bill, nearly 14 million 
Americans will lose their healthcare and millions more will pay 
higher premiums, copays, and deductibles. That is just a fact. 
Hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down, and people 
will die.
    And not a single one of the proposals in your bill is about 
making Medicaid work better. Not one. Your bill doesn't save 
Medicaid. Your bill destroys Medicaid.
    We can and we should make Medicaid work better, absolutely. 
Instead, your bill creates more red tape, more hurdles, and 
kicks struggling people off their health insurance.
    Now, who asked for this garbage? I mean, more red tape? Oh, 
boy. When I talk to people back home, that is exactly what they 
want with their healthcare, more red tape. I mean, come on.
    And then, if that is not bad enough, you are making the 
biggest cut to food assistance in American history.
    According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 
at least 5 million--5 million Americans--will lose food 
assistance under your plan, 5 million more hungry Americans 
because of this bill. And that is probably a lowball estimate, 
by the way.
    You are slashing benefits from children, from seniors 
living on fixed incomes, from veterans who served this country 
and now rely on food assistance just to get by.
    And why? And why? So that the top 0.1 percent, people 
making over $3.5 million a year, can pocket $314,000 a year in 
new tax giveaways.
    I mean, you are literally taking food off kids' plates to 
buy Elon Musk another yacht. I guess he is getting a good 
return on his campaign donations. But I just find this whole 
thing disgusting.
    And, look, at the end of the day, this is simple. It is 
simple. It is about whose side you are on.
    You guys wrote this bill for the top 0.1 percent. You wrote 
it for the billion-dollar corporations who offshore jobs and 
dodge taxes. You wrote it for the Big Oil and Big Pharma CEOs 
who rip people off. You wrote it for the rich and famous, for 
the people who never, ever have to worry about where their next 
meal is coming from or how to take care of their elderly 
parents.
    So you guys picked a side, okay? You picked the 
billionaires. I get it. You want to betray the people who voted 
for you. You want to sell them out because Trump told you to.
    But guess what? Democrats are picking a side, too, and we 
are siding with the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans who 
you are going to screw over with this bill.
    We are siding with the 14 million parents and grandparents 
who are going to get kicked off healthcare if this monstrosity 
passes.
    We are siding with struggling families who are already 
having a hard time buying groceries and the farmers whose 
incomes will drop because you are gutting the nutrition 
programs to create demand for the food that they grow, and the 
rural grocery stores that they support, and the nurses who will 
lose their jobs when you start closing down rural hospitals.
    That is who we are siding with, and that is who we choose 
to fight for.
    Now, I have seen a lot in my time in Congress. I have seen 
my fair share of bad bills. But this one, this one, this takes 
the cake.
    This is not policy. This is theft. It is a direct transfer 
of wealth from the working and middle class to the ultra-
wealthy, and it is being done on purpose and under the cover of 
night.
    Republicans have had every opportunity to make life better 
for the American people. You guys have a unified Republican 
government. You have the House. You have the Senate. You have 
the White House. You could have invested in housing, in 
childcare, in clean energy, in community health. You could have 
closed tax loopholes and make sure that billionaires pay what 
they owe.
    Instead, you chose to side with those at the top. You chose 
to line the pockets of your rich donors, and the health and 
security of regular people be damned.
    This is not a governing philosophy. It is a scam. It is a 
scam. A scam. And I wasn't sent here to vote for trash like 
this.
    For the life of me, I cannot understand why you are doing 
this. Why the hell did you choose a career of public service 
just to do this, just to rip away the healthcare and food 
assistance and security of working- and middle-class Americans? 
Is that really what you came here to do? I don't understand 
this. I don't understand the cruelty.
    And let me say this to every Republican Member who votes 
for this: You own it. You own it. You own every hospital that 
closes, every child that goes to bed hungry, every senior who 
loses care, and every American family forced to choose between 
groceries and rent, between their heating bill and their 
childcare, between their kid's birthday party and their 
parents' long-term care.
    So you guys can force us to debate this bill in the dead of 
night. You can do it while the country sleeps.
    But the American people will wake up tomorrow morning, and 
I guarantee you they will wake up to how terrible your agenda 
is. They will remember this moment. They will remember who 
stood with the billionaires and who stood with them.
    We will make sure they remember, and I will be damned if we 
let this pass quietly. I am going to fight like hell, and I 
know I won't be alone.
    This is a farce, an outrageous insult to the people of this 
country, to bring up a 1,000-page bill at 1 o'clock in the 
morning--a bill that is still being written, by the way, by 
Republicans as we speak, in a back room somewhere, for God's 
sake.
    And then to try to jam it through Congress in the middle of 
the night when nobody is watching is just unbelievably cynical.
    This is why people hate Washington.
    So if you guys think this ugly bill is so damn beautiful, 
like Trump keeps saying, you should have the courage to debate 
it in prime time.
    Madam Chair, we should reconvene at a reasonable hour and 
debate your bill in full view of the American people, not in 
the middle of the night like cowards, and for that reason I 
move that the Rules Committee do now adjourn.
    The Chairwoman. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. The gentleman has asked for a roll call 
vote. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman.
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    Mr. Roy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Roy, no.
    Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, nine nays.
    The Chairwoman. The noes have it. We will move on.
    Without objection, any prepared statements that our 
witnesses may have will be included in the record.
    I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Rogers and 
Representative Smith from the Committee on Armed Services; 
Chairman Arrington and Representative Boyle from the Committee 
on the Budget; Chairman Hill and Representative Waters from the 
Committee on Financial Services; and Chairman Comer and 
Representative Lynch from the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform.
    Your full statements will be submitted for the record, and 
we ask that you summarize your statements in 5 minutes.
    Chairman Rogers, I welcome your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 
McGovern. I appreciate the opportunity to present the Armed 
Services Committee reconciliation title.
    The HASC title provides $150 billion in mandatory funding 
to modernize our military, revitalize the defense industrial 
base, and improve quality of life for our servicemembers.
    The time for this level of investment is long overdue. The 
threats we face from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and 
others are much more complex and challenging than at any point 
in our history.
    We are being outpaced by our adversaries in the development 
and deployment of critical capabilities, our defense industrial 
base has atrophied to the point where we may no longer be able 
to sustain prolonged conflict, and it all stems from a chronic 
underinvestment in our national security.
    Defense spending is not keeping up with inflation. In fact, 
we are currently at the lowest level of defense spending as a 
percentage of GDP since before World War II.
    That anemic level of investment is endangering our national 
security, and it must change. Reconciliation gives us the 
opportunity to do just that. It forces the Department to start 
building the future of American defense now. It invests 
billions to accelerate deployment of new, low-cost attritable 
autonomous systems. These unmanned air, surface, and underwater 
systems are the key to victory on future battlefields.
    The HASC title will go a long away toward restoring 
American deterrence and building our ready, capable, and lethal 
fighting force that President Trump has promised.
    Finally, I am very pleased to be able to report that the 
committee reported this out on a bipartisan basis. I think that 
demonstrates the underlying bipartisan consensus we have to 
increase investment in our national security.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your help 
in moving this critical bill forward.
    The Chairwoman. Representative Smith, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mr. Smith of Washington. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I really have just two points. I mean, certainly, I agree 
with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee that we face 
a very complex threat environment and a need to modernize our 
military in a bunch of different directions. I am not sure I 
agree on what the total number of the budget should be for the 
House Armed Services Committee.
    But two crucial points.
    If you believe that the Defense Department needs more 
money, that we need to spend more money on defense, you cannot 
vote for this reconciliation bill.
    This reconciliation bill is going to cut taxes over 10 
years by somewhere between 5 and 7 trillion dollars, depending 
on how you guys all finally decide what you are going to put in 
there and what you are not going to put in there. It is going 
to increase the debt and the deficit by 3 and a half trillion 
dollars or thereabouts.
    So whatever we cram into this bill, whatever $150 billion, 
I guess, they are going to try to throw at defense, will be 
irrelevant a year or 2 or 3 or 4 years from now because our $35 
trillion debt will continue to grow. Our $1.8 trillion yearly 
deficit will continue to grow. You won't have money to make an 
investment in anything, not even defense.
    So we are not going to see an increase in defense spending 
over the long haul because we are giving away all of the money.
    If, in fact, you believe that defense is that important, 
then you have to be willing to pay for it. We simply cannot 
continue to borrow money forever.
    So it is not going to help defense. If you are a defense 
hawk, you cannot vote for this reconciliation bill.
    Which leads into the second point. I have heard for a very 
long time from my Republican colleagues that the reason they 
have to pass their budget is because of the existential threat 
that the debt and the deficit pose for our Nation.
    I wish I could replay all of the incredibly passionate 
speeches that I have heard on the floor and elsewhere from my 
Republican colleagues about how terrible this is. And that is 
what the reconciliation bill was going to do.
    And I can picture all of your constituents who you made 
these promises to, and then you get back here and you put this 
reconciliation bill up there.
    And they say, ``Well, how did we do? How did we do on 
getting the debt down?'' ``Well, it is difficult. It is 
complicated. But we actually added--added--$3 trillion to it.''
    The budget hawks in the Republican Conference, I mean, are 
you going to stand up tomorrow and say, ``We were lying to you, 
we never really meant it''?
    I mean, this is just ridiculous, that you would consider 
passing a reconciliation bill that is going to add $3 trillion 
to the debt after--my gosh, the speeches I heard would have 
made you think that not getting the debt under control was 
going to kill us all in, like, a year.
    So this reconciliation bill is an utter disaster for the 
country for a lot of the reasons. I associate myself with many 
of the remarks that Mr. McGovern made on all the things that 
are being cut.
    But if you care about defense and you care about the debt, 
how in the hell can you vote for this? I mean, I look forward 
to someone making that argument at some point.
    So I hope that the Republicans who care about the debt and 
care about defense will vote this bill down.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
    Chairman Hill, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. J. FRENCH HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Hill. Good morning, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
McGovern. I have never considered myself much of a morning 
person, and this takes it to a whole new level.
    A few weeks ago, the House Financial Services Committee 
completed work on the assignment to us on the budget resolution 
from Congress adopted early in April. The resolution asked us 
to decrease the deficit by at least $1 billion over the 2025 to 
2034 period. We have done that.
    We have rescinded the remaining unobligated balances with 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Green and 
Resilient Retrofit Program created under the Inflation 
Reduction Act of 2022.
    We ended the Public Accounting Oversight Board's authority 
to collect regulatory fees and transferred any unused balances 
to the Treasury. Audit oversight will continue without 
disruption.
    We have put a firm cap on the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau's budget, setting its funding at no more than $249 
million for fiscal year 2025 with an annual adjustment for 
inflation going forward.
    For the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund, once direct victims are 
compensated, remaining funds will be transferred to the 
Treasury's General Fund.
    Finally, we capped the assessment collected by the Office 
of Financial Research at the Treasury, aligning them with the 
average annual expenses of the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council over the past 3 years. Any surplus will, once again, be 
returned to the Treasury.
    I am pleased to report that the Financial Services 
Committee exceeded our instruction by the Budget Committee and 
that the CBO estimates the deficit would decrease by $5.2 
billion from the efforts of our committee.
    During our markup, we spent over 9 hours debating our 
portion of this reconciliation bill. We considered all 40 
amendments that our Democratic colleagues offered and did not 
limit the minority's ability to propose modifications to the 
underlying legislative text.
    After this long, comprehensive process we favorably 
transmitted our committee print to fulfill our obligations to 
the reconciliation bill before Rules today.
    I want to thank all my colleagues. I want to remind all my 
colleagues to recall why we are here.
    The American people voted for fiscal responsibility. They 
voted for change. Our country is currently $37 trillion in 
debt, paying billions of dollars in interest each day on that 
debt. This year alone, we will spend almost a trillion dollars 
on total interest.
    If Congress fails to get our fiscal house in order, our 
debt will continue to grow exponentially and our grandchildren 
will pay the consequences.
    For too long, government spending has been on a one-way 
ratchet up. So we are here today to finally do the difficult 
work of extricating our Nation from this fiscal predicament.
    The Financial Services Committee portion of the concurrent 
resolution does more than its part to reduce the deficit.
    I am eager to finish our work and finally tackle these 
issues. I ask the committee for your support in advancing this 
bill to the House floor.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
    Representative Waters, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Waters. [Inaudible.] Well, I can't let that not be 
heard.
    Well, here we are. Republicans have dragged us here in the 
dead of the night under the guise of having a productive 
hearing about the GOP tax scam bill.
    But the truth is that Republicans couldn't care less about 
how bad this bill is. They are going to sit here and ignore 
every single thing that I and my Democratic colleagues have to 
say about this bill and how it will harm hardworking American 
families.
    And it is all because they are afraid of Donald Trump. They 
are so afraid of Donald Trump that they will gladly allow the 
American people to serve as collateral damage to the $5 
trillion handout--$5 trillion handout--to billionaires in this 
bill. They are so afraid of Donald Trump that they are okay 
with him getting richer while their constituents are getting 
poorer.
    This isn't hyperbole. This is real life. This bill cuts 
programs that will literally make American families poorer and 
make Donald Trump and his billionaire donors richer.
    I was there at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
after Trump and Elon Musk illegally attempted to shut down the 
Bureau. I heard from consumers about what shutting down the 
agency means for them.
    This is the very same agency that, following the 2008 
financial crisis--which many of us in this room remember--was 
created to stop predatory financial institutions from ripping 
off our constituents, the same agency that has saved American 
families $21 billion by returning to them funds that were 
swindled out of them.
    Trump failed to shut the agency down in court, so now they 
are soliciting the help of Republicans.
    This bill, this budget scheme, will slash the Bureau's 
budget by 70 percent and put the agency's crucial work--like 
cracking down on illegal junk fees, tackling discrimination in 
housing, and protecting servicemembers and students from 
scams--to a grinding halt. This is all to cut taxes for 
billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.
    Republicans are also pushing to gut the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council and Treasury's Office of Financial Research, 
agencies that are designed to prevent another financial crisis 
like the one in 2008.
    They are eliminating funding for affordable housing 
construction despite a national homelessness crisis. I also 
showed up at HUD because I know the harm this will pose to 
families.
    They are also so desperate to do Trump's bidding that they 
are eliminating another agency that doesn't cost taxpayers 
anything, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which 
oversees auditors to prevent frauds like Enron and ensure that 
companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party are on the 
up.
    What is even more sinister about Republicans dismantling 
our financial institutions is that they are doing this in the 
middle of an economic crisis.
    Our economy is falling behind Europe, China, and Canada. 
Americans are so economically anxious that they are holding off 
on starting a family and buying a home. The so-called pro-
family party is making it harder for Americans to have kids and 
ripping away the American dream of home ownership.
    Inflation is rising, the dollar is down, yields are up, and 
borrowing is getting more expensive. And just this past Friday, 
Moody's lowered the United States credit rating because of 
Trump's reckless tariff policies and growing concerns about how 
this bill will jack up our debt by giving a massive, 
unnecessary handout to billionaires.
    Don't forget he is also carrying out the most egregious 
crypto scheme in history, a scam that is enriching himself and 
his family while average investors lose money.
    But nothing in the bill addresses this crisis Trump has 
thrown the U.S. economy. He has put us in this position.
    Republicans, let's face it, you are not serious about 
helping your constituents. You only care about kissing up to 
King Trump. This isn't what the American people elected us for.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Waters.
    Mr. Arrington, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. JODEY C. ARRINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Arrington. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
McGovern, members of the Rules Committee.
    Only in the mind of a Democrat could a 22 percent tax hike 
prevention be a bill that is characterized as trash.
    Only in the mind of a Democrat could giving our soldiers--
our sons and daughters in uniform--what they need to be ready 
to protect us, to keep us safe and free, be a scam.
    Only in the mind of a Democrat would keeping illegal 
immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded social services so 
that we could sustain those programs for American citizens now 
and into the future could be a scam or trash.
    And I have got a whole lot of other talking points, but----
    Mr. McGovern. Me too.
    Mr. Arrington. And I look forward to the conversation.
    The reconciliation bill under consideration today is the 
principal legislative vehicle for advancing the full America 
First Agenda, to realize President Trump's vision and House 
Republicans' unwavering commitment to making America safe and 
prosperous again.
    Our goals were as follows: to strengthen our military and 
secure our border; to reignite economic growth and unleash 
American prosperity; and to rein in wasteful Washington 
spending and begin the process of restoring the fiscal health 
of our great Nation.
    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains the largest tax 
cuts, security investment, Federal energy asset deployment, and 
spending reduction in the history of the United States of 
America.
    This is a historic moment. We believe it is a generational 
opportunity to reclaim the American promise, to renew the 
American spirit and restore America's greatness.
    The American people gave President Trump a mandate and 
unified Republican leadership in Congress to reverse course on 
the failed policies of the last four years.
    Their message to Washington, Madam Chair, I believe was 
crystal clear. They want competent leaders, commonsense 
policies, and a commitment from everybody in this room, all of 
the lawmakers and leaders of our great country, to be committed 
to putting America and Americans first. Let's give the voters 
what they got, what they asked for, today.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Arrington.
    Mr. Boyle, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRENDAN F. BOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking 
Member, and thank you to all the Members who go above and 
beyond by serving on the Rules Committee.
    When I was a teen, my late mother would often say: Nothing 
good happens after midnight. Now I know what she meant. This 
big bill for billionaires will truly hurt working Americans.
    Let me highlight some of the major points.
    First, it will bring about, according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, the greatest loss of healthcare 
coverage in American history.
    It does it in several ways. First, by providing and 
instituting the biggest cut to Medicaid in American history. 
Second, by launching devastating cuts to Obamacare.
    Those two combined will result in a loss of healthcare for 
about 14 million Americans.
    But that is not all. Just tonight, a few hours ago, the 
bombshell came out. The nonpartisan CBO's official numbers show 
this bill will bring about an over $500 billion cut to 
Medicare, one of the largest cuts to Medicare since the program 
was created in 1965.
    So the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, 
devastating cuts to the Affordable Care Act, and one of the 
largest cuts to Medicare in American history.
    And why? To help subsidize tax cuts that mostly go to the 
top 1 percent.
    And, of course, those cuts I highlighted to healthcare 
aren't the only cuts that are in here. We also have included 
the largest cuts to nutrition assistance and food programs in 
American history, cuts to all sorts of education programs, and 
the list goes on and on and on.
    And does that, in the end, mean most working Americans will 
be better off? No. Because also out from CBO just tonight are 
the distributional effects of this bill in its entirety.
    And what does it show? The bottom 10 percent of Americans 
will actually be poorer as a result of this bill, with the 
biggest benefit going to the top 1 percent of Americans.
    What is also quite clear is that this bill is not entirely 
paid for. Even after all of those cuts to Medicaid, all of 
those cuts to Medicare, all of those cuts to the Affordable 
Care Act and nutrition assistance and on and on, they don't 
come close to paying for the cost of the tax cuts.
    So how is the rest paid for? It isn't. It is just tacking 
on more and more to our national debt. No wonder, just on 
Friday evening, Moody's delivered the third credit downgrade 
this Nation has ever received.
    This is truly--I think all sides will agree with this--a 
significant piece of legislation, frankly, I think, one of the 
most consequential in our lifetimes.
    Sadly, though, I believe the consequences for my 
constituents and most working Americans will be absolutely 
devastating. I urge you to reject it.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Boyle.
    Chairman Comer, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES COMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Dr. Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern.
    Today, I am here to talk about a generational opportunity 
to realize reforms that address the budget deficit.
    The provisions proposed by the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform in Title IX of this bill are part of 
President Trump's larger effort to improve the fiscal health of 
the Federal Government.
    Last November, Democrats offered to provide more of the 
same, but the American people instead elected President Trump 
to a historic second term on promises to change Washington, 
D.C. The deficit reductions in Title IX of the reconciliation 
package codify part of the President's vision for enacting his 
agenda and achieving significant taxpayer savings.
    Congressional procedure, precedent, and tradition too often 
contribute to an ever-expanding Federal Government. Meanwhile, 
too little is done to shrink the administrative state and make 
the Federal bureaucracy more efficient.
    The budget reconciliation process provides a rare 
opportunity to reverse that trajectory.
    Fundamentally, Congress instructed the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform to advance policies that reduce 
the Federal deficit by at least $50 billion.
    Despite our committee's limited jurisdiction over mandatory 
spending programs, we passed a package of budget reforms that 
save a significant sum.
    We are in a fiscal crisis. The reforms we moved out of the 
Oversight Committee met the moment in terms of addressing that 
fiscal crisis. We did the job we needed to do on behalf of the 
American taxpayers and future generations.
    The simple truth is that Federal employee retirement 
benefits significantly outpace those of the private sector.
    To this point, the Congressional Budget Office issued an 
April 2024 report that I requested stating that, quote, 
``Benefits for Federal workers cost 43 percent more per hour 
worked on average than benefits for private sector workers,'' 
end quote.
    CBO stated further that, quote, ``Benefits also constituted 
a larger share of total compensation for Federal workers than 
for workers in the private sector,'' end quote.
    Most of the costs associated with these benefits are funded 
by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector and Federal 
borrowing.
    I understand that our conference includes Members that 
represent different constituencies. I support leadership's work 
to combine our package with the provisions reported by other 
committees into one bill that can gain the support of our 
conference. And I thank my colleagues for working with 
leadership to represent their constituents and reach an 
agreement on a package that advances significant budget-saving 
reforms.
    I fully support our collective efforts to advance a package 
that works for the House and supports President Trump's agenda.
    Title IX of the legislation before us today advances most 
of the Oversight Committee's important budgetary reforms.
    These reforms will save taxpayers money while protecting 
current retirees as well as law enforcement officers, Border 
Patrol officers, air traffic controllers, nuclear material 
couriers, and firefighters who serve a clear public interest 
and typically have shortened Federal careers due to mandatory 
retirement rules and early retirement incentives.
    Taken together, the reforms now being considered in Title 
IX will reduce the deficit and move us toward the more 
accountable Federal Government that the American people demand 
and deserve.
    I ask the Rules Committee to promptly advance this 
legislation for consideration by the House, and I welcome the 
committee's questions.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Chairman Comer.
    Representative Lynch, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
McGovern, members of the committee. Good morning.
    We are here at just going on 2 a.m. because the Trump 
administration and congressional Republicans want to unload the 
cost of $7 trillion in tax cuts onto the backs of American 
workers, families, and dedicated public servants--and, because 
this bill is so disgraceful, it can't stand the light of day.
    In just over 100 days, we have witnessed the Trump 
administration lay off more than 200,000 probationary Federal 
employees, including leading researchers, public health 
experts, veterans, and other critical positions.
    Trump has coerced 75,000 civil servants into resigning. 
Trump has replaced 50,000 nonpartisan civil servants with 
political appointees. And Trump has illegally terminated 
nonpartisan, independent inspectors general and Federal 
watchdogs.
    This partisan bill threatens to further undermine the 
Federal workforce by reducing the take-home pay, benefits, and 
workforce protections of 2.4 million Federal employees, most of 
whom are middle-class American workers and a third of whom are 
military veterans.
    This is more of the same--an unprecedented assault and 
political purge of the nonpartisan civil service--and the 
people who will pay most for these attacks are the veterans, 
children, seniors, and other Americans who rely on our Federal 
workers to deliver those lifesaving services.
    The Federal Employee Retirement System annuity supplement, 
a monthly bridge payment for retirees before they are eligible 
for Social Security at age 62, would be eliminated for anyone 
not actively receiving the supplemental payment by January 1, 
2028, or who does not meet a specific exemption.
    Federal workers, like letter carriers, VA hospital nurses, 
and food inspectors, who have committed decades to the job, who 
are eligible to retire, would not be able to receive this vital 
payment to make ends meet.
    That is $18,000 per year in retirement income for the 
average beneficiary eliminated because billionaires need 
another tax break.
    This legislation would also retroactively change the 
annuity formula to base most employees' annual retirement 
payments on their highest 5 years of earnings instead of the 
highest 3, as they were promised when they were hired. This is 
an outright theft of earned benefits that would cost Federal 
retirees thousands of dollars annually.
    My Republican colleague, Representative Mike Turner of 
Ohio, was exactly right to speak out and vote against this 
provision during our committee's consideration of this bill, 
making the rejection of the Oversight provisions bipartisan.
    Another particularly egregious provision of this bill would 
force any newly hired Federal employee to accept at-will 
employment or lose 5 percent of their take-home pay to 
increased retirement contributions. Federal workers who choose 
to remain under the merit-based system would be forced to 
contribute nearly 10 percent of their paycheck towards 
retirement.
    CBO estimates that 75 percent of new hires in the Federal 
Government would now become at-will employees subject to 
political purges of the Federal workforce with little to no 
protections.
    I will be introducing amendments to strike this bill's at-
will employment provisions and to exempt veterans and Federal 
workers who entered the workforce prior to the bill's enactment 
from the changes in the annuity formula.
    Despite the claims of this administration, Federal workers 
are not leeches on the system but hardworking, dedicated public 
servants who are paid about 25 percent less than their private 
sector counterparts.
    A strong, nonpartisan Federal workforce is fundamental to a 
functioning democratic government. These dedicated workers 
deserve our respect and our support.
    Like most Americans, Federal workers face increased costs 
for groceries and housing and economic uncertainty because of 
President Trump's reckless tax and tariff agenda.
    The Trump tariffs are estimated to cost American households 
$4,900 per year, the largest tax increase since 1968. President 
Trump and congressional Republicans are also advocating for a 
tax regime that will actually increase Federal deficits by more 
than $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
    And worst of all, they are seeking to offset their tax cuts 
for billionaires by gutting $800 billion from Medicaid 
programs. My Democratic colleagues and I strongly oppose that 
motion.
    Oversight Democrats stand with struggling families, we 
oppose corruption and abuse of power, and we are committed to 
solving our Nation's crises without sacrificing the well-being 
of our civil servants.
    I urge my colleagues to reject this reverse-Robin Hood 
legislation, which robs from the poor to give to the rich, and 
instead work towards a budget that respects American workers 
and the basic needs and services they provide.
    I welcome the committee's questions, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
    Chairman Arrington, we keep hearing a constant refrain from 
the Democrats that the tax cuts were driven to the wealthy. The 
Washington Post fact-checked what they referred to as 
Democrats', quote, ``zombie claim,'' end quote, that 83 percent 
of the benefits from Republican tax reform in 2017 went to the 
wealthiest 1 percent.
    They fact-checked this multiple times. The Post gave the 
claim three Pinocchios, saying, quote, ``The tax bill has been 
in place for more than 3 years, and it is clear from the 
available data that the top 1 percent did not end up with most 
of the tax benefits.''
    Do you agree with me that the Democrats have a credibility 
problem when they discuss President Trump's tax cuts?
    Mr. Arrington. They have a major credibility problem 
because the facts are contrary to their mischaracterization. 
The top one percent actually pay a higher share of their taxes 
than they did prior to TCJA. So, in that respect, it became a 
more progressive Tax Code, but every other income level saw a 
tax break.
    In addition to that, we had record wage increases. In fact, 
the bottom ten percent of wage earners grew their wages at 
twice the top ten percent, and it is three times the income 
increase of the bottom 50 percent relative to the top one 
percent.
    So I would just add that it couldn't be a scam on working 
people and poor people when we achieved the lowest poverty rate 
in recorded history.
    So people got better opportunities and bigger paychecks, 
and the people at the lower-income spectrum got the biggest 
benefit from TCJA. So mischaracterization may be an 
understatement for how they described tax cuts for the rich.
    And let's remember, the top ten percent of income earners 
are paying 70 percent of our salary, the lights and the entire 
freight of the Federal Government. So when we talk about tax 
fairness and equity, they have an interesting perspective on 
that.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you. I think the word 
``mischaracterization'' of what they are saying is a kind way 
to say it.
    Mr. Arrington. My mom raised me right.
    The Chairwoman. There is a three-letter word that 
characterizes it better, but we will leave that alone.
    When President Biden stated the Trump tax cuts went to the 
top 1 percent and not ordinary people, didn't FactCheck.org 
have to debunk him? And didn't the liberal--liberal--Tax Policy 
Center even have to correct President Biden? And didn't even 
The New York Times state that, quote, ``Studies consistently 
find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans''?
    Mr. Arrington. Yes, ma'am, that is correct.
    The Chairwoman. And doesn't this constant refrain we are 
hearing from Democrats now match exactly what has been 
categorically debunked?
    Mr. Arrington. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am, and nobody knows 
that better than the average family of four who saw about a 
$5,000 increase in their take-home pay because of their tax 
relief, which was almost the opposite effect of the inflation 
tax they paid over the last three or four years.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I think what you are talking about is not 
what we are talking about here today. We are talking about the 
Republican reconciliation package that is going to be jammed 
through this committee and rushed to the floor.
    And if I am understanding the numbers correctly, the latest 
version of their tax scam, the top 0.1 percent stand to gain 
$255,000, on average, in 2027 alone. That is $700 a day, every 
day.
    The people who make over a million dollars a year will also 
get their pockets lined. On average, these millionaires will 
have an additional $81,500 per year.
    But pennies for everybody else. For those earning less than 
$50,000 per year, the average benefit is $265. That is less 
than a dollar per day. And that is laughable when you begin to 
look at the gaps that are going to be created by these cuts in 
other programs.
    But, Mr. Boyle, I have a letter here that you received, 
along with the Democratic Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and I am looking 
at this chart here about who benefits from this bill. It 
doesn't seem to match what Chairwoman Foxx and Mr. Arrington 
are just talking about right now.
    Do you want to comment on this?
    Mr. Boyle. What that chart shows--and, by the way, that is 
not my chart.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, I know.
    Mr. Boyle. That is not your chart.
    Mr. McGovern. It is CBO's.
    Mr. Boyle. That is the official scorekeeper's chart, the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
    And if you can show that chart again, what it shows is the 
poor get poorer----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Boyle [continuing]. While the rich get richer. And so 
let me quote again from CBO, specifically their numbers.
    For people in the bottom 10 percent, they will experience a 
4-percent loss of household wealth. Meanwhile, for people in 
the top 10 percent, they will see their household resources 
increase by 2 percent.
    It is as simple as that.
    Mr. McGovern. And I ask unanimous consent that this be 
entered into the record, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.005
    
    Mr. McGovern. My view on legislation is that, if you 
believe in the legislation, you ought to vote for it; if you 
don't believe in it, you ought to vote against it.
    So I would say to my friend Chairman Arrington, if you 
believe the stuff that is contained in this reconciliation 
bill, if you think these priorities are the right priorities 
and if these represent your values, then by all means vote for 
it.
    I will disagree with you. I mean, I could spend all day 
here, because I am also on the Agriculture Committee and we had 
a lengthy hearing on the impact of the nutrition cuts on 
average people and on States too. There is an unfunded mandate 
here as well. And it is going to be significant.
    But if this bill represents your values, I will just say 
for the record it doesn't represent my values. And so, you 
know, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
    But, you know, let me ask you a question, though, Chairman 
Arrington. I mean, this is the Rules Committee print of what we 
are talking about. And is this Rules Committee print in front 
of us, is this the final version of the bill, or are changes 
going to be made?
    Mr. Arrington. Sir, it is the final version of the bill 
until the manager's amendment is completed----
    Mr. McGovern. So changes will be made. Okay.
    Mr. Arrington [continuing]. And then we will know what 
those definitive changes are.
    Mr. McGovern. So are negotiations still ongoing? And, if 
so, with whom? Where are they, and in what room? Shouldn't you 
be in that room, instead of being here right now, because you 
are the Budget chair?
    I mean, during the markup--during the Budget markup on 
Sunday night, you said that you weren't aware of any changes 
being made. And then my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Norman, on this committee, followed up, saying he was happy 
with the direction--with the changes that were being made.
    So which is it? So changes are going to be made.
    Mr. Arrington. Well, I would say there have been a lot of 
conversations and discussion and healthy debate within the 
Conference, and--but, as far as I am concerned, my job was, 
first, to make sure that the budget targets were achieved, and 
they were. So we had a budget--balanced budget reconciliation 
bill. That was our job, to affirm that in the Budget Committee.
    As to what changes, I don't know of any definitive changes 
until I see it on paper. Lots of things change, as you know----
    Mr. McGovern. Right. Yeah. No, I know.
    Mr. Arrington [continuing]. In this process.
    Mr. McGovern. But in the Budget Committee markup, you said 
that we would have an official score from the nonpartisan 
budget experts at CBO before we vote on this bill. And when 
will we get that score?
    Mr. Arrington. I believe we will still have a score on the 
final bill.
    Mr. McGovern. So you think we will get the score before we 
vote on it?
    Mr. Arrington. That is my expectation.
    Mr. McGovern. And if we don't, would you recommend that we 
hold off until we get the score?
    Mr. Arrington. I think we have a lot of the bill scored at 
this point. My expectation is that they will have the bill 
scored.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, but, with the changes--I mean, one of 
the things about CBO is it talks not only just about, you know, 
the impacts on the deficit and the debt but also on, like, how 
many people will lose healthcare benefits, you know, and other 
benefits. So, you know, any change will impact our constituents 
differently.
    And so I guess I just want to--I mean, do you think it is 
okay for us to vote on this bill without knowing how much it 
will cost the American taxpayer or how many people will get 
kicked off of their healthcare?
    And, I mean, if you are saying, you know, we should 
absolutely have a final CBO score before we vote on this, I 
could live with that. I am just--I just don't--I want to make 
sure I am understanding what you are committing to or not 
committing to.
    Mr. Arrington. I am committing--my expectation is they will 
have all the scores, Mr. McGovern, but I think they know the 
various machinations and what that will do to ensure a certain 
number of people who receive, for example, Medicaid, who are in 
this country illegally under the policies of President Biden 
and what that will change when we put prohibitions against 
taxpayer-funded services going to illegal aliens.
    Mr. McGovern. And, to be clear, I am not looking for a 
prediction. I am looking for, kind of, certainty about----
    Mr. Arrington. Yeah, sure.
    Mr. McGovern [continuing]. What we will be doing.
    Mr. Boyle, as you know, Statutory PAYGO, which stands for 
Pay-As-You-Go, is a law that requires tax cuts and spending 
increases to be offset, meaning that they do not add to the 
deficit. If at the end of the year congressional legislation 
collectively violates PAYGO, those deficit effects trigger 
across-the-board cuts to programs like Medicare.
    Does this bill trigger Statutory PAYGO?
    Mr. Boyle. Yes. And that is not me saying it; it is the 
Congressional Budget Office confirming it as of a couple hours 
ago.
    And, look, this is really the breaking news, because when 
the Budget Committee kicked off this process approximately 3 
months ago, there was a commitment by President Trump that 
there would be no Medicare cuts in this piece of legislation. 
And, indeed, over the last several months, there has been no 
discussion of Medicare at all. There has been of Medicaid, but 
not of Medicare.
    Well, here we are tonight, because, as you explained, 
because of the size of the deficits, because of the PAYGO or 
Pay-As-You-Go Act, that would trigger sequestration of 
Medicare, and it would total over $500 billion. The official 
figure that CBO confirms is $535 billion in cuts to Medicare.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. And this bill doesn't waive Statutory 
PAYGO?
    Mr. Boyle. No, it does not.
    Mr. McGovern. So this will have a direct impact on Medicare 
and the Federal budget, which is--again, I think a lot of 
people, you know, who are not following this as closely as you 
are probably are not aware of and will be surprised to learn 
about tomorrow.
    Chairman Hill, as you know, military servicemembers and 
veterans are disproportionately targeted and endangered by 
financial fraudsters.
    And the CFPB, whose funding Republicans are aiming to cut 
by roughly 70 percent, received nearly 85,000 financial 
complaints from servicemembers and veterans in 2023. And the 
CFPB has provided $363 million in monetary relief from 
enforcement actions that involve harm to servicemembers and 
veterans.
    Our colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Himes, spoke on an 
amendment in your committee that would prevent funding cuts to 
the CFPB from harming veterans and servicemembers.
    I mean, this seems like a commonsense amendment to me, yet 
not a single Republican spoke in favor of it. No one on your 
side even spoke up to explain why they were in favor of not 
moving this amendment forward, which, again, I think, threatens 
the financial safety of our servicemembers and our veterans.
    So, at the end of the day, I mean, this amendment was voted 
down. So I just wanted to give you an opportunity to explain 
why cutting an agency that protects the financial well-being of 
our servicemembers and our veterans is a priority in this bill. 
I don't quite understand it.
    Mr. Hill. Well, thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    The plan that Republicans advanced in this reconciliation 
plan was to save mandatory spending, and it is our judgment, 
going back and looking at the history of the CFPB since its 
inception in the Dodd-Frank Act, that it could continue its 
core function and meet its statutory obligations at a 5-percent 
cap of the Federal Reserve's budget, which would be about $249 
million this year, and that it could meet all of its statutory 
obligations in meeting what Dodd-Frank directed them to do, 
which is, for large financial institutions and non-banking 
companies, comply with consumer compliance. And we believe they 
can do that.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    You know, I mean, I am hearing great concern about the 
impacts of these cuts, and what I worry about in a number of 
areas with regard to this bill is that cuts are being made not 
necessarily on the merits but just because cuts have to be 
made.
    Ranking Member Waters, the CFPB has returned $21 billion to 
consumers over the last 14 years. If Congress proceeds to slash 
70 percent of the CFPB's budget, a vital agency whose sole 
purpose is to protect American consumers and the financial 
marketplace, would the CFPB still be able to fight for 
consumers and seek remediation when they are harmed, with this 
kind of cut?
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much for that question, Mr. 
McGovern.
    Absolutely not.
    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is extraordinarily 
important for consumers. I sat on the conference committee of 
the Dodd-Frank reforms when we created the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. A lot of work had been done by Senator 
Warren and others. But I want you to know, prior to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the consumers really had 
nowhere to turn. They had nowhere to really lodge their 
complaints.
    And this is very important, because, now, with the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau and the excellent work that has 
been done, they have been able to return $21 billion over 14 
years to our consumers.
    I want you to know that our consumers--the victims are 
mostly the least of these. These are people in poor 
communities, and not only in inner city but in rural 
communities. They are the victims of everybody with kind of a 
broad scheme that see them as vulnerable and target them.
    I want you to know, without the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, we would not have been able to deal with the 
big fines that we had to do, some of the largest banks in this 
country that literally, in many ways, had less risk management 
than they should have and all kind of errors and mistakes, that 
fraud was taking place. And so this proposed cut of 70 percent 
literally would kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    And I want you to know that even--and I am recalling, when 
Mick Mulvaney was Acting Director of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, he basically said, ``I am bound to execute 
the law as written.'' When he first went in, he did not request 
any money. And then, in one quarter, he and I think one other, 
Kathy Kraninger, when she was there, requested almost the 
maximum amount in one quarter of $249 million.
    So this is extraordinarily important. All of us, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, should care about our consumers, about 
our voters, about the fact that they need the money that they 
earn--hardworking people--to put food on the table, to pay the 
rent. Getting ripped off in so many ways and nowhere to turn 
would be absolutely disastrous.
    Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
    The Oversight portion of this bill would reduce pay, 
pensions, and protections for current and future Federal 
employees. The bill would force the Federal workforce to foot 
the bill for tax cuts for billionaires, and comes as the Trump-
Musk administration is carrying out a cruel full-scale assault 
on the Federal workforce.
    The American people and the lifesaving services they rely 
upon will suffer the most as a result of Republicans' efforts 
to purge the Federal Government of its dedicated, high-
performing public servants and politicize the delivery of basic 
needs and services to our veterans, our children, and our 
seniors.
    Republicans also want to extort future civil servants into 
giving up their protections--protections which serve the 
interest of the American people, who want good government 
workers not completely subject to the whims of whoever occupies 
the White House.
    Representative Lynch, what would the approximate financial 
impact of these provisions be on the average Federal worker?
    Mr. Lynch. Okay. If you add everything up--so the FERS 
annuity supplement would cost the average employee $54,000 in 
their retirement income when they average it out over the 3 
years that the average employee uses that for.
    Then, changing the high 3 to the high 5 costs them another 
$16,560 over 20 years.
    And then, finally, converting new employees to at-will 
unless they accept--and, plus, the added money that they have 
to pay for their pension if they want to come under the Merit 
Service Protection Board, it brings everything to over $106,000 
over a 20-year career.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. Yeah, I just----
    Mr. Lynch. And, Mr. Ranking Member, I just want to add, 
your previous question about servicemembers----
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    Mr. Lynch [continuing]. This bill eliminates the Office of 
Servicemember Affairs, which is the CFPB department that really 
watched after--if you go to any of these Army bases, you get 
onto Fort Hood, outside the bases are all these money services 
and, you know, their short-term loans, things like that, 
payment systems that are exploiting these young servicemembers 
and their families.
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Lynch. That office that used to protect them is being 
eliminated in this bill.
    Mr. McGovern. And what would the effect on our Nation's 
nonpartisan civil service be of effectively extorting new hires 
to become at-will employees? I mean, would we see the same 
level of nonpartisan excellence?
    Mr. Lynch. It would gut it.
    So the estimate is that 75 percent of our Federal 
employees--remember, these are new people coming into the 
workforce--they would reject paying the extra money for their 
pension and instead become--they would become at-will 
employees.
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Lynch. So, because they have no pension at the end, 
they are probably going to be relying on, you know, public 
assistance instead of being allowed to build a pension for 
themselves during their working lives.
    Mr. McGovern. And, Chairman Comer, is it correct that, 
under this legislation, your pension contributions don't 
increase, but a newly hired VA nurse or Department of Defense 
education activity teacher who wants workplace protections from 
political purges would pay 5 percent more of their salary 
towards their pension than they would under the current law?
    Mr. Comer. Well, they would have a choice. They would have 
a choice.
    Mr. McGovern. So the answer is ``yes,'' right?
    Mr. Comer. They would have a choice to be an at-will 
employee and make more money or be a traditional----
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    Mr. Comer [continuing]. Government employee like what you 
all prefer.
    Mr. McGovern. There is something that, to me, is inherently 
wrong about all of this. I mean, we should want a Federal civil 
service that represents the best of the best.
    Mr. Comer. I disa--I think the----
    Mr. McGovern. You may disagree with that, and that is fine, 
but----
    Mr. Comer. No, I don't think disagree with that. I think it 
is okay to give people a choice----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Comer [continuing]. Give Federal employees a choice. 
They can make decisions. The government doesn't have to make 
every decision for everybody, including all the government 
employees. Government employees can have a choice here.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. But the incentives here are backwards, 
which--that is the point I am trying to make, is that--I think 
there is an attempt by this administration, and you may agree 
with it, to basically politicize our Federal workforce, to make 
everybody just say whatever the administration wants and that 
is it. And I think this is about incentivizing that.
    But let me just say, my final--to Ranking Member Smith: 
From your time on the Armed Services Committee, it is clear 
that you understand the value of defense spending and investing 
in our military.
    Do you believe that an increase of $150 billion for defense 
over the $848 billion provided to the Department of Defense in 
fiscal year 2025, and with few guardrails, makes sense when the 
pay-for is devastating cuts from essential programs for the 
American people like Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, which is SNAP, and student loan and grant 
programs at the Department of Education?
    Mr. Smith of Washington. I do not. And that is why I voted 
against it in committee and oppose this. I mean, adding $150 
billion to defense is debatable in and of itself, but where it 
is coming from--as I think a number of people have articulated, 
it is coming from all these other programs. It is also coming 
from just borrowing the money.
    And I will also say, we do not yet have a national security 
plan from the Trump administration. We have heard that they 
want to cut 8 percent from certain aspects of it. We haven't 
seen what that is, so we don't know what the plan is for this 
$150 billion.
    It is spread out over 4 years, by the way, not all in the 
first year.
    Mr. McGovern. And let me just add my final point here.
    I mean, many have expressed concerns with how Secretary 
Hegseth has managed the Pentagon, prioritizing loyalty over 
competence, decimating the military and civilian workforce, and 
undermining the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.
    Given that chaos, is now an appropriate time to gift the 
Department of Defense an additional $150 billion on top of the 
$858 billion that they already received in fiscal year 2025?
    I mean, do you have any concerns about this?
    Mr. Smith of Washington. I do. And that was a central 
argument that House Democrats made during the markup.
    We have seen Secretary Hegseth struggling to run the 
Department well. I think it is up to, like, five of his 
employees have quit or been fired in the first 3 or 4 months. 
They have had highly critical things to say about the way the 
Department is being run. Obviously, they don't know how to 
control secure information securely.
    And, again, they don't have a plan in terms of where the 
planning is. So we don't even have an fiscal year 2026 full 
budget yet.
    So, no, I don't think this Department can be trusted with 
that amount of money.
    Mr. McGovern. I want to thank all the panel for being here. 
Again, as I said before, this bill doesn't represent my values, 
and I am going to be part of an effort to fight like hell to 
defeat this. This is bad for our country.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. Scott, you are recognized.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Chairman Rogers, I am going to come to you in just a 
second to talk about the investments through DOD.
    But I just want to make sure--my understanding of the 
current tax law is that the top tax bracket starts--for married 
couples filing jointly, it is $731,200, and that rate is 37 
percent.
    Is that correct, Mr. Arrington?
    Mr. Arrington. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Scott. Now, in our piece of legislation, do we reduce 
that 37-percent tax bracket for people making above that level?
    Mr. Arrington. Do we reduce that bracket? That is the 
reduced bracket that we extend.
    Mr. Scott. It is 37 percent going forward, though?
    Mr. Arrington. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Scott. It is an extension.
    Mr. Arrington. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. So we are going to--the tax rate is going to be 
the same.
    Mr. Arrington. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. And there is a far cry from someone who is 
making $731,000 and someone who is a billionaire.
    Mr. Arrington. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. And so I think there is a little, as my 
grandfather would say on those hot summers days as we pulled 
into the cow patch, a little bit of ``smells like money'' in 
the argument that this is billionaires, when we are simply 
extending the bracket, and that bracket starts at $731,000 for 
married filing jointly. And while those people are certainly 
doing quite well, it is a far cry from being a billionaire.
    Mr. Rogers, as you know, I returned from the border on 
Saturday, and I got an opportunity to meet with some of our 
troops down there, as well as the men and women with the Border 
Patrol, who are doing an exceptionally good job now and could 
have been doing that job over the last 4 years as well.
    And one of the things that amazed me is that--and this was 
actually Border Patrol that told me this--that they were, by 
default, paroling people into the country even if they had 
visible gang tattoos. If they ran the scans on them--or ran the 
system on them and they did not have an INTERPOL hit, they were 
told to parole them into this country even if they had visible 
gang tattoos.
    So we have got $5 billion for border security. That is a 
huge investment for the people of this country that I think 
will go a long way and pay tremendous dividends for us.
    We have got $7 billion for air superiority, $11 billion for 
Pacific deterrence, $12 billion for readiness, $13 billion for 
nuclear deterrence.
    And can you speak to these issues and what they mean to 
every American citizen and our ability to protect them from our 
adversaries, both at home now, more so than ever, and abroad?
    Mr. Rogers of Alabama. Yes, sir.
    On the first issue with the border, I would make the point 
that every administration going back to President Clinton has 
had to send National Guardsmen to the border to supplement 
Border Patrol efforts. That has been a higher demand right now 
because of the policies of the last administration that 
basically opened our border for 4 years.
    The problem that generated for us, though, is, we already 
are spending at the lowest level on defense that we have as a 
percentage of GDP since before World War II, for over 80 years. 
So that money had to come out of Hyde.
    This supplement, this reconciliation is going to help 
backfill some of the money that we have had to spend to send 
our Guardsmen down to help secure that border.
    And, you know, you talked about just one leg of the triad. 
You know, we have a real problem with our nuclear triad, which 
is the most important deterrent we have to aggression in our 
arsenal. The Sentinel, which is going to replace the Minuteman 
III, the ICBMs, is way over budget, behind schedule. These are 
1970s missiles that we have got to replace, and we have to have 
the money to do it. This reconciliation goes a long way toward 
that.
    Our nuclear submarines, which are the most valuable element 
we have in the triad, we are behind on both the Virginia class 
and the Columbia class. This puts a lot of money toward getting 
them caught back up.
    We just have a lot of elements--you have heard about the 
Golden Dome, which is really a layered level of defense against 
attack that we have been needing for a long time. This puts $25 
billion against that threat.
    I can go on and on. There are many threats. I really 
disagree with the argument that the $150 billion isn't needed. 
The fact is, this is just the first installment of what we need 
to start to get our defense back to where it should be so that 
we deter aggression and stay out of wars.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Rogers, thank you.
    I want to be respectful of other people's time.
    There is an additional $9 billion investment for 
servicemember quality of life; $34 billion for shipbuilding, 
which will be a lot of jobs that we need in this country.
    The $25 billion for Golden Dome--you know, our Nation's 
defense systems, a lot of those systems are old. They were 
built to defend us from systems that are significantly slower 
and significantly larger than the weapons that we face today. 
And if we do not invest in that defense system, then I am 
afraid we are putting ourselves at risk for hypersonics and 
other weapons that are extremely fast, extremely small.
    And I appreciate you, Mr. Rogers.
    I want to say this. Chairman Smith, it is always good to 
have two Members who, for the most part, are able to work 
together. I appreciate your professionalism on the Armed 
Services Committee. And this is one we just respectfully 
disagree on.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to our chairs and ranking members for joining 
us at this extraordinary hour.
    I also want to welcome our dedicated C-SPAN viewers and 
Rules aficionados--you know who you are--for our special 
edition of ``D.C. After Dark.'' We are meeting in the dead of 
night so that House Republicans can try to jam through their 
disastrous reconciliation bill with zero transparency or 
scrutiny.
    This meeting began at 1:00 a.m. because our Republican 
colleagues know that a bill this bad can't be exposed to the 
light of day. 1:00 a.m. is when you work on bills that you want 
to hide from the public.
    Why would they want to hide this bill? This bill is going 
to enact the biggest cuts to Medicaid, the primary health 
insurance for nearly a quarter of Americans, in our Nation's 
history. This bill is going to enact the biggest cuts to SNAP, 
which prevents Americans from going hungry, in our Nation's 
history. And this bill is going to enact the biggest tax cuts 
for billionaires in our Nation's history.
    Not only that, but the Congressional Budget Office has just 
released an analysis showing that this bill is going to result 
in a wealth transfer--not from the rich to the poor, but from 
the poor to the rich.
    It is a bill for which there is still no agreement to 
guarantee its passage. That is why some of our members here 
aren't here right now. They are out there trying to cut some 
more deals with the Speaker and the White House.
    And these deals aren't just tweaks, but if our colleagues' 
tweets are to be believed, they are so significant that those 
deals are going to determine whether or not this bill passes at 
all. Although, if it does pass, it is going to be a strict 
party-line vote.
    So, after months of debate and deliberation in the 
Republican caucus--certainly not bipartisan debate with 
Democrats--House Republicans still don't have an agreement.
    What have you been doing all this time, other than lying 
about whether or not you were going to cut Medicaid? You have 
had multiple Member meetings, meetings with the President, 
committee markups that went for dozens of hours, and you still 
haven't ironed out disagreements.
    Not only is it sloppy, it is disingenuous. We are meeting 
in the dead of night to consider a terrible bill, and you 
haven't even drafted or shared some of the most critical parts 
of the bill--haven't shared them with your Republican 
colleagues, haven't shared them with the other half of 
Congress, and, most importantly, you haven't shared them with 
the American people.
    As the chairwoman acknowledged when she gaveled us in at 
1:00 a.m., if Republicans are able to pass their rule tonight, 
it will include a magical manager's amendment that will allow 
them to change the bill before it goes to the House floor--a 
manager's amendment that none of us have seen, that we won't be 
able to review or debate or change. And when we do get that 
magical amendment, it is likely to be dozens-of-pages-long and 
include significant changes to the underlying text.
    To make last-minute changes, changes that will move around 
hundreds of billions of dollars, these deserve transparency, 
these deserve scrutiny, and these deserve debate.
    As some Republicans have suggested, you all should probably 
go home for the long weekend, collect yourselves, and come back 
to Rules when you actually have an agreement.
    We are here in the middle of the night, of course, because 
the Speaker and President are trying to rush this bill through 
by July 4th--a timeline that doesn't seem plausible even if 
Republicans manage to jam their BS version of this bill through 
the House this week. It is clear they don't have the votes. The 
deadlines are made-up, just so they can jam the bill before 
anyone really knows what is in it.
    And for all your consternation over this or that provision 
of the bill, no matter what agreement the House reaches after 
this tortured process, you all know that the Senate is going to 
rewrite the bill anyway. Senators, Republican Senators, have 
said this bill is a nonstarter.
    And, in addition, since the bill has not yet been finished, 
we don't have a CBO score, how much this bill will cost. We 
don't have any score, except on prior versions of the bill. All 
we have are some back-of-the-envelope estimates cobbled 
together by Republicans in their backdoor meetings.
    Mr. Roy and Mr. Norman have long been big advocates for 
making sure that we have a CBO score. So it is hard to believe 
they are going to think it makes sense to pass a bill that 
doesn't yet have a CBO score, where hundreds of billions of 
dollars' worth of taxpayers' money is penciled in by staff with 
a calculator, maybe a slide rule, possibly an abacus. Or, you 
know, are they going to, as seems likely, throw caution to the 
wind and cave again because the President told them to?
    Of course, business leaders and economists are calling this 
bill an ``economic disaster'' that will add trillions to our 
national deficit by extending the tax cuts for billionaires at 
the expense of American families, just like the 2017 tax cuts 
did. We have seen this play before. The rich get richer, and 
the American people, working families, get left holding the 
bag.
    It was confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office just a 
few hours ago with a damning report that shows that this bill 
is going to increase the deficit likely by $3.8 trillion, it is 
going to cut billions from Medicaid and SNAP, and it is going 
to reduce household income for the poorest Americans and raise 
household income for the richest Americans.
    We can't emphasize enough how insanely rushed this bill is. 
You are proposing major healthcare changes that will impact 
every American. Whether they get their healthcare through 
Medicaid or Medicare or some other source, the impact of those 
Medicaid cuts will reverberate throughout our healthcare 
system. Cuts to Medicaid will push hospitals, nursing homes, 
and health clinics into bankruptcy, and when those places 
close, it is going to be harder for everyone else to get 
healthcare.
    Now, turning to the panel before us, Mr. Arrington, Mr. 
Boyle, I assume you both saw last week's news that Moody's 
downgraded the United States' credit rating. And I am sure you 
have read about it, because one of the biggest reasons for the 
downgrade was extending these unfunded tax cuts for 
billionaires.
    Moody's explanation is as follows, and I quote: ``If the 
2017 TCJA is extended, which is our base case, it will add 
around $4 trillion to the Federal fiscal primary (excluding 
interest payments) deficit over the next decade, and, as a 
result, we expect Federal deficits to widen, reaching nearly 9 
percent of GDP by 2035, up from 6.4 percent in 2024, driven 
mainly by increased interest payments on debt, rising 
entitlement spending, and relatively low revenue generation. We 
anticipate the Federal debt burden will rise to about 134 
percent of GDP by 2035, compared to 98 percent in 2024.''
    So doesn't it worry any of you on that side of the dais? It 
certainly seems to be what you have been talking about.
    It seems like a pretty damning indictment of the fiscal 
situation that Republicans are putting us in and one that is 
going to become worse if they pass this bill.
    There is also this tidbit from that liberal journal The 
Wall Street Journal earlier this week, and I quote: ``Investors 
sold U.S. government bonds and the dollar on Monday, after 
Moody's Ratings late last week stripped the U.S. of its last 
triple-A credit rating, citing large budget deficits and rising 
interest costs. Adding to the nerves about America's debt 
trajectory, the House Budget Committee approved a tax and 
spending bill Sunday that is projected to add trillions of 
dollars to that deficit.''
    And another Wall Street Journal article this week was 
entitled ``The Stark Math on the GOP Tax Plan: It Doesn't Cut 
the Deficit.'' That article put it this way: ``The plan won't 
reduce federal budget deficits and would make America's fiscal 
hole deeper. While Republicans, who have vowed to reduce red 
ink, say higher economic growth will fill the gap, budget 
analysts across the political spectrum have panned the 
Republican plan, warning that it worsens the U.S. fiscal 
picture.''
    So there is no way around it: Your math ain't mathing. And 
the consequences are going to be disastrous for the entire 
country.
    Now, as we have been looking at this bill over the last few 
months, as it has been clear that it was going to require 
drastic Medicaid cuts, we do have this breaking news this 
evening that it is also going to impact Medicare.
    Mr. Boyle, this is a major revelation, and it is exactly 
why this bill is not ready for prime time. It is barely ready 
for the 1:00 a.m. time.
    So can you talk about how this is a backdoor cut to 
Medicare, which is going to cut for seniors? And what is going 
to happen if the bill passes?
    Mr. Boyle. Yes. CBO showed, because of the deficits that 
are baked into the Republican bill for billionaires, that 
would--because of something called the Pay-As-You-Go Act, or 
PAYGO, that would trigger sequestration of Medicare. And it 
would, again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, be 
to the tune of over $500 billion to Medicare, one of the 
biggest cuts to the program--indeed, I would say, the largest 
outright cut to the program in American history.
    There are some who might want to argue and rebut that by 
saying, ``Well, we will just go ahead and waive PAYGO.'' It is 
actually impossible in reconciliation, because it would not 
meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule. So you cannot waive 
PAYGO. These cuts to Medicare will happen if this bill becomes 
law.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. That is, obviously, really 
concerning.
    Now, we have talked a little bit already about the fact 
that there isn't a CBO score for whatever the current version 
of the bill is, but we also know that there are ongoing 
negotiations about this bill. One of the things we have heard 
is that there may be an agreement on this SALT deduction which 
has been so concerning to some of the Republican Members.
    Is that agreement with respect to SALT likely to increase 
the deficit or decrease the deficit?
    Mr. Boyle. Well, I mean, obviously, if the SALT cap is 
raised even further than what was in the bill that was voted 
out of Ways and Means and passed out of Budget when we 
basically put all of the component parts into one, then, 
basically, one of two things would happen: Either the majority 
would have to find even more cuts in order to pay for the loss 
of revenue, or you would simply see these deficits increase by 
even more.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. That is what I thought. Thank you.
    The prints from Oversight and Financial Services aren't too 
great either. It is in these committees that our Republican 
colleagues snuck in some really bad stuff that they are hoping 
will get lost in all the headlines about taxes and Medicaid.
    I am really concerned by the Oversight Committee's 
contributions to this bill, because the proposed changes to the 
Federal Employees Retirement System amount to a major pay cut 
for our Nation's civil servants. It is a cruel policy. It takes 
earned compensation away from millions of hardworking people, 
just to make a paltry dent in the staggering cost of their tax 
giveaways.
    So I know we are going to talk about the tax cuts later, 
but this is a multi-trillion-dollar handout to millionaires, 
billionaires, and Fortune 500 companies. It is the biggest 
government handout of all time. And to shave some dollars off 
the cost, Republicans are going to cut 13 million people off 
their healthcare and it is going to force a punitive pay cut on 
Federal employees--Mr. Lynch, I think you said 2.4 million 
employees.
    These are the public servants who work for you and me and 
our families and neighbors all across America, and they often 
do so for less pay than they would receive in the private 
sector--not because they are dumb, but because they are 
committed to public service.
    They give us tomorrow's weather forecast and tell us 
whether we need to shelter from tornadoes and floods. They 
prevent crop blight and the spread of dangerous diseases like 
bird flu. They make sure that the respirators used by coal 
miners and surgeons actually work. They make sure our food is 
safe to eat and our water is safe to drink.
    And these people whose pay is being so casually cut are FBI 
agents, Coast Guard employees, and doctors and nurses at VA 
facilities. So, at a time when the FAA is struggling with 
staffing shortages that are impacting air travel, Republicans 
are going to make that problem worse by cutting the pay of air 
traffic controllers.
    These provisions are an unmitigated mess. I would like to 
think that we can all agree, no matter the size or shape of the 
Federal Government, it should be effective and responsive to 
the needs of the American people, it should be able to 
efficiently carry out these core responsibilities. And the 
provisions in this bill are undermining our ability to do that.
    So, Mr. Lynch, can you speak to how the Oversight 
provisions in this bill are going to impact Federal employees, 
including those serving in roles that are critical to our 
national security, our health, and our transportation safety?
    Mr. Lynch. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
    Your reference to the VA is very astute. So, in a city like 
Boston, our VA nurses probably earn between 25 and 30 percent 
less than the nurses at the private hospitals. And there are a 
bunch of them, right?
    So now what we are seeing happening is that, because of the 
shortage of nurses that occurred after COVID--a lot of nurses 
just retired--now they are pulling nurses from the VA, they are 
leaving the VA, and they are going to work--because they have 
got less hours, they have got more pay, more benefits. So we 
are competing now. And, you know, this is going to make it much 
more difficult to retain those nurses.
    And the ones that have been there a while are the most 
valuable, right? It takes a while to get a nurse trained up, 
you know, and fully skilled; it takes a few years.
    And, you know, so that has created a huge shortage in that 
whole metropolitan area. And that is happening all over the 
country, where nurses are leaving the VA--doctors in some 
cases----
    Ms. Scanlon. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Lynch [continuing]. As well, therapists. So we are 
creating this real shortage at the VA.
    Our caseload--so, right now, we have a 250,000 backlog of 
cases at the VA because we don't have the personnel to respond 
to that need. So we are really in a crisis.
    You know, obviously, you know, the suicide hotline, we have 
laid off people there, which is ridiculous because we have a 
crisis on our hands right now.
    So all of this will exacerbate the problem. You have hit on 
that in your remarks already. But this just amplifies the 
problem, you know, tenfold, with these cuts. They will be 
leaving in droves.
    Ms. Scanlon. Your remarks about the VA are very well-taken, 
because I have heard the same thing from the VA facilities in 
my region, that the staffing cuts and the potential for pay 
cuts, the standards that are requiring nurses and doctors at 
the VA to see so many patients that they feel that they are not 
only not helping the veterans who they are trying to serve but 
in some cases the standard of care is becoming harmful. And, 
under those circumstances, we are starting to see an exodus of 
doctors and nurses from the VA, which this bill is only going 
to put on steroids, I am afraid.
    Mr. Lynch. Absolutely.
    Ms. Scanlon. The Financial Services print, of course, is no 
better. What Republicans are trying to do here is deeply 
alarming.
    It guts the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I mean, 
if you want to talk about a bureau that has had a fabulous 
return on investment, as you mentioned--billions of dollars 
returned to American consumers. This bill defunds the only 
Federal agency dedicated to making sure consumers aren't 
getting scammed by credit card companies, payday lenders, 
mortgage servicers, and shady fintech operators.
    It has returned over $19 billion--$21 billion I think you 
said--to consumers since its founding. And that is money that 
was stolen or unfairly taken through illegal fees, abusive 
practices, or deceptive marketing, and the Bureau was able to 
get it back for American consumers.
    And now Republicans want to defund it--not because it is 
ineffective, but because it actually works. And we know why: 
Because the Trump administration has already started 
dismantling the agency from within.
    In the last 2 months alone, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau has quietly dropped nine lawsuits it had 
brought against companies like Capital One and Rocket Homes. 
Years of investigation and enforcement work has been tossed in 
the trash, with no accountability and no restitution for 
consumers.
    It has also frozen dozens of ongoing investigations, many 
into companies with long records of abuse. These companies have 
been accused of everything from improper loan servicing and 
unfair interest charges to failure to protect sensitive 
consumer data.
    And, now, thanks to new political leadership handpicked by 
the Trump White House, those investigations are dead. 
Investigators can't call witnesses, issue subpoenas, or even 
talk to company lawyers unless they get direct political 
approval, and that approval isn't coming.
    Meanwhile, these very same companies--it is such an amazing 
coincidence--have given generously to Mr. Trump's campaign and 
especially his inauguration fund.
    Meta, the parent company of Facebook under investigation 
for allegedly misusing consumer financial data, donated a 
million to the inaugural committee.
    Greenlight, a fintech company accused of misleading 
families about debit card access, is backed by a Trump-aligned 
venture capital firm.
    And Elon Musk, whose company is launching a new mobile 
payments business, posted ``Delete the CFPB'' on his social 
media after Trump's election, and, of course, we have heard 
quite a bit about how much he has donated.
    So this isn't policy; it is payback. This is what happens 
when you let billionaires and campaign donors write the rules. 
And now House Republicans are trying to finish the job by 
defunding the CFPB entirely.
    So, Ranking Member Waters, can you speak more about this 
apparent corruption happening at the CFPB?
    Ms. Waters. Well, allow me to say to you, Ms. Scanlon, you 
aptly described what has been happening with the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. It is one of the most needed and 
effective agencies of government that have done everything that 
you said they have done to assist our consumers.
    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been hated by 
the Republicans ever since it came into its existence. They 
have tried to kill it, and we have been in court all the way to 
the Supreme Court on several issues, and we keep beating them 
back.
    But, now, Trump and this administration want to cut them, 
even though we tried to protect them when we created them by 
having their financing come directly from the Feds rather than 
going through the Appropriations Committee. And they tried to 
attack that and other ways by which they thought they could get 
to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They are finally 
coming up with ways by which they can--they think they can do 
that.
    But the way that we have been in the courts with the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they still would be alive 
after a huge cut, but they would sit there and not be able to 
do anything. They wouldn't be able to do the investigations. 
They would not be able to protect those very consumers that the 
law created them to take care of.
    And so there are many in this country who fight very hard 
and are very disgusted with what is happening in an attempt to 
basically undermine them and get rid of them.
    This is a terrible thing that this administration is doing. 
You would think that both Democrats and Republicans would care 
enough about the consumers that they would protect this one 
agency that has demonstrated that they can do the work and the 
investigations to help get rid of fraud and rip-offs, as you 
have identified.
    And so this is what we should be fighting. I am going to 
continue to fight. Like I said, I was there at the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. And we are all worried so very 
much about what is going to happen if, in fact, the 
administration has its way.
    And, again, you have correctly identified it and talked 
about it in ways that everybody should understand.
    Ms. Scanlon. It is really stunning that an agency that has 
been this successful in protecting American consumers is being 
zeroed out, when the only folks who are going to benefit are 
going to be large corporations and folks who are taking 
advantage of Americans. And I would--apparently we don't, but I 
would hope that we would have bipartisan agreement that an 
agency like that should remain in place.
    I will yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Jack, you are recognized.
    Mr. Jack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And, Chairman Comer, given that I serve on the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee, I will focus my line of 
questioning on you.
    And I will just note from the outset, too, that you have 
done an incredible job with your leadership with the committee. 
You do a great job for your district, for the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky, and our country.
    You referenced this in your opening testimony, but could 
you just clarify for the committee, your legislative 
jurisdiction over mandatory spending, it is pretty narrow, is 
it not?
    Mr. Comer. You are exactly right.
    And let me say, you are a good member of the Oversight 
Committee, Mr. Jack. We are glad to have you on there.
    But our jurisdiction was very limited to mandatory 
spending. All we had that would fall in the legislative 
jurisdiction would have been the Federal employee benefits.
    Mr. Jack. Fair enough.
    And it is my understanding that Federal employees get a 
hybrid pension that consists of both a 401(k)-type defined 
contribution plan known as Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, and a 
defined benefit annuity known as the Federal Employees 
Retirement System, or FERS.
    How do these benefits contrast with those offered in the 
private sector?
    Mr. Comer. Yeah, you are right, the private-sector 
employers have shifted away from defined benefits towards 
defined contribution retirement benefit programs in recent 
years, and, unlike what is provided in the Federal service, few 
private-sector employers actually maintain both such benefits 
for retirees.
    In fact, a recent Department of Labor report indicates that 
only 15 percent of private-sector civilian workforce had access 
to both defined benefit and defined contribution plans.
    Mr. Jack. And a question many of my constituents ask is, do 
taxpayers fund pensions for Federal employees that are 
generally more generous than the ones they themselves receive? 
And are there any credible recent studies on that?
    Mr. Comer. Yes. According to a 2024 CBO report that I 
requested, CBO found that, in 2022, Federal employee benefits 
cost about $31 per hour worked and $22 per hour worked for 
private-sector employees. Thus, benefits for Federal workers 
cost 43-percent more per hour worked, on average, than benefits 
for private-sector workers.
    Mr. Jack. Fair enough.
    One thing that you mentioned in your testimony and I have 
heard you speak over and over about, more than 2 million 
Federal retired employees currently receive Federal pension 
benefits, costing more than $100 billion annually, with 
taxpayers shouldering most of the expense.
    I just want to repeat that for the committee: 2 million 
Federal retired employees that currently receive over $100 
billion in benefits from taxpayers combined together.
    And just to be abundantly clear to those who spread 
disinformation, the changes your committee print makes to the 
Federal retirement system do not affect the benefits of those 
retired employees. Is that a fair statement?
    Mr. Comer. That is 100-percent correct. That is the 
opposite of what some of the Democrats in Congress have been 
saying. It does not affect those--the benefits of those already 
retired are not impacted. And the change we make to the FERS 
benefits, the supplemental retirement benefits, takes effect 
for those retiring after 2027, so that is a 2-year delay.
    Mr. Jack. Exactly.
    And, just to clarify, for those future employees, people 
that may not be hired for years from now, I think they are 
given a choice when they are hired.
    Mr. Comer. Right.
    Mr. Jack. It changes in that aspect. But for those retired, 
it does not. But could you just walk us through what happens as 
it relates to those who may be hired in the future?
    Mr. Comer. Yeah. In the future, they are going to have a 
choice: They can be an at-will employee, or they can be the 
traditional government employee that Mr. McGovern cherishes. 
And if they are an at-will employee, they would receive a 
higher benefit. If they want to be a traditional employee that 
is protected with the, you know, very generous Federal 
employee, you know, personnel laws that are on the books, then 
they can do that.
    So I think this is--you know, our proposal saves billions 
of dollars, and I think it gives Federal workers a choice.
    Mr. Jack. Well, one thing I want to focus on, as well, is: 
You know, my district, I am just south of the Atlanta airport. 
I represent an enormous amount of air traffic controllers----
    Mr. Comer. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Jack [continuing]. And heard a lot from the air traffic 
controllers throughout this entire process.
    And I would just love for you to walk the committee through 
how air traffic controllers are treated as it relates to some 
of these changes. I know we worked at great lengths----
    Mr. Comer. Right.
    Mr. Jack [continuing]. To ensure that we are recruiting the 
best, enabling the best system for air traffic controllers to 
thrive so we can keep our skies safe.
    Mr. Comer. Yeah. And, Mr. Jack, you have done a great job 
advocating for them on the Oversight Committee.
    And I want to correct a statement that was stated by a 
Democrat on the Rules Committee earlier. The air traffic 
controllers are exempted from any changes in this bill. That is 
in print. So that needs to be clarified. They are completely 
exempted from any changes.
    Mr. Jack. And law enforcement officers, Federal 
firefighters----
    Mr. Comer. That is right. Border Patrol.
    Mr. Jack. Wonderful.
    And as it relates to Border Patrol, just a helpful point, 
as I round out my time: You also achieve savings by removing 
ineligible dependents from the Federal employee health 
insurance program. I applaud this provision. Taxpayers should 
not bear the cost of fraud and error committed by Federal 
employees.
    And did not--just correct me if wrong--did this provision 
get bipartisan support when it was taken up by the committee 
last Congress?
    Mr. Comer. It did. And that is something that we should all 
be applauding here.
    This is an audit to ensure that there aren't people on the 
benefits plan that are ineligible. And that is kind of what 
Brett Guthrie done with Medicaid. We are not cutting Medicaid. 
We are not cutting these benefits. With that provision, we are 
trying to ensure that people who are on the system are truly 
eligible, and to remove those that are ineligible.
    A GAO report estimated that if we do this audit it will 
save $1.5 billion of taxpayer money. So I think that is a 
pretty good deal for the American taxpayers.
    Mr. Jack. Well, I appreciate your leadership. I very much 
am grateful for yourself and all that worked on the committee 
to help support air traffic controllers. It is very important 
in my district.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, I respectfully yield back.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Jack.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, may I----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I just want to point out, you called this 
meeting, and I am looking at who is here. There are four of us 
and only three of you. And your members can't be bothered to 
even sit here and listen to the witnesses.
    And I just say that because, if that continues, we are 
going to move to adjourn. So I hope that your members will--
since you called this meeting, will actually be here, present, 
listening to the----
    The Chairwoman. Ah----
    Mr. McGovern. Being in the other room is not being here. So 
I just point that out and say that we will feel obligated to 
move to adjourn again if that continues.
    Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern, our members are in and out, 
just like your members are in and out. You were gone for about 
30 minutes. So we always allow people to move in and out.
    Mr. McGovern. There are more of us here right now, and we 
are in the minority.
    The Chairwoman. Well, our members----
    Mr. McGovern. This has been a tactic in the Agriculture 
Committee--I don't know about the other committees--where 
Republicans just get up and leave. And so I think people ought 
to be present here; at least you ought to have more of you here 
than us here. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. There are more of us here than you. So 
there is no reason to delay this meeting any longer than it is.
    Mr. Neguse--what I am saying is there is no need to delay 
this meeting any longer than we have to. Thank you--you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you--thank you, Madam Chair.
    Good morning, all the chairs and ranking members. Thank you 
all for being here. Thank you for your testimony. I have got a 
lot of questions.
    But I guess, first, I want to, maybe if the Chairwoman 
would indulge me, give her an opportunity to say a word. That 
is, my assumption--and I think the assumption for most 
Americans--is that the reason Republicans have decided to 
notice this hearing and proceed in the dead of night is because 
this bill is indefensible.
    It sounds like maybe you have a different reason, and so I 
guess I am trying to understand, why was this meeting scheduled 
for 1 a.m.? Why are we meeting at 3 a.m.? What was the 
rationale? Is there a rationale that I am--am I mistaken?
    The Chairwoman. I think my opening statement stands for 
itself, Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. Well, I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I 
would just say--I mean, your opening statement essentially, as 
best as I could tell, were ruminations about, you know, what 
happened in 2007, 20 years ago. I wasn't here; most of us 
weren't here. I don't know that that is a cogent rationale.
    The Chairwoman. 2022, 2 and a half years ago.
    Mr. Neguse. So the basis for scheduling this hearing in the 
dead of night is that you have decided that this is just the 
way things should work and that--I mean, I will just proceed. I 
will just say this, Madam Chair: It does not take more than a 
cursory review online to find quotes from just about every 
Member on the other side of the dais, including you, Madam 
Chair, back in 2009--again, it is a long time ago--regarding a 
stimulus bill that you described as rush legislation that was 
thrown together--quote, ``who threw together the final stimulus 
bill in the dead of night.'' Another bill that you, quote, said 
the bill that was finalized in the dark of night.
    So I don't--I think it is an unfair and unreasonable 
mischaracterization of our position with respect to the 
disagreement we have about this process unfolding in the dead 
of night, and it makes no sense to me why House Republicans 
didn't notice this hearing for 6 a.m. or 7 a.m.
    It would not have been a difficult thing to say, ``Yeah, 
instead of meeting at 1 a.m., we are just going to meet in the 
morning, and the American people are going to be able to watch 
and hear this fulsome debate and be able to reach their own 
conclusions.''
    That doesn't seem like an unreasonable position to take. 
And I suppose--and maybe I will start with Chairman Arrington, 
because I know him to be a reasonable person. Welcome back to 
the committee. I don't know----
    Mr. Arrington. Now I am nervous.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I don't think you were here in 2007 
either. Maybe you were. I don't think you were.
    Mr. Arrington. No, I was not.
    Mr. Neguse. Is this--I mean, you can't possibly agree that 
it is a prudent thing to do to have this hearing at the 3 a.m.
    I mean, is this how you imagined legislation would be made 
in Washington when you were running for Congress, Mr. Chairman, 
really?
    Mr. Arrington. I imagined that we would have the sense of 
urgency to complete the task in the timeframe that we set.
    Mr. Neguse. And so the 5 hours between doing it at 1 a.m. 
and doing it at 6 a.m., that is the urgency you are describing? 
What deadline is there on Thursday or, I guess, tonight getting 
this bill done? What is the----
    Mr. Arrington. Well, as you know, there are timeframes 
associated with each phase of the process when you are 
conducting regular order. I am very proud that this has been 
bottom-up committee and Member-driven, and it has been a 
regular order process.
    Mr. Neguse. Mr. Arrington----
    Mr. Arrington. And the goal was to have it done by Memorial 
week.
    Mr. Neguse. I was hoping I could----
    Mr. Arrington. I am not saying I like it----
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. You would give me an 
intellectually honest answer, the kind of answer I think that 
your constituents and--my constituents in Colorado and your 
constituents in Texas would expect, which is to say, obviously, 
this isn't reasonable; it does not make sense. This isn't 
transparent to hold hearings at 3 a.m. on a bill of this size 
and this scope and this scale. That is not in the best 
interests of the country.
    You could just as easily delayed it 5 hours, let the 
American public have an opportunity to listen to this debate 
and then vote on the bill on Thursday. And all of you could go 
home for the district work period.
    So I don't--this false sense of urgency for 5 or 6 hours 
makes no sense. It is--and, again, I understand that is your 
rationale. I think the American people are smarter than the 
House Republican caucus are giving them credit for.
    They know what this is about. And, when they wake up, 
invariably, later this morning and they find that this bill was 
reported out of this committee in the dead of night, I think 
they will reach their own conclusions about House Republicans' 
commitment, or lack thereof, to transparency.
    And, just for the record, because I want to be an equal 
opportunity advocate here, with respect to some of your 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who serve on this 
committee who apparently have decided not to attend the very 
hearing that they demanded we hold in the middle of the night, 
but they have spent years, years condemning late-night Rule 
Committee markups and bills that are reported out.
    Mr. Norman, I am just going to read some of his greatest 
hits. This is from 2019: ``2,300 pages, less than 24 hours to 
read, debate, and vote. Oh, and $400 billion added to our 
national debt.'' That is an X post.
    Another one: ``New swamp minibus dropped at 2 a.m.'' That 
was actually earlier, I guess, than where we find ourselves 
today. ``We are expected to vote on $1 trillion in spending 
tomorrow. It is 1,000-plus pages. This won't be good. Diving in 
now.''
    Another one: ``You would never be expected to sign a 1,000-
page document to buy a new car in a day. Why should Congress be 
expected to sign off on 1,000-plus pages resulting in $1.2 
trillion in spending in a day?''
    That is our colleague, Mr. Norman. I will be very 
interested to what he has to say when we wrap this hearing up 
at 10, 11 a.m. later this morning.
    Mr. Arrington, I want to talk about the deficit. I have 
known you historically to be, I thought, somewhat of a deficit 
hawk, at least that was my--is that a fair characterization?
    Mr. Arrington. That is fair.
    Mr. Neguse. At least prior to this bill.
    Mr. Arrington. Even with this bill that reduces the 
deficit.
    Mr. Neguse. Let's get into that. I will ask you a couple of 
questions on that front.
    Mr. Arrington. Sure.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. So this is a press release. This is from 
March 25 of this year. A gentleman by the name of Ray Dalio--I 
haven't had the pleasure of meeting him--Ray Dalio to House 
GOP. This is on the House Budget Committee's website.
    ``Cut the budget deficit to 3 percent of GDP.'' This is his 
admonition to you and to your Republican colleagues that it was 
a laudable goal to try to get the deficit to 3 percent of the 
GDP. Do you agree that that is a laudable goal?
    Mr. Arrington. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. Is that something you are passionate about?
    Mr. Arrington. Absolutely.
    Mr. Neguse. What is fascinating is that the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget just issued a press release today. 
You might have heard it; you might have read it. I will read 
you the headline: ``House bill would put 3 percent deficit far 
out of reach.'' So this goal that you have, that you seem to be 
particularly passionate about, is one that is not embedded in 
this bill that you are asking your colleagues to support, 
according to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget.
    You are familiar with that organization?
    Mr. Arrington. I am.
    Mr. Neguse. I think they featured you at different times. I 
think they have applauded you, if I am not mistaken, in the 
past.
    Mr. Arrington. They are good people, and good people can 
disagree.
    Mr. Neguse. Let me read to you what these good people have 
said about your bill. They have said--and I will quote--
``Unfortunately, the House reconciliation bill, the One Big 
Beautiful Bill Act, would increase deficits significantly. The 
House reconciliation bill would put the 3 percent deficit 
target further out of reach.''
    This is--these are your allies. I mean, these are people 
who are fighting for a responsible Federal budget, who have 
been imploring the Congress to take deficits seriously.
    A month ago, you had folks coming in saying, ``Mr. 
Chairman, get to that 3 percent target.'' And now you have 
these experts that you have praised in the past telling you, 
``You are way off the mark.'' Make it make sense, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Arrington. Well, to get to three percent deficit to 
GDP, which would stabilize the debt, you have heard the 
Secretary of the Treasury establish a similar metric, would 
take $7 trillion-plus in spending reduction. It is a great 
goal, and it is a clear one, and it is measurable.
    But, just like coming out of the World War II, 120 roughly 
percent debt-to-GDP, we are comparable to that today--actually 
have exceeded it--it took time, and I would say this is a 
substantial effort and step to begin bending the curve on debt-
to-GDP.
    So my analysis is different from my friends in the 
organization that you mentioned.
    Mr. Neguse. ``Different'' isn't the word I would use. I 
mean, different is----
    Mr. Arrington. It is when the bottom----
    Mr. Neguse. Different is one opinion, is a bit of a 
deviation. They are saying you are wrong. I didn't quote at 
length.
    I mean, I will just keep reading here. In 2022--excuse me--
``In 2027, we estimate the House reconciliation bill would 
boost deficits to about 7 percent of GDP, which is more than 
double Bessent,'' the Treasury Secretary that you referenced, 
``proposed fiscal target, one at 0.8 percent of GDP above 
current law and 0.7 percent of GDP higher than a simple 
extension of the Tax Cut and Job Act's individual provisions.''
    What they are saying, I think, is that, if you just simply 
extended the tax bill and didn't do anything else, you would 
reduce the deficit more than what you have done here.
    Mr. Arrington. I don't know how that could be even possible 
because----
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I am reading it.
    Mr. Arrington. Just let's think through this. We reduced 
spending by $1.7, roughly, trillion, and they are suggesting, 
by extending the tax cuts without that reduction in spending, 
we would be better off?
    Mr. Neguse. I think I can tell you why.
    Mr. Arrington. Yeah, I would love to.
    Mr. Neguse. I am happy to give the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee an opportunity. It is because of the tax 
breaks you have given to the richest Americans, embedded in 
this bill, such that, at the end of the day, the savings you 
have described, ultimately don't put the dent into the deficit 
that you proclaim.
    Ranking Member Boyle, you can correct me if I am mistaken 
about that.
    Mr. Boyle. I like you both, but Neguse has the better side 
of the argument, I think, quite clearly. I would point out a 
few things. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is, 
I have to say, admirably independent and at times they are an 
equal opportunity afflicter of both sides of the political 
divide depending on the piece of legislation that is coming 
down the pike.
    Their credibility is quite clear. They have been consistent 
when it comes to deficit and debt, and they are calling out the 
intellectual dishonesty in this piece of legislation. There is 
actually a conservative think tank called the Manhattan 
Institute, which indicates that the Republican bill is actually 
the most expensive piece of legislation since the 1960s, since 
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
    So it is no accident that Moody's chose this past Friday 
to, for the first time in American history, downgrade our debt. 
They finally--they have been withholding joining the other two 
credit agencies, one of which had downgraded our debt back in 
2011 when the Tea Party Congress drove us right up to the brink 
in terms of whether or not we would have a debt ceiling crisis.
    And then there was another credit downgrade by a different 
credit agency a couple years ago, which was also related to 
another potential crisis in terms of the debt ceiling. So that 
credit downgrade a couple years ago did also reference the 
future trajectory of our debt.
    And now here we are with Moody's, for whom the trajectory, 
because of this legislation of our deficits and debt, was 
finally what prompted them to be the last of the three credit 
agencies to downgrade our debt.
    So, finally, as you pointed out, what we are seeing in the 
bond market, that can't be spun. That can't be papered over 
with a gimmick like current policy baseline. The reality is 
these markets are charging us more now for our debt, which 
means higher mortgages, higher auto loan rates, higher costs 
for the American people.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah. I couldn't agree with you more, Ranking 
Member Boyle. And, as I go through the constellation of the 
entities and the individuals that have opined as to the impact 
of this bill on the deficit, it is pretty clear to me the 
conclusion.
    Apparently, the CBO, the Committee for a Responsible 
Federal Budget, I was unaware of the Manhattan Institute's 
conclusions--I guess we will add them to the list--by the way, 
Republicans also, Republican Senators--Chairman, you are aware 
of--we don't have to go through the litany of the statements--I 
mean, I am happy to read them to you.
    But you are aware of what Senator Rand Paul and, you know, 
other colleagues of yours in the upper Chamber have said about 
this bill and about their concerns regarding the deficit. Well, 
it is 3 a.m. Why not? I will just offer a few of these. May as 
well.
    This was Rand Paul today. Apparently, the Speaker, I guess, 
met with Senate Republicans, and this is Rand Paul's quote, 
quote--the Speaker--``basically said that Conservatives just 
have to live with raising the debt ceiling $5 trillion or $4 
trillion, which is a historic amount. And I am one Conservative 
who won't live with that.''
    Senator Ron Johnson, this was a week and a half ago, quote: 
``The One Big Beautiful Bill''--I never thought I would be 
quoting Senator Johnson, but, anyway, I digress: ``The One Big 
Beautiful Bill that Congress is working on is certainly big. 
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Too often the reality 
of these budget debates get obscured in details, politically 
charged issues, and demagoguery. Under every scenario now being 
considered, Federal debt continues to skyrocket from its 
current level of almost $37 trillion.'' And I could go on.
    So Republican Senators, the CBO, the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget, my Democratic colleagues, everyone 
who has looked at this bill seems to conclude it is going to 
blow up our deficit, everyone but you, Mr. Chairman. And I just 
can't understand why.
    Mr. Arrington. Would you like me to explain?
    Mr. Neguse. Yes, sure.
    Mr. Arrington. Well, I don't know if you know what the 
annual average GDP was during Trump's tenure prior to COVID, 
and I am not going to ask you the questions.
    Mr. Neguse. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Arrington. But it was close to what the annual average 
GDP rate was for President Biden, actually, if you control for 
COVID, around 2.8. It was 1.8 when President Trump took over in 
his first--year of his first term. He was able, because of the 
pro-growth policies, including the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but 
also massive deregulation efforts, America First Trade, et 
cetera, good energy policy, was able to move the needle by an 
entire 100 basis points, which over the budget window is about 
$3 trillion.
    So, just to be conservative, we locked in an assumption 
that was lower than both, 2.6. So, ironically, CBO projects the 
annual average growth rate at this point--which I think it is 
actually pretty aggressive, given that they assume the tax cuts 
would expire--is 1.8 percent.
    So, to have a conservative assumption of 2.6, plus the $1.7 
trillion in spending reduction--actually, not only balances, 
but in ten years it reduces the deficit, and, more importantly, 
it brings the debt-to-GDP down, which I think is the best 
measure of the fiscal health of our country--by ten percentage 
points. When has that ever happened?
    Mr. Neguse. I have given you some room to respond on that.
    Mr. Arrington. Thank you for the time.
    Mr. Neguse. Of course. Can I tell you what the Committee 
for a Responsible Federal Budget----
    Mr. Arrington. I wish you--I wish you wouldn't----
    Mr. Neguse. I would be happy to. Because they actually 
looked at this exact issue.
    Mr. Arrington. Yeah. Sure.
    Mr. Neguse. I think it is important. And they said--and I 
quote--``Most analyses have found that the House bill'' or--
excuse me--``that the House bill would have either a modest 
positive or modest negative effect on output and would not 
meaningfully change the annual growth rate. Yet even with the 
concurrent budget resolution's assumptions of 2.6 percent, the 
very percent that you just identified, average real annual 
growth, which is quite optimistic in the near term and highly 
unrealistic over a decade. Deficits would remain well above the 
3 percent target.''
    Mr. Chairman, look, I get it.
    Mr. Arrington. It's one source.
    Mr. Neguse. We have been through this routine previously--
--
    Mr. Arrington. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. I know when you testified in front 
of the Committee before. I recognize you are here selling a 
product that I honestly don't think that you agree with, but, 
you know, I understand the assignment.
    And so I will just simply tell you: I don't think that this 
bill is in the best interests of the fiscal health of our 
country, and there is a reason why virtually every expert has 
reached the same conclusion.
    I want to ask some questions of Chairman Hill, if he might 
indulge me. So can you just describe to us, Chairman Hill, the 
impetus behind the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board?
    Mr. Hill. Public Company Oversight Board, what we have done 
is we have----
    Mr. Neguse. No, no, no. Not what you have done recently. I 
am asking, why do we have it? How did it--how was it created?
    Mr. Hill. It was created during the crisis around the 
failure of Enron.
    Mr. Neguse. That is right. So it is in the wake of Enron, 
in the wake of WorldCom.
    Mr. Hill. There was an assertion by the Congress at that 
time that all public accounting firms needed an independent 
regulatory body.
    Mr. Neguse. Correct. And that assertion, you probably are 
aware, was supported by an overwhelming majority of the 
Congress.
    Mr. Hill. It was. And so we are continuing that oversight 
of public----
    Mr. Neguse. Do you know how many Members of Congress voted 
for that bill to create the Public Accounting Oversight Board?
    Mr. Hill. The vast, vast majority. Very few people voted--
--
    Mr. Neguse. 431. 431. Signed into law by President Bush, 
right? And you all have chosen to eliminate it, right?
    Mr. Hill. Not true.
    Mr. Neguse. You are not eliminating it?
    Mr. Hill. No. We are transferring the authority to oversee 
the public accounting from the PCAOB to the SEC.
    Mr. Neguse. To the SEC. Got it. But you are not allocating 
any funding to the SEC to actually perform these duties, right? 
There is no money in this bill for that?
    Mr. Hill. We are taking the fees that were being charged to 
the companies and eliminating those fees.
    Mr. Neguse. I understand you are eliminating the fees, yes. 
So my point is you have said, ``We are not dismantling the 
agency, but we are moving it to the SEC. But we are not giving 
the SEC a dime to do any of these critical accounting functions 
that virtually every Republican in the United States Congress 
supported a mere 20 years ago,'' right?
    Mr. Hill. We are cutting the mandatory spending that is in 
this--currently in the budget for the PCAOB, transferring those 
authorities to the SEC, and I am sure they can come to the 
Congress for appropriations.
    Mr. Neguse. Got it. So, in the interim, there will be no 
public accounting oversight activities, right?
    Mr. Hill. No. That is not true. The work of overseeing the 
public accounting firms will continue.
    Mr. Neguse. By who?
    Mr. Hill. We have contemplated that in the bill in the 
terms of the phaseout. It is in the reconciliation bill.
    Mr. Neguse. Describe it to us. I mean, I guess I am trying 
to understand. You are saying it gets moved over to the SEC; 
there is no new funds--there is no mandate, there is----
    Mr. Hill. There is a phaseout period in the reconciliation 
bill, and that will afford the SEC the opportunity to seek 
appropriations.
    Mr. Neguse. So does the bill--it gives the SEC the 
opportunity to seek appropriations. So until that--and, of 
course, we have no idea as to whether or not the Congress will 
ultimately consent to that appropriation request.
    There is also no language in this bill that mandates that 
the Public Accounting--the personnel who work for this entity 
now that has been in existence for 20-some-odd years are 
rehired by the SEC.
    Mr. Hill. That is true.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. This is coupled with--obviously, we have 
gone to great lengths--you know, ranking member articulated 
well the cuts to the CFPB, and I know you don't contest that 
the 70 percent cut, obviously, to the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
    Mr. Hill. We are taking the cap of the amount of money the 
CFPB can request from the Fed, from 12 percent to 5 percent. It 
is not being cut, as the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
asserted, to zero. It is also not the only agency that does 
consumer compliance in the financial services sector.
    Mr. Neguse. I understand your rationale with respect to 
that secondary part. But I just want to zero in here on the 
financial piece.
    I guess my read of the bill was that it will significantly 
reduce the funds that are available for the CFPB to be able to 
perform the duties that it is responsible for executing under 
Federal law.
    Mr. Hill. The CFPB has often lost in Federal court time and 
time again for exceeding its authority, proposing regulations 
that are not statutorily approved, proposing new functions that 
are not statutorily approved by Congress, and we believe that 
the money that is in the 5 percent cap is adequate for them to 
do their compliance responsibilities under the Act.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah. Again, I am--not a gotcha question. I 
hear your rationale for opposing the CFPB. I was just trying to 
get a better----
    Mr. Hill. I didn't say that. I said, we think this is the 
adequate funding.
    Mr. Neguse. Adequate for them to perform the function. But 
it is a significant reduction in the resources that they have.
    Mr. Hill. In fiscal year 2019, it was exactly around $250 
million. This year, in fiscal year 2025, they are proposing 
$800 million in spending. And, yet, in our view, the spending 
is adequate to be at $250 million doing--looking at their own 
analysis of their own personnel compared from when it was at 
its full initial operating phase in 2012 and comparing it to 
today. We believe it is adequate.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. Financial Stability Oversight Council. 
Reducing funding by 90 percent.
    Mr. Hill. No.
    Mr. Neguse. No?
    Mr. Hill. What we have done is the fees that are the budget 
for the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is 
supported by bipartisan Members of the Congress, we are simply 
saying that it is the actual expenses. So the Office of 
Financial Research where that revenue takes place, we have 
looked at the 3 years average use to support the FSOC's 
operation. We have kept it--capped it at that 3-year average 
level for the actual functioning expenses of FSOC. We are not 
eliminating FSOC. We are not eliminating the funding for FSOC.
    Mr. Neguse. I want to give the ranking member an 
opportunity to respond and perhaps she can clarify what--if I 
am misunderstanding the nature of the way in which FSOC's 
funding will be implicated. I would like to have that 
clarified.
    Ms. Waters. First of all, I want to go back to--I want to 
say a word about the PCOB that is being transferred.
    You talked about the fact that the PCAOB was being 
transferred to the SEC, and you wanted to know whether or not 
there were any funds that followed that. And the answer by 
Chairman Hill was that they could come and ask for more money. 
But it is really a lot more serious than simply whether or not 
they have the money.
    They had a hard time getting an agreement with the Chinese 
in our financial markets. But, under the Biden administration, 
they were able to work out an agreement with the Chinese that 
was very, very important.
    Now, that agreement does not extend to the SEC. And so that 
means that the auditors won't be able perhaps to deal with 
China, Germany, and a lot of the other places. So this is very, 
very serious. And I just wanted to say that.
    Next, you were talking about the Council.
    Mr. Neguse. FSOC, uh-huh.
    Ms. Waters [continuing]. About why it is so important and 
what is happening to it.
    Well, the Council is very important because we are at a 
time when all of these crazy tariffs are being initiated by the 
President of the United States of America, and we have rising 
inflation also. This means that the costs alone are going to be 
much more expensive.
    I want you to know that investors around the world are 
freaking out, unsettled about what is happening. And so what 
you have is not only the unsettlement but the uncertainty that 
is being created by these tariffs. We haven't talked a lot 
about tariffs here tonight, and the President has given all 
these excuses of why he wakes up in the morning and decides 
that he is going to change the amount of the tariffs.
    And he said the reason that we are having all these tariffs 
is they aren't paying their fair share, and he is going to use 
the new money that he is going to collect for manufacturing, et 
cetera, et cetera; he is going to do all of that.
    However, I want you to know that these tariffs are being 
placed on bananas and coffee, and that has nothing to do with 
what he is saying he is going to use the money for. So the 
Council is so very important as we take a look at what needs to 
be known with this crisis that is being created and how the 
Federal Government could get involved much sooner than what 
happened in 2008. And so we need it.
    If you just take a look at what happened with AIG, which is 
one of the biggest problems that had to be corrected, they got 
in charge of that, and they were able to not only give new 
oversight, but it was restructured, and it was no longer a 
threat.
    So it is very important to have the Council and the 
research that goes along with it.
    Mr. Neguse. I would--thank you, Madam Ranking Member. And I 
would just say, Mr. Chairman--Chairman Hill, I respect your 
expertise. I know you have worked on these issues. I know you 
have served in the Treasury Department, and I understand the 
policy reasons that you might have and----
    Mr. Hill. We were directed, Mr. Neguse----
    Mr. Neguse. Let me finish. It wasn't a question--that you 
believe with respect to some of the changes that you are 
seeking to make.
    My simple suggestion is that the changes you are making to 
the accounting board, to the CFPB, to FSOC, taken together in 
the aggregate, all of these agencies, these entities were 
created for a reason, right? And they were in the wake of very 
serious financial crises that engulfed our country.
    And I just don't--I don't think that it's in the best 
interests of the American consumers to pursue these kinds of 
changes. I also think they are policy changes and that, 
ultimately, the Parliamentarian in the Senate is abiding by 
precedent that they shouldn't make it through the birdbath, but 
that is a different inquiry.
    So, in any event, I will move on. My final question to 
Chairman Comer. Mr. Chairman, so, with respect to the exchange 
you were having with one of my colleagues earlier about the 
exemptions that you all crafted into the bill regarding air 
traffic controllers, that is in relation to the at-will--this 
distinction, essentially, between giving Federal employees the 
choice of choosing the at-will employment versus non-at-will 
employment Federal protections but a higher retirement 
contribution; am I right?
    Mr. Comer. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Neguse. That is what the exemption is applying to?
    Mr. Comer. I mean, I don't understand your question. What 
is your question?
    Mr. Neguse. Why don't you describe to me--I want to better 
understand the new language--language that you all have adopted 
regarding air traffic controllers and law enforcement.
    Mr. Comer. They are exempted from any changes----
    Mr. Neguse. Any of the changes that you all are making with 
respect to the Federal benefits system?
    Mr. Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. That is correct. Okay. That didn't exist in the 
original, or is that--was that not the case?
    Mr. Comer. There were exemptions for Border Patrol, and--
they were, I guess you could say, partially exempt.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah. That is the genesis of my question. I am 
really drilling down--and your staff director, I think, can 
probably attest to this.
    This issue around the provision that I would say compels, 
you would say offers Federal employees this choice to choose 
at-will employment and a higher contribution for their 
retirement benefits--right?--or to stay within the Federal 
protected system and have to pay a higher contribution on their 
end, that original provision did not have the exemptions that 
you all have added now for law enforcement, for Border Patrol, 
for air traffic controllers.
    That wasn't in the bill that you all marked up a few days 
ago that the Republican majority on the bill approved, or am I 
wrong about that?
    Mr. Comer. That is correct.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. What I am interested in is, was there a 
discussion, and are you willing to have a discussion, 
particularly as you consider a manager's amendment, to draw out 
a similar exemption for veterans? So veterans who have rights 
under the--you know, in the current system, if you are a 
veteran and you work at any of our Federal agencies--right?--
but you don't fall into this particular job classification 
exemption, you have rights before the Merit Systems Protection 
Board that you can adjudicate, right, as a veteran?
    And my point is to simply say, why wouldn't you draw out 
this exemption to include veterans, irrespective of whether or 
not they fall into this classification or not?
    Mr. Comer. Look, the bill could be amended through the 
process. I mean, this is--we passed out--we were given 
instructions to save $51 billion; we met that. And, look, 
during discussions, there is going to be minor changes made 
here and there.
    With respect to at-will, I want to make it clear, there are 
certain States that have at-will civil service employees. Some 
of those States are Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Utah. So I 
don't think there is anything groundbreaking or unique here.
    Mr. Neguse. No, no. But what I am suggesting is you crafted 
this exemption over the course of the last 72 hours. You added 
a very large exemption to this bill. That is an exemption I 
support, by the way, with respect to what you have drawn out 
here. Clearly, you have the capacity to just add veterans. You 
could do that now.
    There is negotiations apparently happening somewhere in 
this building and Ranking Member McGovern and Chairman 
Arrington's colloquy, I think, established that. So I don't 
really understand why you wouldn't just make the case to the 
leadership, respectfully, Mr. Chairman to say, ``Okay, if this 
exemption was worth pursuing, let's add veterans as well so 
that we are not forcing veterans into this Hobson's choice that 
we have decided we did not want to force upon firefighters, air 
traffic controllers, and other law enforcement officials.''
    I think that is a reasonable request to make on behalf of 
our Nation's veterans. And, as you know, a large portion of the 
Federal workforce are veterans. So I think that this would be 
the least we could do, and I would just--would implore you--I 
don't know if you have further thoughts on that, but, I mean, 
you are the chairman, and I assume----
    Mr. Comer. We have already passed our bill out of the 
committee, so it is not----
    Mr. Neguse. But this limit happened after you marked up the 
bill. That is my point. You passed the bill, it included no 
exemptions for police officers, for firefighters--for Border 
Patrol. It was a limited exemption, as your staff director 
noted.
    You have added that in the last couple of days because 
there were stakeholders who made clear their outrage--which, by 
the way, was expressed by Democrats, I understand, during the 
markup, and Ranking Member Lynch can comment on that if he 
would like. But I think Democratic members of the committee 
made the case that this ought to be--obviously, we believe it 
should be----
    Mr. Comer. Well, Democrats want to spend, you know, into 
oblivion. If it were just Democrats, it wouldn't be any cuts. 
You would just keep spending money.
    Mr. Neguse. I would not call----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Neguse, Mr. Neguse. Mr. Neguse. You 
asked a question----
    Mr. Neguse. He answered.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Comer was attempting to answer your 
question.
    Mr. Neguse. He answered. Okay.
    The Chairwoman. You know, Mr. Neguse, there is no prize 
here for talking the longest.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, Madam Chair, I had intended to finish, 
but I have about seven more questions. I guess I will proceed 
with Mr. Comer. Go ahead and finish your question--or your 
answer.
    Mr. Comer. I have stated the obvious. We are trying to do 
the best we can to be fiscally responsible. It is no fun when 
you have to make cuts. You all don't know what that is like. 
You have never cut anything in your life. You just continue to 
spend, spend, spend. We are on an unsustainable path.
    We have limited jurisdiction on the Oversight Committee. We 
are very passionate about eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and 
mismanagement in the Federal Government.
    With respect to this bill, we had a limited portion of 
jurisdiction, and I think that we have been very transparent 
with the process. We passed out of committee a bill that saved 
the taxpayers $51 billion. There have been changes made, as 
there always is, once the bill passes committee before it is 
voted on on the floor.
    So I don't know what else there is to say.
    Mr. Neguse. So I would say to you, now that you have 
apparently concluded your answer, that my question was really 
simple, really simple.
    I didn't ask--I wasn't asking you to draw out exemptions 
for this category of folks and other categories of folks. It 
was very simple, a simple question, which was, are you willing 
to consider carving out an exemption for our Nation's veterans 
in the same way that you drew out an exemption after the 
committee marked up this bill?
    I don't think that is spending into oblivion, to say that 
our Nation's veterans should be exempted in the same way that 
our law enforcement and Border Patrol agents and air traffic 
controllers. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
    Ranking Member Lynch, do you think that is an unreasonable 
request?
    Mr. Lynch. No. As a matter of fact, one of the amendments I 
have is to exempt them from the change in the calculation going 
from the high-3 to high-5. We would maintain the veterans at 
the high-3, and the cost----
    Mr. Neguse. Just to be clear, they could do that right now.
    Mr. Lynch. They could. They have done it. As you have 
pointed out, they have done it for a now subset of employees 
and that--you know, the high-3 instead of the high-5 was about 
$16,500 per employee over 20 years of retirement. Not a huge 
sum of money but definitely appropriate given that a veteran 
must have served honorably and discharged honorably for them to 
be eligible for these benefits.
    Mr. Neguse. I couldn't agree more, Mr. Lynch. I just--
again, Republicans are negotiating right now, as we speak, on 
SALT deductions and tax credits and any host of issues that 
Members of your caucus have. And I would think that the least 
they could do is entertain or at least not treat it so gingerly 
that--the response of, oh, spending into oblivion because we 
have a simple request.
    It was the only question that I asked you, Mr. Comer, so I 
just was--I am taken aback by your answer. But, anyway, I will 
yield back the balance of my time.
    I thank the ranking members and the chairs for being here.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
    Mrs. Houchin, you are recognized.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all 
of our witnesses for being here this evening, and particularly 
to our committee chairs for their hard work on this 
reconciliation bill. Many hours have gone into this. Many hours 
of debate outside of tonight in broad daylight have gone on on 
this bill.
    I want to make a few points before I get into questions. 
That is in response to a few of the things that have been said 
by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
    One of the things that has been said is that this is a 
transfer of wealth. What I would say to that is that the only 
transfer of wealth, resources, and protection of the American 
people that is occurring right now is a transfer from the 
American people on behalf of illegal immigrants. That is what 
has been happening over the last several years under the Biden 
administration.
    This bill has also been called a scam. But the only scam 
that is being played is a scam by the Democrats on the American 
people for fearmongering about what this bill is actually 
doing.
    Once again--and I am going to go to my former chair, my 
former Committee of Financial Services, and go to Chairman Hill 
on questions about the CFPB. We have heard a lot about the CFPB 
here this evening.
    And the thing that, I think, strikes me most about the 
CFPB's creation is that only in Washington would we create a 
Federal bureaucracy to fix something that we broke. And I would 
like to just submit for the record, Madam Chair, an article by 
the American Enterprise Institute, October 30, 2017, a crisis 
caused by housing policies, not lack of regulation.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.015
    
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
    Because we have the CFPB as a result of a reaction to the 
banking crisis of 2008, which was driven by housing policies, 
not by any lack of regulation. And now we have got the CFPB 
that we live with, and as, Chairman Hill, you noted, that their 
budget has been expanding. Notably, their budget expanded 
during the Obama years and declined during the first Trump 
administration and expanded again during the Biden years now to 
$823 million in fiscal year 2025 direct from the Treasury 
transfer without having any oversight by the Congress.
    So we have heard that consumers are going to be left 
without any protection if we get rid of the CFPB or if we 
decrease their funding to roughly the $250 million that we have 
said in this budget.
    Is the CFPB the only Federal agency, Chairman Hill, that 
provides consumer protection?
    Mr. Hill. No, Mrs. Houchin, it is not. Each of the bank 
supervisory agencies has a robust continuous exam process for 
all the consumer compliance requirements. The CFPB's focus in 
Dodd-Frank was to focus on depository institutions--meaning 
banks--that were larger than $10 billion.
    Basically, there is 5,000 banks or thereabouts that are 
smaller than that, and they are having their compliance for 
lending purposes or deposit purposes fully supervised by the 
existing bank supervisors. Also, the SEC, the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, is deeply involved in consumer compliance 
responsibilities under the securities laws. And we can't forget 
the Federal Trade Commission, which is very involved in 
consumer compliance.
    And those are the principal Federal agencies for consumer 
credit, consumer deposit issues, both for banks and nonbanks. 
And then we cannot forget that the States also regulate nonbank 
consumer finance, and the States' attorney generals enforce 
those laws.
    So there is no lack of oversight in consumer protection in 
the financial services space. And, therefore, that is why, in 
my judgment, since we are here talking about a reconciliation 
bill, that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can 
complete its statutory tasks under Dodd-Frank with the 5 
percent cap of the Federal Reserve funding.
    And the two other changes that we made there was simply 
saying that there is civil penalty fund where they charge 
wrongdoing and collect funds for the benefit of victims. Once 
that fund is--the victims are repaid throughout the 
adjudication process, if there is any surplus money, instead of 
them being able to keep it, that it go back to the Treasury to 
benefit the Federal budget.
    And, likewise, we say that, while they are a unique agency 
because they have no oversight, they have no congressional 
appropriation; they have no inspector general; they have no 
real compliance--full compliance with Administrative Procedure 
Act, for example, in their rulemaking. They have been struck 
down in the Federal courts for overreaching their statute. We 
also--they have a unique position that, once they take their 
money that they request from the Federal Reserve, they get to 
carry it over.
    I don't know a lot of Federal agencies that can carry over 
spending and pile up cash on their balance sheet after 
September 30 each year. So we cap that in this bill at 5 
percent of that annual budget that they can have.
    Mrs. Houchin. And, in fact, the CFPB has a civil penalty 
fund sitting on about $2.5 billion according to my account. 
$1.7 billion of that was a fine levied against one entity.
    But they can sit on that cash, too, is that correct?
    Mr. Hill. They can. What we argue is that they--that money 
should be allocated to settle victims' claims. And that can 
take some time during the legal process. So that money can 
certainly sit there.
    But the money that is not dedicated to paying a victim 
claim should be returned to the Treasury.
    Mrs. Houchin. So you mentioned the FTC. I am glad you 
mentioned that. Because the motto of the Federal Trade 
Commission is protecting American consumers. In fact, the 
United States has 12 separate Federal financial regulators and 
State regulators for securities, banking, and insurance, and it 
is duplicative that we do have the CFPB.
    We certainly don't need to be funding the CFPB at the 
extent that we do because, as you mentioned, not only do we 
have States' attorney's general who are also protecting 
consumers, but we also have plaintiffs' lawyers who can take 
class action suits as well.
    Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record an 
article, dated February 18, 2025, by the Cato Institute, 
``Consumers will be safe without the CFPB.''
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.020
    
    Mrs. Houchin. In the remaining time that I have--and I have 
gone over 5 minutes, but I do want to go to my Budget Committee 
chair, Mr. Arrington, just with really one question. Has the 
CBO ever been wrong?
    Mr. Arrington. Well, in my short tenure, they actually were 
off in their estimation of the deficit, and their excuse was, 
it was hard to keep up--I am paraphrasing--it was hard to keep 
up with the trillions of dollars in spending, would be $8 
trillion total in deficit spending in the last administration, 
$2 trillion by executive actions. That was what was hard.
    So let's consider all things. They were off by a trillion 
dollars. That is a big miss, and so, yes, they have been wrong. 
They were wrong in their projections on revenue to the Treasury 
post-TCJA. We had record revenue, record corporate revenue.
    So they are wrong often, and sometimes they are wrong in an 
order of magnitude, in one case by a trillion dollars.
    Mrs. Houchin. And, if I am not mistaken--sorry, I went past 
my second--I went on to a second question, and I am wrapping 
up. They underestimated the cost of the IRA, and they 
underestimated the benefits of Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Arrington. Along with underestimating the cost of 
Obamacare and a whole list of other things, but that is 
correct.
    I will say that JCT was the initial scorekeeper or 
administered the score for the IRA tax credits, green energy 
tax subsidies, and they were off by almost four times the 
actual cost.
    Mrs. Houchin. So all this conversation about how reliant we 
should be on CBO scores to tell us what, you know, the cost of 
what we are doing is going to be, CBO has not been all that 
reliable, as history has shown, is that correct?
    Mr. Arrington. That is correct, and, if I may, Mrs. 
Houchin, I'd say the best predictor of the future is past 
performance, and what we have tried to do is be conservative 
about a growth assumption at 2.6, which was under the annual 
average of both President Trump and President Biden.
    I thought that was the responsible thing to do, which 
forced us as a Conference to put these gentlemen in the 
position, among other authorizing chairmen, to dig deep on 
rooting out waste in this--the people's government.
    I am very proud that, in the end, it is reducing the 
deficit by about $175 billion. We need to do more. We need to 
rinse and repeat future reconciliation bills. But the debt-to-
GDP going down by ten percentage points is--in this environment 
and over the last couple of decades is just probably 
unfathomable, but we have achieved it.
    I am convinced we will achieve it and then some because we 
are not adding tariff revenue; we are not adding other things 
that I believe will happen because of the iron will of this 
President on that front, if not on others. Thank you.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you. Thank you so much to the witnesses 
for your long hours of testimony.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mrs. Houchin.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know 
whether to say, ``Buenos Dias,'' ``good night.'' You know, we 
don't really have a word in either Spanish or English when you 
start at 1 a.m. and when you finally start asking questions at 
4 a.m., but it is still nighttime.
    And, Americans, some of them looking--I mean, we have 150 
people outside standing in the rain asking us to do the right 
thing. I want to do a shoutout to them. But, you know, 
Americans might have just woken up, and they don't know what is 
happening.
    But let me tell you, it is a nightmare. We are living 
through a nightmare. And, if you are a veteran, if you are a 
pregnant mother, if you live in rural America, this is a 
Republican nightmare because this bill that they are going to 
be pushing through in the dead of night is the biggest transfer 
of wealth from the poor working families and middle class to 
the wealthiest, right? And CBO put it out.
    Now, they don't want to pay attention to CBO because they 
don't like the facts, right? They don't like what it actually 
looks like. But we know that these numbers are horrible, and we 
will get into them in a bit.
    But, when we think about this transfer of wealth, 
especially this part here, it gets me. You know, it really gets 
me. There we go.
    You know, from the lowest decile to the highest that CBO 
put out. And many of the people in this room are people of 
faith. And they might have heard when John the Baptist actually 
said that, if you have two tunics, you should give one away; 
and if you have wealth, you should help feed the hungry.
    What we are seeing here today with the Republican bill is 
the actual opposite. Republicans are taking from the poor and 
giving to the rich so they can buy more tunics. The wealthy 
don't need any more money to buy any more yachts. But, when you 
take away that $6 a day that the poor and the working poor are 
receiving to put food on their table, you are taking away from 
the poor to give to the wealthy, the exact opposite of what 
John the Baptist told us we should do.
    And no matter how you slice this, it is raising the 
deficit, right? We don't know exactly how much because they 
keep changing the bill--2 trillion, 3 trillion, 5 trillion, 7 
trillion. It keeps going up and down and backwards because they 
keep tweaking it, keep negotiating, adding more. But it is 
raising the deficit.
    And so this bad billionaires' bill--it is not beautiful; it 
is bad, and it is for the billionaires--is going to be paid for 
by you, the American people, because you are going to have to 
pay back the debt that they are borrowing to give to the 
wealthiest among us.
    So Trump is betraying you. He is betraying rural America. 
He is betraying veterans. He is betraying working families.
    But, you know, the ranking members and the chairmen, I 
really need to give it to you. You have sat in your chair, even 
while most of the Republicans have been absent; you have all 
been here. So I appreciate you.
    You know, let's start with the idea and this concept of the 
deficit. Our colleagues talk about it all the time. 
Representative Roy, who isn't here, or hasn't been here much 
tonight. Well, he is not here. The hearing is here. 
Representative Massie who used to sit over--he has that little 
ticker; everybody sees his ticker. I am so worried about him 
because, once you guys pass this bill, that thing is just going 
to go so fast; it is going to burn a hole through his suit.
    And Representative Norman, he has often rallied against 
increased deficits. In fact, you know, Congressman Roy said--
who is not here, but since he is not here, I will quote him. 
Open quote: ``I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle. This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do 
what we say it does with respect to deficits.''
    You know what, I agree with Representative Roy. It doesn't 
do what they say. It increases the deficit.
    So, Chair Arrington, it sounds like you are in favor of 
reducing deficits, correct?
    Mr. Arrington. Would you repeat that, please? I apologize.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Do you favor reducing deficits?
    Mr. Arrington. Yes, I do, which is why I support this bill.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Which is why you support the bill. So 
the problem is that you are saying you want to reduce the 
deficits, but any outside analysis of this bill, any 
independent analysis of this bill, actually increases the 
deficit.
    So, Ranking Member Boyle, they keep saying it doesn't 
increase the deficit. How can they get to that when we have had 
all these independent analysis of a deficit increase?
    Mr. Boyle. Well, I mean, CBO, which, of course, is not 
infallible, but it is not just CBO. It is literally every 
organization that I have seen from nonpartisan to center to 
center-right committee or Committee for a Responsible Federal 
Budget, CBO, the Yale Budget Lab, Wharton Budget Model, 
Manhattan Institute, the list goes on and on.
    So, for the other side to be right, all of those 
organizations I have mentioned would have to be wrong. I think 
that is highly, highly implausible.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And we also heard the White 
House Press Secretary say, ``This bill does not add to the 
deficit,'' right, quote/unquote.
    So what we are hearing is basically, ``Trust me. Don't 
trust any independent analysis. Trust me.'' And I heard, Chair 
Arrington, a lot of what you are basing your thought on, if I 
am correct, is you are looking at growth projections, and that 
is why we are not going to have the deficit that all of the 
other ones are talking about.
    Mr. Arrington. It is a combination of revenue from growth 
and the deepest spending reductions in the history of the 
country by twofold. So it is a combination of the two.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. So, I agree with you, these are 
the--we agree, these are the deepest spending cuts I think 
ever, right? But----
    Mr. Arrington. Which is ironic, because it only represents 
a very small, like three percent of the entire Federal budget. 
Isn't that incredible?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. Right. Right.
    So I think that that is where we agree. I kind of agree 
that deficits are a problem, right?
    But what you are doing is, instead of saying there are 
different ways of cutting the deficit, you are saying we are 
going to cut the deficit by going after the people who rely 
most on the programs to feed the hungry, to make sure that 
Americans have healthcare, to make sure that veterans who rely 
on Medicaid and these programs to make sure you are not hungry, 
disabled people, like you are cutting the programs that 
Americans need the most.
    And that is something that we can agree on. And you are 
doing that so that we can benefit the wealthiest among us.
    So this chart here that the CBO put out is just the top 
10th percentile. But when you go down to the rest of them it is 
actually the richest 20 percent get 67 percent of the benefit.
    So the billionaires--Representative Scott said, well, I 
know there are some billionaires--the billionaires are doing 
really well by this bill. The billionaires, richest 1 percent, 
get the biggest benefit, 24 percent.
    Let's make clear, this is a transfer of wealth from 
working-class families, from those who work for a living, those 
who are disabled, to the billionaires.
    Now, Chairman Arrington, the Cato Institute, which it is 
not a left-wing institute, they actually, to your point of this 
is going to lead to a lot of job growth, says as to the Ways 
and Means Committee--and this was--it has gotten worse since 
then.
    I am going to quote, Madam--oh, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record the Cato Institute, 
``Republicans'' One, Big, Beautiful Tax Bill Needs a 
Makeover.''
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.025
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.027
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.028
    
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And so I am going to quote from it. It 
says the Ways and Means Committee's one, big, beautiful bill 
``falls short of delivering serious, pro-growth tax reform. It 
misses the opportunity to make the most important incentives 
for long-term growth permanent and includes at least 20 new or 
expanded tax subsidies, dramatically increasing the complexity 
of the tax code.''
    It says that is going to be miniscule--miniscule--growth. 
So you are going to put Americans through all this pain for 
very little growth--for very little growth.
    But we have also heard everybody talk about the issue of 
deficits and who actually does a good job of that. Republicans 
seem to always talk about deficits when they want to, like, 
hurt working families.
    Ranking Member Smith, I really appreciated your comments 
about the fact that these deficits are really a national 
security issue. And when you talked about this national 
security issue it made me think about a review of Democrats and 
Republicans, like who has increased the deficit and who has 
decreased the deficit.
    And we can look at those numbers, and it looks like Reagan 
and H.W. Bush, they kind of like--the deficit didn't move too 
much under them. There were those tax cuts. There were other 
things. There was a slight rise.
    Under Clinton, the deficit fell. He actually went into 
negative territory where he brought down the deficit. He spent 
less. He balanced the budget.
    And then we had President George W. Bush. He just makes 
that deficit go up again. Another Democrat comes in and they 
lower the deficit.
    And then Trump comes in and he just blows the deficit out 
of the water. Biden comes in, he lowered the deficit.
    So now we are going to see that Trump is going to make this 
deficit go up again.
    So there is a pattern here that we are seeing. Democrats 
bring down the deficit. We are fiscally responsible. 
Republicans make it go up. Democrats bring it down. Republicans 
make it go up again.
    Chairman Smith, how do you see this kind of pattern with 
regards to looking at it from a national security issue? Who is 
better on the deficit, Democrat Presidents or Republican 
Presidents?
    Mr. Smith of Washington. Well, as I said, if you believe 
that the Department of Defense needs more money to meet the 
challenges that we face--and we do face an incredibly complex 
threat environment and a lot of challenges there--then you are 
going to need resources to do that. And if you significantly 
reduce the amount of revenue coming in, you are not going to 
have the resources to do that.
    And I do want to point out, there was some conversation 
about how the Trump tax cut was such a wonderful thing for 
fiscal responsibility, and yet the chart shows that under 
President Trump the debt went up by more than it went up under 
any other President in the history of the country, and that 
started before COVID.
    So I know it is the Holy Grail of being a Republican that 
you can cut taxes and somehow increase the amount of revenue 
and reduce the deficit. It is a nice theory. It just never 
actually works.
    And I could get into this whole complicated--where our tax 
rates are right now and where they have been, frankly, ever 
since Reagan, they are not high enough that you can cut them 
and really get that type of a boost, and that is reflected by 
the numbers.
    And I know this is what the Republicans have decided to 
tell themselves to get through passing this bill, is that 
somehow there is going to be this magic wand and growth is 
going to appear, and it is going to solve all of our problems. 
It is just that that has literally never worked, and it is not 
going to work this time. We are significantly reducing the 
amount of money coming into the Federal Government.
    So if you want to spend money on anything--and I 
understand. I mean, if you don't want to spend as much money on 
entitlements or whatever you want to call them, that is a 
policy argument, and if you are going to say, look, I don't 
want the taxes so I am not going to pay for that.
    But if you really want to meet national security needs, 
that is, I don't know, what is it, roughly 12 percent of the 
budget I think is defense, and you are going to significantly 
reduce the amount of revenue available, you are just--you are 
not going to get there.
    And, again, it is this myth that if you cut taxes you are 
going to get more money than you would have gotten if you 
hadn't.
    Now, by and large, revenue goes up year to year because of 
population growth and all of that, but it goes up by less if 
you reduce the amount of revenue that you are collecting. And 
that leaves you in a weakened position to fund absolutely 
anything that you want to fund, and that certainly includes 
defense, which, again, is about 12 percent of the Federal 
budget.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    And, Chairman Arrington, you actually said earlier the best 
predictor is past performance. And I think that the chart, 
which shows that deficits have gone down during Democrat 
Presidents and gone up during Republican Presidents, is an 
incredible predictor of future performances.
    Mr. Arrington. Except it is not true. I mean, if you want 
me to respond, I can, but if not, that is okay, but it is not 
true. So you mentioned my name. I just want to get that out.
    By the way, President Biden, under his tenure, increased 
the deficit by almost twice as much when you look at the 
partisan--not bipartisan--legislation in an unprecedented 
pandemic. Okay? We all voted for the trillions of dollars in 
that timeframe, but the $2 trillion in additional spending, 
purely Democrat, not a single Republican. A trillion was still 
unspent, and then, as I mentioned, $2 trillion in executive 
action.
    That is not even including the $5 trillion in additional 
cost or deficit spending because of the tripling of the 
interest payments on the debt by President Biden during his 
administration.
    So it is not--it is just not true. We all have contributed. 
I mean, both parties have. There is no question, and there are 
structural problems in the budget that are promises made that 
we have not been willing to fund by either saving money through 
cuts or raising revenue.
    So what we have done is we have deferred the tax on our 
children, and we are going to stick them with the bill.
    So there is not a profile in courage in this town on either 
side in terms of the parties, but to be clear, President Trump, 
President Biden, if you add it up, it is--and, again, nobody 
should get a gold star or Nobel Prize for it, but I don't 
believe that to be true, okay, with all due respect.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So thank you very much.
    Mr. Arrington. Thanks for the indulgence.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I think that, once again, the numbers 
speak for themselves.
    And, Ranking Member Boyle, do you want to add anything in 
regards to what is going to happen with the deficit and what we 
have seen in the past.
    And then I want to move on to Financial Services, because I 
think that there are some serious issues there.
    Mr. Boyle. I don't think I need to, especially given the 
hour. I don't know whether to say how late it is or how early 
it is.
    But as I have said before, I mean, it is a pretty long 
list. In fact, when I mentioned the list of organizations from 
left, right, center, and nonpartisan who all say that this adds 
considerably to our deficit and our debt, I actually didn't 
include the right-of-center Cato Institute. That is obviously 
another organization that has also attacked this legislation 
because of its adding trillions to our national debt.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And I think that comes back to there 
are different ways in which you want to attack the deficit. 
Republicans just want to cut programs that Americans rely on. 
Democrats actually look at there is a revenue source.
    But another thing, because Republicans are always ``fiscal 
responsibility,'' and then they always use this term 
``regulations,'' regulations are bad.
    The reality is regulations are how we keep people healthy 
so that we don't have contaminated food, it is how we make sure 
workers stay safe, and it is also how we make sure that 
consumers are protected. Because the reality is the biggest 
corporations, the biggest banks, the biggest manufacturers, 
they are motivated solely by profit, and that is their job.
    So it is government's job to make sure we come in and 
regulate the worst excesses. And you know what? Americans don't 
feel like anybody is fighting for them. They feel like they are 
being left behind.
    And the reality is what Republicans are doing to those 
organizations that are supposed to be fighting for the working 
families, for the consumers, they are getting rid of them. They 
are getting rid of them by starving them.
    And that is what they are doing to the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. Let's see what that says, Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. They are protecting the consumers. And they 
have done so by bringing back $21 billion. That wasn't $21 
billion that came back to the Federal Government. That was $21 
billion that went to American consumers. And they are the ones 
who are speaking for the little guy.
    But this administration doesn't like the idea of 
organizations that go after fraudsters, that go after scammers, 
that go after the auditors that are cheating. They want to get 
rid of that.
    So, Maxine Waters, when they say that, oh, by not giving 
enough funding and starving something like the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, is that saving us any money? Or 
who is really getting hurt when they do that?
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
    A lot has been said about the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. And I said something that I stand by, and that is the 
Republicans have hated it ever since it was initiated, and they 
have attacked it in so many ways.
    We have been in the courts even before this big bill. We 
have been in the courts at various times when they have tried 
to eliminate the way that they get their funding, who sits on 
the board, on and on and on.
    And they never give up. And now with this bill what they 
have found ways to do is to actually cut the funding that is 
going to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    I was reminded that the CFPB is the only Federal agency to 
examine the big banks and nonbanks for compliance with consumer 
financial laws.
    And so here you have the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau dealing with the big banks and understanding why we 
should be concerned about them. And the lack of risk management 
in some of those banks and the bigger they are and the more we 
allow these mergers to go on, the more they end up harming our 
consumers, and the consumers need this protection.
    And without it, even though it was attempted here this 
evening to say consumers have protection in all these other 
ways, that is not true. And that is why the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau was initiated and founded with the Dodd-Frank 
reform bills that we did.
    You are talking about not only the big banks, but you are 
talking about all of the fraud that goes on in so many 
different ways, whether you are talking payday loans or rent-
to-buy, all these ways that the most vulnerable people are 
undermined and attacked in order to rip them off from the 
meager funds that they have.
    And so the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is very 
important to all of our constituents, whether they are in urban 
areas or rural areas.
    And for the rural areas, sometimes they get treated even 
worse, with no protection from that side of the aisle who do 
not consider the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as 
important.
    And so everything that has been said here that have 
identified not only the $21 billion over the 14 years but the 
way that people have had somewhere to turn to get these 
investigations and feel as if the government cares about them, 
it is absolutely true.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much.
    Ms. Waters. You are welcome.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And then the last point is, as we are 
talking about Federal employees and what they are doing to 
Federal employees in this bill and the fact that we happen to 
have sitting right next to each other the Oversight concerned 
about Federal employees and the defense, House Armed Services, 
because it is--members who serve in the military then go on to 
serve in our country in a different way. Thirty percent of our 
Federal employees are veterans.
    And the idea that we would not support the amendment that 
Representative Lynch has brought that was suggested by my 
colleague of let's make sure we protect veterans as well.
    And one last question, Ranking Member Smith. Why do you 
think that so many of our military end up serving America in 
our Federal Government?
    Mr. Smith of Washington. Because they believe in public 
service. It is part of why they joined the military in the 
first place. They believe in service above self.
    They could do a number of different jobs in a number of 
different places, but public service appeals to them. I think 
that is very obvious, and it is one of the things I have always 
loved about working with the military, is you see the ethic 
that that is what it is about.
    They are trying to serve something larger than themselves, 
and they want to continue doing that after their service in the 
military has been completed. And we have seen them do so many, 
many places, quite ably.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I think this idea of public service 
and service--I often say that service is an act of love, 
whether you are serving in the military, even in this Chamber.
    And the idea that you are going to demonize and penalize 
those veterans, those Federal employees who have already done 
so much for this country is really shameful.
    And I am going to just say that it is now 4:20, and I think 
it is important that we are on this dais asking the questions 
and taking the time, because this is a 1,100-something-page 
bill. Americans don't know what is in it. And I do think that 
it is important that we end up going into in reading light and 
maybe even sunlight by the time we get through all of these 
panels.
    But with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Mr. Norman, any questions?
    Mr. Norman. No questions, Madam Chairman.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Langworthy.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to just take a moment and thank all the committee 
chairs for the countless hours and all the staff and the 
ranking members on both sides. This is an incredible 
legislative exercise. They have eleven committees produce this 
much work, and the hundreds and hundreds of hours that have 
gone into the construction of our reconciliation. So I just 
want to show my gratitude there.
    I would also like to yield a moment to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, I just ask unanimous consent to add 
an article to the record. The title of the article is ``Clinton 
Signs `Welfare to Work' Bill, August 22, 1996.''
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.030
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.032
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.033
    
    Mr. Scott. And I would just point out to my colleagues that 
the same complaints about that piece of legislation came from 
people on the left, including from the Clinton administration, 
where he had people actually resign in protest.
    And the article ends with the statement: ``Welfare and 
poverty rates both declined during the late 1990s, however, 
leading some observers to view the legislation as a success.''
    And certainly the welfare-to-work signed under Bill Clinton 
was a success, and we believe that this one will be as well.
    With that, I yield.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Griffith.
    Mr. Langworthy. And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
    Mr. Griffith. I don't have any questions of these 
witnesses.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Seeing no further discussion or questions, our panel is 
dismissed. Thank you very much.
    And I also want to add my thanks to the staff. I appreciate 
Mr. Langworthy bringing that up. We can't do our jobs without 
our staff, and I appreciate all of them being here too.
    The Chairwoman. I now welcome our second panel, Chairman 
Green and Representative Thompson from the Committee on 
Homeland Security; Chairman Jordan and Representative Raskin 
from the Committee on the Judiciary; Chairman Westerman and 
Representative Huffman from the Committee on Natural Resources; 
and Chairman Graves and Representative Larsen from the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
    Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We 
ask that you summarize your statement in 5 minutes.
    Chairman Green, I welcome your testimony.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

    Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 
McGovern, and members of the Rules Committee. I am pleased to 
be here with you this morning.
    From day one of their administration, former President 
Biden and Vice President Harris systematically and 
intentionally dismantled America's border security and gutted 
interior immigration enforcement, sending a clear message to 
the world that our borders were wide open.
    The consequences were staggering. U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection recorded roughly 13 million encounters of 
inadmissible aliens and gotaways, not counting the unknown 
gotaways. That number four times what happened in the first 
Trump administration.
    Border Patrol agents were overwhelmed and demoralized, and 
they were tasked to process and release tens of thousands of 
illegal immigrants every month.
    Apprehensions of individuals on the terrorist watch list 
illegally crossing the southwest border spiked from 11 during 
the 4 years of the Trump administration to 385 between fiscal 
year 2021 and 2024.
    Illicit narcotics, especially fentanyl, surged across the 
southwest border, contributing to a national overdose crisis.
    ICE agents were effectively prevented from doing their 
jobs, and deportations plummeted to historic lows.
    But the tide has turned. President Trump was decisively 
elected in large part because he promised to fix the self-
inflicted crisis created by the prior administration.
    Now Border Patrol agents have returned to the front lines, 
empowered to enforce the law. Scores of criminal aliens are 
being detained and deported. And law and order is finally 
returning to our communities.
    The numbers make it clear: President Trump's approach to 
actually enforcing our laws works. Apprehensions at our borders 
have plummeted to never-before-seen levels.
    For example, monthly encounters at the southwest border 
dropped over 97 percent, from a record high of over 301,000 in 
December of 2023 to less than 8,400 in April of this year.
    The Trump administration is keeping its promises, and now 
we in Congress need to keep ours.
    Just like the President, every Republican ran on securing 
our border and enforcing our laws. If we fail to provide the 
necessary funding to the Department of Homeland Security to 
secure our border and restore law and order, we will show 
ourselves to be unworthy of the trust placed in us.
    Every budget recommendation that my committee advanced for 
inclusion in this bill is critical to maintaining the momentum 
that we have achieved so far.
    First, Title VI of this bill provides over $46 billion to 
finish construction of a strategically placed border barrier 
system. This system includes not only just steel and concrete 
bollards, but a full suite of technology and infrastructure, 
such as lights, sensors, cameras, and access roads, giving 
agents the tools they need to secure the border and do their 
job safely and effectively.
    Ninety percent of Border Patrol agents agree that a 
strategically based border wall system is a key part of their 
toolkit.
    Who are we as politicians, sitting in our air-conditioned 
offices, to deny them this invaluable resource they say they 
need?
    Our reconciliation package also provides $5 billion to 
improve and modernize Customs and Border Protection checkpoints 
and facilities. These checkpoints are critical to the border 
security mission.
    Reconciliation funding will also be used to invest in 
frontline personnel by providing more than $7 billion to 
increase the number of Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border 
Protection officers, air and marine agents, support staff, and 
eligible retired agents and officers.
    Without immediate and sustained investment in workforce 
expansion and retention, CBP risks further erosion of both 
effectiveness and morale, endangering not only border security 
but also the well-being of those sworn to protect it.
    Title VI also invests in cutting-edge technology to help 
agents and officers interdict illicit contraband and drugs like 
fentanyl. As cartel tactics evolve, Congress must provide CBP 
with the cutting-edge technology they need to carry out 
President Trump's successful border security agenda.
    Our bill invests over $5 billion in modernizing and 
enhancing our border security and surveillance technologies, 
drones, ground sensors, enhanced communications systems, and 
surveillance towers at and between ports of entry.
    The bill will also provide $450 million to Operation 
Stonegarden, a grant program designed to help border States and 
local communities enhance their own security.
    Republicans are focused on what actually matters: Providing 
proper funding so that DHS law enforcement can carry out their 
border security mission, protect our country, and secure the 
homeland.
    We have a historic opportunity to make the country we love 
safer and more secure. Let's keep our promises and get 
reconciliation done.
    I yield.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Chairman Green.
    Mr. Thompson, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking 
Member McGovern, members of the Rules Committee, I normally use 
this time to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this 
bill, but this dead-of-night hearing is one of the most 
shameful games I have ever seen played on the American public 
in my nearly 60 years of public service.
    The homeland security title of this scam of a bill was 
developed without any of the standard oversight and discussion 
with the Department of Homeland Security that would normally go 
along with funding numbers so big.
    The bill recklessly throws an enormous amount of taxpayer 
money at the border to buy the votes of Republicans who are 
reluctant to support the massive billionaire tax giveaways and 
devastating healthcare cuts that really motivate this piece of 
legislation.
    In other words, the homeland security title of the bill is 
like putting lipstick on a pig.
    But in many ways, the reality of these nine pages of 
legislative text is even worse than that because it steals 
money from the American taxpayer and gives it to the Trump 
administration to decimate DHS and attack the Constitution.
    President Trump and Secretary Noem are unconstitutionally 
dismantling DHS and making us less safe in the process.
    They are firing hundreds of civil servants, freezing 
grants, eliminating the watchdogs who protect Americans, and 
failing to respond to natural disasters across the country.
    Several of you have natural disasters ongoing in your 
district and you have weekly requests for approval of other 
natural disasters.
    Under Trump and Noem, DHS is detaining and deporting 
American children with cancer, punishing students for engaging 
in protected First Amendment activity, and denying due process 
to individuals, including those in the country legally.
    When the Trump administration spends its resources 
harassing, rounding up, and deporting American citizens, legal 
permanent residents, and international students in the name of 
border security, it is ignoring real threats from terrorism, 
domestic violent extremism, and gun violence.
    Just last weekend, a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, 
California, was bombed in a domestic terrorist attack.
    Domestic violent extremism represents one of the biggest 
threats to the homeland, and this bill doesn't spend a dime on 
it.
    It does, however, spend $46.5 billion on Trump's failed 
border wall, which, I may remind this committee, Trump 
originally said Mexico would pay for. That amount for the 
failed border wall is ten times what the bill spends on Customs 
and Border Protection personnel, and it nearly doubles what the 
armed services title of the bill dedicates to the 
technologically complex, so-called Golden Dome domestic missile 
defense program.
    If the Trump administration's cruel policies alone have 
been as successful as Secretary Noem and Chairman Green like to 
claim, why are billions and billions of additional funds 
necessary at all?
    We got some insight into that question last week when 
Secretary Noem took a break from her costume changes and photo 
ops to ask the Appropriations Committee for a new $50 million 
private jet.
    See, Rolexes are not enough for our made-for-TV Secretary 
of Homeland Security. She needs a new Gulfstream V, too. Never 
mind that the Coast Guard has much older equipment in service 
they use daily for lifesaving missions. Those aircraft should 
be replaced first.
    This reconciliation package allows the Homeland Security 
Department to create a slush fund that enables the worst 
excesses of this administration, like private jets for the 
Secretary and securing the President's multimillion-dollar 
golfing vacations at his branded properties.
    This bill may be big, but it is far from beautiful. In 
fact, it is beyond irresponsible.
    Earlier, I described the homeland security portion of this 
bill as putting lipstick on a pig. I come from an agricultural 
district as well as a part of the country, so let me use 
another farming analogy to wrap up.
    We may be here in the dead of night, but you do not need 
the light of day to smell manure. The American people are not 
going to be fooled by any middle-of-the-night manure slinging 
here.
    As my dear friend Congresswoman Dina Titus once said in a 
Homeland Security Committee markup, ``You can't shovel shit and 
call it sugar.''
    The American people--our constituents--they won't make 
mistake what is being shoveled in this room tonight, because it 
stinks to high heaven.
    I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Thompson of Mississippi follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.034
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.036
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Thompson.
    Representative Jordan, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM JORDAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                     FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
McGovern, members of the committee, thank you for the chance to 
speak today.
    Four years and 4 months ago yesterday, the Biden 
administration made the decision--made three decisions--that 
led to the situation we saw unfold over their administration.
    They decided on day one, intentionally, deliberately, in a 
premeditated fashion, they said, no longer will we have the 
Remain in Mexico policy, no longer will we build the wall, and 
when an illegal migrant gets here they will not be detained, 
they will be released.
    And as a result of those three decisions, 8 million 
individuals came into our country in the course of the Biden 
administration.
    This legislation that we put together, working closely with 
Chairman Green and his committee, we think will help alleviate 
and correct the situation that they deliberately, intentionally 
allowed to happen back 4 years ago.
    I won't read through my testimony. I will just say this. We 
focused on sort of three things.
    First of all, I am proud of our committee's work in that 
the Budget Committee tasked us to spend $110 billion over the 
timeframe. Instead we wound up spending, allocating resources 
of about $81 billion over that timeframe. And we initially 
weren't tasked with raising any revenue, but we did in our bill 
with $66 billion in revenue raised.
    So we netted out at a much better position than what we 
were initially allocated to do--or instructed to do, I should 
say--by the Budget Committee.
    The resources we have in this bill, in short, will allow 
for 10,000 new ICE agents, 100,000 new detention beds, and the 
resources for the repatriation of a million migrants over the 
course of the Trump administration.
    And, finally, I would say, we adopted a principle with the 
revenue which said, instead of the American taxpayer footing 
the bill for migrants and aliens who come to our country, we 
think there should be fees on those individuals to help deal 
with the processing and the security of our border.
    So a simple, kind of a fundamental change in thinking, I 
think, that we adopted at the Judiciary Committee. Let's have 
the individual applying for the visa, the person who wants to 
come and enter the greatest country in history, we think they 
should pay the costs for the processing and for the security of 
our border. And that is why we were able to raise the revenue 
that we did in the legislation.
    And with that, I would yield back. I look forward to 
questions.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Jordan.
    Representative Raskin, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMIE RASKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. McGovern, 
distinguished members of the committee.
    In the House Judiciary Committee, which is supposed to 
protect the civil liberties and the civil rights of the people, 
House Republicans want to hand Donald Trump a blank check to 
keep violating the Constitution, supporting criminals like the 
1,600 insurrectionists and rioters he pardoned, and trampling 
the rights of the American people.
    In the first 120 days, we have seen Federal courts all over 
the land issue an astounding 155 preliminary injunctions and 
temporary restraining orders against the administration's 
matchless onslaught of lawless executive orders and executive 
actions. That is more orders than have been issued against all 
other Presidential administrations in the same period in 
American history put together. And I would love to take you 
through all them, but we obviously don't have the time.
    But last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument on 
President Trump's first executive order purporting to nullify 
birthright citizenship in America. That has been struck down by 
four different district court judges, an Obama judge, a Biden 
judge, a Reagan judge, and a Bush judge.
    And the Reagan judge wrote the most blistering opinion of 
all. He said that of his four decades on the bench this was the 
easiest case he had ever seen because it was such a blatantly 
unconstitutional executive order.
    It collides with the very first sentence of the 14th 
Amendment, which says, ``All persons born or naturalized in the 
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are 
citizens of the United States.''
    So you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that. You 
just have to know how to read.
    And so all of these courts across the land--Republican 
judges, Democratic judges, appeals court judges, district 
judges--are striking down the lawlessness of Donald Trump and 
his emerging gangster state.
    They disappear people to the torture gulag of the self-
proclaimed dictator of El Salvador with no due process.
    They sack tens of thousands of professional civil service 
workers, air traffic controllers, food and drug inspectors, 
cancer researchers, and Forest Service firefighters with no due 
process in outrageous violation of the civil service laws.
    They strip college students of their student visas for 
writing op-eds in the campus newspaper that the President 
disagrees with in direct violation of due process and the First 
Amendment.
    They lawlessly invoke extraordinary wartime powers from 
1798 to deport people in peacetime without any due process.
    And they lose in court every single day. It has been 120 
days, and they have already suffered 155 losses in court. 
Nothing has ever been seen like this before in American 
history.
    The administration says, well, it is just focusing on the 
worst of the worst. No, that is not who they are targeting. 
They are arresting judges. They are arresting Members of 
Congress now. One of our colleagues is going to be arraigned 
later today in a completely fraudulent prosecution by the new 
U.S. Attorney in New Jersey.
    They are deporting children with cancer who are U.S. 
citizens. They are rounding up law-abiding members of our 
communities, parents and wives of American spouses who pose no 
threat at all to public safety.
    They are sending masked agents with no identification to 
snatch students out of their neighborhoods, hauling them away 
in unmarked cars, and sending them to detention centers in 
other parts of the country.
    And they are making serious mistakes every day, just as 
they admitted it was, quote, an administrative error to put Mr. 
Abrego Garcia on an airplane to a torture dungeon in El 
Salvador with no due process at all.
    The President is threatening media entities and shaking 
them down for private settlements in bogus lawsuits. He is 
threatening law firms and shaking them down for free pro bono 
hours. He is threatening colleges and universities.
    They have jettisoned the rule of law as we know it, and 
they don't seem to mind having the most judicially invalidated 
policies of any administration in history.
    So this bill is just a blank check for more chaos. It hands 
more than $80 billion in new money to the administration to do 
more of what we have already seen.
    And they rejected every single amendment we brought to say 
that they should not be deporting U.S. citizens. Our colleagues 
didn't speak against it, but they voted against it.
    We said nobody should be deported from the country without 
due process, to follow the Supreme Court's nine-zero decision. 
Our colleagues didn't speak against it, but they all voted 
against it.
    And they want to give really extraordinary, unseen amounts 
of money to ICE. There is a line item in there without any 
further explanation for $858 million in bonuses for ICE 
employees. That comes to $42,000 for each ICE employee.
    Nobody could explain how that is going to be passed out. We 
had other witnesses come in and say they have never seen a 
bonus of more than $1,500 or $2,000. $858 million.
    Meantime, we discover, Madam Chair, that one DOGE employee 
countermanded all the work of the House of Representatives, the 
U.S. Senate, the President of the United States, and the 
Department of Justice which set up grants to go to local police 
departments across the country and victim assistance 
organizations.
    The money was appropriated. It was programmed. It was 
awarded to local police departments across America and other 
organizations. And one DOGE employee sent an email saying get 
rid of all of it--and they did. And our colleagues refused to 
restore that money. And the same amount of money they want to 
put into bonuses for ICE employees to get $42,000.
    They are literally defunding the police. DOGE is defunding 
the police, and our colleagues are going along with that. And 
so the Republican Party is now defunding the police across 
America.
    So we would urge you to accept our amendment restoring that 
money that was deleted by one DOGE employee who has spent his 
entire career working for Elon Musk and at Tesla, came here, 
without knowing anything about Congress or how government 
works, and he deleted all of that money going to local 
departments.
    So this bill is a monstrosity, and it just further swells a 
bloated--the immigration bureaucracy. Nobody can even really 
say where the money is going. And we are not dealing with the 
real justice problems of America.
    Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Raskin.
    Chairman Westerman, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, 
and members of the committee, good morning and thank you for 
the opportunity to testify today on the House Committee on 
Natural Resources' Reconciliation Title, which far exceeds our 
committee's instructions by kickstarting a golden age of 
American energy and wisely stewarding our natural resources.
    Madam Chair, there has been an attack on American energy 
that goes back to the Biden administration where political 
science versus real science has ruled the day. And Washington 
has been playing games with our energy security, with our 
energy production here at home, and we are in a tough position 
right now because of the increased demand for energy resources.
    But thank goodness Republicans, President Trump has made 
energy dominance a priority of the Republican Party, and that 
is outlined in the House Committee on Natural Resources' part 
of the reconciliation bill.
    According to preliminary estimates provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, our committee will generate over 
$20 billion in savings and new revenue for the Federal 
Government by putting the wealth of our natural resources to 
work and doing that cleanly, safely, responsibly, and reining 
in wasteful spending.
    But that is really only part of the story, because we have 
received outside scoring from the Energy Policy Research 
Foundation that projects that our title will generate as much 
as $91.5 billion of new savings and revenue.
    You see, the CBO only scores development of natural 
resources based on things like royalty rates that come into the 
Federal Government. They ignore the economic impact that you 
get when you develop resources.
    They ignore that if you drill a new well platform it takes 
a tremendous amount of supply chain to build that. They ignore 
the fact that it is going to employ people. They ignore the 
fact that for 50 years the tax revenue to the Federal 
Government has been about 17.5 percent of the GDP. So if you 
grow the economy, you are also growing the revenue coming into 
the Federal Government. But, again, we had a $1 billion 
instruction, and we are 20 times that.
    Another example. An economic study by Energy & Industrial 
Advisory Partners examined the impact of holding just two 
offshore oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of America 
per year and semiannual lease sales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, 
this is a plan that is similar to provisions included in our 
legislation, they project that these sales alone would increase 
revenue by $230 million annually, boost our GDP by $1.3 billion 
each year, and create nearly 16,000 jobs.
    That is the kind of economic growth that our country needs, 
and at the same time, we can become energy dominant while we 
are doing that.
    We have worked very closely with our dais, with fellow 
Members of Congress, State and local leaders, stakeholders, and 
our colleagues in the Senate to create a new revenue and 
savings for the Federal Government by answering the call to 
unleash American energy dominance.
    And as we know, global demand for affordable, reliable 
energy is rising at an exponential rate. This presents a fiscal 
opportunity for the United States to generate immense wealth 
for our Nation by being an energy provider to the world.
    President Trump has made it clear that America will rise to 
meet the occasion, and we are happy to help support those 
efforts with our language in the reconciliation bill.
    As I mentioned, demand for energy resources is increasing 
exponentially, and we can develop our own energy and our 
mineral resources right here at home.
    Our country has been blessed with abundant resources, but 
we have this ``not in my backyard'' mentality that is hurting 
the American economy, it is hurting the Federal budget, and it 
is hurting, maybe more importantly, our national security. This 
just isn't an issue of economic growth and prosperity, but it 
is also critical to our national security.
    Our committee's legislation creates new revenue sources for 
the Federal Government. It establishes a process for project 
sponsors to pay a significant fee to ensure delivery of 
environmental reviews in under a year in guards themselves 
against frivolous lawsuits.
    In addition to raising nearly a billion dollars in new 
revenue for the Federal Government, it will restore common 
sense to Federal permitting processes that often lag for years, 
costing taxpayers billions of dollars, delaying much-needed 
development and innovation, and doing absolutely nothing for 
the environment.
    These processes actually hurt the environment by delaying 
these projects and making the world depend on energy from 
places like the Middle East and Russia and Venezuela.
    Additionally, we are investing $2.5 billion in water 
storage and conveyance infrastructure projects across the West. 
We have directed the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management to utilize long-term timber sale contracts.
    CBO has estimated our forestry provisions would generate 
more than $157 million, but that is just a fraction of the 
economic benefit that will happen if we start utilizing our 
resources because we are going to have to build mills and 
infrastructure. It is going to take workers to do these jobs 
that are high-paying jobs in rural areas. And, again, we are 
going to get that economic impact of growth and development 
from developing our resources.
    There is a lot more to talk about. I am sure there will be 
a lot of questions. But I urge the committee to report an 
appropriate rule so that our reconciliation legislation may be 
considered in the House.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions. And I yield 
back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
    Representative Huffman, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
McGovern, colleagues. Appreciate this opportunity to testify 
here at 5 a.m. on the big billionaire boondoggle bill. We know 
that it rips off millions of Americans by taking away vital 
services in order to finance billionaire tax cuts.
    But there is another part of this bill that we need to 
discuss, and that is the fact that it is the most extreme anti-
environment bill in American history.
    Powerful groups that underwrite the GOP have decided that 
now is the moment to strike: to auction off millions of acres 
of pristine public lands to industry, to mandate a massive 
expansion of offshore drilling, putting communities from Alaska 
to Florida at risk of catastrophic oil spills, to lock up 
millions of acres for new coal leasing, to make it impossible 
to challenge or even question unlawful polluting projects, and 
to give wealthy developers a new golden age of grift 
apparently, a pay-to-play permitting process where they can 
write their own environmental reviews and buy legal immunity 
from lawsuits, even if their projects are dangerous and violate 
the law.
    And, of course, at the tail end of that late-night markup--
there is a little bit of a pattern here in the Natural 
Resources Committee--a provision was added to sell off hundreds 
of thousands of acres of land in Nevada and Utah.
    Most Americans hate all of this. They cherish our public 
lands. They value clean air, clean water, and wildlife, and 
they reject billionaire giveaways.
    That's why Republicans have had to jam all of this stuff 
into budget reconciliation. That's why we are here in the dark 
of night. Republicans are doing everything they can to avoid 
scrutiny, to avoid even talking about what's actually in this 
legislation. This dark-of-night approach is the only way that 
these extreme and toxic policies can pass.
    But Americans are going to see this for what it is, and 
that is a betrayal. We all remember Donald Trump promising to 
deliver the cleanest air and water. And when Republicans say 
things like that and then jam through a bill like this, 
Americans rightfully feel betrayed.
    It's the same with Trump's promises to lower costs, grow 
the economy, protect Medicaid. I mean, he must have had his 
fingers crossed, because he's crashing the economy, driving up 
costs for American families, and pushing House Republicans to 
jam through this bill that makes all of it worse.
    Across multiple committees, this bill doubles down on dirty 
fossil fuels of the past and crushes the growing clean energy 
economy of the future, increasing electricity costs for 
families and factories.
    The CEO of NextEra Energy company, John Ketchum, recently 
said this: ``If you take renewables and storage off the 
table,'' as this bill does, ``we are going to force electricity 
prices to the moon.'' ``To the moon,'' his words.
    You know, when Trump promised a mission to the moon, that 
was supposed to be astronauts, not your electricity bill.
    The Natural Resources title of this bill, which we call the 
Environmental Liquidation for Billionaires Act, is a massive 
betrayal of anyone who values clean air and water, wildlife, 
outdoor recreation, pristine public lands, sacred Tribal sites, 
or anyone who wants affordable electric bills.
    That's why my Democratic colleagues and I have been 
sounding the alarm, because this is much more than just bad 
policy. It's a seismic shift in who our government is even 
working for.
    This bill gives away billions in subsidies--new subsidies--
to the coal industry, to corporate irrigators, and to Big Oil, 
and at the same time it rescinds billions from programs that 
actually serve our communities, like funding for our national 
parks, coastal restoration, and healthy fisheries for coastal 
communities.
    And when Democrats offered amendments to protect Tribal 
sovereignty, to hold polluters accountable, to ensure fair 
returns for taxpayers, Republicans rejected every single one.
    And then they slipped in that late-night provision at 
midnight of our markup to sell off hundreds of thousands of 
acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah, without maps, without 
notice, without any explanation. Only after the markup did we 
learn from media reports that this bill is a thinly veiled and 
corrupt water grab.
    The throughline across these provisions is clear: 
prioritize short-term profits for billionaires and corporate 
polluters over clean air, clean water, and a livable planet for 
everyone else.
    We've seen this playbook before: Cut taxes for the rich, 
gut public services and protections, hope no one notices until 
it's too late.
    But, Madam Chair, people are paying attention, even now, at 
5 a.m. They see a Republican majority that won't defend this 
bill in the light of day and won't explain why polluters 
deserve a free pass while families lose healthcare and food 
assistance and get stuck with higher electric bills.
    And the American people are going to see Democrats continue 
speaking out and standing firm on the idea that public lands 
belong to the public, not to Big Oil, not to foreign mining 
companies, not to billionaires or corporate polluters.
    I urge this committee to reject and strike this title. It 
doesn't serve the American people. It serves the people who 
already take too much and want even more.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Huffman.
    Chairman Graves, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

    Mr. Graves. Thanks, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 
McGovern.
    So the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee produced 
recommendations to meet our instructions by combining critical 
investments in border security, our national defense, and 
needed modernization of air traffic control with cuts to 
wasteful spending and some other deficit-reducing measures.
    For more than 20 years, the Coast Guard, for instance, has 
received less than half of the capital investment necessary to 
successfully carry out its critical missions.
    To support the Coast Guard, we have provided more than $21 
billion to recapitalize Coast Guard assets, including the 
acquisition of cutters, aircraft, and icebreakers, while it 
also funds the construction of facilities needed to support 
their new assets.
    With more than half of the total funding going towards 
maritime assets, we are also aligning with the President's 
recent executive order to strengthen America's shipbuilding 
capabilities.
    Additionally, following the tragic aviation accidents in 
recent months, this committee has heard directly from 
stakeholders and the administration about the need to improve 
the safety and reliability of our Nation's aviation system.
    The FAA faces some serious operational and financial 
challenges due to its aging infrastructure and workforce 
shortages.
    In response, the committee provides a $12.5 billion down 
payment for the air traffic control modernization efforts. This 
down payment allows the administration to immediately begin 
replacing critical communications infrastructure, radar 
systems, and also invests in runway safety and airport surface 
surveillance projects. It also replaces air traffic control 
towers and TRACONs and funds our air traffic controller 
recruitment, retention, and training issues.
    Finally, we address the chronic Highway Trust Fund 
shortfall in a meaningful way for the first time in more than 
30 years.
    The Congressional Budget Office projects a $142 billion 
cumulative shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund over the 5-year 
period following the expiration of the current authorization.
    So put simply, the system for funding our Federal surface 
transportation programs is broken, and our recommendation is to 
implement a $250 annual fee on electric vehicles and a $100 
annual fee on hybrid vehicles and deposit all those collections 
in the Highway Trust Fund.
    For too long, EVs operated on our Nation's roads without 
paying into the system, which is primarily funded by Federal 
taxes on gasoline and diesel. Plain and simple, this is a 
fairness issue, and it is time these roadway users directly pay 
into the system that supports the very highways that they drive 
on.
    We all want to invest in the Coast Guard, we all want to 
rebuild our air traffic control system and finally address the 
broken Highway Trust Fund, and I believe our recommendations 
deliver on those objectives.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be 
happy to answer any questions.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
    Representative Larsen, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chair Foxx and Ranking Member 
McGovern and members of the committee.
    Chair Graves and I appear today with conflicting views on 
the T&I Committee title, a departure from our regular work on 
the committee and our preference of working together.
    And Democrats stand ready to advance bipartisan solutions 
to support the Coast Guard, to improve our air traffic control 
system, and to shore up investments in surface transportation.
    But Republican leadership has not gathered us here in the 
middle of the night to invest in job-creating infrastructure. 
This morning is about jamming through a fiscally reckless 
package that provides a gut punch to working families.
    This bill makes the largest cuts to healthcare access and 
food assistance in American history, ripping away healthcare 
from 13 million Americans and taking food assistance away from 
millions of families--not to reduce the deficit, but to hand 
out tax breaks to billionaires.
    Democrats support job-creating infrastructure investments. 
We used the gavel to enact historic levels of funding for all 
means of travel, to promote clean energy and to support supply-
chain improvements, to modernize water infrastructure, and to 
build and connect stronger, healthier communities.
    Democrats want to keep these investments going, and I am 
deeply concerned that the Republican budget will cut our 
committee off at the knees as we are trying to address 
bipartisan priorities for the rest of this Congress.
    Next September, the T&I Committee has to reckon with $200 
billion in investments that will end, including $66 billion to 
improve and expand rail service and improve rail safety; $47 
billion to fix and replace aging, deficient bridges; $25 
billion to upgrade airports and control towers; $21 billion to 
give more people access to safe, affordable transit; $13 
billion for clean water in more communities; and $2 billion to 
boost the supply chain through safer and more efficient ports.
    The budget resolution that underlies the reconciliation 
bill does not continue these investments beyond fiscal year 
2026.
    In addition, the Highway Trust Fund faces a shortfall of 
over $140 billion over the next 5 years that Congress will have 
to address.
    Communities in every State and county rely on these 
investments that the T&I Committee provides through the bill. 
Unfortunately, this budget resolution provides little comfort 
that job-creating infrastructure investments will later 
materialize for transportation, for water infrastructure, or 
disaster preparedness and response.
    The investments the T&I Committee provided keep people safe 
in the skies, on the roads and bridges, and when traveling by 
bus, boat, or train. We can't afford to skimp on or to delay 
safety.
    The funding for air traffic control that the committee 
provided in this reconciliation bill is only a downpayment on a 
much more expensive and urgent problem that we have to address. 
And it has been well-documented by the committee and by 
multiple aviation safety experts that our current ATC 
infrastructure is becoming unsustainable.
    In the wake of one of the deadliest aviation accidents in 
the last 20 years and with the rise in near-misses at airports 
across the country, increased investment in our air traffic 
control system is needed.
    And, similarly, the Coast Guard badly needs fleet 
modernization and funding for new icebreakers, shore-side 
infrastructure, and aircraft. And the funding for the Coast 
Guard in this bill is a welcome and a bipartisan priority.
    But we also have to meet the needs of the members of the 
service. Where is the funding for Coasties' healthcare, 
including mental health? For Coast Guard housing? For 
childcare? Coast Guard cutters and aircraft do not operate by 
themselves, and we can't forget the needs of the women and men 
who serve in our Coast Guard.
    The T&I portions also contain substantial funding cuts to 
Inflation Reduction Act investments--cuts that are unnecessary 
to comply with the Senate reconciliation instructions. 
Targeting these locally selected projects for rescission is a 
direct attack on communities we represent.
    In particular, the rescission of Neighborhood Access grants 
claws back 80 grants that have already been awarded to many of 
our districts, including 41 Republican-held districts.
    Chair Foxx, Representative Norman, Representative Scott, 
Representative Scanlon, grants in each of your districts are up 
for rescission.
    Constituents in many of our districts have spent time and 
resources applying for these grants, and they are relying on 
the announced funds in their budgets. This unnecessary clawback 
after communities have secured grants makes no sense.
    Finally, I want to commend Chair Graves for firing the 
opening salvo in addressing the revenue gap in the Highway 
Trust Fund. This legislation establishes fees on EVs at $250 
per year and hybrids at $100 per year. These are fees that are, 
frankly, out of proportion with what the average gas-powered 
vehicle pays, about $90 per year. But these new fees represent 
a marked change in how we tax highway users and deserve a full 
vetting by Members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of 
the Capitol, by Governors, mayors, and other stakeholders, and, 
to date, the reconciliation process hasn't offered that needed 
debate.
    The surface transportation reauthorization that is due next 
year is important, and finding the funding to pass that bill is 
a major priority. The lack of parity among types of vehicles 
and proposed fees and the lack of consensus among Members means 
that we have a little more work to do.
    But I look forward to a future bill when members of the 
Rules Committee get to see us work together in this Congress, 
but this big, ugly bill is not it.
    I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.039
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.041
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.043
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.044
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.045
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
    Thanks to all of you for being here this morning.
    Chairman Green, Democrats spent all of last Congress 
telling us that we needed a comprehensive immigration package 
to fix the border, but it simply wasn't the case.
    After only 5 months in office, President Trump has ended 
the worst border crisis in history by simply enforcing our 
current laws and empowering our law enforcement officials to 
execute their duties.
    To ensure his successes aren't short-lived, shouldn't we 
continue to provide sustained resources to invest in our 
border-security infrastructure and personnel? And that is what 
the legislation from your committee delivered, correct? Hard 
resources?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. Yes, Chairwoman, this is pretty 
much hard resources, in addition to, you know, the personnel 
stuff. We are increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and 
things like that.
    So there are some human-resources pieces of this, but the 
vast majority of it is hardware.
    The Chairwoman. So would you agree that the Democrats have 
a credibility problem when assessing the problems at our 
border?
    After all, we didn't need a single change in authorizing 
statutes to make this happen. We simply needed a President who 
was willing to enforce the laws on the books.
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. Yes, ma'am. The excuses that were 
shared were many, from, you know, increased poverty in other 
parts of the world that were driving people to the United 
States--those things didn't change at inauguration. What 
changed was a President willing to enforce the law.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. You know, I don't even know where to begin.
    It is 5:11 in the morning. And for those who are just 
tuning in, the Rules Committee began meeting on this 
reconciliation bill at 1:00 a.m. And you may ask, why did the 
Republicans want us to meet at 1:00 a.m. and not 1:00 p.m.? It 
is because they don't want anybody to know what the hell is 
going on here.
    And let me repeat, as I did in my opening statement, so 
that people understand the impact of this bill on American 
citizens: This bill will throw 14 million people off of 
healthcare. I mean--14 million people. It will throw millions 
and millions and millions of people off of food assistance.
    And those savings--I guess?--will be used to pay for tax 
cuts for billionaires. Like, I mean, who does this? Who does 
this? I mean, on what planet does this make sense, that you rob 
from the people with the least and give to the people with the 
most? That is the heart and soul of this legislation.
    And, as we are learning from the current panel, this bill 
also is not kind to the environment, it is not kind to civil 
liberties, and there are all other kind of negative things that 
are associated with this bill that I think most Americans, 
quite frankly, don't agree with.
    Yeah, Americans want to get our immigration system under 
control. Yes, they want to make sure that, you know, there is 
law and order and things are safe for everybody in this 
country. But they care deeply about the Constitution, they care 
deeply about due process, they care deeply about the 
environment.
    And, you know, as I am listening to the first panel and now 
the second panel--and I say this, you know, with all due 
respect to my Republican colleagues--but we just don't share 
the same values. I think it comes down to that.
    And let me ask Ranking Member Huffman a question.
    The part of this Republican tax scam that falls under the 
Natural Resources Committee appears to auction off America's 
public lands to corporations and oil companies to pay for even 
more tax breaks for the wealthy and the well-connected, even 
though more than 70 percent of the American people oppose 
selling off our Nation's public lands to the highest bidder.
    So my question is, how does this title sell off and sell 
out public lands?
    Mr. Huffman. Yeah. Thank you, Ranking Member McGovern.
    So, several ways.
    First of all, several hundred thousand acres in Nevada and 
Utah are sold outright under a dark-of-night amendment that Mr. 
Amodei and Ms. Maloy added at the tail end of our markup. So, 
after weeks of being assured by Republicans that they would not 
sell off public lands, they turned around and are now selling 
off public lands, much to the dismay of some of their own 
colleagues, including Mr. Zinke in Montana.
    But then the even bigger giveaway is in the form of 
auctioning off vast areas, millions and millions of acres of 
public lands, including pristine areas, the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge, and mandatory offshore leases covering millions and 
millions of acres in the ocean.
    They are doing all of that while lowering royalties for Big 
Oil and for Big Coal. They are offering up an area the size of 
Connecticut that they propose for new coal mining and also 
opening up areas very sensitive in the Boundary Waters 
watershed, the most visited wilderness area in the United 
States, for a particularly toxic form of new mining.
    Mr. McGovern. So the House Natural Resources Committee was 
instructed to raise money to help offset the tax scam, but the 
committee's provisions also spend significantly. Can you tell 
us a little bit more about the Big Oil giveaways in this bill?
    Mr. Huffman. Absolutely.
    Well, in addition to giving Big Oil all these vast areas, 
far more than they could ever need or want, in places like the 
Cook Inlet in Alaska, massive mandatory offshore leases in the 
Gulf of Mexico, even though 80 percent of existing leases are 
sitting there idle and are not even being developed.
    It's just more, more, more being offered up to Big Oil, 
while lowering royalties and giving the Secretary the authority 
to go to noncompetitive leasing if the market doesn't yield 
enough interest, which it won't in many of these cases, and 
then additional discretion where the Secretary can lower 
royalties even further, practically giving away these public 
resources.
    Mr. McGovern. And so one provision of this bill will allow 
companies with polluting projects to buy their way out of 
judicial review of their environmental review documents.
    So what could this mean for communities impacted by these 
projects?
    Mr. Huffman. It means they have no voice whatsoever in 
projects that could have terrible impacts on their public 
health and their environment.
    All a developer has to do is pay 125 percent of the 
estimated cost of the NEPA review, and they are guaranteed a 
fast turnaround on their approval and then completely insulated 
from all judicial review. None whatsoever.
    Mr. McGovern. So, I mean, I think this is an example. Like, 
I think most--I think the overwhelming majority of Democrats 
and independents and I would even say probably a majority of 
Republicans in this country would probably not think that what 
we just talked about was a good idea.
    Mr. Huffman. Yeah.
    Mr. McGovern. Which kind of explains why you want to have 
this meeting at 1 o'clock in the morning, so that people are 
not paying attention to those kinds of details.
    Let me talk about homeland security.
    You know, as President Trump and Secretary Noem obliterate 
due process by locking up immigrants without providing a 
reason, depriving detainees of legal counsel, and deporting 
U.S. citizens, Republicans are pumping money into DHS with 
blatant disregard for the administration's desecration of our 
most sacred democratic values.
    This bill does nothing--nothing--to lower costs for 
American families. In fact, it does the opposite. Republicans 
take this disastrous plan further by paying to deport kids with 
cancer through healthcare cuts to other kids with cancer.
    So Homeland Security was one of the few committees given 
instructions to increase spending, and the committee ran with 
this, creating $69 billion in new spending.
    All this, including $300 million to pay for security while 
the President plays golf, and yet there is no money for FEMA to 
implement natural-disaster prevention, mitigation, or relief. I 
mean, I don't know who thought that was a good idea.
    Since January, the Trump administration has held FEMA 
grants hostage--over $1 billion blocked from supporting 
wildfire prevention, flood mitigation, and disaster 
preparedness.
    I mean, as discussed in the markup, natural disasters do 
not see red States or blue States. They don't choose their 
impact based on politics. And they often hit more than one 
State. Blocking funds to FEMA hurts all of the 95 percent of 
communities with recent disaster declarations. This should not 
be a partisan issue.
    Ranking Member Thompson, can you tell us more about the 
detriment to FEMA that this is?
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Well, as most of you know, 
FEMA has been recommended to be basically----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi [continuing]. Abolished and 
given to the States and localities. Well, if that was the case, 
in the chairwoman's district, without FEMA's help, North 
Carolina would be in serious jeopardy.
    Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, Missouri, other States 
right now have disaster declaration requests pending before the 
President. Some of them for almost 2 months. I have never seen 
it take so long for disaster declarations to be approved.
    Well, we had the Secretary before us, and her testimony is 
that we need to get rid of it. I asked her, ``Okay, what is the 
plan?'' ``Well, we are working on it.'' ``Well, you want to get 
rid of it. Surely you have pulled some people together and 
talked about it.'' ``Well, we have set up a council.'' ``How 
many times have they met?'' ``We haven't met.''
    So, clearly, we are being told certain things, but an 
action is not there.
    In support of what I am saying, we offered certain 
amendments, over 30 amendments, during our section of the bill. 
Not a single Republican voted in support of them. Didn't speak; 
it was just absolutely against.
    And let me just tell you some of the things.
    We said no funds would be used to deport American citizens. 
My Republican colleagues voted against that.
    Mr. McGovern. What, did they think it was a radical idea?
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. And we said no to sending 
American citizens to foreign prisons. They voted against it.
    Deporting lawfully present immigrants without any due 
process. Voted against that.
    The one that bothers us most is ignoring Supreme Court 
rulings.
    And so we were trying to basically establish, with our 
amendments, some basis that most Americans already agree to in 
law. And so we couldn't get support for due process, for 
hearings, so----
    Mr. McGovern. You know, it is chilling, it is chilling, 
that that is the direction that this Congress is moving in. I 
mean, I think Trump is basically telling people what he wants, 
and we have too many Members of Congress that are going along 
to get along. And, quite frankly, it is chilling.
    And I think not just--I am saying that not just as a 
Democrat, but I think most Americans who respect the rule of 
law, who respect the Constitution, understand that this is not 
the direction they want us to go.
    Let me ask you, Ranking Member Thompson: Republicans are 
spending $46.5 billion more for Trump's border wall--$46.5 
billion. The bill also spends $4.1 billion for CBP personnel 
and $2 billion for hiring and retention bonuses.
    So, if I am doing the math, the Republican reconciliation 
bill spends 10 times the amount on Trump's stupid border wall 
as it does on CBP personnel.
    Not only that, the bill gives local police in Trump's 
hometowns $300 million to provide support so he can spend even 
more time golfing.
    So we never stop hearing from you about this being the most 
secure border ever. So now you need billions for this stupid 
wall? I mean, give me a break.
    What better purposes could be served by this money instead 
of a giant wall and time for the President to golf?
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Well, clearly, DHS funds 
should not be spent for recreational activities, especially 
activities spent at properties you control or own.
    Mr. McGovern. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. And so, again, this is part of 
creating the ability to make money at government expense. And 
the reason I say that is, our Secret Service and other 
personnel would end up having to stay on the property while you 
are playing golf. We understand that. But, you know, we have a 
lot of golf courses. If you want to play, play here, and people 
can go home. So it is not good.
    More importantly, so much of the other thing we are 
addressing is, we are not providing training for our law 
enforcement personnel. When you pause a grant, that means you 
have stopped----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi [continuing]. The money. And so 
the language is confusing to a lot of cities and counties in 
this country, because they say, ``We were approved, and then we 
were told we were paused. We were trying to buy a fire truck. 
Now we can't buy the fire truck. We need it. We need to train 
our personnel.''
    And so all those efforts have pulled us back and make us 
less safe as a country.
    Mr. McGovern. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. And I go back to the FEMA. You 
know, natural disasters don't pick party.
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. And so I encourage the 
committee to look at this notion that we take care of Americans 
in their time of distress and danger. Normally, when FEMA 
comes, it is because State and local resources have been 
overrun.
    Mr. McGovern. Yep.
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. And for us to move in a 
direction with no plan----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi [continuing]. At this moment is 
not in the best interests of any American citizen.
    Mr. McGovern. Look, I think all of us have had natural 
disasters in our districts at some point. And I will tell you, 
I have had it in my district, and FEMA has been extraordinary, 
and I don't know what we would have done without them.
    Mr. Raskin, I didn't know if you wanted to add anything. 
I----
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    But I wasn't aware of this provision. Would you just tell 
me that number again? Did you say there were $30 million for--
$300 million for----
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, $300 million.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Security for golf trips? For----
    Mr. McGovern. Right. Basically to help----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, you know, I would just say from a 
Judiciary perspective, you know, we have been talking a lot 
about the Foreign Government Emoluments Clause because of the 
very risky and dangerous idea of accepting a $400 million jumbo 
jet airplane from the dictator of Qatar, which is categorically 
forbidden by the Constitution without congressional consent.
    But we also have a Domestic Emoluments Clause which says 
that the President is limited to his salary in office and 
cannot draw other money from the Federal Government, other 
agencies, and departments. And, I mean, it sounds to me like 
what you are raising really implicates the Domestic Emoluments 
Clause if we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars 
following the President around for him to play golf.
    And I like the chairman's point here, which is that there 
is a golf course----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Not far from the White House, at 
Hains Point, with----
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. We are throwing people off their 
healthcare. We are taking away people's nutrition assistance. I 
mean, we are hurting people in this country. And yet, $300 
million to provide support to make it easier for him to golf in 
his hometowns.
    And the final thing I am going to say, Madam Chair, and you 
brought it up: You know, please don't diss the notion of the 
importance of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
    The Senate, in a bipartisan way, came together and actually 
constructed one, because we do need to help make it easier for 
people to have a legal pathway to become citizens. We need to 
regularize the status of many people who have been here for 
many, many years, including the Dreamers. We need to make their 
status permanent.
    They came together in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, you 
know, Donald Trump, in the heat of the campaign, told 
Republicans in the House to walk away from it, and, 
unfortunately, you all did. And I hope we can at some point get 
back to it, because, quite frankly, we need that.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    I said in my opening statement that we were prepared for 
hearing a lot of things tonight--today and tonight or whenever 
we finish up, and one of our colleagues called them 
``misleading statements.'' They really are.
    And I want to point out the comment Mr. McGovern just made, 
that we don't share the same values. That is an understatement.
    Mr. McGovern. Then we agree?
    The Chairwoman. We agree.
    Mr. McGovern. Good. Okay.
    The Chairwoman. Yeah.
    Mr. McGovern. No debate. Good.
    The Chairwoman. We know that national security is the 
number-one issue for the Federal Government. And that is what 
members of this panel are talking about.
    And you talked about taking care of Americans in time of 
disaster. And we don't think the border wall is stupid. A 
border wall is necessary to take care of Americans in terms 
of----
    Mr. McGovern. Well, I do. But I would also point out that 
homeland security is hometown security.
    The Chairwoman. Yes.
    Mr. McGovern. And, unfortunately, I think you guys have 
lost sight of that. So----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Langworthy, you are recognized.
    Mr. Langworthy. I have no questions for the panel at this 
time. I just also want to reiterate to this panel, you know, 
thank you to all the chairs and the ranking members and for the 
staff of the committees for all of the hard work that they have 
put in and the hundreds of hours going into this reconciliation 
process. This is quite an exercise, and I really want to salute 
you all for the work.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Langworthy.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to all our ranking members and chairs for 
getting up so--at an ungodly hour of the morning to join us.
    And thank you, again, to our C-SPAN folks who are up way 
too early.
    You know, the question I have been asked most since about 
36 hours ago when this hearing was noticed for 1:00 a.m. is, 
why on Earth would anyone try to hold a congressional hearing 
at 1 o'clock in the morning? And, of course, the obvious answer 
is: Because the bill is so horrible they want to hide it from 
the public.
    So, just, you know, to do a little bit of--no spoiler 
alerts or anything, but to catch up from the last episode, at 
the last hearing we had a little bit of breaking news, a couple 
CBO letters that came out after 5 o'clock yesterday.
    One demonstrated quite convincingly that this bill will 
cause the household incomes of the lowest 10 percent of--the 
poorest 10 percent of Americans to decrease, and it will cause 
the household incomes of the richest 10 percent of Americans to 
increase.
    So it is a wealth transfer. I know our Republican 
colleagues say that they don't like to transfer wealth between 
different groups, but, apparently, if it goes from the poor to 
the rich, it is okay.
    The second piece of breaking news is that this bill will 
violate the PAYGO provisions and induce sequestration, which 
will then lead to a $500 billion reduction in Medicare.
    Now, we have been raising the alarm for months that this 
bill was going to impact Medicaid, but it is also going to 
impact Medicare. So I think that is something people have to 
put in their pipes and smoke.
    I want to thank all of our many colleagues for being here 
to do what is the purpose of hearings--to try and make a bill 
better, to try to expose what is in it. Certainly, there are 
more of our Democratic colleagues here waiting their turn to 
testify on amendments than there are of the Republican members 
of this committee, who--I guess they are taking their naps off 
camera for a change.
    I want to focus on some of the most egregious parts of the 
Judiciary section of this bill. Unlike most of the directions 
or the reconciliation directions from most of the committees, 
Judiciary decided to add tens of billions of dollars to support 
this administration's lawless and ultimately counterproductive 
immigration agenda.
    So, under this White House, we have seen mistaken and 
illegal deportations; we have seen wrongful arrests, including 
by masked men in unmarked cars; we have seen outrageous attacks 
on due process and First Amendment rights. And this agenda has 
made the United States Government complicit in the false 
imprisonment of people in an El Salvador jail that is notorious 
for human-rights violations. Our government is now complicit in 
this.
    And it is shameful that the U.S. Government is refusing to 
lift a finger to return these people home to their families 
even when the government has admitted that they were sent there 
by mistake and in violation of a U.S. court order.
    This White House's lawless immigration agenda has seen 
people ripped off the streets and detained, not for a crime, 
but for exercising their First Amendment rights.
    This isn't immigration enforcement; it is calculated 
cruelty. This isn't keeping our communities safe; it is an un-
American attack on the truth, on the First Amendment, on 
fundamental human rights. It is a campaign of fear and 
lawlessness being carried out on the American taxpayers' dime.
    And no one should kid themselves: If you don't support an 
immigrant's right to due process, then you don't support 
anyone's right to due process. Because without due process, who 
is to say if the next person in shackles being loaded on a 
plane to El Salvador or South Sudan is a citizen or not? To say 
if they are a gang member or not? To say if they are an actual 
threat to national security or just a political threat to this 
White House?
    So, you know, in addition, we have got buried in this bill 
a provision that would prevent U.S. courts from being able to 
enforce their rulings when government officials violate court 
orders. This bill would prevent the courts from using their 
most powerful tool to uphold the law, the power to hold 
government officials in contempt.
    So, of course, it is being written so that it would apply 
to pending cases, impeding a court's ability to enforce orders 
against--you guessed it--the Trump administration. And this is 
important because, as Ranking Member Raskin mentioned, this 
White House has been sued more than any other administration, 
hundreds of times in just its first few months, because it has 
violated so many laws in such a short time.
    So, basically, our MAGA friends want to create a financial 
hurdle too steep for most plaintiffs to overcome by putting an 
enormous price tag on Americans' right to access justice in our 
courts in order to challenge these White House power grabs.
    Federal courts rarely require bond in cases alleging 
unconstitutional actions by the government, and the decision to 
impose a security bond is properly within a judge's discretion 
depending on the circumstances. This bill would change that. It 
would kneecap any avenue for the courts or the American people 
to hold an administration--any administration--accountable for 
unlawful or unconstitutional actions.
    Have our colleagues forgotten that we do not elect kings, 
we elect Presidents, and for a limited time period? Have they 
forgotten that a President, his administration, his allies, 
including Elon Musk and his DOGE brothers, don't have the right 
to do whatever they want just because congressional Republicans 
don't have the backbone to stand up and stop them?
    These efforts to undermine our constitutional order would 
destroy the very rights and liberties that have made America 
strong and a beacon to the rest of the world. So this bill 
doesn't serve my constituents.
    Mr. Raskin, one of the things that my constituents have 
been most concerned about--they are horrified that the White 
House and Department of Justice canceled over $800 million in 
community grant funding, which we tried to restore, but our 
Republican colleagues voted ``no.''
    We saw funding for community violence prevention, crime 
fighting, support for law enforcement, gun violence 
prevention--using that funding, evidence-based programs have 
reduced gun violence in communities like mine, Philadelphia, by 
over 50 percent in the last couple years.
    So my constituents think that this is a danger to public 
safety. Can you comment on this?
    Mr. Raskin. Yeah. Well, it is extraordinary that they are 
wanting to spend tens of billions of dollars on the border wall 
while they are cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from 
grants going to local police departments, victim assistance 
organizations, anti-rape and -sexual-assault groups that are 
actually on the ground in all of our communities.
    Now, this is something where I really thought we could have 
a bipartisan consensus, because nobody knew about it. We all 
voted to appropriate that money in the House of 
Representatives. The Senate voted to appropriate that money. It 
went through the entire legislative process. It was signed into 
law by the President of the United States.
    The money goes to the Department of Justice, they program 
it in their Office of Justice Programs, and then the various 
police departments around the country and local groups apply 
for the money.
    And there were 365 grants that were actually awarded. They 
were planning on it. A lot of them started to spend money that 
hadn't even come in yet, from other sources.
    And this one DOGE employee--we have the guy's name; we 
found out who it was--sent an email, and he just went down a 
list of them and said, ``Get rid of all of these grants.''
    So I said to our colleagues, ``You didn't know about this. 
We didn't know about this. It doesn't have to be a partisan 
thing. But that is not how our system works. We don't have a 
fourth branch of government called DOGE or Elon Musk.''
    And yet, when we introduced an amendment to restore all 
that money, alas, our colleagues didn't have anything to say in 
defense of what DOGE had done but they all voted against 
restoring the money.
    And so we have the same amendment before the Rules 
Committee, and I beseech our distinguished chairwoman, Ms. 
Foxx, Mr. McGovern, please look at this.
    We are hearing about it all over the country. I think it is 
more than 38 or 39 States that are involved in this. These are 
groups and these are police departments that we are depending 
on. And we are literally defunding local police departments and 
local crime-fighting programs.
    Ms. Scanlon. One of the pieces that seems most egregious is 
they have defunded programs to address fentanyl abuse. They 
have defunded programs that address all of the opioid-abuse 
issues.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, indeed, there are a lot of opioid efforts 
that have been undercut or eliminated because of this.
    But I will tell you one interesting story which tells me 
that this is isn't over yet, okay? Because, when we started to 
raise this in the Judiciary Committee, there had been no 
changes. Well, we began to talk about one specific program 
called the Officer Robert Wilson Preventing Violence Against 
Law Enforcement Officers and Ensuring Officer Resilience and 
Survivability Initiative. It is called the VALOR Initiative. 
And it is for mental and physical health engagement with police 
officers.
    We began to talk about that, we advertised it, we showcased 
it, and, mysteriously and quietly, the program was restored by 
the Department of Justice. But nobody explained why. Everybody 
has refused to talk to us about it.
    And this is so much the pattern of what we have seen with 
DOGE, where they come in with Elon Musk's chainsaw, they have a 
personnel massacre, they get rid of everybody, and yet, if you 
know somebody--and, you know, as a Democrat, I don't know a lot 
of people in the Elon Musk world, but I know Republicans who 
have been able to get a phone number for this person or that 
person and get somebody restored.
    Well, if it is waste, fraud, or abuse, they shouldn't be 
restored. But it is not waste, fraud, and abuse. But none of us 
should be subject to this kind of treatment.
    And that is why I talk about the fourth branch of 
government. This is not contemplated in our system of 
government.
    Now, I don't know whether or not Elon Musk has been run out 
of town or he is just no longer popular. We don't hear a lot 
from him. But there are still tons of people suffering the 
repercussions of what he and DOGE did.
    And so, again, I would just beg the Rules Committee to look 
at this, because we have heard from people all over the country 
about that.
    And, unfortunately, the logic of what they did has carried 
over into the President's budget proposal. They want to cut a 
billion dollars out of Department of Justice programs in the 
next budget, you know, a half-a-billion dollars from the FBI, 
the ATF.
    There is this Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security 
Center. President Trump got mad at a guy who worked for him 
named Chris Krebs, who was the Director of it, because he 
contradicted Trump over the 2020 election. He said it was the 
most secure election in American history. As a conservative 
guy, he told the truth about what happened. President Trump has 
issued an executive order against him now to deny him security 
clearance and all this stuff.
    In the meantime, they cut hundreds of millions of dollars 
from our cybersecurity and infrastructure security efforts 
against Russia and against other enemies of the United States.
    So, please, like, we have to bear down on the details here. 
All of the money is being sucked up for immigration, the border 
wall, and away from local police. They are defunding the police 
in America.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, and what you have described here is 
that, in the course of a hearing, it was raised that this 
elimination had occurred of a program that people actually 
supported, so the hearing process, the legislative process 
actually works.
    And that is what we should be doing now, instead of trying 
to ram this crazy bill through in the middle of the night, 
because we aren't able to get to all of these issues where the 
DOGE brothers came in and it appears that the way they decided 
what should be cut was they just hit control-F-delete and just 
wiped out huge sections of the Federal Government.
    Mr. Raskin. Honestly, for the life of me, I don't 
understand, what would the problem be with saying, ``DOGE made 
a mistake here, and let's restore that money to our communities 
across America''?
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, DOGE was the mistake.
    But I just have one more question for you. During our 
Judiciary markup, isn't it true that Republicans voted to allow 
immigration agencies taxpayer dollars to arrest, detain, and 
deport U.S. citizens?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    We had a whole series of amendments, again, that we thought 
would create a bipartisan convergence on the committee. We 
basically were looking at things that the administration had 
done unlawfully, where the courts had struck them down 
repeatedly and categorically and clearly, judges on all sides 
of the political spectrum.
    And we said, let's put it in the legislation that the 
government cannot deport U.S. citizens and detain them under 
ICE, under immigration authorities. Let's say that nobody 
should be deported from the country without a due-process 
hearing, which is what the Supreme Court has said. We said, 
let's not do immigration raids in churches, let's not do 
immigration raids in schools.
    We had a whole series of those. And our colleagues, 
unfortunately, rejected all of them, just voting on a party-
line basis.
    And, as I was saying, the frustrating and sometimes amusing 
part of it was, they did not engage in any speech with us. It 
was like, you know, a MAGA mime troupe, because they wouldn't 
say anything to us about why they were voting ``no,'' they were 
just voting ``no.''
    Ms. Scanlon. We have seen similar things here.
    Well, thank you for your clarity on the underpinnings of 
our Constitution and why defending those fundamental freedoms 
is part of what actually makes America great.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Scott, do you have any questions or comments?
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, I don't have any questions for this 
panel.
    I am just glad President Trump is using his authorities to 
secure the border. I was there this past weekend, and I was 
shocked to hear that our people that work at the Border Patrol 
were ordered to parole people into the country even if they had 
visible gang tattoos and it was obvious they were a threat to 
the citizens of our country under the Biden administration.
    With that, I yield.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Good morning and welcome to our chairs and ranking members, 
and appreciate your testimony this morning.
    I want to start with maybe a fairly simple question. Just 
by way of context, as you all know, we started this hearing at 
1:00 a.m. And I have been on a journey, I guess, or a quest for 
a very simple answer to what I think is a fairly simple 
question, but it has been proven elusive thus far, and the 
chair was unwilling to engage with me in a colloquy earlier on 
it.
    And, really, the question is: Why was this hearing noticed 
for 1:00 a.m.? Why have we spent the past 5 hours debating this 
bill in the dead of night?
    Of course, I have a theory, and it is that this bill is 
indefensible and that House Republicans know that full well and 
decided that it would be in their interest to hold this hearing 
in the dead of night rather than in the daylight.
    But I wonder if my Republican colleagues, the chairmen, 
have any thoughts on that front.
    Chairman Green, any observations you might offer as to--do 
you think it was prudent for this committee to convene in the 
middle of the night?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. I don't have any opinion on when 
the committee is called. I am an ER physician; I work day and 
night. I am an ex-Army Ranger; I worked day and night. It was 3 
o'clock in the morning when we flew into Baghdad. Time doesn't 
matter to me.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay.
    How about this? How long have you been chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. I am in my second term.
    Mr. Neguse. Second term. So how many years is that? Three 
years?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. That would be 2-plus this year, 
which I guess is----
    Mr. Neguse. Two-plus? A couple years?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. Two years and 5 months.
    Mr. Neguse. You have held a lot of hearings?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. I have, yeah.
    Mr. Neguse. Have you noticed any of them at 1:00 a.m.?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. We have had some markups go past--
--
    Mr. Neguse. Not if they went past. Have you noticed any 
hearings at 1:00 a.m.?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. I have not, no.
    Mr. Neguse. What time was the markup for your committee on 
this bill?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. On this bill, I think 10:00 a.m.
    Mr. Neguse. 10:00 a.m. Interesting. Yeah.
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. Yeah.
    Mr. Neguse. I am pretty sure Chairman Jordan's markup was 
around 10:00 a.m. too, because I am on his committee. The same 
goes for Chairman Westerman.
    The question I have is why the Rules Committee decided to 
deviate from the protocols that the chairs have apparently 
established, those who are testifying in front of our 
committee; why this committee, the Speaker's committee, decided 
to gavel in in the middle of the night to take up this bill.
    It is an interesting question, and I have yet to get a good 
answer, but maybe the third panel will perhaps provide some 
clarity.
    Chairman Jordan, good to see you----
    Mr. Jordan. I was going to say, when you have got a great 
product, you want to get after it and get it passed.
    Mr. Neguse. Oh, is that right?
    Mr. Jordan. This thing cuts taxes----
    Mr. Neguse. Oh.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Secures the border----
    Mr. Neguse. Let's talk--let me----
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Cuts taxes, secures----
    Mr. Neguse. Let me talk to you a little bit about the 
product, Chairman Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay.
    Mr. Neguse. So I want to talk to you in particular about 
the contempt provision. So this is section 70302, restriction 
on enforcement.
    You are familiar with this provision, right? Is that--you 
know the provision I am talking about?
    Mr. Jordan. I am waiting for you to explain it.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. Well, you are testifying. I was going to 
ask you to explain it.
    So my understanding of the provision--you can tell me if I 
am wrong or incorrect--is that this provision would bar any 
Federal court from enforcing a contempt citation in a case in 
which an injunction or a temporary restraining order has been 
issued if security--that is to say, money--has not been 
provided or ordered by the Federal court in that particular 
case.
    Is that right?
    Mr. Jordan. That is right.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay.
    Mr. Jordan. I think that is existing law.
    Mr. Neguse. It is not existing law.
    Mr. Jordan. I think it----
    Mr. Neguse. I will clarify. As you know, under the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is discretionary as it relates to 
cases against the government, right? That is the whole reason 
for this provision; otherwise, you wouldn't include this 
provision in the bill.
    This is meant--I am asking a question. I don't know.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I----
    Mr. Neguse. Is that right? Or am I----
    Mr. Jordan. I didn't hear the question. Say the question 
again.
    Mr. Neguse. What was that?
    Mr. Jordan. I didn't hear the question in there.
    Mr. Neguse. The question is whether or not this provision 
is as I stated it to be, that essentially it would preclude any 
Federal court from enforcing a contempt citation in a case in 
which an injunction or a temporary retraining order has been 
issued if a security has not been provided----
    Mr. Jordan. That last clause is the key. If that security 
has not been put up. Right.
    Mr. Neguse. Correct.
    And you are aware that the way in which you have written 
this provision, it would apply to any plaintiff in the United 
States vis-a-vis a case against any entity within the Federal 
Government?
    Mr. Jordan. I can look at the drafting, but my 
understanding is, it applies to the cases we are talking about 
with immigration cases.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah, no. You are incorrect. So, yes, those 
cases----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you are saying, ``No, incorrect.'' I am 
just saying how I believe it was written.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. So let me----
    Mr. Jordan. You think it is written different.
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. Explain to you what this provision 
actually----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I can't wait for your wisdom. Go right 
ahead.
    Mr. Neguse. Chairman Jordan, this provision would bar any 
plaintiff in the country from being able to obtain a contempt 
citation from a Federal court in a case in which an injunction 
or a temporary restraining order has been issued if security 
has not been provided. It is not limited to the cases that you 
have identified.
    So let me give you an example. Let's say there is a citizen 
in Ohio, a constituent of yours, who believes that their 
private data has been improperly released, right, by the IRS, 
and they file a lawsuit against the IRS. If this becomes law, 
your provision, that individual would have to provide security, 
whatever security the court would deem reasonable.
    That is not something that has existed up until now. Do you 
understand that?
    Mr. Jordan. Got it.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. So I am trying to understand why you 
think that is in the best interests----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, our understanding was courts----
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. Of the people you represent in 
Ohio. Go ahead.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Judges were waiving this. Our 
understanding is, this would prevent enforcement of a contempt 
order if security was not provided--if the security was not 
provided--in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure 6(s). That is what we put in the legislation.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah. This provision--so you are saying that, 
essentially, the way that you read this language is that it is 
not compelling the Federal court to require security of a 
plaintiff.
    Mr. Jordan. That is a situation--now the judge can waive 
it. We are saying that it should compel the court to have the 
security there.
    Mr. Neguse. Correct. Yeah. We are saying the same thing.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay.
    Mr. Neguse. Let's go back to my core example, all right? We 
will just walk through it together here.
    A constituent in Ohio who believes that their information 
was improperly released by the IRS. I remember--you have served 
on the Judiciary Committee----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, but----
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. For many years--hold on.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. We are talking about in the 
context of immigration cases that----
    Mr. Neguse. This is all cases. This is not immigration 
cases. The plain language of this statute that you have written 
applies to every conceivable case brought in a Federal court, 
period--IRS cases, patent cases, immigration cases. If you have 
a constituent that sues the ATF, this provision applies to 
them. This is the point.
    And I don't--you can visit with your lawyers and maybe they 
can provide you with the clarity, but it is unquestionably the 
case that this provision applies to every plaintiff, correct?
    [Mr. Jordan conferring with staff.]
    Mr. Jordan. Oh. Oh, okay. Yeah, that is what I thought.
    Mr. Neguse. I think we are on the same page now.
    Mr. Jordan. The judge can set the security at whatever 
level he wants. What typically happens in these cases is he is 
just waiving it, no one is putting it up, and they are getting 
this injunction that applies nationwide----
    Mr. Neguse. Correct.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Which is a concern.
    Mr. Neguse. I hear you.
    Mr. Jordan. Are you okay with a nationwide injunction----
    Mr. Neguse. I hear you.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Issued by one single Federal 
judge?
    Mr. Neguse. We will get to that part, Mr. Jordan. Let's 
just----
    Mr. Jordan. Okay.
    Mr. Neguse. Let's complete the analysis on this piece. 
Because, to your point, as you said, this particular provision 
doesn't require a specific amount of security. It is 
essentially saying to the Federal court it has to require some 
security.
    And my point is that this is a deep deviation from existing 
Federal law. This has never been the case. We have never said 
to a constituent----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, do you not----
    Mr. Neguse. Mr. Jordan, let me finish----
    Mr. Jordan. Okay. Go ahead.
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. And then I will give you a chance 
to respond.
    We have never said to American citizens and constituents 
that, in order to vindicate their rights in Federal court, they 
are going to be required to provide a security when their 
constitutional rights have been violated by their government.
    And I find it astounding--I am not sure that many of your 
colleagues understand the full import of this. They will by the 
time this gets to the floor. I imagine there will be a lot of 
limited-government advocates who will find deep reasons to be 
concerned about this type of provision, because, as you can 
imagine, it will preclude folks from being able to vindicate 
their constitutional rights.
    Now, I would also say, the way that you have written it, as 
you have noted, it is retroactive, right? So this applies to 
any----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I just want to say----
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. The situation we are trying to 
address is what has been happening around the country. And, 
actually----
    Mr. Neguse. You didn't write it that way.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. As you know, a single Federal 
judge gets--a case is brought to the judge, they waive the 
security, and then issue a decision that applies nationwide to 
all immigrants who are in that situation.
    Mr. Neguse. Why didn't you put ``nationwide'' in this 
language?
    Mr. Jordan. Well, we can look at the language. I mean----
    Mr. Neguse. It is 6:00 a.m. You are voting on this thing 
in, like, 10 hours. What are we talking about? We have had 
weeks. You could have put ``nationwide'' in here. That is not 
what it says. This applies to every one of America's 330 
million citizens.
    Mr. Jordan. I mean, again, the judge has discretion on what 
that amount can be.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure. So a judge could say, you know what----
    Mr. Jordan. And judges are right now waiving it, and that 
was the concern we had.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure. And I think a judge----
    Mr. Jordan. And you don't think that is a problem? Even 
Supreme Court Justice Kagan has said there is a problem with 
these----
    Mr. Neguse. All right.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Nationwide injunctions being 
issued from one single Federal judge. That is what we are 
trying to get at.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. The Supreme Court is considering that 
question right now--I will just conclude here. I----
    Mr. Jordan. All I am saying is----
    Mr. Neguse. Let me conclude my statement----
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Even--even----
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. And then I will give you a chance 
to respond.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Even more liberal Justices have 
said this is a problem.
    Mr. Neguse. I understand----
    Mr. Jordan. We have actually passed----
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. Your rationale, Chairman Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Standalone legislation.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Neguse, please let Mr. Jordan speak, 
and then he will let you speak.
    Mr. Neguse. I will offer my question, and then he can 
answer it.
    The Chairwoman. Okay. But you are not asking a question.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair----
    The Chairwoman. You are asserting a statement.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, Mr. Neguse controls the time.
    The Chairwoman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McGovern. And so----
    The Chairwoman. But I am trying to ask him to ask a 
question and then let Mr. Jordan answer.
    Mr. Neguse. I will conclude my statement and then ask a 
question of Mr. Jordan, since he I don't think wants to engage 
in this constructive dialogue to try to actually address the 
purported problem that he is trying to solve. So I will simply 
finish the hypothetical that I offered.
    Any constituent in Ohio who believes that their private 
data has been disclosed improperly by the IRS, any citizen of 
Ohio or Colorado for that matter who believes that their 
constitutional rights have been violated in some way, if this 
becomes law, they would be required to pay the court money in 
an amount that the court deems necessary to cover the costs of 
the potential damage in order to proceed in Federal court.
    That has never been the law of the land in our country. And 
I cannot believe that Freedom Caucus--so-called Freedom Caucus 
members would support that kind of principle.
    Secondly, the way that this is written, as you noted, 
Chairman Jordan, yes, this would apply to the 93, 94 different 
injunctions that have been issued against the Trump 
administration. It would also apply to any existing injunction 
that is in effect today. I don't know what that number is. 
1,000? 10,000? Desegregation injunctions that are still 
operating today in different Federal courts in the country? A 
variety of different litigation that is pending in different 
courts across the country that would be implicated by this 
provision.
    So I don't think that ultimately it is going to survive, 
you know, the birdbath in the Senate, because it is clearly 
changing policy. I also think it is patently unconstitutional. 
There is no world in which the Supreme Court would ever deem 
this--and we could go through the Supreme Court precedent that 
establishes that.
    But I just also would encourage you to take a--perhaps the 
legal counsel on the Judiciary Committee can take a deeper look 
at this paragraph, because, as it is written now, it is deeply 
problematic for civil liberties in our country.
    Ranking Member Raskin, I can see, has been jumping at the 
opportunity to----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I mean, I think you did a----
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. Opine.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Pretty masterful job of addressing 
it, Mr. Neguse, but I would add just two things.
    One, it is worse than you say, because it doesn't just 
apply to cases against the government; it applies to private 
cases as well. There is nothing in the language here that would 
exempt a case between two private parties, two commercial 
parties.
    But your final point, I think, is the key one. It is 
blatantly unconstitutional. Because the power to hold someone 
in contempt, for a court, is an inherent judicial power, and it 
has always been deemed to say that. They don't need to wait on 
Congress to give them the power to hold someone in criminal or 
civil contempt for refusing compliance with a court order any 
more than we do when we--or we, at least, used to--engage in 
the inherent powers of contempt that Congress has against 
people. We don't need to wait for another branch of government 
to give us that power.
    So it is unconstitutional. It is ridiculously broad. And it 
is a very ham-handed approach to what their real issue is.
    They don't like the fact that Judge Boasberg, who was a 
Bush appointee when he first got on the bench--he was Justice--
which--he was one of the Justices' roommates at Yale, I think. 
Well, anyway----
    Mr. Jordan. Kavanaugh.
    Mr. Raskin. Yeah. He was a----
    Mr. Jordan. Kavanaugh.
    Mr. Raskin. Yeah, Kavanaugh. He was Justice Kavanaugh's 
roommate. He was a pillar of the conservative bar, right?
    Well, they don't like his opinion because he said, ``Turn 
the planes around, and give this guy due process.'' And then 
they laughed at him. I mean, the President of El Salvador was 
tweeting, ``Oopsie, we made a mistake,'' like he was mocking 
the judge. And this is a judge who doesn't fool around. He is a 
stickler for the rule of law.
    And so he said, ``I think there is probable cause to 
believe that whoever in the administration disregarded my 
authority and didn't turn the planes around and didn't 
guarantee due process is in contempt of court.'' And he said, 
``And I am going to get to the bottom of it. And I don't even 
need to rely on the marshals that report to the Attorney 
General. I can appoint my own people to go get them. And I can 
also use civil contempt and slap fines and liens on people.''
    So this whole provision is really targeted at him and other 
judges who are saying a judicial order is not something that 
anybody, including the President of the United States or people 
who work for him, can defy with impunity.
    Because, under Article VI of the Constitution, we have a 
supreme Constitution. We don't have a supreme dictator in 
America. The Constitution is what governs us all. And it is 
emphatically the province and the duty of the courts to say 
what the Constitution means.
    Mr. Neguse. I agree, Ranking Member Raskin. I think you 
articulated it well.
    And maybe my hypotheticals earlier were a bit too obtuse. I 
will give a tangible example.
    There was a case a few years ago--Ranking Member Raskin, 
you are probably familiar with this--Missouri v. Biden, right? 
This is a case--Chair Jordan, I know you are familiar with this 
case as well, because you led an amicus brief in this case, 
right?
    This was a case initiated by the Missouri attorney general 
against the Biden administration for their perception that the 
Biden administration was engaged in censorship of conservative 
voices on social media.
    And, Chair Jordan, you led an amicus brief on behalf of 
Judiciary Republicans in that case.
    Mr. Jordan. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Neguse. A permanent injunction was issued in that case 
against the Biden administration. The State of Missouri was 
successful.
    Chair Jordan, do you know if a security was issued in that 
case?
    Mr. Jordan. Don't know. It is up to the judge.
    Mr. Neguse. It was not. There was no security in that case.
    Mr. Jordan. It is up to the judge.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, no. This is the point. There was no 
security in that case because, under existing rules, it is not 
the case--under rule 65, subsection C, generally speaking, as a 
matter of just general practice, security is not issued--or, 
rather, required in cases involving the government. And that is 
the point.
    If this provision became law----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, it could be required and a judge waives 
it. That is what happens.
    Mr. Neguse. If this provision became law, two things would 
happen--two things.
    One, the permanent injunction that I suspect remains in 
place in that case would no longer be enforceable. So, just for 
the record, you know, the permanent injunction that you worked 
so hard to secure against the Biden administration, that is 
gone, you can't enforce it anymore, because of this provision.
    And then, secondly, as we have, you know, probably 
belabored here at this point, it would make it very difficult, 
potentially, for similar types of lawsuits to be initiated in 
the future by prospective plaintiffs against the Federal 
Government if they feel as though their constitutional rights 
are at risk.
    So, anyway, I will close there, but I think it is a deeply 
problematic provision and it ought to be removed.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
    Do you feel properly----
    Mr. Jordan. No.
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. Instructed now?
    Mr. Jordan. I am fine. I am fine.
    The Chairwoman. You are properly instructed.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Griffith, do you have any questions or comments you 
would like to make?
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, Madam Chair, I do.
    The Chairwoman. You are recognized.
    Mr. Griffith. First, I want to respond to Mr. Neguse's 
question of why we started this meeting at 1 o'clock in the 
morning.
    And there may be different opinions, but I--when the 
chairlady was out and I was sitting in the chair in our meeting 
on Monday, I said to members of the other side of the aisle--I 
don't remember who was in the room or not, but there were 
Democrats in the room. I said, ``Look, the reason we want to 
start is that you all will have a lot to say. We want you to 
have time to say it in. And if we don't start early and we want 
to get this done--we have to start early.''
    And I said, ``Now, if you all want to put a restriction on 
the time, we could start later in the morning perhaps.'' And 
then there was no response directly to that, but there was a 
response that--something along the lines of, ``We are glad you 
are not going to try to limit our time, as has happened in some 
other committees.''
    So, I mean, we could have worked out a different time, 
but--and it is true that we have set the clock as to when we 
want to try to get this bill across, if we have the votes to do 
so, and that is within the majority's prerogative.
    But the reason we are meeting at 1:00 a.m., Madam Chair, in 
my opinion, based on that discussion, was that the Democrats 
did not want to restrict themselves to 2 hours or 3 hours of 
discussion on this. We have already been at it over 6 hours. 
And that is appropriate.
    But it just strikes me as just one of those oddities in 
life. You complain that we start at 1 o'clock in the morning, 
when what we are trying to do is to accommodate the ability for 
members of this committee of the other side of the aisle to 
speak their mind. And----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Griffith. Now, hang on. I get to say my piece.
    If that was not the case and if people were willing to say 
each panel is only going to have an hour, we could have started 
later. And that was not the case. And I respect that.
    But I just don't want to be whipsawed by saying, ``Well, 
you all started in the middle of the night for some other 
reason.'' The reason was, so there would be plenty of time so 
we can get through this thing, let everybody have their chance 
to say their piece, and then we can move forward.
    So, with that said, I will ask this question of Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan, is there anything that you didn't have an 
opportunity to say----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I----
    Mr. Griffith [continuing]. In the discussion that has 
occurred thus far that you had great desire to say?
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I was just going to say, I think the 
overall legislation is good legislation. Cuts taxes, secures 
the border, requires work, and gives moms and dads the ability 
to pick the school that they think their kid is going to get 
the best education--those are four fundamental principles that 
I think the vast majority of Americans agree with. That is why 
I think the bill is so good overall.
    And I think what we were able to do in our committee, 
particularly proud of, is the fact that we were charged with 
just spending, allocating resources to keep the border secure, 
but also were able to bring in revenue to help offset the cost 
to keep our border secure.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I thank the gentleman.
    I have no additional questions. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. If you would yield just a little bit to 
me----
    Mr. Griffith. I will yield to the chairwoman.
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. I was going to answer a bit 
ago, I agree with what you are saying about why we started so 
early.
    Mr. Neguse said we would be on the floor between 11:00 and 
12:00, I believe, today. And so starting at 6 o'clock--I mean, 
at 1:00 a.m.--and hopefully we will be on the floor by that 
time, so we won't be passing bills in the dark of the night.
    But I want to quote President Obama saying, ``There is a 
fierce urgency of now.'' So we are not the only ones that have 
felt a fierce urgency of now.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    Mr. Griffith. Madam Chair, I yield my time back to you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, I just want to respond by simply saying, there 
is no urgency to pass this bill tomorrow or on Friday or--I 
mean, we could easily do it when we come back.
    And so, nice try by saying that it is our fault that we are 
meeting at 1 o'clock in the morning. I appreciate that.
    But you know what? This is important stuff, and it is going 
to impact a lot of our constituents, yours included. And this 
debate should happen in the light of day. And the fact that it 
isn't basically, I believe, is because you guys don't want 
people to know what is in this bill.
    So I thank the chairlady. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, thank you very much, Madam 
Chair.
    And I really did appreciate when Representative Griffith 
sat on the chair, because he did answer questions. He, you 
know--it was a lot of, ``Well, we don't really know. There are 
tweaks,'' right? He kept saying, ``There are going to be tweaks 
in this bill, and the tweaks haven't even started.''
    But the reality is, we could have started this at 7 o'clock 
in the morning and still had all day long to talk, right? Still 
had all day long to explain to the American people what we are 
doing here, where we could have maybe not forced every chair 
and ranking member to sit as though they were on a cheap 
airplane or something. Look at them. They can't even open their 
hands. They are crushed in here.
    There is no reason to be doing this in the dark of night. I 
have been calling it the ``Vampire Committee,'' because it 
seems like they are going to just suck all the healthcare away 
from Americans in the middle of the night.
    I think it is a good thing that we are asking questions, 
because it is over 1,100 pages and not everybody has seen it. 
And we still haven't seen the last pages that might blow a lot 
up. And so the American people do deserve to have this set at a 
time when we are not coming in in the dark.
    And, yes, if we went--you know, I am looking at Chairman 
Westerman. It turns out our hearing wasn't very long compared 
to the rest, but you started at a reasonable time and we kept 
going. The Ag Committee reasonably said, ``There is a lot 
here,'' and they set it for 2 days. There is no reason we 
needed to come here at 1:00 a.m., except for that you want to 
push this through.
    You then passed a rule that Representative Roy had to walk 
out so he could not vote ``no.'' But you then rush everything. 
You wanted to get everything done in 1 day. You wanted to get 
everything done in 1 day. You are going to have the biggest 
transfer of wealth in American history, and you are going to do 
it in 1 day. That is your goal.
    And I don't know if it is because you are worried that 
maybe some Republicans won't be here to vote. But if this is 
that important for them, they should show up and vote. They 
should be at this hearing, right?
    We know you have to step out. You know, we have been here 
since 1 o'clock. Democrats have pretty much been here, except 
for when we had to step out and grab a little quick something 
to eat, refill our coffee bottle. But Republicans aren't even 
showing up. Republicans aren't asking questions. They are not 
willing to defend what they are doing in this bill. That is a 
reality.
    But I wanted to, you know--I had thought I would follow up 
a little bit on the conversation with Chairman Jordan.
    Because I need to say, Chairman, you know, last Congress, I 
sat here, and I saw you and Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, like, 
being in great--I mean, it was great. I felt like I was in an 
alternate reality. I told you, it was like, ``Oh, my God, that 
is amazing.''
    Mr. Jordan. That was FISA. That was FISA.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. That was FISA.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But you----
    Mr. Jordan. It is coming back. We will get to do that 
again. I am working on Mr. Raskin.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah.
    But what you were concerned about and what united you and 
the top Democrat on the committee was a belief in 
constitutional principles. Is that right?
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. I don't think the government should be 
spying on Americans.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. But if you believe in that 
constitutional principle, shouldn't you believe in all of the 
constitutional principles?
    Mr. Jordan. I do.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah. Well, thank you. Because you 
actually even wrote a Washington Post article about that. And I 
am going to quote it, because it says, ``We can balance''--this 
is your Washington Post article. ``We can balance''----
    Mr. Jordan. First time I have had an op-ed in The 
Washington Post. Right.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. You did write an op-ed in The 
Washington Post. I will send it to you.
    It is a Washington Post editorial, and your words were, 
``We can balance the need to protect Americans' fundamental 
constitutional rights with the need to give our intelligence 
and law enforcement agencies the tools to fight those who want 
to do us harm.''
    Do you still agree with that?
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. I don't recall if you voted for our 
warrant requirement amendment last year. I hope you did. But 
you will get a chance----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But I think----
    Mr. Jordan. You will get a chance in 10 months----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez [continuing]. This issue----
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. To deal with it again.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But this issue of believing in due 
process I think means you need to believe in due process. You 
need to believe in our constitutional rights even when it is 
dealing with due process.
    And, Chairman Jordan, is there anything in this bill that 
protects Americans' due process?
    Mr. Jordan. Nothing that harms American due process.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh, nothing----
    Mr. Jordan. I mean, the Supreme Court----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez [continuing]. That harms Americans' due 
process.
    Maybe I will ask Ranking Member--you know, part of the 
problem of why we are so worried about due process right now 
is, we have a President who is violating due process, who is 
sending citizens--deporting citizens with their children who 
have brain cancer.
    Mr. Jordan. Not----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. They are deporting citizens.
    Mr. Jordan. That is not accurate.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. They deported citizens' children----
    Mr. Jordan. Not----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. They deported citizen children who 
needed medical care. They have said ``oops'' numerous times.
    And, in fact, I am sure, Chairman Jordan, you know what the 
meaning of ``habeas corpus'' is, don't you? Do you know the 
meaning of ``habeas corpus''?
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. It means----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. What is the meaning of ``habeas 
corpus''?
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Release of the--I mean, I think in 
technical--release of the body. It is like, there is a 
process--you can't just be detained. There is a process you 
have to be able to access in order to be released. So that is 
critically important. But----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But, well, you know, the thing is, 
Secretary Noem thinks that habeas corpus means you get to just 
deport people, right? That is what she testified.
    Ranking Member, what are some of the reasons why we should 
be concerned about due process in this moment and why it might 
have been a good thing to actually put some protections in this 
bill?
    Mr. Raskin. Well, the provision that we were just 
discussing about the courts' authority to hold government 
officials in contempt is a provision that is all about due 
process, right? Because what is happening is, you get judges 
like Judge Boasberg who says, ``No, this person cannot be 
deported from the country without due process.''
    The whole Supreme Court has now agreed with that.
    Justice Scalia, by the way, was a great champion of the 
idea that the due-process liberty protected by the Constitution 
applies not just to citizens but to non-citizens. It doesn't 
apply exactly the same way, but the rudimentary elements of it 
are there.
    What are the elements of due process? The right to see 
evidence against you, the right to educe evidence on your own 
behalf, the right to be represented by counsel, the right to 
appear before a neutral fact-finder who is going to impartially 
make a decision.
    That is all the Supreme Court is saying.
    And then the answer, you know, that Donald Trump and his 
administration have been making and, unfortunately, some of our 
very smart colleagues have followed along with is, ``Well, that 
guy is really MS-13.'' Well, maybe or maybe not. Maybe he is 
Proud Boys. Maybe he is Oath Keepers. Who knows? Bring the 
evidence against him.
    But the point is, you don't send somebody with no due 
process to a torturer's dungeon in El Salvador and then say 
things about him after he is gone. That is not how it works in 
America.
    And that is why Judge Boasberg, again, a very conservative 
judge, says, bring him back. If you want to charge him with 
50,000 crimes, charge him with 50,000 crimes. If you want to 
deport him, do it according to the law and not the Alien 
Enemies Act of 1798, because we are not at war.
    Guess who decides whether there is war? Congress decides. 
We declare war, not the President, right? And you can't 
fabricate an invasion of the country that doesn't exist. 
Consult with the Supreme Court about it.
    So, you know, I think that the role of the Judiciary 
Committee and the House of Representatives and the Congress has 
got to be to uphold the rule of law. And the Framers really 
expected us to advance the rule of law even if the President 
was violating it. In fact, they expected us especially in that 
case to be defending the prerogatives of Congress.
    We have the power to declare war. We have the power to 
regulate commerce internationally--which means tariffs, right? 
I mean, President Trump invoked IEEPA, which doesn't mention 
tariffs and has never been used for tariffs before. Right? So 
they are invoking a whole series of emergencies that usurp 
congressional lawmaking power and end up violating due-process 
rights. So, you know, I agree with you----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right.
    And when you have a President or any leader just constantly 
saying, ``There is an emergency, there is an emergency'' when 
there isn't one, ``There is an invasion'' when there is not 
war, and then saying, ``We can do whatever we want,'' and who 
doesn't even seem to know what the Constitution is, the worry 
is that that is a march to fascism, if we aren't already there.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, you got it. I mean, the key trick of 
authoritarians is to invoke an emergency exception, whether or 
not it actually exists in a constitution or not.
    And Carl Schmitt, who is, you know, a famous fascist 
theorist, wrote about that, that you want to try to occupy the 
space of emergency so all bets are off. You can trample free 
speech, you can trample free assembly, you can trample due-
process rights.
    So much of what has taken place during this first 120 days 
is the people and those of us in Congress who are willing to 
stand up and those law firms and colleges and universities and 
newspapers willing to stand up defending the idea of the normal 
Constitution and not that we are in some kind of emergency 
which allows the President to do whatever he wants.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right.
    And we have a President who has used the Department of 
Justice to attack the free press, to attack education, to 
attack Members of Congress. And what we are doing by asking the 
questions tonight, by doing the amendments that Republicans 
keep voting down, is saying, ``No.'' We are saying ``no'' to 
the concept that you can do away with what Americans hold 
dearest.
    Every time--where is our American flag? Well, there is one. 
Every time we pledge allegiance to the American flag, it is to 
the Constitution and the rule of law that is represented there. 
And people have lost their lives defending it.
    And in Judiciary--Chairman Jordan said, ``We haven't 
deported any citizens,'' but we know we have. Children who 
needed healthcare. But just to make sure that won't happen 
again, it is my understanding that there was an amendment that 
would have prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 
using funds to detain and deport United States citizens.
    What was the vote on that amendment, Chairman Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. I would just point out, there is nothing in 
existing law or this package that authorizes the deportation of 
U.S. citizens.
    The Democrats' amendment related to U.S. citizen would 
prohibit Homeland Security Investigations from arresting U.S. 
citizens who engage in human trafficking, child exploitation, 
or narcotics smuggling.
    Nothing in our bill, nothing in current law allows for the 
deportation of U.S. citizens.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. The problem is that, right now, we 
have an administration who is doing that. So we wanted to 
protect the American citizens from such detention and 
deportation. And the question was, what was the vote?
    And the vote was, Ranking Member Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I don't remember the exact number, but I 
know it was a party-line vote.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. It was a party-line vote. Not a single 
Republican was willing to vote to say citizens--citizens--
should not be detained and deported.
    So I wanted to note that there is money in here, $46 
billion, for a border wall. There is a whole lot more money for 
jails.
    And, you know, right now, I think that there is a concern 
of the American public about issues of corruption, that we are 
seeing billions and billions of dollars being funneled to 
private corporations, right? We are seeing a lot of stuff that 
is funneling money. They are getting rid of competition. They 
are saying that Musk's, you know, Starlink and other companies 
get to get these contracts without competition.
    And I think I wanted to sort of turn to our Homeland 
ranking member and say, are there concerns about the number of 
private prisons that are going to be constructed, the amount of 
money that is going to go into this border wall?
    And I look at that and I think, God, how many kids could 
actually get a meal, who are hungry now, for $46.5 billion? But 
then there is this other aspect to it, as well, regarding 
potential corruption.
    Do you have any concerns about that, Ranking Member?
    Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Well, yeah, we do.
    But let me support Ranking Member Raskin. We offered 
several amendments to the legislation relative to funds being 
used for deporting American citizens and said, ``No funds in 
this bill can be used to deport American citizens.'' Well, we 
lost it on a party-line vote.
    But, also, the only thing we said with another amendment, 
that our committee would prevent DHS from removing U.S. 
citizens except for legal extradition and treaty obligations. 
And we lost it on a party-line vote, which, basically, we 
thought, was a reaffirmation of what was already law.
    So we tried hard to prevent American children from being 
deported who were sick. The Secretary told us, ``Well, her mama 
wanted to take her with her.'' And I said, ``But the lawyer 
wanted to represent based on what the father said.''
    So there were a lot of references about children with 
cancer being deported. And so we just think, as a lot of people 
have said, that, as a Nation of laws, we have to stand on those 
principles. And it is not a person's guilt or innocence; it is 
the due process that everyone should go through, regardless of 
status.
    We have heard people say, ``Well, they had a tattoo.'' I 
say, ``Well, okay, if you are going to charge that person for a 
tattoo, then present whatever evidence that this person has 
broken the law.'' You know, we have a Secretary of Defense with 
all kinds of tattoos on him.
    So this notion that you can just do anything just because 
you don't like it is not who we are as Americans. And so I 
think part of what we tried to do was to reaffirm existing law 
and not leave it to interpretation based on what the President 
wants to do or what the Secretary wants to do. We want to 
follow the law.
    And in every instance--we offered 30-odd amendments in 
support of that, and we lost all of them on a party-line vote.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. That is really sad.
    And I want to--something was said earlier about, ``This is 
what the American people want.'' There have been lots of polls 
about that, about what is happening with regards to this bill. 
And I would say--I am going to just quote the Kaiser Family 
Foundation poll that found that at least three-quarters of the 
public oppose the key things we are doing in this bill. And 
that is: oppose the cutting of Medicaid, 76 percent. The public 
doesn't want this bill.
    We now heard that this is going to affect Medicare. 
Seventy-nine percent of the public oppose the cuts to Medicare.
    What is really happening in this bill is an attack on 
working families. And the education cuts--you know, Chairman 
Jordan, you know, mentioned education as well--we are going to 
deal with that in the next panel, but, you know, those are 
going to be hard on folks.
    And, you know, this concept that my colleague from Colorado 
was going to about who was now having to pay--the idea that 
Americans now have to pay to be able to access our courts, I 
think, is very problematic, that we are turning on its head 
what we are doing.
    And I think that my--I am going to yield to my colleague, 
because she wants to talk in this vein a bit.
    Ms. Scanlon. Just with respect to that, this provision that 
would limit the ability of the courts to enforce their 
provisions, I just wanted to request unanimous consent to enter 
into the record an article published in Just Security on May 
19th by Professor Erwin Chemerinsky. It is entitled ``A 
Terrible Idea.'' And it provides a very thorough rundown on 
just how bad that provision is.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.046
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.047
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.048
    
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    And I would yield back to my colleague.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    You know, in Natural Resources, we also, I think, are 
limiting people's access to the courts. And that is really 
problematic.
    And one of the reasons that I think it is incredibly 
problematic is, I have a lot of Tribes in my district. I sit as 
the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. And 
we know that Tribes--much of the Federal lands were once Tribal 
lands and that the Tribal lands are also subject to Federal 
oversight, so that when we remove access to the court for a 
Tribe, we are--it is not like it is private property. It is 
Federal land.
    And, you know, Chairman Westerman, I know you have been a 
great supporter of Tribal lands and of Tribes in general. We 
had that wonderful meeting in Oklahoma on self-determination. I 
guess I don't understand why you would support removing Tribal 
access to the courts when the Federal Government is going to be 
doing something that is on their land sometimes or that is on 
land where they have cultural resources and sacred sites.
    I really--because I know how great you are usually on 
Tribes. And, you know, I offered an amendment to make sure that 
Tribes could get access to the courts, and I believe you voted 
against it.
    Mr. Westerman. Well, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
flattery. And, Madam Chair, it is a new day in America, not 
just metaphorically but literally. The sun has been up for 
quite some time now, so----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. For quite some time. And we have been 
in here. We can't tell.
    Mr. Westerman. And it appears we will be in here, maybe, 
when the sun goes down, at the rate that things are going.
    The reason you probably can't understand why I would want 
to deny Tribes access to the courts is because I don't want to 
deny Tribes access to the courts. And we talked about this in 
the markup, that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
received no instruction from the Budget Committees, so we 
didn't get into any Tribal jurisdictions.
    And, you know, again, our focus was about energy. And I 
know that it was even mentioned, energy prices, going to the 
moon, but it must be because they are going to start at Mars, 
because under the Biden administration electricity prices went 
up 32 percent. Gas prices in 2022 under Biden went over $5 a 
gallon.
    And there is also this argument about handouts to Big Oil 
companies. You know, when the oil companies profit the most is 
under Democratic administrations. Actually, an oil company set, 
I believe it was a world record for profits in 2022 and 2023, 
the most profits ever, $247 billion in profits. It wasn't 
Exxon, it wasn't Phillips 66, Conoco, Shell or BP. It was 
Aramco, the Saudi oil company, that had world-record profits 
under the Biden administration.
    So there are a lot of things that get said in these 
hearings, but not a lot of them are based on fact. And, again, 
I don't want to deny any American citizen access to the courts.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So I am glad you mentioned profits, 
because the oil and gas companies, I think, was at $200 billion 
worth of profits, but we are going to be reducing royalties for 
oil and gas companies. Because it is not enough that we are 
going to be giving tax cuts to the wealthiest; we are actually 
going to be giving money back to oil and gas companies who had 
$200 billion worth of profits.
    But when you limit judicial review for everybody, you are 
also limiting judicial review for Tribes.
    Ranking Member Huffman, do you want to explain how that 
happened?
    Mr. Huffman. Well, I thank you for the question. And you're 
right; in the markup, we tried to fix this problem in the 
Republican bill with a number of amendments.
    And even though, in provision after provision in this bill, 
they are going into policy, they are earmarking specific 
projects with billions of dollars, they are running roughshod 
over parliamentary rules in every possible way, and yet, when 
it comes time to fixing their little problem with Tribal access 
to the courts and judicial review, suddenly they were sticklers 
for the rules.
    So I think it comes as pretty cold comfort to Indian 
Country that they're the ones that get targeted for this rigid 
interpretation of budget rules and parliamentary procedures 
while everything else is out the window when it comes to giving 
billions of dollars away to Big Oil and Coal and to Central 
Valley irrigators in California for their $2 billion dam and 
any number of other things. It just doesn't--it doesn't hold 
up.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, once again, because they are 
curtailing judicial review, it applies to Tribes on projects on 
Tribal lands. That----
    Mr. Huffman. Absolutely. There is no exception.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez [continuing]. Is actually what happens. 
There are no exceptions.
    Mr. Huffman. If you write a big enough check, there is no 
check on your project----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. That----
    Mr. Huffman [continuing]. And there is no exception for 
Tribes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. My God, people need to know that, that 
what they said is basically: If you give us a lot of money, we 
are going to fast-track it. And you can't question it.
    That is one of the things that is hidden in this bill. It 
is always like, it is a pay-for--pay for it. You can pay to get 
out of court. You know, you can pay to get out of court in this 
bill.
    And, you know, it is very sad that, for people who do want 
to come and challenge, you now are charging a fee.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes. We have never seen this before.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And you have to pay per page now?
    Mr. Huffman. If you are participating in the protest 
provision for one of these oil and gas lease sales--and this 
could be Tribes--just to engage in the protest procedure, you 
now get hit with a fee. It's just remarkable.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah.
    Mr. Huffman. So, cutting royalties for oil and gas, giving 
away millions and millions of acres at fire-sale prices to the 
industry, but if you want to protest any of it, you pay a fee.
    And, by the way, no judicial review if it's a wealthy 
enough developer that they can pay the special ``golden age of 
grift'' fee for permitting.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you for that.
    And I think, with that, I might want to go see that there 
actually is some sun out there, because we are trying to bring 
light to what is actually happening for the American people so 
they can see.
    Some of these provisions, we don't have time, because it is 
1,100 pages long that they are ramming through in a single day, 
and we haven't even seen all of the provisions.
    But I am very grateful--I see so many of my colleagues here 
in the room. They are here because they have amendments to try 
to make the bill better. Hopefully we will consider some 
amendments. We haven't been doing that much lately. But it will 
be good to hear what they are, so that we can talk about the 
unique aspects of what could be fixed in this bill if we only 
had a chance.
    And, with that, is there anything else anybody wants? Any 
other comments from--I am the last Democrat, so this is when 
you--I don't know, Republicans might want to say something.
    Actually, I do have a question on this tattoo thing. I have 
kids, and two of three of them have tattoos.
    How many of you guys have kids? It is all guys. Yeah. How 
many of you guys have kids?
    Mr. Jordan. I got--we got four kids and eight grandkids.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. How many of our kids have tattoos?
    Mr. Jordan. None of mine.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. None of yours. Wow. Wow, that is 
really--you know, I thought I was good, with two out of three.
    But, you know, our kids have tattoos, right? So many people 
have tattoos. You cannot go anywhere without seeing tattoos. So 
the idea that we are using a tattoo as an indicator for you get 
kicked out of the United States without due process is really 
scary.
    Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Mrs. Fischbach, you are recognized.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And there is so much I would love to unpack from the last 
25 minutes, but I recognize that we are trying to make sure 
that we limit our time.
    But I do want to just say, first of all, the sun is up. It 
is a little overcast. So, if Ms. Leger Fernandez wants to see 
the sun, it is a little overcast. So----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. It is overcast?
    Mrs. Fischbach. Yeah, a little overcast.
    And we are not--and I just have to address the fact, we are 
not ramming this bill through. Every one of these bills went 
through committee. They were put together in committee process. 
They have all been through Budget. They have all been out 
there.
    And so ramming something through is, I think, an 
inappropriate way to discuss this bill. This has been through 
the process.
    Yes, we are sitting in committee and we are working this 
through and we are hearing testimony and allowing people to ask 
questions. But I think it is a disservice to the American 
people to say that this has been rammed through, because it has 
been through various committees.
    And, with that, I am going to yield back, but I just wanted 
to make sure that someone said that this is not accurate.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mrs. Fischbach, for saying that, 
because even one of our colleagues said earlier, these bills 
had been months in the making.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Yes.
    The Chairwoman. And someone did need to say that, and I 
appreciate very much your saying that.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, Madam Chair? I also sit on the 
Agriculture Committee, and I should say, on that committee, 
they actually--we did not have a full and open process. They 
cut debate off, and they prevented dozens and dozens of 
amendments from even being offered.
    And, yes, this is being----
    The Chairwoman. We will have the--you will be able to 
discuss that.
    Mr. McGovern [continuing]. This is being rammed through, 
because we don't even know what the text of this bill is going 
to look like. And there are going to be major changes, and we 
are hearing about them, bits and pieces, in the news media, and 
none of them have been vetted.
    Mrs. Fischbach. And you don't watch the news media?
    Mr. McGovern. I do, because I know you are struggling for 
votes so you are making all kinds of deals right now, and they 
are going to hurt my constituents.
    So I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. I, too, will resist saying more. No sense 
in prolonging this.
    Mrs. Houchin, you are recognized.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would just like to ask Chairman Green, how long was your 
markup on your section of this bill?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. I think we started at 10:00 a.m. 
and ended, like, around 4:00 or 5:00, I think, 4:00 or 5:00.
    Mrs. Houchin. p.m.?
    Mr. Green of Tennessee. p.m., yes.
    Mrs. Houchin. Chairman Jordan, how long was your markup on 
your section of the bill?
    Mr. Jordan. Eight hours.
    Mrs. Houchin. And Chairman Westerman?
    Mr. Westerman. We started at 10:00 a.m., I believe, and 
finished at 12:42 a.m., so--or was it 1:42? It was a long time.
    Mrs. Houchin. A long time?
    Mr. Westerman. Yeah.
    Mrs. Houchin. Several hours.
    Mr. Westerman. Twelve or 14 hours, something like that.
    Mrs. Houchin. And, Chairman Graves, how long was your 
markup?
    Mr. Graves. Seven hours.
    Mrs. Houchin. And were these markups televised? Yes. Yes, 
they are televised, the whole kit and caboodle. Our 26-hour-
and-28-minute hearing in Energy and Commerce was live on C-SPAN 
for the whole time. So the thought that this is being done in 
darkness is absurd.
    I yield back.
    Mr. McGovern. There are negotiations going on in a backroom 
right now that none of us know anything about. So, please, 
let's not talk about an open process.
    The Chairwoman. Again, let me--let me resist.
    Okay. Anyone else have comments that you want to make? No?
    Well, I thank our witnesses for being here this morning and 
appreciate the time and all of the comments that were made, and 
you are dismissed.
    I now welcome our third panel: Chairman Thompson and 
Representative Craig from the Committee on Agriculture, 
Chairman Walberg and Representative Scott from the Committee on 
Education and Workforce, Chairman Guthrie and Representative 
Pallone from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Chairman 
Smith and Representative Moore from the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
    Your full statements will be submitted for the record, and 
we ask that you summarize your statement in 5 minutes.
    Chairman Thompson, I welcome your testimony.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, thank you, Chairwoman 
Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. I 
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today concerning 
the Agriculture title of One Big Beautiful Bill.
    The Agriculture Committee was tasked with $230 billion in 
net deficit reduction, and I am proud of our product and proud 
to report that we exceeded our instruction.
    These savings are achieved through necessary changes to 
restore integrity to the SNAP program and preserve the 
program's ability to serve the most vulnerable long into the 
future. These reforms ensure SNAP works the way Congress 
intended it to by reinforcing work, rooting out waste, and 
instituting long-overdue accountability incentives to control 
costs and end executive and State overreach.
    This program is in dire need of reform. Just since 2019, 
SNAP costs have skyrocketed from $60 billion to $110 billion 
annually--that is an 83-percent increase--while enrollment has 
grown from 36 million to 42 million. And, in 2023, over $13 
billion in erroneous SNAP payments were sent out. This is 
disgraceful, not only to the taxpayer but also the SNAP 
recipient.
    The Rules Committee print includes several improvements to 
the SNAP program, including preventing future administrations 
from unilaterally increasing SNAP benefits beyond inflation; 
focusing on a core principle that everyone receiving the 
benefit that can work should work and modernizing the work 
requirement and closing loopholes that allow for widespread 
waivers; closing various loopholes that States exploit, such as 
gaming the system to artificially increase SNAP benefits; and 
increasing incentives to ensure States run the program more 
efficiently and more effectively.
    SNAP is the only federally funded, State-administered 
entitlement program where the State has zero skin in the game 
on the benefit. It is human nature to be more careful with your 
own money than you are with others'. That is why we put forward 
a cost-share structure that requires all States to pay a 
minimal 5-percent cost-share of SNAP, the benefit, beginning in 
fiscal year 2028. However, for States with high payment error 
rates--that is, over 6 percent--the cost-share scales up.
    In exceeding our instruction, we also were able to make 
several vital and time-sensitive investments in rural America. 
It is imperative for Congress to rebuild the farm safety net. 
These investments mitigate further unbudgeted ad-hoc spending 
and prevent a full-blown financial crisis in farm country that 
could devastate the food and ag supply chain and, quite 
frankly, the national economy.
    Finally, on the investment front, we take care of a few 
other important items like investments in trade promotion; 
animal disease preparedness; specialty crops, dairy, research; 
and some programs with outstanding baseline.
    In closing, I am proud to deliver a historic amount of 
savings to the taxpayer and to do so in a way that will only 
have positive outcomes for low-income individuals who get back 
into the workforce, while also standing by our farmers, 
ranchers, and rural communities. That is a win-win.
    I have great respect for the chairwoman, the ranking 
member, and the members of this committee, and thank you once 
again for the opportunity to come before you today.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
    Representative Craig, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Ms. Craig. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 
McGovern.
    You know, I had hoped that for my first appearance here 
before the Rules Committee the chairman and I would be coming 
to you, arm-in-arm, in support of a 5-year, 12-title, 
bipartisan farm bill.
    Instead, we are here discussing the Agriculture Committee's 
contribution to a partisan bill that decimates the most 
successful anti-hunger program in our Nation and destroys the 
coalition that has always been able to get a farm bill across 
the finish line.
    And why? Not for middle-class tax cuts, but to move to the 
wealthiest Americans money from the least wealthy.
    In addition, this is expected to increase the national debt 
and deficits.
    This is a shameful process that we are involved in here 
today.
    And this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. How do I 
know? Because Senator Chuck Grassley told us so.
    It puts a huge burden on the States, by forcing them to pay 
for anywhere from 5 to 25 percent of food assistance.
    Chair Foxx, the Governor of your State said, and I quote, 
``If Congress goes forward with these plans, our State will be 
forced into perilous budget decisions. Should North Carolinians 
lose access to food, or should we get rid of other essential 
services?'' end quote.
    North Carolina is on the hook for up to $700 million per 
year under this proposal. That is the equivalent of 8,900 
public school teacher salaries in North Carolina.
    Republicans want States to do their dirty work and take 
food away from people.
    And it doesn't end there. This budget does something else 
incredibly egregious. It changes the definition of 
``dependent'' from children under the age of 18 to children 
over the age of 6. Once a kid turns 7 years old, their parents 
could lose food assistance unless they meet new paperwork and 
work requirements.
    I wonder if the people who came up with that policy have 
children or understand that there are summer breaks and there 
is spring break. I have several, and let me tell you, they eat 
more as they grow, not less.
    It is truly beyond the pale, what this budget would do to 
children in our country.
    And let's be clear about what we are talking about here. 
The average person receives $6 per day in food assistance. Let 
me say that again: $6 a day. No one chooses to sit at home and 
not work for $6 a day. Six dollars a day doesn't build you a 
life. It can, though, build you a bridge to the next paycheck, 
the next opportunity, the next moment of stability.
    CBO estimates that the new work requirements--paperwork 
requirements--alone will take food away from at least 3 million 
people. They didn't say that 3 million people will receive a 
little less food. They say 3 million people will receive no 
food assistance. So much for claiming that you won't cut 
benefits.
    Hunger is a policy choice. Republicans in this room are 
choosing to allow children to go to bed without dinner, seniors 
skipping meals so they can afford their medicine, parents 
sacrificing their own nutrition so their kids can eat, single 
mothers having to choose between leaving their 7-year-olds at 
home or to let them go more hungry.
    Everyone in this country is struggling with higher costs 
already, and instead of addressing that problem, Republicans 
are choosing to make it worse. And it is shameful.
    You claim you are rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse or 
holding the States accountable for high error rates. This bill 
does not tackle fraud and does not include any commonsense 
policies that help improve program efficiency.
    And for what? To fund tax breaks for large corporations and 
the super wealthy.
    I look forward to answering your questions.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Craig.
    Chairman Walberg, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TIM WALBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan saves nearly 
$350 billion to help advance President Trump's agenda--that 
commonsense agenda--and ensure taxpayers, students, and schools 
are better served.
    The current system is effectively broken and littered with 
incentives that push tuition costs upward. Schools have no 
reason to lower costs or ensure degrees align with employers' 
needs, all while students and taxpayers pay the price.
    The Biden-Harris administration compounded this crisis and 
attempted to spend an additional $1 trillion in taxpayer funds 
on so-called ``forgiveness'' by executive decree.
    Dumping more Federal money into a broken system doesn't 
mean that system will work. In fact, government spending on 
higher education has reached record highs, yet millions of 
students supposedly benefiting from those funds will ultimately 
end up with a degree that doesn't pay off or fail to finish 
school.
    This bill not only saves taxpayers nearly $350 billion but 
it also brings much-needed reform in three key areas: 
simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, 
and accountability for students and taxpayers.
    The bill cleans up the Biden-created repayment mess by 
streamlining repayment options and providing targeted 
assistance to struggling borrowers who need it, rather than 
blanket bailouts for those who don't. These reforms will 
encourage responsible borrowing and timely repayment.
    Colleges have exploited the availability of uncapped 
Federal lending and generous forgiveness programs to raise 
prices. Streamlining loan options, as done in this bill, will 
increase affordability for students and families as well as 
curtail the extent to which schools use taxpayer dollars to 
line their pocketbooks by loading students up with debt they 
can't repay.
    Most importantly, the bill ensures that hundreds of 
billions of taxpayer dollars no longer flow unchecked to low-
value institutions and programs by holding colleges accountable 
for student outcomes through skin in the game. Colleges will be 
financially accountable for the loans they give out, and 
schools that go above and beyond to provide high-quality, 
affordable, and accessible education opportunities will be 
rewarded.
    What is more, through these reforms and others, the bill 
protects and strengthens the Pell grant, the cornerstone of our 
financial-aid system. The bill closes the funding shortfall 
that would otherwise result in students being unable to afford 
college as early as next year. Additionally, it expands student 
choice by allowing students to use Pell on high-quality, short-
term credentials aligned with workforce needs.
    We are on a fiscally unsustainable path in higher 
education. Without change, we can't deliver on the promise of 
economic mobility for all Americans. So I urge my colleagues to 
pass this Big Beautiful Bill.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Walberg.
    Mr. Scott, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking 
Member McGovern, and members of the committee.
    I am here to speak in opposition to the reconciliation 
plan. In fact, we are considering this in an overnight 
committee hearing. That tells you all you need to know about 
how bad a bill it is.
    And after reviewing the ``Big Bad Billionaires Bill,'' it 
is clear that the central theme is to make life harder for 
everybody but the wealthy.
    Just consider the numbers: Under the bill, 4 million 
students are estimated to have their Pell grants reduced or 
eliminated; up to 18 million children are estimated to lose 
access to free school meals; and over 13 million people are set 
to lose their health coverage.
    And what is the purpose of all of these cuts? To give tax 
breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations.
    But, now, as the ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and Workforce, I want to focus on what this does to 
education.
    As currently drafted, the bill will increase costs for 
students attending college; it will increase students' exposure 
to low quality higher education programs, which would then 
reduce the likelihood that they would actually find a rewarding 
or successful career; it would divert Federal money into 
private schools and reduce the number of students who will be 
able to get free lunches; and then take all of those savings to 
pay for more tax cuts for wealthy and the well connected.
    Under this plan, the Republicans will cut students' access 
to Pell grants and drastically lower the amount of Federal 
loans they can take out. That will either deny them the 
opportunity to get a college degree or push students into 
unaffordable repayment plans and push them into the high cost 
private loan programs.
    Under this bill, loan payments will be less affordable. For 
example, a single borrower making $45,000 a year will see their 
student loan payments just about triple. Under the SAVE Plan, 
which was President Biden's final plan, the borrower would have 
been paying about $41 a month. This bill will have them paying 
$150 a month.
    And if making it more expensive to attend college isn't bad 
enough, the bill will also increase their exposure to low 
quality programs. That is because the bill eliminates existing 
regulations that protect students from predatory, low-quality, 
for-profit programs.
    In addition to making it harder for low and middle income 
people to afford college, the proposal will significantly 
impact the public school meals program. For some students, the 
food served at school may be the only nutritious meal they 
receive that day. And when children are fed healthy, nutritious 
food, they not only are more likely to show up at school but 
their academic achievement increases. And yet, despite this, 
the new analysis from the Urban Institute estimates that up to 
18.3 million children could lose access to free meals as a 
result of the cuts to the SNAP nutrition program.
    And this is just what the SNAP program does to the 
students. We have not received the complete analysis on what 
other parts of the bill do. Last week, Ranking Member Boyle and 
I wrote to the Speaker requesting specific data on the number 
of children and families that would lose access to free or 
reduced school lunches, critical WIC services, and grocery 
benefits through the Summer EBT program, all due to SNAP and 
Medicaid cuts in the Republican reconciliation plan. We haven't 
received a response. And we should receive a response before we 
have to actually vote on the bill.
    Finally, I would like to point out that the bill includes 
language to fund privatization of public education that would 
constitute the first nationwide Federal voucher program, 
effectively diverting taxpayers' money and resources into 
private schools, away from public schools which will be serving 
90 percent of the students.
    That tax credit program was drafted by the Ways and Means 
Committee, but this committee has put in additional language 
that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Education and 
Workforce Committee, including language preventing Federal, 
State, and local governments from adding oversight mechanisms 
or guardrails that could protect students. I am disappointed 
that the Education and Workforce Committee didn't have an 
opportunity to comment before that ended up in the bill.
    In summary, the so called ``One Big Bad Billionaires Bill'' 
disproportionately helps the wealthy, then has others paying 
for it through losing healthcare, nutritious food, and access 
to college. This is all to provide more tax breaks to 
billionaires and corporations.
    And to add insult to injury, Madam Chair, the deficit goes 
up. And we know how to reduce the deficit. In fact, every 
Democratic Presidential administration since Kennedy has left 
the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, and every 
Republican since Nixon has left a worst deficit for the 
Democrats that succeeded them than they inherited. We should 
reduce the deficit. We know how to do that.
    And for those reasons, I oppose the bill and ask that we 
start from scratch and produce a bill that reduces the deficit, 
is fiscally responsible, and addresses the needs of the 
American people.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
    Chairman Guthrie, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx and 
Ranking Member McGovern. Thank you for holding this hearing.
    In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we had a marathon, 
26\1/2\-hour markup of our reconciliation instruction. It was a 
unique opportunity to consider issues spanning the full 
jurisdiction of our committee.
    We worked through legislation that will unleash American 
energy, end costly EV mandates, and advance American 
innovation, along with strengthening the Medicaid program for 
the most vulnerable Americans and improving their access to 
quality care.
    Our committee was tasked with identifying $880 billion in 
savings and new revenue, and I am proud to say we exceeded that 
goal.
    We worked diligently to meet the target by ending wasteful 
Green New Deal-style spending, supporting the rapid innovation 
of American industry and Federal agencies, and eliminating 
waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid that jeopardizes care for 
millions of women, children, people with disabilities, and 
elderly Americans.
    To ensure American energy dominance, we are securing our 
energy infrastructure by taking steps to refurbish and refill 
our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which strengthens our energy 
security and supports our national security. Further, we are 
taking steps to streamline the process for exporting LNG to our 
allies while promoting more American energy production.
    Through an increase in Federal revenues, we are 
streamlining the siting and permitting of new pipelines to 
transport energy around the country, which is critical to 
meeting the energy demands and winning the AI battle with 
China.
    We are saving $172 billion over the next 10 years by 
repealing the burdensome Biden-Harris administration 
regulations and over a $100 billion by eliminating the EV 
mandates imposed on the vehicle emission and CAFE standards 
that have failed to serve American taxpayers.
    And through major investments to modernize the Department 
of Commerce, we will integrate AI systems and upgrade IT 
systems to make the Department more secure and effective. To 
protect the integrity of this project, we are implementing 
guardrails that protect against State-level AI laws that could 
jeopardize our technological leadership.
    Our legislation raises $88 billion of new revenue through a 
historic agreement reauthorizing the FCC's spectrum authority 
while protecting U.S. national security.
    Biden-era inflation has left Americans struggling to access 
affordable healthcare, making programs like Medicaid critical 
for the vulnerable Americans who rely on them, making it more 
difficult.
    The issue has been exacerbated by the decisions of left-
leaning State governments who spend taxpayer dollars on illegal 
immigrants. House Republicans make no apologies for 
prioritizing Americans in need over illegal immigrants and 
other able-bodied beneficiaries who are choosing not to work.
    Our priority remains the same: strengthen and sustain 
Medicaid for the expectant mothers, children, people with 
disabilities, and the elderly. That is why our legislation 
stops billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Medicaid program by beginning to close loopholes, ensuring 
States have the flexibility to remove ineligible recipients 
from their rolls and removing beneficiaries who are enrolled in 
multiple States. These are all commonsense policies that will 
save taxpayer dollars and refocus Medicaid on those who need it 
most.
    Mr. Guthrie. Medicaid was created to protect healthcare for 
Americans who otherwise cannot support themselves. But 
Democrats expanded the program far beyond the core mission. 
That is why we are establishing commonsense work requirements 
for capable but unemployed adults without dependents.
    Let me be clear: These work requirements only apply to 
able-bodied adults without dependents who don't have a 
disqualifying condition, like a disability or a substance use 
disorder, encouraging them to enter the workforce or give back 
to their communities and regain their independence.
    All of this part of our effort is to strengthen Medicaid 
for those who need it most.
    When President Trump delivered his second inaugural 
address, he promised a revolution of common sense that would 
launch a generation of growth, prosperity, and health. This 
reconciliation bill is critical to that promise the President 
and congressional Republicans made to the American people.
    Today we are discussing a bill that unleashes American 
energy dominance, advances innovation, and protects access to 
care to our most vulnerable.
    When we are able to accomplish all of the outstanding 
developments for our constituents and extend the 2017 Trump tax 
cuts we will have delivered a generational win for our 
constituents.
    I am proud of the work to respark the American dream and 
ensure our country will always be the land of opportunity.
    I yield back, and look forward to answering questions.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Guthrie.
    Representative Pallone, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning to 
everyone here today.
    I am always happy to come before the House Rules Committee, 
but I have to say that convening a hearing at 1 a.m. in the 
dead of night when most Americans are asleep at home to pass a 
bill with catastrophic consequences for millions of Americans 
is wrong, and we should be debating this bill when the American 
people can follow along and when they are able to call their 
Representative to voice their opinion about the legislation.
    At its core, this bill takes healthcare away from millions 
of Americans in order to give tax breaks to billionaires and 
corporate interests who I don't think need them. It is a 
reverse Robin Hood scheme that takes from the poor in order to 
give handouts to those who really don't need them.
    The bill makes a series of devastating cuts to clean 
energy, killing jobs and gutting our efforts to combat the 
worsening climate crisis. It auctions publicly owned spectrum 
and uses that money to give tax breaks to the rich rather than 
reinvesting that funding for the public good. And it includes a 
massive giveaway to big tech at the expense of Americans by 
basically prohibiting State and local laws to regulate 
artificial intelligence for 10 years.
    I am going to go through some of the provisions of the bill 
in a little more detail, but I did hear your suggestion that we 
try to summarize, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Well, Mr. Pallone, it is 7 o'clock. It is 
not 1 o'clock.
    Mr. Pallone. I know.
    The Chairwoman. Nobody told you that?
    Mr. Pallone. No. But you are right that people now 
hopefully can listen, but they were not able to from 1 o'clock 
until now.
    So with regard to healthcare, for months now President 
Trump and congressional Republicans promised the American 
people that they would not cut Medicaid benefits or strip away 
people's healthcare. But just yesterday, President Trump told 
House Republicans behind closed doors: Do not eff with 
Medicaid. And then House Speaker Johnson promised: We are not 
going to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
    Well, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released 
their latest accounting of this bill yesterday and they found 
the bill that advanced out of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
last week will cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid and take 
healthcare away from 8.6 million people.
    And I should point out that these figures are a floor; they 
are not a ceiling. CBO expects these numbers will rise as 
additional changes are made to the bill.
    And then there is the changes the bill makes to the 
Affordable Care Act. When you add the Medicaid cuts to the ACA 
cuts, the total number of people expected to lose their 
healthcare under President Trump and Republicans' watch is at 
least 13.7 million people based on the CBO estimates.
    Now, let me be clear: That is not--some of you are saying 
this is a moderate bill, but it is not, and it is focusing on 
waste, fraud, and abuse, but that is not true. I mean, 
Republicans are intentionally taking healthcare away from 
millions of Americans so they can give these tax breaks to the 
ultrarich.
    And Medicaid, as all of you know, is a lifesaving program 
that 80 million Americans count on every day. It provides 
healthcare to one in three Americans and nearly half of all 
children in the United States. It covers close to half of all 
births, and it is the largest source of funding for long-term 
care for seniors and people living with disabilities.
    But with this bill, Republicans are intentionally taking 
healthcare away from millions of Americans. I am going to keep 
stressing that. They are putting all sorts of burdensome and 
time-consuming roadblocks in the way of people just trying to 
get by, all so they can kick them off their health coverage.
    And if someone loses their coverage from Medicaid, the bill 
bans them from getting coverage through the ACA Marketplace 
with any kind of subsidy. This is just one way this bill 
essentially repeals the ACA for most people and makes it more 
difficult for people to get health coverage.
    And Republicans are making it more difficult for States to 
finance their share of Medicaid costs by preventing them from 
implementing new provider taxes. This will be catastrophic for 
States as the healthcare needs change over time.
    Cuts will not just impact people who count on Medicaid. 
Hospitals, particularly those in underserved and rural 
communities, are going to close. They have been telling you 
that. Nursing homes will close, and seniors will lose the care 
that they rely on. Emergency rooms will once again be 
overflowing as people are forced to delay care until it is life 
or death.
    Now, for decades Democrats have been working relentlessly 
to make quality healthcare more accessible and affordable. It 
has worked. Thanks to our efforts, the number of uninsured 
Americans reached historic lows. But that is now all at risk as 
Trump and congressional Republicans look to strip healthcare 
away from almost 14 million people.
    When we passed the Inflation Reduction Act three years ago, 
Congress took a massive step towards lowering energy bills for 
American families. However, that progress could all be reversed 
by this bill. And this bill, if it passes, will wipe out all of 
that progress by rescinding programs that are lowering energy 
costs and helping to build clean energy manufacturing here in 
America, all so Republicans can give tax breaks to 
billionaires.
    And not content to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, this 
bill will go even further by creating a mockery of our 
environmental laws. It allows Big Oil and Gas to simply bribe 
government agencies to acquire permits free of scrutiny. It 
sets up a pay-to-play scheme for fossil energy permitting that 
allows polluters to pay $10 million to the Trump administration 
to obtain pipeline permits and ignore environmental laws while 
clean energy gets left behind.
    It is essentially a complete dismantling of our energy 
permitting infrastructure in the country. Vital protections for 
the public interest, clean water and clean air, would all be 
completely set aside. States would lose any say in energy 
infrastructure within their borders and courts would not be 
able to address any further violations of our weakened laws.
    Now, briefly on the environment. The bill is also a 
disaster for the environment. It would gut critical 
environmental protections and programs, harming the health and 
welfare of all Americans. It both repeals and rescinds 
unobligated funds for every single Environmental Protection 
Agency program included in the Inflation Reduction Act.
    It would also repeal clean vehicle standards, jeopardizing 
air quality and domestic manufacturing, giving a leg up to the 
fossil fuel industry.
    When Congress passed the IRA, Democrats made a critical and 
historic down payment towards a stable climate and a clean 
future for all. But this bill proposes to throw that all away 
by eliminating the environmental protections that keep families 
and communities safe while doing nothing to lower energy costs, 
all in the service of providing these tax breaks for 
billionaires.
    The last thing, Madam Chair, I want to talk about 
artificial intelligence. The bill will also impose a ten-year 
ban on States' ability to enforce their own laws protecting 
consumers from harms caused by artificial intelligence and 
automated decision-making systems.
    So let me be clear: This is an unprecedented giveaway to 
big tech. The ten-year enforcement ban will allow big tech to 
run roughshod over American consumers, including our children 
and teens whose lives are increasingly intertwined with AI 
models and automated decision-making systems.
    Last Congress, at the request of big tech, the Republican 
leadership refused to move a bipartisan comprehensive privacy 
bill that would have provided important guardrails on the use 
of consumers' personal information by AI systems. It was an 
unfortunate giveaway to big tech at the American public's 
expense.
    By contrast, States across the country have been working 
hard to protect their residents from harmful uses of AI. They 
have enacted laws that protect consumers' privacy, prohibit the 
use of AI to commit financial fraud and to steal elections, 
prohibit algorithmic bias in housing and credit, prohibit 
harmful uses of facial recognition technology, and protect 
consumers from AI systems that put their mental health and 
physical safety at risk.
    Now, Congress, in my opinion, should be learning from the 
work done by the States. We should be working to enact Federal 
laws that protect consumers from the negative consequences of 
poorly understood AI models and badly designed automated 
decision-making systems.
    But, instead, House Republicans are leaving American 
consumers, and especially our children, at the mercy of big 
tech and their powerful and invasive algorithms.
    If this policy becomes law, States will be powerless to 
respond to harmful uses of AI and automated decision-making 
systems for the next decade. And that includes threats we know 
exist today, as well as any threats we can't currently imagine 
that arise over the next ten years.
    So it is just a reckless policy giveaway to big tech that 
puts all of us, especially our children, at risk for years to 
come.
    I forgot, I did have to also mention spectrum.
    And, finally, the bill reauthorizes the spectrum auction 
authority of the Federal Communications Commission and requires 
the agency to auction additional 5G spectrum for a savings of 
at least $88 billion.
    Now, historically, auctioning spectrum has been a 
bipartisan effort, and we have used that money to reinvest in 
the public good. However, under this bill, Republicans are 
funneling the money to tax breaks to the rich instead of 
directing the savings to fund grants like next-generation 911 
or to make high-speed internet more affordable for American 
families.
    And that is, again, a gross abuse of spectrum auction 
funds, and it is a perfect example of what is at the core of 
this bill: selling out the American people to give handouts to 
the rich.
    So, Madam Chair, I just have to say this is a bad bill. It 
takes away basic needs, like healthcare and food assistance, 
from some of the poorest Americans in order to give these tax 
breaks to the richest. And we don't need to take from the poor 
in order for the rich to have more than they already have.
    Republicans should abandon this effort, work with Democrats 
on a bipartisan basis to pass a fair tax bill that lowers costs 
for the middle class and ensures the wealthy and corporate 
interests pay their fair share.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
    Chairman Smith, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Thank you, Chair Foxx, Ranking 
Member McGovern, every member of the committee. It is a great 
opportunity to testify on the historic tax relief for working 
families, farmers, and small businesses included in the One Big 
Beautiful Bill.
    This legislation makes the successful 2017 Trump tax cuts 
permanent, and it delivers on President Trump's priorities of 
no tax on tips, no tax on overtime pay, no tax on auto loan 
interest of autos produced in the United States, and tax relief 
for seniors.
    Families and workers will benefit from additional tax 
relief with an expanded standard deduction and a larger child 
tax credit, as well as receive help with the high cost of 
adoption, education, childcare, and healthcare.
    Main Street will benefit from a permanent small business 
deduction that has been expanded to 23 percent, helping small 
businesses grow higher and compete with larger corporations.
    Two million family farms and millions more family-owned 
small businesses will benefit from a death tax exemption that 
is permanent, larger, and also indexed to inflation.
    This bill will also help revive American manufacturing, 
renewed R&D amortization, immediate expensing, and interest 
deductibility, combined with the new 100 percent immediate 
expensing for construction of new manufacturing plants.
    It will help turn America into a manufacturing powerhouse 
again and lower taxes for those who build it right here in 
America.
    Opportunity zones will ensure distressed communities, 
particularly in rural areas, share in this surge of new 
investment and jobs.
    Working-class Americans voted for President Trump because 
he puts their interest over elite special interest.
    Wealthy universities will pay an endowment tax as high as 
the corporate tax rate. Bad Biden-era tax policy that rewarded 
the wealthy, the big banks, and China with tax breaks and 
giveaways will be replaced with good tax policy that benefits 
working families and small businesses.
    Illegal immigrants will no longer be eligible for 
refundable tax credits. Foreign countries will no longer be 
able to steal American tax revenue.
    The result will be economic prosperity for workers and 
families, like the boom times of President Trump's first term.
    Take-home pay for the typical family with two children will 
increase by as much as $13,300. Annual real wages for workers 
will rise by as much as $11,600. Pro-growth tax policy will 
save up to 7 million jobs, while the permanent and expanded 
small business deduction will add 1 million new jobs each year 
and expand small business economic output by $1.5 trillion.
    And Ways and Means was able to deliver pro-growth, pro-
worker tax cuts below the committee's reconciliation 
instruction of $4 trillion.
    I suspect Democrats will make the false claim that this 
bill rewards the rich at the expense of the poor, but that 
tired talking point was wrong following the enactment of the 
2017 Trump tax cuts, and it is definitely wrong under this bill 
today.
    People who make over $1 million annually will pay a greater 
share of the tax burden than they currently do. Households 
earning less than a hundred thousand dollars get a 13 percent 
tax cut. If you make less than a hundred thousand dollars you 
get a 13 percent tax cut.
    Not only do we stop a looming $1,700 tax increase on the 
average American family, if these tax provisions expire, we 
actually deliver that same family an additional $1,300 tax cut 
compared to what they pay today.
    The winners of this bill are the working class: farmers, 
mechanics, waitresses, linemen, and nurses.
    My focus has been on delivering for America's working class 
because I am a product of the working class. I grew up in a 
single-wide trailer in a small town of less than 5,000 people. 
And this bill delivers for families like mine who have fallen 
further behind for decades.
    Failure is not an option in getting this done, the One Big 
Beautiful Bill, to President Trump's desk. Otherwise, every 
single American will face on average a 22 percent tax increase.
    Nearly 30 million small businesses will lose the small 
business deduction and pay a tax rate above 43.4 percent. 
American manufacturing would compete with one arm tied behind 
its back against competitors like China. Families would have to 
sell the farm just to pay the IRS.
    Congress must deliver on the priorities expected by the 77 
million Americans who voted for an America where workers and 
families will thrive again, Main Street and rural towns will 
grow again, and America wins again.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
    Ms. Moore, Representative Moore, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GWEN MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Ms. Moore. Good morning, Madam Chair, my classmate. I count 
it all joy to be here with members of the Rules Committee, 
Ranking Member McGovern and others. And I count it all joy to 
be able to testify on behalf of the Ways and Means Committee 
and my constituents and all those who are the least, lost, and 
left behind in America.
    I want to talk about the tax provisions of the so-called 
One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I really can't argue with the 
President over the fact that this bill is big. It is a thousand 
pages of a big bonanza for billionaires. I know that we have 
been accused of characterizing this as a bonanza for 
billionaires, and the numbers will bear that out.
    I know, Madam Chair, you are fond of fact-checking stuff. 
So I hope that you will do that on behalf of the American 
public when it comes to talking about how those folks under 
$100,000 are going to experience such a great growth in wealth 
and income.
    You have heard a lot about work requirements and how that 
is going to generate all these savings. You heard about how 
these lazy little boys that are in the basement playing video 
games and saying to mom, ``Bring down some more potato chips,'' 
are going to--that is going to cause $800 billion in savings. 
How many of these boys do we have, are there that many video 
games, I would have to ask.
    We talk about how we are just going to root out waste, 
fraud, and abuse, and that is somehow going to generate over a 
trillion dollars in savings. I am asking you, even those of you 
who are not that good at math, to try to figure this out with 
me.
    Let's begin the analysis of this bill, not with all the 
numbers that we are all going to be throwing around here this 
morning, but let's just begin this analysis with a moral 
question.
    Should children go hungry or be left to suffer or die from 
treatable diseases? And if your answer to that, anybody, if 
your answer is no, then just sort of reason backwards from that 
precipice and see if the justification of this bill sort of 
unravels.
    I am so happy to be the last person to speak on this panel 
because we have heard from our colleagues and on other 
committees about the harms that this bill is going to do to 
millions and millions of our constituents, fellow Americans.
    We are going to cut $230 billion out of SNAP. We are going 
to kick 13.7 million people off their health insurance. We are 
going to trigger a half trillion dollars in cuts from Medicare, 
those of us who are protecting seniors here on this panel.
    We are going to reduce educational opportunity for American 
children who are the least, least able, they are people who--
kids who just might not be chosen. I was one of those kids. I 
wasn't chosen. And I didn't have any choice. And this is who we 
are going to take money from.
    We are sitting here bragging about so-called savings. And 
what are we going to do with these savings? What are we going 
to do with the savings? Are we going to take these savings and 
reduce our debt? Nope, we are not going to do that.
    These tax cuts are so massive that we don't have enough 
kids to starve. We don't have enough people to deny healthcare. 
So we are just going to ask Americans to finance tax cuts for 
billionaires on the national debt, on the credit card.
    I just paid off a credit card. I mean, I was so relieved. 
It was the first night's sleep I had in a long time.
    And we have people here--I know my good friend, the 
chairman of our committee, does not like debt. Well, he used to 
not like debt, but he kind of likes debt today.
    The JCT scored this bill at $3.8 trillion--$3.8 trillion. 
But that is not even the real score. Why not? Because of all 
the budget gimmicks in there.
    They have got all kinds of budget tricks in this 
billionaire bonanza bill, like cutting the budget window after 
nine years and making dozens of provisions that benefit regular 
Americans temporary to get them through the 2026 cycle, to get 
them through President Trump's tenure as President, assuming 
that he won't get a third term. Otherwise, he is going to have 
to do something else.
    But that being the case, I mean, it is so cynical to tell 
people you are going to get--we are going to just--we are going 
to give these to you, we are going to have permanent tax cuts 
for wealthy people but we are going to make this temporary, 
just long enough to trick you into believing that it helps.
    So what is the cost of this bill after we strip away all 
the gimmicks? It is going to be--not including the interest on 
the debt, it is going to be at least $5 trillion.
    So my twist on Mark Twain's statement. There are lies, damn 
lies, and then there is trickle-down economics. You know what? 
We have heard at least--I am 74 years old, and I swear to God, 
I can remember when the talk of the trickle started. And it 
hasn't trickled yet. And this bill is not going to start the 
trickle.
    The so-called fiscal hawks will try to make you believe 
that this country club urban legend, that tax cuts pay for 
themselves. It has never worked. But it just has not stopped 
the talking point. That is what it is.
    They claim that this bill will generate $2.6 trillion of 
revenue from economic growth. There is not one. Produce them. 
Fact-check this, Madam Chair. Where is the economist who will 
back up those numbers? Where are they at? They ain't here.
    Deficits aside, this bill is ugly--``oogly,'' as we say--
because it is ultimately a betrayal of the contract that we 
have made with the American people, and especially to our 
babies and to our working people. It is a talk--it is a union 
hall, working man's bill--but it is all for the millionaires 
and billionaires.
    The so-called no tax on tips, that is just--that is a 
distraction from the windfall that they are giving to the 
richest people in the country. Let's just put the facts out. 
Let's talk some numbers. I have been just hollering and 
hooping. Let's put some numbers out.
    Fact-check this, Madam Chair. People who make over $1 
million per year on average get a tax cut of $81,500 under this 
bill. Fact-check this, Madam Chair. People who make under 
$50,000 per year on average get a tax cut of $265. That means a 
person who makes over a million dollars per year on average 
gets 310 times what a person making under $50,000 gets.
    Now, this notion that if we don't pass this One Big 
Beautiful Bill that taxes are going to go up for everybody, 
this is a choice. Tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires 
is not tethered to our doing something for regular people. You 
all chose to do that.
    It is perfectly possible to draft tax legislation in a way 
that doesn't provide the most fortunate among us with a 
windfall. But you all chose to do it.
    Now, in the Ways and Means markup we stayed up all night, 
and I do empathize with you, Madam Chair, for having to stay up 
all night, because we stayed up all night. And I see some of my 
colleagues are still here staying up all night again.
    We offered 33 amendments--33--to keep the wealthiest from 
getting the benefit--most of the benefit--from this tax cut. So 
we suggested that there shouldn't be any tax cuts for 
individuals making over $400,000 a year. Republicans voted no.
    We suggested that if they make $10 million we shouldn't 
give them a tax cut. Republicans voted no.
    We said: How about $100 million? Republicans voted no. We 
said a billion dollars. They voted no. You know how they voted.
    No one--no one--was just too rich for this tax cut in the 
world view of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 
the Ways and Means Committee.
    Now, if that wasn't bad enough, the JCT numbers show that 
this bill is even worse for people on the bottom rung. By 
1929--by 2029--sorry--according to JCT numbers, after the 
temporary, temporary tax cuts for people making under $30,000 
per year on an aggregate, they are going to, as a group, they 
are going to be paying $5 billion more in taxes. That is a big 
tax cut, Madam Chair. Fact-check that.
    Now, imagine that, Madam Chair. There are so many ugly 
things in this bill, in the thousand pages of this Big 
Beautiful Bill, my five minutes could not possibly do them 
justice.
    Making it easier--I couldn't believe it when I saw this, 
Madam Chair, I couldn't believe it when they proposed to take 
away the taxes on silencers for guns. Madam Chair, why? There 
is a $200 tax on buying silencers for guns.
    And then we are going to kick 2 million children off the 
child tax credit. They brag about doubling the child tax 
credit. But, Madam Chair, the poorest, the neediest, the most 
vulnerable children get nothing--nothing--unless their parents 
earn money.
    And what I say is that why don't we just make the kids go 
to work, just cut to the chase. Tell kids, you all got to start 
working; maybe cut some of them school hours and go work as the 
shampoo girl so that your mama can get money to do what we know 
she did. We cut poverty in half when we expanded the child tax 
credit to include the most--the poorest, the 17 million kids 
that this bill doesn't cover.
    So at the end of the day the main thing--let's keep the 
main thing the main thing, that this legislation before us will 
make Americans more in debt, will make them hungrier, will make 
them sicker, will make them more ignorant, they will be falling 
behind other nations, we will be upending national security, 
all to lavish more and more and more and more on the luckiest 
and wealthiest among us.
    And, Madam Chair, I am so--and I just want to point out to 
you all, full disclosure, I am woke.
    And I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Moore follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.177
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.178
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.179
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.180
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.181
    
    [Applause.]
    The Chairwoman. Well, Ms. Moore, I think that applause 
indicates a performance having been brought to the Rules 
Committee this morning.
    I do have a lot of fact checks, but as I have done a couple 
of times this morning, I am going to resist.
    Ms. Moore. I am sure you will.
    The Chairwoman. But I am going to wind up entering some 
things into the record that were said about the TCJA when it 
was passed to show that the same kinds of things are being said 
now, and they are going--they are wrong, and they are going to 
be proven wrong, just like the things said in 2017.
    Ms. Moore. Madam Chair, can I just make an intervention?
    We are not talking about the 2017 tax cut. I wasn't here 
then. This is the bill that I have gone through. And what I 
have said, you can fact-check what I said, and people are going 
to be hungry and lose healthcare.
    Let's talk about this bill. I don't want to talk about that 
bill because I wasn't there.
    The Chairwoman. Well, let me talk about this bill.
    Chairman Smith----
    Ms. Moore. Okay. Talk about it, Madam Chair. You the chair; 
you can do whatever you want.
    The Chairwoman. Chairman Smith, our friends on the other 
side of the aisle continue to assert that the extension of the 
2017 tax cuts places an additional burden on our working-class 
families and benefits only billionaires and special interests.
    However, isn't it true that President Trump's tax cuts 
increased American families' income and were a boon to the 
working class and that the bottom 20 percent of earners saw 
their Federal tax rate fall to its lowest level in 40 years 
while the top 10 percent of earners now pay over 75 percent of 
all income taxes, and as a result of the Trump tax cuts, the 1 
percent paid more income taxes than ever before? Can you check 
my facts?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Your facts are 100 percent accurate.
    I think it is important to note, Chair Foxx, if you listen 
to the counterparts that you just heard, if you use their 
statements, it actually proves that our tax bill is cutting 
taxes for the working class.
    My good friend from the Ways and Means Committee said that 
in 2029 $5 billion in tax increases on people because of the 
expiring provisions. In order for those to be increased, that 
means they had to be cut, and that is what we are doing here. 
We are cutting $5 billion for those tipped employees, those 
Uber drivers, those linemen who work overtime.
    And it is for 4 years. I hope it is much longer. But you 
know what? Don't say that it is increasing $5 billion but you 
are not giving us credit for the $5 billion tax cut that we are 
doing right now.
    And I also want to point out, Chair Foxx, back in 2017, in 
those Trump tax cuts, the 17 million children that Ms. Moore 
was talking about that are being left behind, yeah, they are 
going to be left behind by the Democrats when they vote no on 
this bill because that would mean refundability would go from 
$1,700 to a thousand. So every one of those 17 million children 
would lose $700 pulled out because the Democrats voted no.
    The Chairwoman. So, in effect, the shares of those who foot 
the tax burden got more progressive in the 2017 bill, and will 
get that way, and will be that way again with this bill, 
correct?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That is correct.
    The Chairwoman. And last, despite all of the rhetoric--and 
I have to tell you, it is--it really qualifies as rhetoric, 
again ``performance,'' I think, is a better term for it--the 
Democrats could have raised the tax income bracket when they 
were in control and passed their reconciliation efforts because 
the tax cut expiration was in the 10-year window. Isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. It is absolutely correct.
    The Chairwoman. And they failed to do so. Again, they have 
a credibility problem here.
    We hear all the time from Democrats about what we are 
doing, but never taking responsibility for what they could have 
done when they had the majority in the House and Senate as 
recently as 6 months--and the Presidency--as recently as 6 
months ago, correct?
    [Crosstalk.]
    The Chairwoman. Excuse me. They didn't have the majority in 
the House.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Because they didn't have the 
majority in the House.
    The Chairwoman. But 3 years ago--excuse me--2 and a half 
years ago they had that majority.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. They absolutely had all three 
branches of government 2 and a half years ago.
    The Chairwoman. Right. They had all three branches of 
government, and they could have done that then, but they did 
not.
    Thank you again, Chairman Smith.
    Mr. McGovern, I am recognizing you.
    Mr. McGovern. Oh, okay.
    So, first of all, let's be clear. I think Democrats are 
willing to work with Republicans on helping middle-class 
families with tax relief and helping those in the lower income 
brackets get into the middle class. That has never been a 
question. We don't have any problem with that. Happy to work 
with you on something like that.
    But we are talking about this reconciliation bill. And CBO 
just did an analysis which basically--I said this earlier, I 
will repeat it again--it shows how your bill would impact the 
bottom 10 percent and the top 10 percent. And as you see on 
this graph here, the bottom 10 percent are going to be worse 
off and the top 10 percent are going to be much better off.
    And one of the reasons why is because in this beautiful 
bill that you think is so beautiful, there are cuts to SNAP 
that amount to $230 billion, cuts to Medicaid that amount to 
$880 billion.
    And so, basically, I mean, I am trying to put this 
politely, but middle-class families, those struggling to be in 
the middle class, are going to be screwed if this becomes law.
    And we went over this earlier. With the latest version of 
this bill, the top 0.1 percent stands to gain $255,000 on 
average in 2027 alone. That is $700 a day.
    People who make over a million dollars a year will also get 
their pockets lined. On average, these millionaires will have 
an additional $81,500 per year.
    For those earning less than $50,000, as Ms. Moore pointed 
out, the average benefit is $265. That is less than one dollar 
a day.
    So that is what our problem is with your reconciliation 
bill. The people that we think we--that we get elected to try 
to fight for are going to be hurt the most in this 
reconciliation bill.
    And let me also just say, I mean, I am--I kind of hoped 
that we would get to a point where Democrats and Republicans 
and liberals and conservatives would all agree on some 
fundamental basic principles.
    One is that everybody should have healthcare. Two is that 
nobody should go hungry in this country. I mean, we live in the 
richest country in the history of the world. We have 46 million 
Americans who are food insecure or hungry. I don't know about 
you, I am ashamed of that.
    And as I said during the debate--because I am also on the 
Agriculture Committee--is that hunger is a political condition.
    We have the money to end hunger. We have the 
infrastructure. We know what to do. We lack the political will. 
We have the political will to give billionaires tax cuts, but 
we don't have the political will to end hunger in this country.
    In fact, what is particularly galling is that this bill 
takes from those with the least and gives to those with the 
most. I said this in the Agriculture Committee. You guys make 
Marie Antoinette look down-to-earth. I mean, this is, like, 
crazy. I can't believe that you are doing this.
    I mean, I am--again, as someone who is on the Ag 
Committee--and the chairman heard me and the ranking member 
heard me speak at length about this--but I find it 
unconscionable--I find it unconscionable and immoral that we 
are here debating a bill that is going to--will take food away 
from kids. I mean, this bill will do that.
    All the denials won't change the fact that this bill will 
hurt these people. It will take food off the table of families 
of 7-, 8-, 9-year-old kids in your communities. It will mean 
more kids go to school hungry, more kids get kicked off their 
free school meals, more kids will suffer chronic illnesses 
because they don't have access to good nutrition.
    By the way, there is a cost to being indifferent about 
those who are food insecure in this country. And because of 
this bill more and more people are not only going to go without 
healthcare, they are going to go without food.
    And for most of last week's hearing in the Ag Committee 
most Republicans--this is the thing that really bothers me--
most Republicans on the Agriculture Committee couldn't even 
bother to show up during the debate.
    I mean, I made a comment--I think I almost got my words 
taken down--but I said, look, I mean, we are all arguing about 
work requirements for people who are poor. How about some work 
requirements for Members of Congress that should show up to 
these committee hearings and pay attention to the witnesses and 
offer amendments and to actually be engaged? I mean, most of 
them came in for 5 minutes and then left.
    Well, guess what? I sat there for virtually all of the 13 
hours. I heard firsthand how much this bill is going to screw 
over kids and seniors and working families and so many other 
people. People who voted for Republicans and who I think now 
are going to feel betrayed by Republicans, they are going to 
lose their food assistance.
    Now, I don't know why so many people didn't show up, but I 
think it is because many of you know how deeply unpopular what 
you are trying to do here is among the American people. And 
since you guys don't want to talk about it, I am just going to 
talk a little bit about it.
    Your bill cuts SNAP, a program that provides kids, seniors, 
veterans, and people with disabilities with on average of about 
two bucks per meal to afford food. You are going to cut it by 
over $313 billion.
    When the chairman of the Budget Committee was here a month 
and a half ago advocating these cuts in food assistance, I 
asked him a simple question. I said: What is the average SNAP 
benefit? He had no idea. He had no idea. He didn't know it was 
$2 per person per meal or $6 a day and yet was advocating these 
huge cuts.
    But that means you are gutting one-third of the entire 
program. That is the biggest cut in history. And your bill 
takes food away from families with kids if their single parent 
is struggling to find a job or can't access childcare. Your 
bill forces older adults up to age 65, many who have limited 
education and dismal job prospects, off of benefits in 3 
months.
    I mean, who is hiring a 64-year-old who was recently laid 
off? I mean, do you really think that you can change careers at 
64? It is not easy. Some people can. It is not easy.
    Your bill prevents future increases to benefit 
calculations, meaning families will have less money for food in 
the future as costs rise.
    I mean, really, this is $2 per person per meal. That is 
what it is. And your bill threatens food benefits for 16 
million children, 8 million seniors, and 4 million people with 
disabilities by shifting the cost of benefits onto States whose 
budgets cannot support the hundreds of millions of dollars they 
would have to put up every year to maintain benefits for these 
individuals.
    Chairman Thompson, I want to ask you a pretty simple 
question. This bill, the bill that you wrote, takes benefits 
away from families with kids as young as 7 years old if their 
parent loses their job and cannot find another job.
    So let's say you are a single dad with a college degree. 
You live in a small rural town. There may not be a lot of jobs 
available. You only have--you have a college degree. But 
millions of single dads in this country are in this position. 
Let's say you get laid off from your job with no notice, no 
warning. Let's say it is March.
    So you now have got 90 days to get a new job or you lose 
your portion of the SNAP benefits, which means less food in the 
fridge for you and your family.
    So yes or no, Mr. Chairman, do you think it is right for 
the government to punish those kids because mom or dad can't 
get a job locked down in 90 days?
    And let me just also add, the majority of able-bodied 
people who are on the benefit actually work. They actually 
work. They earn so little, they need the benefit.
    But I ask the question, I mean, do you think that that is 
an okay thing to have happen?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, Mr. McGovern, being on 
the Agriculture Committee as long as you have, I would think--
really felt like you would have a great grasp on the entirety 
of the nutrition title of the farm bill. States have had and 
will have waivers in those situations that they can exercise.
    When you have got a single parent, like you said, there are 
not two parents there, obviously there are provisions if one--
if there are two parents, one parent it would apply, the other 
parent it would not apply to in terms of any kind of work, 
volunteer, or educational opportunities which we pay for.
    And there is also--I mean, there is a deduction from SNAP 
income--income for SNAP eligibility for uncapped amount of 
childcare expenses, which includes childcare. And then we 
have--the Federal Government also funds subsidized childcare 
through the Child Care and Development Block Grant, not to 
mention the child tax credit and the Child and Dependent Care 
Tax Credit.
    So, absolutely, there is no--there should not be a loss of 
access to supplemental nutrition. I know that one of the things 
we talked about was CBO made the comment about 3 million 
people, I believe, that were coming off of SNAP. Those are 
individuals who choose not--they choose not to engage in work, 
volunteer time, or education.
    Or a big part of that--and you are right. It is not half, 
though. At the most, it is 27 percent of folks on SNAP are 
working. Some of those folks are coming off because they have 
worked their way off, which is the American Dream.
    Mr. McGovern. I am going to yield to----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. They no longer are living in 
poverty.
    Mr. McGovern. That is kind of a word salad. But the bottom 
line is, if that single parent can't find a job they lose their 
benefits.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. I have heard word salad.
    Mr. McGovern. It is that simple. I mean, they lose their 
benefits. And, by the way, we have a childcare crisis in this 
country, too.
    I don't know whether Ranking Member Craig wants to add 
anything.
    Ms. Craig. I would just add that one of the most egregious 
parts of this bill is changing that scenario where that single 
dad, when their child turns 7, then would have work 
requirements. And, again, childcare crisis in our country. And 
add on top of that that if you are married, actually, only one 
of you has a work requirement.
    So, it is crazy. You can stay home and still be eligible 
for the benefit if you are married and your spouse goes to 
work. But if you are a single mom or a single dad, the new 
dependent age for someone is 7 years old.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. And, by the way, the vast majority of 
people in this country who are on SNAP are kids. There are 
seniors and there are people with disabilities and veterans as 
well.
    In your home State of Pennsylvania, Chairman Thompson, 
under this bill they are going to be on the hook for over a 
billion dollars in benefits alone if this bill is enacted.
    So, what if Pennsylvania or any other State can't meet that 
cost? I know you think they can, but what if they can't? I 
mean, I think the Governor of your State says the bill will 
make groceries more expensive, close down local grocery stores, 
and force kids to go hungry.
    But I want to just say, this State cost share that you all 
talk about, saying that we are not going to cut benefits, well, 
again, if Pennsylvania had to absorb a billion dollars, that is 
a lot for a State budget. What if they can't do it? Do they 
then do benefit cuts?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, I actually reject the 
premise of your question that States will refuse to cover 5 
percent of a supplemental nutrition assistance program given 
that they have 2 years to adjust their State budgets.
    SNAP, as you know, is the only State-administered 
entitlement benefit that is fully funded by the Federal 
Government, and States are already paying anywhere from 25 to 
50 percent of the cost of Medicaid benefits in their States.
    States are fully capable of paying for SNAP, and every 
single State has achieved an error rate below 6 percent in the 
last 10 years, which would bring them down to that base cost 
share.
    Really, the time has come to impose clear incentives for 
States to improve their services for SNAP participants and 
control costs, and the only way for that to occur is for them 
to have some level of skin in the game on benefit expenditures.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, as you know, it is not just 5 percent; 
it can go up to 25 percent for some States.
    But let me switch to Ranking Member Craig so we can get 
some different perspectives here.
    Ranking Member, what will States do if they can't meet the 
absurd new scam set up by Republicans in this bill?
    Ms. Craig. We all know that they are going to cut the 
benefit. It is just that plain and simple.
    And, look, the way that this bill takes the error rate 
right now, if it is $56 or less, the State does not count that, 
whether it is an underpayment or an overpayment. But under 
this, everybody's error rate is going up.
    And I am sorry that the chairwoman left because 19 percent 
of her households in her district are benefiting from the SNAP 
program today, and the cost in that State is going to be just 
exorbitant.
    Mr. McGovern. So isn't this just a backdoor way to take 
food assistance away from people without having to get your 
fingerprints on it?
    Ms. Craig. Well, it is shifting the blame for taking away 
the benefits. So this body is trying to shift the blame to 
States. Twenty-three Governors wrote to us to say: We cannot 
afford this. We cannot pay for this.
    Mr. McGovern. And, in fact, Ranking Member, is there 
anything in this bill that prevents a State from cutting 
benefits for kids?
    Ms. Craig. There is absolutely nothing in this bill.
    Mr. McGovern. So this bill could lead to kids, seniors, 
veterans, and Americans with disabilities from being cut off of 
food assistance or seeing their benefits reduced?
    Ms. Craig. This bill will lead to benefit loss to millions 
of Americans.
    Mr. McGovern. Now, Chairman Thompson, even if you disagree 
with everything that we just said, would you support 
amendments----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. And that is a pretty accurate 
statement, Mr. Ranking Member. Thank you.
    Mr. McGovern. But would you support amendments that simply 
say the SNAP provisions in this bill cannot go into effect 
unless no child, no veteran, and no one living in a rural 
community will have their food benefits cut under this bill? I 
mean, we tried to offer that in committee because there is 
great concern over this.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, Mr. Ranking Member, I 
just don't--I don't see it necessary given the depth and the 
width of the nutrition title. What we are putting forward can't 
be taken in a silo. You have to look at the entirety of how the 
nutrition program works.
    And I don't believe--actually, I believe that we are going 
to be empowering more children to have a better future. There 
may be parents out there that will choose not to engage in work 
requirements.
    By the way, we have had it since the 1970s. This is not 
something new.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. But not at 7--not with kids, with 7- 
and 8-year-old and 9-year-old----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. If you go back and look at 
the general work requirements, it is age 6. We move it to 7 
with this bill.
    Mr. McGovern. And I don't know how we provide children a 
better future by allowing--by providing them less food and 
nutrition as they are growing up. I mean, I----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. I don't know how we guarantee 
a better future if we do everything we can to keep children 
stuck in intergenerational poverty.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, first of all, a lot of people who are 
on SNAP, who have been on SNAP, have gone on to be very 
successful people.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That says work requirements 
work.
    Mr. McGovern. This kind of stigmatization, that if you are 
on SNAP that somehow you are going to always be stuck in 
poverty, is just not the reality.
    I will go to Ms. Craig and then to Ms. Moore.
    Ms. Craig. Mr. Chairman, I am offended by your last 
statement. My own mother was a single mom who was going to 
school at night to get her teaching degree for 9 years to 
become a teacher. Yep, she did it.
    But under the scenario we just outlined, my mom would no 
longer be eligible for benefits once I turned 7 years old 
because my mom is going to school, not able to work 80 hours a 
month. That is the truth and you know it.
    And, look, 11 million people, according to the Center on 
Budget and Policy, including 4 million children, live in 
households that would be at risk of losing these benefits if 
this bill passes.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. If I can, I would just say, 
if you read the bill----
    Mr. McGovern. I did.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania [continuing]. It is an average 
of 80 hours a month; that is 20 hours a week. Doesn't have to 
be 20 hours. It just has to be an average of 80 over a month.
    And it is work. And like the ranking member said, 
approximately 24, 27 percent of SNAP recipients are working 
today already, but they are living in poverty.
    But it can be volunteer work. But it also--your mom would 
qualify because she was actually getting education, and that is 
a qualifier for receiving SNAP benefits.
    Ms. Craig. Not 80 hours a week---not 80 hours a month.
    Mr. McGovern. And let me--we throw around these numbers, 13 
million people will lose their healthcare, 5 million people 
will lose their food assistance benefits.
    And I worry sometimes that there are people in this Chamber 
who look at those numbers and kind of view them as statistics 
and fail to appreciate kind of the human element behind them.
    One of the things that I have learned on this job is that 
people's lives are complicated and one glove doesn't fit all. 
And as much as we want to say this should apply to everybody or 
this should apply to everybody and this--and it is complicated. 
And in my experience, especially with a lot of single parents 
raising kids, they want to be good parents because that is the 
best thing they can do to make sure their kids have a bright 
future.
    And to have to add on to that now, if I don't meet this new 
requirement, I will lose my SNAP benefit and there will be less 
food in the house, again, I just--like, I don't understand like 
why this is something that my Republican friends feel that they 
have to do.
    But, I mean, Ms. Moore?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ranking Member, again, I 
will also say, I mean, that has been a quandary of certain 
folks in certain situations. You are right. It is complex. 
People have very different lives.
    Mr. McGovern. What happens if childcare is not available?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. And that is why the State has 
and will retain flexibility with waivers to be able to meet 
those individual needs. We just need to make sure that the 
States administer the programs according to the intent of 
Congress.
    Mr. McGovern. Lots of luck with that. And I would just, 
again, say, I mean, I think a better way to do it is to not 
make these cuts and maybe not give tax breaks to billionaires.
    Ms. Moore.
    Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I do 
appreciate this vigorous discussion.
    You know, as a co-chair of the bipartisan foster youth 
program here in Congress, I can tell you that leaving a 7-year-
old at home while the parent goes to work, there is a name for 
that. It is called child abuse and neglect. That will get you a 
case.
    And I know people who have had their children removed from 
their homes for that very reason. They were at work, couldn't 
afford childcare, and left their child at home.
    Let me just say this. As a survivor of childhood sexual 
assault, I guarantee you that Chester the Molester is going to 
know that your child is at home on a regular basis while you 
are out working to meet these work requirements. And they will 
find an opportunity to pretend that your mom told them to come 
by or you have seen them or come on, go to the store with me. 
And if you are 7 years old, you are vulnerable.
    I can tell you that if the house catches on fire while the 
7-year-old is in the house because they tried to make 
themselves some chicken nuggets and turned the stove on, that 
that is going to be a little bit of a problem.
    I also want to mention another thing about this 80 hours. I 
think this 80 hours is very interesting.
    I remember my daughter once working for a daycare center, 
and, I mean, the minute she hit that 19th hour, no matter how 
busy they were, they sent her home because they didn't want to 
incur the payroll tax charges.
    And employers will make decisions that low-wage people, 
low-income people, people that you are targeting, don't have 
any choice about it. You are working in the fast food 
restaurant, they are not going to let you work 40 hours a week 
so they have to pay workman's comp. They are not going to let 
you work 20 hours a week in order to do it. They are dumb if 
they do because they don't--the whole point is, is to have 
people churning in and out.
    So I don't want to--this is--I so appreciate my colleagues 
here from the Ag Committee that have greater information about 
this particular part of the bill. But I just could not let it 
pass without talking. So you want to change anything, this 7-
year-old at home alone, there is a name for it: child abuse and 
neglect.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. McGovern. I just want to ask a few quick questions to 
Chairman Smith. You know, Chairman Smith, you keep saying that, 
if we don't pass this beautiful bill, it will result in the 
biggest tax increase in history. Well, you know, as I see it, 
that is your fault. And why? Because, when you passed your tax 
bill in 2017, you made the corporate tax cuts permanent, but 
you made the tax cuts for middle class temporary. So, when 
those cuts expire and the rates go up on hardworking Americans, 
it is because you drafted your bill--that is the way you 
drafted your bill.
    I mean, another thing, you keep touting no tax on tips, no 
tax on overtime, setting aside that, under this bill, parts of 
tips and overtime are still taxed; just like in 2017, you 
drafted those tax cuts as only being temporary. They expire. 
So, if these are an important center piece to help working-
class Americans, why are you making them expire? Why are those 
tax cuts temporary?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. So the bill that we passed in 2017 
out of the House made everything permanent. It was the other 
side of the building that put the expirations in. But the bill 
that I drafted, Mr. McGovern, and that I was part of the Ways 
and Means Committee, made everything permanent. And the good 
thing about it is this one, big, beautiful bill before you will 
make all those expiring provisions permanent.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, let me ask you this: Do you think the 
child tax credit should go down in 2029?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. You are talking about 2029.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That is the enhanced boost that we 
are doing, which is $500 more for the child tax credit.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. But you think it should expire in 
2029?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. I would love for it to go longer, 
but I would love for Democrats to work with us to try to make 
sure we have permanent tax policy.
    Mr. McGovern. Do you think the standard deduction should 
fall in 2029?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Absolutely not. That is why I think 
Democrats would want to work with us to make sure that we 
continue to provide tax relief for working families.
    Mr. McGovern. Do you think taxes should go up on senior 
citizens in 2029?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That is why I hope Democrats will 
work with us to make sure that we are providing tax relief for 
seniors.
    Mr. McGovern. Do you think people should have to pay taxes 
on their tips in 2029?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That is why you will vote with me to 
make sure that it doesn't happen, right, Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. And do you think that people should have to 
pay tax on their overtime in 2029?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That is why we are eliminating it in 
this bill, and that is why you are voting against it.
    Mr. McGovern. No. I mean, I am voting against it because I 
don't like the taxes for billionaires and the cuts in 
healthcare and the egregious cuts----
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. But no tax for overtime is in this 
bill----
    Mr. McGovern. And, as I said at the beginning, I mean, we 
are more than willing to work with you on tax cuts and tax 
relief for those in the middle and for those vulnerable 
populations. But it just seems that all these provisions that 
seem to benefit the people who are most well-off and well-
connected don't have to worry about that, but all this other 
stuff we do.
    So I will just close with this, you know, I think this is 
an awful, awful bill, and I understand why we began meeting at 
1 in the morning to talk about this because I think my 
Republican friends don't want people to know about it. The idea 
of people losing healthcare benefits and the idea of 
billionaires getting tax cuts and people losing their food 
benefits, I said this in the Ag Committee, I said that there is 
a special place in hell for people who take food away from 
hungry people. And I feel very, very strongly about this. I am 
angry that this is the path that you have chosen to go down, 
and we are going to fight like hell on the House floor. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Griffith [presiding].
    The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mrs. Fischbach 
for her time of questioning.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And I can tell who got a full night sleep. So that just 
kind of shows.
    But, first, I want to start out by thanking Chairman 
Thompson for all of your work on your portion of the bill. I 
know you have been working a long time, and you have not only 
the America's farmers, you know, that you are concerned with 
them and you are working towards them but also the people that 
are affected by the bill. So I appreciate your work.
    And, Chairman Guthrie and Chairman Walberg, appreciate what 
you have done. I mean, you have done wonderful things, and I 
know that you have been working on it for months and months and 
months. It went through your committee, and we have all been 
working on those things over a great span of time.
    And, Mr. Smith, Chairman Smith, excuse me, I have to say, I 
thank you for your work on Ways and Means, and I was honored to 
work with you on that. We have been working a year, well over a 
year, working through all of these provisions and making sure 
that we are addressing the issues that we need to to keep the 
economy going, to offer tax breaks to the middle income, and 
all of those things that we did.
    And you mentioned some of the provisions or a lot of the 
provisions that were--and we have discussed a few of them that 
are in the bill, and, you know, I wanted to get just a little 
more specific, because some of--you know, as we were talking 
about we need to talk about people; we need to talk about what 
is going on. And, you know, we heard about how important 
199(a), over the year that we worked, and I am sure everybody 
has heard from their constituents. We heard about how important 
the 199(a), 20 percent deduction is, and we were able to 
increase that to 23 percent.
    I will just tell you, in my district, that affects 55,000 
small businesses and family farms, and you know what? I don't 
think they are billionaires. I mean, if I have 55,000 
billionaires in my district, that is incredible. I would like 
to meet them.
    And, just to put it into perspective, in Ms. Scanlon's 
district, there are 60,000 small businesses that would be hit 
with a 43.4 percent tax rate if this bill isn't put in place. 
In Mr. Neguse's district, it is over 110,000 small businesses 
that are affected by 199(a). In Ms. Leger Fernandez' district, 
it is over 41,000 small businesses. And, in Mr. McGovern's, it 
is 67,000 small businesses that are affected. And these are not 
billionaires. They are not billionaires. These are small 
businesses, the backbone of our communities, and that is why 
that is so important.
    This bill does invest in tax relief for workers, families, 
farmers, rural communities in a way that we haven't seen 
before. This is incredible. And, if we talk about the child tax 
credit, we talk about the enhanced child tax credit. In my 
district, 75,000 families are affected by that provision. In 
Ms. Scanlon's district, there are 83,000 families that are 
affected by that; Mr. Neguse's district, 73,000 families that 
are affected by the child tax credit; in Ms. Leger Fernandez's 
district, 75,000; and, in Mr. McGovern, almost 100,000. And all 
of those people would see their child tax credit cut in half 
without this bill.
    These are regular people, regular, middle-income people 
that will be affected if we do not take to heart those 
provisions and pass this bill. This is about making sure that 
people have what they need; the middle income are there and 
supported.
    You know, and I also just wanted to say, you know, we have 
made some mention about the length of time and that these 
provisions haven't been made permanent. And, just as a side 
note, just to throw it out, when Democrats in 2020 passed the 
Inflation Reduction Act, they only extended the enhanced 
premium tax credits through 2025. Hmmm, was there an election 
in 2024? Oh. Because I think that was the implication that we 
had somehow done it because of an election. But, instead, what 
was prioritized in that bill was wealthy individuals trying to 
buy electric vehicles. So that was the difference. This bill 
actually helps the middle income and not to just do that.
    But I did want to just really focus a little bit, and I 
want--Chairman Smith, you know, we have talked a lot about the 
families and the middle income, but I did want to circle back 
and just talk a little bit about the provision that we put for 
seniors, that we created for seniors. So if you could talk just 
a little bit about that.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Absolutely. First off, I just want 
to hit on, this bill affects 40 million children with the child 
tax credit. So every congressional district is drastically 
affected.
    In regards to the tax relief for seniors, this is--
currently in the Tax Code, a senior 65 years old and older gets 
to deduct about $1,900 from their standard deduction. They can 
get the standard deduction if they are single, $15,000, and 
then that senior deduction is an added tax savings for them. 
What we did, we actually increased it $4,000. So now they will 
be able to deduct almost $6,000 of that standard deduction, and 
that is equivalent--that is the equivalent of a person who 
makes $75,000 or less a year not owing any on Social Security, 
any taxes on Social Security.
    Mrs. Fischbach. And, Chairman Smith, I just have to ask so 
we can make sure that everybody understands, are those 
billionaires?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. If someone makes less than $75,000 a 
year, they are definitely not billionaires.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you for clarifying that for me, 
because I hear that a lot, that we are just, you know, 
benefiting billionaires, and it is absolutely not true. The 
American people are positively affected by this bill, the 
average middle-income family, and I thank you for putting it 
together.
    And I thank the chair for all of the input for this bill. 
And, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize Ms. Scanlon for her 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for joining us 
here. You can thank the Speaker for scheduling the early 
morning wakeup call for everyone. For some reason, I keep 
thinking of a song, ``There's Got to Be a Morning After,'' from 
a disaster film, which may be an appropriate analogy here, 
because we all know that you don't schedule a 1 a.m. hearing 
unless you have a disaster of a bill that you want to hide from 
the public.
    And we don't have to look far to see why they want to hide 
this bill. It is an all-out assault on the American social 
contract. They are trying to sell it as some kind of economic 
growth plan. Thank you, triple-down fictions again. But, if you 
look past the press releases, what you find is a Frankenstein 
monster of a bill that kicks people off their healthcare, cuts 
nutrition assistance for working families, guts clean energy 
investments, and hands out trillions of dollars in tax breaks 
to the wealthiest people of the country.
    And, as we learned from a CBO report overnight, it is going 
to cut $0.5 trillion from Medicare in addition to the cuts to 
Medicaid and impose or initiate a wealth transfer from the 10 
percent of folks in this country who have the lowest income to 
the 10 percent that have the highest. So not saying that there 
aren't lots of tax cuts in here, but it is at whose expense I 
think is the question.
    If Mrs. Fischbach wants to have a conversation about tax 
cuts for small businesses, we would love to have that 
conversation, but it was never brought up for discussion with 
the entirety of Congress. What we have seen, and in my 
district--maybe it is not the same thing in her district, but 
we have seen that tens of thousands of people will lose their 
health insurance. Tens of thousands of families will lose SNAP 
benefits. And that is just unacceptable.
    Let's start with the cuts to food assistance. At a time 
when food prices are high and getting higher because of 
tariffs, when wages haven't caught up with the cost of living, 
when families are still recovering from the financial strain of 
the pandemic, this bill takes a sledgehammer to SNAP. We are 
talking about a program that helps feed nearly 42 million 
Americans, one in four children in this country, one of the 
most effective antipoverty programs that we have. It lifts 
millions out of poverty every year, and it does so with 
efficiency and dignity.
    At a certain level, it even provides a form of corporate 
welfare so that big businesses don't have to pay their workers 
a living wage. But Republicans aren't satisfied with that. 
Instead of working to expand access to food, this bill imposes 
more paperwork requirements, shortens eligibility windows, and 
slashes benefits. Republicans are claiming this will promote 
work, but the overwhelming body of evidence shows that their 
work requirements don't actually increase employment. They just 
make it harder for people to eat.
    You can't work if you are hungry. You can't hold down a job 
if you can't afford to feed your kids. Kids can't succeed in 
school if they are hungry. And no one can pull themselves up by 
their bootstraps if they are stuck in a hole that Congress has 
already dug for them.
    According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
the SNAP cuts in this bill could result in nearly 2 million 
people losing access to food assistance. That is 2 million 
seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, single moms being 
told by the government of the richest nation on Earth, ``Sorry, 
you are on your own.'' And to what end? So that Republicans can 
claim to save a few billion dollars at the same time that they 
are extending the Trump tax cuts for the top 1 percent, a move 
that is going to cost this country over $3 trillion over the 
next decade.
    So let's be crystal clear, the tradeoff that Republicans 
are proposing in this bill is not between cutting waste and 
boosting growth. It is between feeding children and giving 
billionaires another yacht. And speaking of tax cuts, let's 
talk about what the bill does on that front because it is 
breathtaking in its recklessness. It locks in place the worst 
parts of the 2017 Trump tax law. It extends tax breaks for 
corporations, slashes taxes for people at the very top, and 
opens up new loopholes for the ultra wealthy to exploit.
    According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model and the Tax 
Policy Center, more than half the benefits from these tax 
provisions go to the top 1 percent. Meanwhile, middle-class 
families will see little to no benefits, and millions of them 
will actually see their taxes go up because the cost of the 
Trump tariffs are greater than the tax cut they are going to 
receive. So this bill was going to increase the already obscene 
inequality in our Tax Code and do so at a moment when the ultra 
wealthy are already paying a lower effective tax rate than 
working-class Americans.
    If you want to talk about fairness and rewarding work, 
maybe we should start by asking why a billionaire hedge fund 
manager pays a lower effective tax rate than a firefighter, a 
nurse, a plumber, or a school teacher. This isn't tax reform. 
It is tax rigging. It is trickle-down economics with a fresh 
coat of paint. And, like every other time this theory has been 
tried, it is going to end in disaster.
    We already have a preview of what is coming because the 
fiscal impact of this bill is a five-alarm fire. The bill is 
projected to add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the 
next 10 years. And that is not coming from liberal think tanks; 
it is coming from conservative think tanks and former 
Republican budget officials. And that is a baseline estimate. 
That is before the creative accounting and gimmicks gets 
stripped away.
    Once you dig into the details, factor in the full cost of 
the tax cut extensions, the impact of the new tariffs, and the 
backloaded nature of the spending cuts, the real number could 
be much higher, and that is before we even see what is going to 
be in the amendment that nobody has seen yet to this bill 
before it hits the floor.
    So Republicans are saying, ``Don't worry, tax cuts will pay 
for themselves,'' but we have heard this song before. They said 
the same thing in 2001. They said it again in 2003. They 
definitely said it in 2017. And, in every single case, the 
result was the same: bigger deficits, slower growth, and 
greater income inequality. There is no serious economist, none, 
who believes that extending the tax cuts will magically balance 
the budget. And we know that Moody's just downgraded our credit 
rating in part because they know these tax cuts will balloon 
the deficit and make our fiscal situation even worse.
    How do we propose--how do the Republicans propose to deal 
with that deficit? Not by rolling back the tax cuts, not by 
asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share, but by 
cutting healthcare, slashing food assistance, and gutting the 
programs that ordinary Americans rely on every day.
    So, looking at the healthcare cuts, because they are among 
the most devastating parts of this bill, if this bill becomes 
law, nearly 14 million people lose their health coverage. 14 
million. Millions of low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid 
for doctors visits, prescription drugs, lifesaving treatments. 
That includes working families who use the Affordable Care Act 
to buy coverage on the marketplace. It includes cancer 
patients, people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, and 
seniors in nursing homes. We are hearing from all of our 
nursing homes about how devastating these cuts will be.
    This bill rolls back Medicaid expansion, slashes subsidies 
for ACA coverage, and imposes harsh, new work requirements that 
will lead to coverage losses without increasing employment. And 
we know this because the data is overwhelming. When Arkansas 
imposed similar Medicaid work requirements a few years ago, 
more than 18,000 people lost coverage, and there was no 
measurable increase in employment. That is because most 
Medicaid recipients are already working, or they are caring for 
a child, or they have a disability, or they are in school.
    So the work requirements, so-called work requirements, they 
are actually paperwork requirements. They will kick people off 
Medicaid not because they aren't eligible but because they have 
to jump through more hoops to prove it. And it is not about 
promoting work; it is about punishing poverty and making life 
harder for people who are already struggling.
    Just like with SNAP, the savings from these healthcare cuts 
are pennies compared to the cost of the tax breaks that 
Republicans are giving to their wealthy donors. You don't get 
to call yourself fiscally responsible when you are taking 
healthcare away from cancer patients so that Elon Musk can get 
another tax write-off.
    Congressional Budget Office has been crystal clear: 
Medicaid work requirements don't increase employment. They just 
increase the paperwork and the number of people who lose 
healthcare. This isn't about work; it is about trying to 
justify an unjustifiable tax giveaway to the rich.
    And then we have the clean energy and environmental 
investments that are being gutted in this bill. At a time when 
we are seeing record wildfires, catastrophic flooding, 
skyrocketing insurance premiums due to climate-related 
disasters, Republicans want to gut the very programs that are 
helping us fight back. This bill rescinds billions of dollars 
in clean energy tax credits, slashes funding for renewable 
energy deployment, blocks support for home energy efficiency 
that many homeowners in my district have been able to use to 
upgrade their furnaces and water heaters and reduce their 
energy costs. And it even goes after investments in climate 
resilience and environmental justice.
    So this is just sabotage. These clean energy investments 
aren't just good for the planet; they are good for our economy. 
They have created jobs. They have reduced household energy 
bills, and they keep our air and water clean. And they help our 
communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, prepare 
for and respond to climate threats.
    But, because these provisions were passed by Democrats and 
they help us transition to more sustainable energy sources and 
reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, Republicans are determined 
to tear them down. And the irony is that a lot of these 
projects are happening in red States: Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa; 
they are leading the way in wind and solar development. But 
this bill is going to pull the rug out from under that progress 
all to make a political point.
    The American people deserve better than this. They deserve 
a government that works for them, not one that caves to 
corporate lobbyists, science deniers, and billionaire donors. 
So, just looking at the whole picture, this bill cuts food 
assistance from working families, kicks millions off their 
healthcare, hands trillions in tax breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans, blows a multitrillion dollar hole in the Federal 
deficit, and sabotages our fight against climate change. So it 
is not a big, beautiful bill. It is a big, disgraceful betrayal 
of the American people. It is a bill that punishes the poor, 
rewards the rich, and threatens the stability of our economy.
    And the fact that it is being rushed through the House with 
no real debate, with new things being exposed about it 
practically on an hourly basis, no final CBO score, no 
transparency, no accountability should alarm everyone here, 
regardless of party. So, obviously, I am not a fan of the bill. 
We have to do better. The sun is up. The American people are 
looking.
    Ranking Member Craig, this bill includes the most 
significant cuts to SNAP in decades. Can you explain what this 
means for working families and children and seniors who rely on 
SNAP to put food on the table.
    Ms. Craig. Yeah, it is devastating. It is the largest cut 
in American history to the most successful antihunger program 
in American history. I mean, we are talking about, you know--
and let me make sure my Republican colleagues understand this--
the nutrition title is a title in the farm bill. This 
absolutely destroys the farm bill coalition that we have worked 
for decades to establish in our country.
    Ms. Scanlon. One issue that is raising a lot of concern in 
Pennsylvania, which I represent, as does Mr. Thompson, is that, 
for the first time ever, this bill would require States to 
start paying a portion of SNAP benefits. What would this kind 
of cost shift, Ms. Craig, mean for the States' ability to serve 
their residents?
    Ms. Craig. Well, at the end of the day, every State is 
going to make its own decision about what they can accomplish 
here, and the net effect is going to be, in many States around 
this country, they are going to cut the benefit. States already 
share 50 percent of the administration cost of this program. 
That goes to 75 percent. Most States, including Pennsylvania, 
are going to be on the hook for 25 percent of the benefit cost 
after this bill passes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, I know that our State legislators are 
already gravely concerned about the reduction in Federal 
benefits coming to the Commonwealth, and this is not giving 
them any ease.
    Representative Moore, the majority claims this bill is a 
middle-class tax cut, but analysis shows that people earning 
under $50,000 a year would get an average tax cut of less than 
$1 a day, while the top 1 percent would get nearly $300,000 a 
year. Does that sound like a fair or balanced approach to tax 
policy?
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Absolutely not, Ms. Scanlon. You 
are correct that it really increases inequality. And, for those 
of us who remember our history, when we went into the Great 
Depression, it was the biggest inequality we had experienced in 
American history. And, you know, and this sort of resembles 
putting us in that direction. In this bill the top 1 percent 
get 20 percent of the benefit in 2027. The top 5 percent get 40 
percent of the benefit. The top 10 percent get 52 percent of 
the benefit of this bill.
    Ms. Scanlon, if you would just indulge me for a moment, I 
just want to talk a little bit about the, quote/unquote, small 
business benefit. I notice that Mrs. Fischbach referenced the 
numbers of small businesses in all of the Democrats' 
communities that would be affected. And so I just have a real 
question, is it is or is it ain't a small business?
    I am looking at one of the things I think is particularly 
egregious, one of the most expensive pieces of this big, 
beautiful, bonanza for billionaires, that is the 199A 
deduction. They claim it is for small business, this 
passthrough deduction, and, you know, they wax on about, you 
know, how important it is. In 2022, that was the year that we 
were able to--that JCT was able to find data.
    In 2022, taxpayers claiming the 199A deduction with 
adjusted gross income, all of it qualified business income, in 
the neighborhood of $200,000 a year. That small business 
claimed about $6,500, $6,500 on average. Taxpayers claiming the 
199A deduction with adjusted gross income in the neighborhood 
of $10 million. Still, this is small business. They claimed 
about $520,000 of this deduction on average.
    In 2022, there were about 800 taxpayers. You know, they are 
supposed to be--I know, you know, Mr. Smith here is going to 
tell you that there are limits on how much you can earn in 
order to qualify for the 199A, but not so much in this bill nor 
in 2022. There are about 800 taxpayers with adjusted gross 
incomes exceeding $100 million that received the 199A deduction 
and claimed $11 million of the deduction on average.
    And, I mean, I am not going to be picking on Republicans 
here in their district. I will just talk about people in my 
community, in Wisconsin. Dick and Liz Uihlein in Wisconsin 
saved over $40 million in taxes in 2018 by claiming this 199A 
deduction, and they received $115 million. Now, the next 
question is, ``Oh, well, these are our job creators''--and I 
know I am being performative. But, in 2022, of the 17 million 
people who claimed the 199A deduction--fact check this--84 
percent of these businesses had zero employees, zero.
    And so thank you for asking me that question, and, yeah, 
the benefit goes primarily to rich people. And, like I said, 
just in the examples that you have given, you know, the average 
taxpayer, not talking about businesses but individual, is going 
to receive $265, at least until it expires in 2029.
    Ms. Scanlon. I appreciate that, and I have a few more 
questions for you, but I wanted to yield to the chairwoman for 
a minute.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Yes, ma'am.
    The Chairwoman [presiding]. Yes. I think many people in 
here have just heard that our colleague, Gerry Connolly, has 
just passed away.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Oh, no.
    The Chairwoman. So I want to ask us all to stop and say a 
prayer for his family. Please, take some time.
    [Moment of Silence.]
    The Chairwoman. I thank everybody.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Madam Chair, for doing that.
    The Chairwoman. Oh, it is absolutely the right thing to do.
    You are recognized, Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. I appreciate that. Certainly, a valued 
colleague, and this is quite a loss.
    Representative Moore, we had just talked about the fact 
that the top 1 percent--or top 0.1 percent are going to get a 
$300,000 per year tax break----
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Yeah.
    Ms. Scanlon [continuing]. Which is almost four times the 
median household income in my district. So the fact that the 
very top would not only not pay their fair share but this kind 
of break, what do those kind of tradeoffs say about the values 
and priorities in this legislation?
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. You know, Ms. Scanlon, it 
exacerbates the income inequality that we have, but more 
importantly than that, you know, it really, really demonstrates 
that our values as Americans have sort of gone askew. When you 
can provide 310 times the benefit for the top than you do for 
the bottom, you are depriving people of the opportunity to 
participate in our economy in a meaningful way.
    And the costs of that are tremendous, you know. And then, 
when you pile on stuff that is not in the Ways and Means 
jurisdiction, like the cuts to SNAP, the cuts to Medicaid, you 
know, when you give somebody, you know, $265 tax return, how 
far is that going to go with compensating for their loss of 
SNAP and Medicaid?
    There is not one page in here that gives them any childcare 
assistance or anything else. And I just want to point out that, 
you know, we hear on and on and on, and I know Medicaid is not 
within our jurisdiction, but Medicare is; parts of Medicare 
are. And, you know--I am so sorry, I am just a little bit upset 
about Gerry, my friend.
    But what we are seeing is that, as we dismantle healthcare 
and we dismantle SNAP, we are not just depriving the poorest of 
the poor; we are dismantling healthcare, period. I mean, rural 
hospitals are going to close. Urban hospitals are going to 
close down their maternity wards. Graduate students--I had docs 
come and say, ``Graduate students, people who graduate from 
medical school, aren't going to be able to have residencies 
because there are going to be no hospitals.''
    And, even if you have the best health insurance, the 
premier, you are rich, when you have your heart attack, you are 
not going to make it when you have got to drive 35 miles to get 
to the ER. So, when you think that it is just only them lazy 
boys in the basement that are going to be hurt, you better 
think twice. You really better think twice when your provider 
leaves the area because there are too many Medicaid patients 
and goes somewhere, you know, Scottsdale, Arizona, or something 
where there are rich people to practice so that they can--and 
you have no providers at all.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, I wanted to pursue that line with Mr. 
Pallone. In our community, we actually just lost the major 
healthcare system. It was bought out by a private equity entity 
and bankrupted, and we have been unable to find anyone to take 
it over because the Medicaid funding source is so unstable or 
not sustainable or these cuts were threatened. So can you talk 
a little bit about what this is going to mean, these cuts to 
Medicaid for the entire community?
    Mr. Pallone. Well, as you point out and has already been 
stated, when, you know, hospitals and all healthcare 
institutions depend on some kind of reimbursement, private 
insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, whatever it is. And, if your 
hospital or you are a nursing home or you are a community 
health center, whatever, is highly dependent on Medicaid, which 
many rural hospitals and institutions are, then they just don't 
get the reimbursement rate. And now these people come to the 
emergency room, and they are going into the uncompensated care 
because they can't afford to pay the bill.
    And so what does the hospital do? Well, most States don't 
have the ability to make up for that. Some don't have much 
payout, much uncompensated care at all. And so, you know, they 
either close, because, you know, now they can't make it, or 
they try to pass that onto private payers or other government, 
you know, other government payment programs.
    The other alternative is that the quality of care goes 
down. So, in the case of a nursing home, rather than if they 
don't close and they get less money, then they just provide 
less services. One of the things that disturbed me the most in 
this bill, in the Energy and Commerce mark, was that they take 
away--the Republicans take away the nursing home staffing 
ratio, right. I think they save $7 billion or $8 billion by 
doing that.
    What happens? Then, you know, there is no nurse there. At 
night, there is no nurse, you know. And, you know, people die 
because there is nobody to take care of them. The services go 
down. I remember, years ago, in my State, we had terrible 
nursing home situations, safety, health hazards. Nursing homes 
burn down. People died in the fires in my hometown. I don't 
want to go back to that. We have made a lot of progress, and we 
certainly don't want to go back to that.
    But, if I could just add to what the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin said that, you know, from the Energy and Commerce 
perspective, we are not involved with the taxes. And I do think 
that, you know, lower income and middle-income people are going 
to pay more with this bill in taxes, but that--we are 
concentrating on all these other affordability issues, right. 
In other words, we spent our time when we were in the majority 
trying to expand options so people could live, and it was more 
affordable.
    So expanding Medicaid was an example of that, right. 
Making--you know, expansion of SNAP, making--having affordable 
connectivity programs so people could afford, you know, to pay 
for the internet. LIHEAP, right. All those things are on the 
chopping block now. Some of them are on the chopping block in 
this bill with the Medicaid cuts, but, you know, the President 
is essentially eliminating LIHEAP. The Republicans refuse to 
renew affordable connectivity.
    In this bill they have, you know, up to $35 copay that is 
mandated, you know, so people have to pay more out of pocket. 
So what are we talking about here? Everything in this bill--
and, you know, I am not going to even get into the tax issues 
now. Everything in this bill that is within our committee makes 
things less affordable, right, at a time when the President 
said, ``Oh, when I am elected prices are going to go down; 
everything is going to become more affordable.'' The opposite 
is happening. Groceries cost more. Inflation is going up. And 
this is just aggravating that situation completely.
    It is the reverse Robin Hood. That is exactly what it is: 
Take from the poor and give to the rich. Not just with the 
taxes but also with everything else, because all these things 
are paying for tax breaks primarily for wealthy people and 
corporate interests.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, you have touched on so many issues that 
are of really paramount concern for my constituents. The LIHEAP 
cuts obviously are huge in our northeastern cities where we 
have cold winters and hot summers. The Medicaid copay, as I 
understand it, that was something that many of our Republican 
colleagues were unaware of the fact that this bill would impose 
a Medicaid copay.
    The issues with respect to hospitals, you know, we hear 
quite a bit about how these Medicaid cuts are going to hurt 
rural hospitals, but they obviously also hurt our frontline 
urban hospitals. And we just had an article in the Philadelphia 
Inquirer this week about how many of our urban hospitals we 
have lost because they were dependent on Medicaid. So that 
remains a huge issue.
    Could you comment at all, as I understand it, there is a 
provision in this bill that would impact the expansion of 
Medicaid coverage for new mothers, which is something we have 
been trying to work on with the Black maternal health crisis in 
this country and the fact that we have women dying at a rate in 
this country that is three, four times the rate of other 
developed nations, and one of the proven tactics for reducing 
maternal mortality is to make sure that women have healthcare 
coverage for the first year after birth.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, again, I have to mention that Robin 
Kelly is in the room, who is a member of our committee, and she 
with the CBC brain trust worked very hard on a lot of these 
maternal mortality issues because they even--in a disparate way 
even affect Black women even more so, you know.
    But, yeah, I mean, that was another thing that we did as 
Democrats. We expanded to 1-year postpartum coverage, which is 
negatively impacted in this bill. And, again, it is another 
example of how Democrats were trying to make things better and 
more affordable and keep people healthy as opposed to 
Republican efforts, which will all go in the other direction.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Representative Scott, Pennsylvania has a 
disproportionately high level of folks who have student loans, 
and they have a greater dollar value on average than most 
States, and that may be in part because of problems with 
funding our State universities. But, nevertheless, we have a 
lot of people who have a lot of student loans that they are 
struggling to pay at this point. Can you comment on what this 
bill would do with respect to student loans?
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. Well, there are a couple of things 
on student loans. One, it limits the amount of student loans 
you can take out. So a lot of students will have to choose 
between going to college or taking out private loans to make 
out the difference. But, on the repayment, the repayment is 
much more expensive, and so--as much of a problem they have 
now, it will be even more. So they limit the amount of aid you 
can get so a lot of students won't be able to go to school. 
Those that do will be paying more and for longer.
    Ms. Scanlon. And, I mean, it is an issue that is really 
something that over our lifetimes has really just taken on a 
whole new structure. I mean, when I went to college, I could 
work as a lifeguard and get a little help from my family and 
take out a few loans and could manage to do that, but now you 
can't--without a college degree, you can't make enough money to 
even begin to start paying for college.
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. Well, a few decades ago, the Pell 
grant covered the 80 percent of the cost of going to a safe 
college, tuition, room, and board. Now it is about 30 percent.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yeah.
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. And covering--that is where the 
student loan crisis came in because families don't have that 
kind of money.
    Ms. Scanlon. Sure.
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. They have to--you know, if they 
don't have a lot of money, they have to come up with--make it 
up with loans.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yeah.
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. And by limiting the amount you can 
borrow, you may not be able to get enough to be able to go so 
you don't go at all, or you get into the private loan market 
and pay all kinds of extra fees, and then, after you have gone, 
the repayment is more expensive.
    Ms. Scanlon. Right.
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. So it is just a bad deal; 
particularly, if you are going this far into debt, people ought 
not be worse off.
    Ms. Scanlon. So we have got bad news on the food front. We 
have got bad news on the health front. We have got bad news on 
the education front. And we have got bad news on the tax front 
for our working families. I think it is a bad bill, and we 
shouldn't move it forward. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Norman, you are recognized.
    Mr. Norman. You know, I have listened to this filibuster 
for a good while, all of us have. And, you know, when you keep 
hearing the four-letter word ``work'' being demonized, when you 
keep hearing the fact that your--because somebody has to go to 
work, your children are dying, mothers are starving, you know, 
it is really--that is really an insult to the working 
Americans, to that plumber who works 80 hours a week, to that 
electrician who works nonstop, to that waitress who is on her 
feet all day long.
    You know, and when you look at the work requirements, fact 
check, Ms. Moore, do you know what it is? 20 hours a week. 20 
hours that I think, if my math is right, that is 4 hours a day.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Norman, would you yield just one 
second? It is 80 hours a month, which comes out to 18.4 hours 
per week. So----
    Mr. Norman. Fact check.
    The Chairwoman. Fact check.
    Mr. Norman. Okay. 18 hours a week. Okay. That is an insult. 
To whoever is watching this hearing, that is an insult to the 
hardworking Americans that, regardless of what you do, work 
brings dignity. Work brings a cause, a sense of purpose. Work 
brings a reason to get up in the morning. Work helps you find 
your God-given talent. And to say work is going to kill 
children, work is going to kill mothers, fathers, you are 
just--you are not telling the truth. That is not right. America 
was built on work. And I can hear over and over and over 
again----
    Mr. Neguse. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Norman [continuing]. This rich, poor, billionaires, you 
know, the identity politics, thank God, 77 million people said 
no to that. They are tired of it. And America is a great 
country because of work, and people are willing to do it. And 
it is really, you know, when you look at the fraud that is 
going on, and I think from what--if you check your facts----
    Mr. Neguse. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Norman [continuing]. We have got--no--there is $13 
billion that--if you check the facts, $13 billion of fraud, 
like in the SNAP cases, people getting money when they 
shouldn't have, $13 billion per year--that is $1.3 billion per 
month, if I check my facts right. You know, Americans have had 
enough of this. And I am sorry. I know you learned it from the 
President Biden, free education, free food for 15 million 
illegals that came into this country, you know, free housing. I 
am sorry. That is not how this country was built.
    And, you know, I admire all of you for the work that you 
do. Each one of you do work. And, for those who keep 
identifying as--you know, demonizing work and demonizing those 
who have been successful, you never know the long hours that 
they put in, the long hours that they took to build a business, 
the long hours that they didn't get a paycheck. So you are 
hurting the very people who you could give hope to. And, by 
demonizing this, Americans are just tired of it.
    You want to know somebody who is the definition of hard 
work? Right here. Came from nothing. Look at what she did. Many 
of you. And, if you want to say rich, I think, if you have got 
your health, you are pretty rich. If you have got your health. 
Gerry Connolly would get it back. So, you know, I resent you 
saying that. And I really--it is a sad day that we have gotten 
to that point in this country when so many people are doing 
that and----
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Are you asking me a question, sir?
    Mr. Norman. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Oh, I didn't think you would.
    Mr. Norman. You filibustered long enough.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. I didn't think you were actually 
asking me a question about work.
    The Chairwoman. Gwen. Gwen.
    Mr. Norman. I did not ask you a question, no. I am not 
asking you a question. What I am saying is--what I am--it is my 
time, Ms. Moore. I didn't interrupt you. You went on for--I 
counted. You went on for 20 minutes, which is fine. And you are 
entertaining, I will give you that. But all I am saying is----
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. I am just really smart.
    Mr. Norman. Ms. Moore, it is my time. All I am saying is 
that the day of demonizing work, the day of demonizing America 
is over with. And American people got it right, and we are 
going to continue to have a great country. This bill, this big, 
beautiful bill, will help this country out. It has got some 
things we have got to work out, but it will help this country.
    And the other thing I will tell you is the taxes are the 
people's money. Government is you all's God. The taxes are the 
people's money, and to give it back to them like Chairman Smith 
and Chairman Thompson and Tim, you know, that is the right 
thing to do. So we are going to right the wrong for the last 4 
years, that this country has been through a living hell with 
this past President. Thank God we have got people who are 
willing to step up and go to work.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Norman.
    Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Well, my friend from South Carolina talked a lot about 
work. Just for the record, we have been working for the last 8 
hours here in the committee, and I could say the same for the 
chairwoman. I am not so sure I could say the same about you. I 
think you snuck out for a little shut eye for a few hours. So I 
am not sure. There is a lot of talk about work, but I haven't 
seen you in a few hours. So welcome back.
    Anyway, I do want to take a minute, in all seriousness, and 
I want to thank the chairwoman for taking a moment to center 
our conversation here just to remember and honor our colleague, 
whom I know we all treasured, and he was a giant among giants 
in this institution. He was a ranking member of one of our 
committees. He was the president of the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly appointed by Madam Speaker Emerita.
    He was one of the most prolific legislators in the House. I 
don't know that there is a single Member of the House during 
his tenure in this Body that had more laws signed--or, excuse 
me, more pieces of legislation signed into law by Presidents of 
both parties. And, more than anything else, he was a fighter 
and a friend. And so I just know that we are going to miss him, 
and I think it is a big loss for the people of Fairfax and for 
the folks in the Commonwealth of Virginia and for this 
institution.
    I want to ask some questions. Thank you to the panel. You 
all have been--I think it is the longest panel. As you know, we 
started at 1 a.m. So we have been here for about 8 hours. I am 
told the sun has risen and that it is morning outside, but we 
haven't, you know, been outside the room yet. So we will just 
have to take your word for it.
    And, as I said to the panel that preceded yours, I have 
been--I think maybe I could speak for my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle--we have been on this collective journey to 
try to figure out why the Speaker and Republican leadership 
decided to do this midnight, middle-of-the-night, dead-of-night 
hearing on your reconciliation bill. And, of course, we believe 
it is because this bill is indefensible and Republican 
leadership did not want this bill debated out in the open.
    And I have tried to get answers from a variety of my 
different colleagues. One of my colleagues from Virginia, Mr. 
Griffith, offered an explanation more recently and essentially 
said, ``Well, we did it in anticipation that there would be 
extensive debate by Democrats on this committee.'' Of course, 
it was only four of us on this committee.
    Mr. Guthrie, Chairman Guthrie, you haven't had a question 
in a while. So maybe I will pose this to you. How long was your 
hearing in Energy and Commerce?
    Mr. Guthrie. First, my comments on Gerry. He was probably 
one of my dear friends here and was supposed to be honored this 
weekend in Dayton, Ohio, with a NATO meeting. People don't 
really realize this; there is actually a NATO Parliament, and 
some of us are designated, and he was the president or speaker 
of the NATO Parliament. So not only is Gerry beloved by all of 
us, he is beloved around the world. All of our NATO allies, 
every time he showed up at a meeting, ``Gerry, there is Gerry; 
there is Gerry.'' And everybody adored him, because he is just 
an adorable, wonderful person, and I am going to miss him. And 
I will be in Dayton this weekend, and I am sure a lot of us are 
going to shed a lot of tears for him.
    So the question, my hearing went for 26 and a half hours.
    Mr. Neguse. 26 and a half hours. What time did you start 
it?
    Mr. Guthrie. We started at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
    Mr. Neguse. 2 o'clock in the afternoon. So you weren't 
worried about the anticipatory debate. You knew that Ranking 
Member Pallone was going to come armed with extensive arguments 
and motions and amendments, but you decided to hold the hearing 
during the day, nonetheless, right?
    Mr. Guthrie. We started during the day.
    Mr. Neguse. Started during the day.
    Mr. Guthrie. We started during the day.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I wish that the Speaker would have taken 
the same approach, but it is clear to me and I think clear to 
the American public that he did not want to have this debate 
happen during the day. And I could understand why, given what 
we have heard thus far.
    Chairman Smith, I want to talk to you a bit about tax on 
tips. I heard your opening statement, and I think in some of 
the colloquies thus far, I think suffice to say that you are 
very passionate about the no tax on tips. Is that a fair----
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Yeah. I am passionate because of the 
4 million tipped employees. Just yesterday, in Washington, 
D.C., at the restaurant that I was at, my waiter asked me, 
``Are you going to be able to deliver this, Chairman?'' So this 
affects real Americans, so very much passionate about it.
    Mr. Neguse. Totally. Why haven't you passed a standalone 
bill to get this done if it is so important?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Because there is a 60-vote rule over 
the in the Senate.
    Mr. Neguse. The Senate just passed their bill yesterday.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Which is unconstitutional, because 
all taxing has to originate from the House----
    Mr. Neguse. Of course. I am well aware. I guess, I heard 
your first explanation was, well, there is a 60-vote Senate 
barrier. So, of course, we could never get it past the Senate. 
But then Ted Cruz and Jacky Rosen, my understanding, is they 
passed the bill by unanimous consent. Of course, as you said, 
there is the constitutionality issue. So I just don't 
understand why the Ways and Means Committee doesn't just markup 
a bill.
    Actually, I think the sponsor of the bill is sitting right 
behind you. He has been in this hearing since like 3 a.m., Mr. 
Horsford. He has got a great bill on this. I think we could get 
this on the bill tomorrow. I think there would be bipartisan 
strong support. Clearly, there is unanimous support in the 
Senate. I mean, if you are so passionate about it, why don't we 
get it done?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Mr. Neguse, you know that I have 
tried to work on tax policy, bipartisan tax policy the last 
Congress that we got 82 percent of the vote to move it forward. 
Unfortunately, it died in the Senate. So sometimes bipartisan 
tax policy does not work. I believe the no tax on tips, the no 
tax on overtime, the tax relief for seniors are so urgent that 
I would not allow a tax bill to move forward unless it includes 
that in the House of Representatives. That is why I am 
delivering for working-class Americans.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah, no. I--well, anyway, I don't want to 
belabor the point here. You keep referencing the Senate. Unless 
I am missing something, I thought the United States Senate 
passed on unanimous consent without any objections, Ted Cruz, 
Jacky Rosen, Democrat/Republican bill to not tax tips. And so I 
am not really understanding the hurdle there. But, anyway, you 
have a different world view as to, I guess, the way to 
effectuate it.
    Can you give us a sense of where the State and local tax 
deduction piece is going to end? What are we going to be voting 
on later today?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. What I will say is the $30,000 
deduction that we passed out of the Ways and Means Committee, 
capping it at people who make less than $400,000. The Ways and 
Means Committee felt like that that was a reasonable compromise 
that would help provide necessary tax relief, and that is what 
the language is right now.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. But, I mean, you are the chairman of the 
committee. We are supposed to be voting on this bill in a few 
hours, is what I understand. There is rumors of a manager's 
amendment or maybe a secondary manager's amendment, or they 
will come up with some other way to describe a third manager's 
amendment. I am not sure. There is a lot of reporting on it. 
Who would I go to talk to to figure out what we are voting on 
later today as it relates to this State and local tax 
deduction?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. I would say that is going to be the 
discussion of the Rules Committee when the manager's amendment 
is offered and debated. So you will probably know before most 
Members of Congress.
    Mr. Neguse. I hope so. We have been here for 8 hours, and 
we have yet to get any indication of that. And I am not--I 
mean, this would apply to Chairman Guthrie as well. I mean, we 
have heard a lot about the IRA phaseouts. I don't know if you 
have--do you have anything to share with the group about where 
that stands?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That would be Ways and Means 
Committee jurisdiction, not Guthrie's. E&C doesn't have a lot 
of committee of jurisdiction.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I will let you two battle that out.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. But, from my understanding, the Ways 
and Means Committee, I have not seen any changes to the 
phaseouts or what we have had in regards to the IRA.
    Mr. Neguse. So what we have in the Rules mark now you 
believe is what we will be voting on this evening or whenever--
--
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That is what I am here testifying in 
regards to.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. Well, that is a different answer. And I 
can appreciate your position. I guess my point here, and I 
know--I was hoping to ask Mr. Roy this question, because I 
hadn't seen him the last 8 hours, but he----
    Mr. Norman. He is working.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, yeah. Apparently, he is negotiating it. 
So maybe he can come in, and he can give us some indication as 
to the answers on both of those fronts. So I see--well, I guess 
Chip Roy has announced ``I am a no,'' but I don't know that 
that makes--anyway, we will hear from him directly.
    Some questions for you, Chairman Thompson, with respect to 
the Agriculture mark, help me understand--and maybe Ranking 
Member Craig can help me understand this as well. You all have 
sunsetted the exemption for--well, no, sorry. You have included 
an exemption for veterans within the--what you have determined 
to be the able-bodied requirements in SNAP.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Yes, we have. We have 
veterans, homeless, and young people that age out of foster 
care up to age 24.
    Mr. Neguse. Veterans, homeless, and then what was the 
third?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Foster youth.
    Mr. Neguse. Foster youth.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Yeah.
    Mr. Neguse. But you sunset that exemption in 2030. That 
exemption only lasts through 2030, correct?
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Yep.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Oh, that is correct, because 
those were actually put in place in the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act. That is where those three provisions----
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania [continuing]. Were added. And 
I actually believe that----
    Mr. Neguse. Let me ask you, I guess the question I am 
asking is, why not eliminate that sunset if the----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, my question back to you 
is, why would you not want those individuals to have access to 
greater opportunity, which only comes through being eligible 
under the SNAP title and the nutrition benefits, you know, for 
the career and technical education, SNAP employment and career 
and technical education. You know, the farm bill----
    Mr. Neguse. Why are you exempting, if that is the case?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania [continuing]. We put--about 
$1.1 trillion is what we put into the nutrition title. And a 
big part of that----
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania [continuing]. Is the 
investment in greater opportunity through those educational 
benefits.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. Let me take a step back so I can just 
understand. I guess what I am trying to understand is the 
rationale for the exemption. You have exempted veterans, 
homeless youth, foster youth from these requirements until 
2030.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well----
    Mr. Neguse. Hold on. Let me finish. You have clearly 
decided that it is important to proceed with those exemptions 
until 2030; otherwise, you would have said we are just going to 
end the exemption now. So you believe it is important to do for 
the next few years. Why have you decided not to extend it 
further? Why is 2030 the year that you have decided that 
veterans should no longer be able to be exempted from these 
requirements?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That was a part of what--
quite frankly, my negotiations on that with the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act were with President Biden, and that was the 
language----
    Mr. Neguse. Sure, but you are not locked into that now. You 
all have abandoned most of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 
agreements----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That was a great negotiation. 
You know, we both saw--each side--some good provisions. But, at 
the same time, even back then, I felt that it was--it really 
was disrespectful to veterans to--well, we will just talk--you 
led off with veterans to--you know, to not have an opportunity 
to benefit from the investments that are there under the 
nutrition title for SNAP employment and career and technical 
education.
    Mr. Neguse. If you feel that way, why keep it? I don't 
understand. I guess you are saying, ``We have this exemption. 
It is important for foster youth, for the homeless, and for 
veterans. But, also, we believe that we shouldn't have this 
exemption, and so that is why we are comfortable with it ending 
in 2030.''
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, usually, taking 
somebody off a cliff immediately is a really bad idea. We don't 
really do that with this bill. Even with the State share, we 
provide----
    Mr. Neguse. I agree with you about describing it as a cliff 
and not an opportunity. I mean, that is exactly what my sort of 
point is, right?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. So we look closely at poverty 
cliffs and, you know--and, you know, I think taking folks off 
of that--that 2030 expiration really will serve the veterans 
population in particular, and I also think the youth coming off 
out of foster care.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure. How much money do you think it would 
cost--your team may have a better sense of this than I would--
to extend that out to 2031 or to 2032? Do you all know what it 
costs per year for that exemption to have continued?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. I am not sure the CBO has 
provided that score. Yeah.
    Mr. Neguse. I mean, are we talking tens of millions? 
Hundreds of millions of dollars?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, we would have to look 
back. You all would have to look back at the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act to see what the score was on that.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. Here is why I ask. To me, it seems like 
really what we are getting at--right--is a question of 
priorities, resources, and values. And it would not take, I 
don't believe, a lot of resources or a lot of investment to be 
able to avoid that cliff hitting these veterans and these 
foster youth in 2030, right?
    And let me give you an example, right? There is a simple 
way--are you familiar with the tax on silencers? You are 
familiar with that----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. I am.
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. Provision of the Tax Code?
    And you are aware that this bill repeals that tax?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is correct.
    Mr. Neguse. All right. And that tax--do you know how much 
that is going to generate in terms of revenue over 10 years?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. I don't. It wasn't in my 
jurisdiction. What I can tell you as a former health care 
professional----
    Mr. Neguse. Let me tell you. It is 1.4--let me finish. You 
said you don't know; so let me tell you. I hear you.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. These oppressors are health 
care----
    Mr. Neguse. I understand. I hear you. So let me just 
explain it to you. Over 10 years, the Joint Committee on 
Taxation estimates that this particular appeal will generate 
$1.4 billion. Think about that.
    Hold on. I am not asking you a question, Mr. Chairman. 
1.4----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, you did ask me a 
question----
    Mr. Neguse. I am not asking you a question now. I will give 
you an opportunity in a moment to answer a question--Mr. 
Chairman, I will give you an opportunity to finish. I am not 
asking you a question. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking you a 
question.
    I will redirect it to the ranking member since I am not 
asking you a question. Ranking Member----
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. All right. Just remember it is 
the member of the committee's time and----
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith [continuing]. We can't have the back-and-
forth.
    Mr. Neguse. So I will simply say this, and I will address 
this towards the ranking member: $1.4 billion that will be 
generated by virtue of this repeal of the silencer tax. This is 
a tax that has been on the books since the mid-1930s. One 
hundred years. That is during Republican administrations, 
Democratic administrations.
    I don't remember Republicans or President Trump, for that 
matter, trying to repeal this tax in 2017 when you all were 
pursuing this the first time around. And, yet, you have decided 
on this course to repeal this particular tax that would 
generate $1.4 billion in revenue.
    Just imagine, Ranking Member Craig, what you could do with 
that $1.4 billion to address the cliffs that the chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee had described with respect to 
veterans and foster youth--the poverty cliff, I think, was the 
phrase that he used--that they will face under this bill in 4.5 
years.
    Ranking Member, I am happy to give you an opportunity.
    Ms. Craig. Well, we could spend--excuse me--we wouldn't 
have to cut, I suppose, or Republicans wouldn't have to cut 
food out of the mouths of hungry children, veterans, and our 
Nation's seniors.
    What is happening in this committee is egregious. You just 
think about the revenue savings that you are cutting from a 
title of the farm bill. And I know I keep saying that, but I 
know my Republican colleagues across the aisle know that the 
nutrition title is part of the farm bill. And they know that 
these cuts--$313 billion to a title of the farm bill outside of 
a 12-title, 5-year process--are putting a farm bill in 
jeopardy. And my colleagues are coming after food.
    We talk about work. I wish Mr. Norman was still here. 
Nobody here is arguing against work.
    Mr. Neguse. He is done working. He left.
    Ms. Craig. He left again. He is done working, apparently. 
Mr. Norman said, ``What do you get?'' Are you kidding me? We 
already have work requirements in SNAP. What we are doing is we 
are adding work requirements to single parents of 7-year-olds. 
Who thinks that is a good idea? It is egregious. And, when you 
talk about childcare costs in this country, it is egregious 
where we are.
    And, you know, Mr. Norman--and I could use--I could give 
you examples for every single one of your districts, but I am 
going to use his just because I had it open here. We are 
talking about 11 percent of the State population in South 
Carolina that he is going to cut. We are talking about $321 
million a year to the taxpayers of South Carolina in additional 
cost shifts. We are talking about a billion dollars a year to 
the State of Pennsylvania. These are real dollars if we move 
forward with these.
    And so, I have no idea why we think it is a good idea to 
repeal a tax on silencers when we are going to feed fewer 
children in our country as a result of this. It is a moral damn 
failure is what it is, Congressman.
    Mr. Neguse. I couldn't say it any better, Ranking Member 
Craig. I think you articulated it well. And I guess it is just 
full circle in some ways, given that this is the last panel 
that we are going to hear from.
    But it makes a lot more sense in retrospect now why 
Republicans decided to proceed with this particular hearing in 
the dead of night because--I think, when you begin to see the 
full picture, it is only when you have, you know, the chair of 
the Ways and Means Committee to talk about the various 
priorities they are pursuing--you know, repeals of taxes by 
silencers by way of example--and hear from the Agriculture 
Committee about the priorities they are pursuing--massive cuts 
to the social safety net--that you begin to understand the full 
picture holistically that is reflected in this bill.
    And I think that is ultimately what House Republicans did 
not want the American people to hear or to see. Regrettably for 
them, we are going to have an opportunity throughout the rest 
of today and when this bill invariably gets to the floor to 
continue exposing it to the American public, and I think the 
more the American public learn about this bill, the less they 
are going to like it.
    So, with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 
his time of questioning.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There has been a lot said about a lot of different numbers 
here, but I want to come to you, Mr. Smith. I mean, my 
understanding is that the current tax rate for 2025--the top 
rate is 37 percent, and that is going to apply to people that 
are making--if they are filing jointly--married filing jointly, 
$731,200--somewhere right there--and that if this bill passes, 
that tax rate at 37 percent is still going to be 37 percent for 
2026. Is that correct?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. So all this talk about tax cuts for 
billionaires--what the accurate statement would be is we are 
not allowing tax rates to go up.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. We are keeping the same current tax 
policy with all the rates because every individual rate, if 
Congress does not act by the end of this year, goes up. The 
lowest tax rate and the highest tax rate. And what this bill 
does--it just makes permanent current tax rates.
    Mr. Scott. Okay.
    I am going to come to you, Chairman Thompson, because I 
want to talk about SNAP and the work requirements and other 
things, and I am going to say this. We met on two separate 
occasions, and there was an accusation made that you shut down 
debate. My recollection is that we met the first day, and then 
we came back, and we met a second day, and we went from 10 to 
10. And I read the various amendments that Democrats kept 
submitting, and it was basically the exact same amendment. They 
plagiarized each other with the amendments they were 
submitting.
    And so, finally, we went ahead and we had the votes on the 
amendments. And is that your recollection?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, that, plus the fact 
that none of the amendments were submitted within the deadline 
that is within the rules package----
    Ms. Craig. No. No. Not true. Absolutely not true.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania [continuing]. That was 
unanimously adopted. And there was quite a bit of repetition. 
Absolutely.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. So what percentage of farm bill spending 
currently goes to SNAP benefits?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Approximately 81, 82 percent.
    Mr. Scott. Eighty two percent of farm bill spending now 
goes to SNAP benefits?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. And, while the Democrats say they want to work 
in a bipartisan manner to pass a farm bill, their demand is 
that 82 percent of farm bill spending must go to SNAP benefits, 
which means that production agriculture is going to end up with 
less than 10 percent.
    Now, if you are not taking care of production agriculture, 
then you are not taking care of the food supply for anybody in 
this country, whether they are on SNAP or whether they are at 
the highest tax bracket in the country. Is that fair to say?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is more than fair to 
say. If farmers fail, we have food insecurity. And no matter 
what the programs look like, what the roles are, what the 
regulations are, we have food insecurity, which, quite frankly, 
is national insecurity.
    Mr. Scott. Right. So only four Democrats on the House 
Agriculture Committee voted for the farm bill in committee last 
year. Is that correct?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Ms. Craig, I don't think you were one of them, 
were you?
    Ms. Craig. No, sir, I didn't, but I----
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Craig [continuing]. Noticed Republicans didn't bring it 
to the floor because you didn't have the votes.
    Mr. Scott. Yeah. Well, because of the demand that 80-plus 
percent of it go to SNAP benefits.
    Ms. Craig. Forty-five million Americans versus 1 million 
Americans. That is the split in the farm bill between those two 
programs.
    Mr. Scott. Explain those numbers, please.
    Ms. Craig. SNAP covers 45 million Americans. The farm 
program covers about 1 million Americans.
    Mr. Scott. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Craig. That is the split.
    Mr. Scott. And those 1 million Americans provide 100 
percent of the food for the American citizen.
    Ms. Craig. And your cuts to SNAP----
    Mr. Scott. This is my time. You can wait. I am going to 
come to you.
    Mr. Griffith. It is the gentleman's time.
    Ms. Craig. Okay.
    Mr. Scott. Because I want to talk about some of the votes 
you have cast on the Inflation Reduction Act----
    Ms. Craig. I am ready.
    Mr. Scott [continuing]. And the American Rescue Plan. So, 
without the 1 million farmers in this country, there is no food 
for the people who have SNAP benefits to buy. That is all there 
is to it. But I appreciate you coming clean on that.
    Ms. Craig. I am not ``coming clean.'' It is a fact.
    Mr. Scott. Sure you are.
    Ms. Craig. Yeah. It is a fact.
    Mr. Scott. Yeah. You made it clear you don't care----
    Ms. Craig. That is why the coalition exists, because the 
nutrition and the farm programs exist together----
    Mr. Griffith. It is the gentleman's time. He asked a 
question.
    Mr. Scott. No. You exposed yourself on not caring about the 
1 million farmers, and that is fine. All right.
    GT, Federal law right now today--and this is under--this is 
a Biden administration proposal I have. And I would remind 
everybody that is watching, when they had the House, the 
Senate, and the White House, they passed both the American 
Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act without a single 
Republican vote. So they could have changed any of this they 
wanted to, and they chose not to.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Federal law limits the amount of time a time-
limited--which is an able-bodied, working-age adult without 
dependents--participant, commonly referred to as an able-bodied 
adult without dependents, can participate in SNAP to any 3 
countable months in a 36-month period unless a person meets the 
work requirements. That is the current law.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is correct. And the work 
requirement--we have had the work requirement since the 1970s. 
Yeah.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you for coming clean on that.
    Mr. Scott. That is right. And when Bill Clinton signed the 
welfare-to-work requirements, the poverty rates declined more 
than at any other point in the country. Is that correct?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Do you dispute that, Ms. Craig?
    Ms. Craig. I don't have that data in front of me, and I 
don't think GT does either.
    Mr. Scott. Oh, come on. Democrats have routinely taken 
credit for what Bill Clinton did in the welfare-to-work. Just 
factually speaking, it was a good piece of legislation. And 
then people went back to work, and poverty rates declined.
    All right. So what we have done in the bill is effectively 
take the two separate work exemptions--one is a general work 
requirement exemption--and we have made them match with the 
able-bodied, working-age adult exemptions. Is that correct?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. That is correct. By reducing 
the--hopefully going forward, then reducing the confusion and 
the complexity for the participants to be able to gain better 
access.
    Ms. Craig. Gain better access to what?
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. To SNAP.
    Mr. Griffith. This is the gentleman's time.
    Mr. Scott. Look, work is good. Work is good.
    Ms. Craig. Work is great.
    Mr. Scott. You know, and without the 1 million American 
farmers, nobody in this country has food to eat.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez for her time of 
questioning.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, you know, I think it is really important that we do 
not mischaracterize what our witnesses have said. And there was 
a gross mischaracterization as to whether the ranking member 
supports our farmers. I know the ranking member supports our 
farmers because, indeed, if you just talk about SNAP, 1.5 times 
the benefit goes to the farmers. So, when we are talking about 
protecting SNAP, we also are talking about protecting the 
farmers.
    Is that right, Ranking Member?
    Ms. Craig. Well, if you cut SNAP by $300 billion, you are 
actually taking $30 billion right out of the farm income.
    And that is absolutely true, sir----
    Mr. Scott of Georgia. And----
    Ms. Craig. And, you know, what is interesting----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I am sorry. I have not yielded time, 
Mr. Scott.
    Ms. Craig. What is interesting, Ms. Leger Fernandez, is 
that my colleague across the room here, 23 percent of folks--of 
households--in his congressional district have access to the 
SNAP program in our country, one of the highest rates in this 
room, and he is seeking to cut that program by $300 billion.
    And, back to work, work is good. And matching the program--
you are talking about sending single mothers and fathers to 
work almost 20 hours a week when their child turns 7 years old. 
If we were here to talk about work, we would be talking about 
trade skills, technical programs. We would be talking about 
ways in which to help people get out of low-wage jobs in our 
country. We would be talking about raising the minimum wage in 
our country to help them get out of poverty. But we are not. We 
are here talking about cutting their healthcare, cutting their 
SNAP benefits. We are talking about items that are going to 
absolutely decimate rural communities like Mr. Scott's across 
the room here, and it is just stunning to me.
    Mr. McGovern. Me too.
    Ms. Craig. One million----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, since my name was called, I do 
expect a chance to respond to that.
    Mr. Griffith. Actually, the--rule is that you can mention 
the gentleman from Georgia, but you are not to mention him by 
name in debate. And, so, if you would stick to just saying 
``the gentleman''--or ``my colleague'' is fine--and if you 
would stick to that. You know, that is the way we are supposed 
to operate.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Would you like to restate it to say 
the gentleman from----
    Ms. Craig. Yes. The gentleman from Georgia has one of the 
highest rates of SNAP households in the country, and he is 
promoting decimating this program.
    And, look, you know, there are lots of things in here that 
should be in a farm bill, lots of elements. You cut the 
nutrition title. You plus-up the farm programs in 
reconciliation and a partisan process. That is what is 
happening here. We should be sitting down and doing a farm 
bill.
    And, honestly, I know my chairman sitting next to me does 
not want to cut SNAP by $300 billion, and many of the 
colleagues on our committee did not want to do it because they 
didn't show up for debate. They didn't want to be on the record 
talking about this because they know it is incredibly unpopular 
for the American people.
    We have traditionally been able to get a bipartisan farm 
bill from the nutrition coalition and the farm coalition. Of 
course, these coalitions are together. But we are destroying 
that here today, folks, and it has long-term consequences for 
us. I just hope you all know what you are doing on a partisan 
basis has long-term consequences.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I noticed that the 
Education chair and ranking member, you know, perked up and 
they said, ``Wait a minute. We are going to talk about 
education? We came here to talk about education.'' And we are 
actually cutting education by also hundreds of billions of 
dollars. So we are not going to get there.
    But I wanted to yield some time to my ranking member, Mr. 
McGovern, the gentleman from----
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. I won't be offended if you refer to me 
by my name.
    But you know what? Enough of this BS because that is what 
it is. I mean, nobody here is saying that there isn't dignity 
in work. What we are saying is that life is complicated, and 
one glove doesn't always fit all. And what we are also saying--
and because I believe this is true--that this is aimed--this is 
a backdoor attempt to force people off the benefit so you can 
take that money and pay for tax cuts for billionaires. That is 
what it is about.
    And I will also tell the gentleman that, over the years, 
hunger has gotten worse in this country. The only time it 
didn't--believe it or not--was during the pandemic, and that is 
when we increased the SNAP benefit and when we increased other 
nutritional programs to help people get through that difficult 
time. We actually saw hunger go down, food insecurity go down. 
And then, when some of those programs sunsetted, hunger started 
to rise up again.
    So hunger is a political condition, my friends. I mean, we 
have the money. We have the resources. We know what to do to 
end it. What we lack is the political will. And, again, tax 
cuts for billionaires paid for by savings and SNAP is not going 
to end hunger and food insecurity in this country.
    And, again, I mean, the idea that we can't come together 
and say that ending hunger and food insecurity is a priority, 
that somehow it is okay to demonize people who are struggling--
I mean, I find that, you know, appalling, quite frankly.
    I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern.
    You know what? Hunger is also a moral issue. It is a moral 
issue. And that is why 31 religious organizations have written 
to the chairs of all of the appropriate committees asking them 
to not pass these cuts.
    And they point out that--so, actually, Mr. Chair--or Madam 
Chair--I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
letter sent to all the chairs of the committee from 31 
religious organizations across the United States.
    The Chairwoman [presiding]. Without objection.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. In the letter--this is why it is a 
moral issue. And they say it out loud. They say--they wrote it 
down--``It is an abdication of--it is the government's moral 
responsibility when the government seeks to reduce its 
investment in programs for the poor. Complacency can become 
greed and selfishness when the funds saved from the Medicaid 
and SNAP programs are used to ultimately widen the gap between 
rich and poor. Budgets are moral documents that outline a 
Nation's priority.''
    And I am looking--I was--at some of the members on here 
because I know that they believe deeply in the moral 
obligations. They know the teachings that ask us to feed the 
hungry, to take care of the poor. That is the essence of Jesus' 
teaching about love. It is the essence of almost every 
religion. Actually, it is the essence of everyone I know. And I 
think that that is a key failing of what we are doing here.
    But I want to move on for a moment because I know we have 
given a lot of attention to Ag, and I might come back there.
    But, you know, Ranking Member Pallone, many of the children 
that we are talking about might be both receiving SNAP benefits 
and receiving Medicaid, right? Is that why, you know, there--
many of the children because this is--we are talking--and they 
are often working poor. Their family--they are working. We 
heard the Ranking Member Craig and so many stories. We have 
people--you know, Congressmen and Congresswomen here who shared 
their story about how their parents worked and received SNAP, 
and that is how they got ahead.
    But isn't that the case that we have many children who rely 
on both SNAP and Medicaid?
    Mr. Pallone. It is absolutely the case. And I don't know 
how much you wanted me to expand on it. But, you know, I want 
to say really two things in response.
    First of all, you know, my colleagues and my chairman 
during the markup repeatedly said and Mr. Norman said, you 
know, work, work, work. But the fact of the matter is that 
these people are working, right? The people that are getting 
SNAP, the people that are getting Medicaid, they are working, 
right? And it is the paperwork, and it is the red tape that 
that the Republicans are putting in place in this bill that is 
kicking people off. And I am not suggesting that anybody is 
doing it intentionally. Believe me.
    And I maybe shouldn't say this, but I am going to. You 
know, Mr. McGovern talked--he mentioned Marie Antoinette, 
right? And I was for some reason--I guess it had nothing to do 
with 11 at night. A couple nights ago, there was a movie on 
about Marie Antoinette, right? And she said to her husband--to 
King Louis, she said, ``I don't know why everybody out there 
hates us so much. You know, I care about the poor.''
    But the problem is that, at the time, you know, all the 
money was going to the nobility, and nothing was going to the 
average person, right? And so then one of her advisors says, 
``Well, you know, Madam, Queen,'' whatever--``you realize that 
the people have no bread, right?'' And she says, ``Well, let 
them eat cake,'' right?
    I mean, it is not that anybody here on the Republican side, 
you know, doesn't have moral values. They just don't 
understand. They just don't understand what is going on out 
there, right? And so they say, ``Well, we are going to have 
work requirements,'' but then, if you look at the States that 
have these work requirements like Arkansas or Georgia, we find 
that almost everybody who was eligible for Medicaid--right--was 
working, and the problem is they didn't know that they had to 
fill out the papers. It was too onerous to fill out the paper.
    I just wanted to give you one story because I had it here. 
In Arkansas, which was one of the two States--but they only had 
it for a few months because they realized that it was kicking 
people off. They said, in the few months that the State had its 
work reporting requirements in effect, 18,000 people lost 
coverage. That is one in four people who were eligible for 
Medicaid. But research tells us that more than 95 percent of 
those people were meeting the requirements, but they were 
kicked off because they didn't even know that they had to meet 
the requirements. Even when they do, it is impossible to 
navigate it.
    And they have one person here--an Arkansan attempting to 
document her work hours--share that ``My mom said I need to go 
online and do this and that I was on the phone with a lady 
trying to, and she said I needed to do something with my hours. 
Well, I was on the phone with the lady for, like, an hour. Then 
she sent me to someone else. Then she sent me to someone else. 
So I just gave up trying to report my hours worked.'' And she 
lost her Medicaid.
    In Georgia, there were, like, 3- to 400,000 people that 
were eligible. The State admitted they were eligible. But only 
about 7,000 ended up with coverage--that is the one State that 
still has it--not because they weren't eligible but because 
they couldn't go through the red tape.
    And, you know, I am not suggesting that anybody on the 
Republican side is intentionally doing this, but this is the 
reality. And this is what the CBO says. It is why all these 
people--millions of people under this bill are going to lose 
their Medicaid, because of this red tape. It is that simple.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah. And I am glad you mentioned the 
Arkansas example because, indeed, 18,000 people, right?
    In New Mexico, you have to fill out--this is what you fill 
out in New Mexico, right? It is not like people aren't working 
or that they aren't filling out a lot of paperwork. This is 
before this bill. And it asks all kinds of stuff. Your 
immigration status, what you are doing, where you are working. 
They are filling out too much paperwork as it is. And, for a 
party that is always complaining about paperwork, they are 
going to just put more on there because that is not the 
purpose. The purpose isn't to get people back to work. It is to 
kick people off of Medicaid.
    It is to not recognize the hard work of those that already 
are because, as you put it, 90---what is it, 92 percent? 92 
percent of adults under 65 on Medicaid are already working or 
can't work because they are caregiving, illness, they are going 
to school.
    So don't tell us about work because we come from families 
that work. We come from families that get our hands dirty. We 
know what it looks like and what it feels like. And these are 
the people that we are working to protect. And I am very 
concerned about what they are going to do to, indeed, the 
people.
    When I go to my rural areas--when I went, you know, to the 
dairy farms and talked to the people in my rural areas, and 
they said we are the people who get our hands dirty because 
they are--I represent a large, large rural district. They are 
going to get slammed, aren't they, Ranking Member Pallone, 
because rural hospitals are going to go under.
    Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record ``Medicaid cuts would threaten rural hospitals.''
    And this is--Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. Without objection. I was letting you finish 
the----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah. Thank you.
    Because I think it is really important that Americans who 
now have woken up and had their second cup of coffee--that they 
actually look at what is happening here because it is really 
scary. In Pennsylvania, 12 rural hospitals--24 percent are at 
immediate risk of closure from what you are doing here. In 
Michigan, nine rural hospitals. Oklahoma, 24 rural hospitals. 
You know, several in my community as well.
    But, if you are representing a rural area or a rural State, 
your rural hospitals are going to close because this is the 
thing: We are going to kick you off of Medicaid, and then we 
are not going to let you get onto the Affordable Care Act with 
the subsidies. Is that right? So they would just show up at the 
hospitals and not have any care, right?
    Mr. Pallone. Absolutely. And I want to explain why because 
I am not sure everyone knows. The CBO estimated that those 8.6 
million under the bill that--or at least most of them that 
would lose Medicaid because of the red tape would immediately--
or at least they would try to move over to the ACA and get a 
subsidized insurance policy under the ACA. But, because of 
that, all of the savings that were going to be--you know, go to 
the rich and the corporate interests under this bill would have 
been lost because, if those people moved over to the ACA and 
got a subsidized insurance policy, the government would have to 
pay for their subsidy. And, therefore, there was no savings or 
very little savings under the bill.
    And so then they put in the work. They put in the 
prohibition that, if you were denied Medicaid, you could not go 
to the ACA and get a subsidy; you had to pay full freight, 
which, of course, none of them could afford to pay, right?
    So that is strictly to make sure that there is money saved 
to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporate 
interests. That is the only reason that is in there. Again, it 
is not because, you know, I think the GOP hate the poor. It is 
because they have to come up with this money to pay for the tax 
cut for the rich and the corporate interests. That is the 
bottom line.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So I think it is also, once again, you 
know, budgets reflect your values.
    Chairman Moore, I was wondering if you happened to have the 
bill if you wouldn't mind reading title--the title of section 
111106 on page 901, line 20, in the Rules Committee print.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Chairman Moore?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh, sorry. Chairman Guthrie.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. I was about to say you made me a 
chairman. I was just going to say I accept.
    Mr. Guthrie. I didn't hear your question, then. I am sorry. 
I didn't hear. I didn't know it was directed at me. I am sorry. 
Would you ask it again?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Okay. If you would go to page 901. 
Page 901, line 20 of the bill. Do you have the bill in front of 
you?
    Mr. Guthrie. I don't have the bill in front of me, but read 
the----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Sure. I will pass this down to you.
    Mr. Guthrie. Okay.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Just read that one line. Line 20.
    Mr. Guthrie. I don't think--that is not in my jurisdiction. 
I am sorry. That is why I didn't know about it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Okay. We can pass it. I think that was 
Ways and Means, actually.
    Mr. Guthrie. I don't know. I don't know what it is.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Chairman Smith. Sorry.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. Okay. So what are you asking?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Would you please--so that the American 
public knows what this bill does--one of the little things that 
it does, would you please read page 901, line 20?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. I think it would be better if you 
read it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh, he doesn't want to read it. I will 
read it.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. I know the legislation--but I am not 
going to be part of your little show here. So you can read it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Actually, Ranking Member Moore. It was 
a question if you would read it. So I will ask Ranking Member 
Moore to read the text.
    This is in their bill. They don't want to read a line from 
their own bill.
    Ranking Member.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. I don't want to read the bill for 
you. I am testifying about this legislation. I am not going to 
read the bill to you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Okay. I am--this is amazing.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Ms. Leger Fernandez, shall I pass 
this back or shall I read it to you?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. No, no. Why don't you just read it.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. I am a member of this committee. I 
am the ranking vice chair of the committee. So section 111106, 
``Repeal of excise tax on indoor tanning services.''
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So they are going to repeal--they are 
repealing an excise tax on tanning beds. They are repealing a 
tax on silencers. So they are going to--okay. So, if you have a 
tanning bed, you get a little bit of a tax break, and if you 
need a hospital bed in rural America, I am sorry. You are out 
of luck, right?
    And I don't know where this particular provision came from. 
We do know that there are certain elected officials who appear 
to have a certain orange hue about them, that maybe they want 
to make sure that tanning beds get a little bit of special 
credit. But, really--really--we are prioritizing tanning beds 
over hospital beds in rural America.
    So, you know, I do want to talk a little bit about the tax 
credit--the Child Tax Credit because one of the things that is 
sad about the Child Tax Credit--I agree that it should have 
gone on for longer. We fought. Rosa DeLauro has been fighting 
for that expanded Child Tax Credit for almost her entire time 
here, and she is joined by so many of us on the Democratic 
Caucus. I think all of us.
    Now, sadly, it didn't get extended, but it didn't get 
extended because we could not get the Republican votes to 
extend it the way it was. And, right now, what they have in 
this bill would actually deny the full value of the Child Tax 
Credit to 17 million children because their families don't make 
enough money to qualify for it.
    Now, I don't know if the chair wants to answer any more 
questions, but maybe I will just ask Ranking Member Moore. Is 
that what is going to happen with the Child Tax Credit, is that 
the families who need it the most won't get it?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. I can answer that if you want me to.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, does the Child Tax Credit extend 
to all of the families in America?
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. So what this legislation does--of 
the 17 million children that you are talking about, they are 
going to make sure that their refundability is $1,700. At the 
end of this year, it drops to a thousand. So we are making sure 
that they are staying whole of where they are currently. If 
this bill does not pass, those 17 million children will only 
have a thousand-dollar Child Tax Credit instead of a 1,700.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So there is a discrepancy.
    Representative Moore.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin. Thank you so much. And, you know, 
Chairman Smith knows that this is very important to me. This is 
the reason that I came to Congress.
    And so, while I appreciate the fact that this committee has 
finally recognized that, as an OECD country, we need to provide 
some kind of child supplement to children--I mean, everybody 
else has figured that out before we did. And, while people want 
to give women $5,000 to have babies, I just think it is a lot 
more practical to take care of the children that we already 
have.
    I guess the thing that I--and we are going to get to 
talking about work requirements again. But, as people have 
pointed out, about 96, 97 percent of people who are under the 
age of 65 that receive any of these benefits, they work. And, 
if they are not working, they worked the year before, you know, 
they received any of these benefits or they worked a year after 
they have gotten it.
    And the 6 or 7 percent of people who don't work, as Mr. 
McDermott--has pointed out, they are very--Mr. McGovern--have 
very complicated lives. They are taking care of elders. They 
are taking care of children. So, if a woman finds herself in a 
situation, for example, where she, for whatever reason, cannot 
work, you know, there are 17 million children who will get 
zero. And these are the poorest kids that there are, and they 
need support.
    You know, a child supplement is supposed to recognize that 
childrearing is expensive. You know, the kids don't earn money 
particularly, but they need their cub scout uniform. You know, 
they have sports equipment. They can't participate. I can 
remember growing up when I couldn't go on a field trip because 
I didn't have $5 for the bus fare. And we are going to leave 
them out.
    And, you know, because of this work requirement, the 
poorest children--17 million of them who have no control over 
whether or not employers will provide their parents with work, 
parents who perhaps don't have a high school diploma--you know, 
I know people who wouldn't hire people because all their teeth 
were rotten, and that wasn't a good look for working in the 
restaurant. And these are children--the most needy will not 
receive any money whatsoever.
    And you have to earn at least $2,500--is that right, Mr. 
Chairman--to get the lowest amount of the tax credit. So 
someone--you know, the mayor of Milwaukee--you know, he has got 
three beautiful children. He will get the maximum tax credit, 
and kids who live down the street will get nothing.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. It is that disparity. You know, there 
are so many bad things in this bill that we really need another 
3 or 4 days. The Inflation Reduction Act, what they are doing 
to clean energy, what they are doing in so many different 
areas, condemning the United States to be so far behind, 
condemning us to be, you know, second to China on renewable 
energy in so many different ways--but, you know, I think that 
we will just continue to talk about these other things because 
it is really important.
    But, with that, I want to yield just a really quick few 
seconds to my colleague.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes. I just wanted to seek unanimous consent 
on an article. My colleague mentioned the issues with respect 
to rural hospitals, but there is a Philadelphia Inquirer 
article, from May 19, entitled ``Pennsylvania hospitals like 
Crozer-Chester with a lot of Medicaid patients keep closing. 
Budget cuts would speed up that trend.'' And it discusses how 
half of our adult hospitals in southeastern Pennsylvania have 
closed due to lack of adequate Medicaid funding.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.049
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.050
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.051
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.052
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.053
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.054
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.055
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.056
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.057
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.058
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.059
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.060
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.061
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.062
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.063
    
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield 
back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mrs. Houchin, do you have a question?
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I appreciate the panel being here and for long hours and 
testifying.
    I do want to offer to my chairman of Energy and Commerce, 
Chairman Guthrie, to just touch on anything that you would like 
to cover out of the many accusations that have been leveled 
about the bill, but my one question to you--since high school 
diplomas were mentioned, if somebody doesn't have a high school 
diploma, then they might not be able to get a job per the work 
requirements that we have in the bill. Doesn't participating in 
some sort of education program count toward those requirements?
    Mr. Guthrie. Yeah. If you are working towards a GED 
program, that would count towards your work requirement. So 
thanks.
    Mrs. Houchin. Yeah. So, if you want to go through--I will 
give you--yield time to you to cover the many accusations.
    Mr. Guthrie. Well, thanks a lot. Thanks a lot. And I come 
from a product of hard work, too. My whole life growing up--my 
childhood up through high school, my dad worked in a Ford 
foundry. That is pretty hard--in Alabama. So that is pretty 
hard work when you are in the heat of the summer. So I come 
from that as well.
    And, if you look at the--they talked about the coverage 
loss. I always say, look at ineligible, illegal, and able. So, 
if you look at the coverage loss that comes from the Medicaid 
requirement, it is people that, one, aren't eligible to 
participate in the Medicaid program by the rules set up by 
people who voted for the Medicaid program. The other are the 
people that are not here in a legal presence, and the other is 
the able-bodied.
    And, when we talk about able-bodied--well, one, I know that 
we talked about the maternal health program. That was actually 
bipartisan. I think Doc. Burgess was really engaged in doing 
that. It was extended for a year. If it is anywhere in the 
bill, I want somebody to point that out because it is 
absolutely--it is not in the bill that that is affected.
    But the work requirement does not apply to you if you are a 
pregnant woman; if you are under 19 or over the age of 64; if 
you are a Tribe member; if you are a parent, guardian, 
caretaker; relative of a disabled individual or have a 
dependent child; veterans with a disability rated as total; 
individuals who are medically frail, which includes but is not 
limited to people with the following conditions: blind; 
disabled; substance use disorder; disabling mental disorder; 
physical, intellectual, or development disability; serious or 
complex medical condition; or other conditions identified by 
the State or approved by the Secretary or if you are in 
compliance with TANF or SNAP, which they have had--SNAP has had 
them we argue since the 1970s. So we think we can do this.
    People have brought up Georgia and Arkansas. Those were 
problems. People were working and could not get Medicaid, and 
that is absolutely not what we want. That is why we took great 
pains to make sure we simplify the reporting requirements. 
People have due process rights. We want people to have 
Medicaid, but if they are not working or unable to work to 
work, but we don't want to use the work requirement to deprive 
people of Medicaid. So we feel that is there.
    The other number--because they throw out 13 million. There 
is, like, over 5 million, but that comes from an expiring 
provision in the Inflation Reduction Act. And it was brought up 
by my friend from Wisconsin and others that--well, why didn't 
we make all these other things permanent? That wasn't made 
permanent. It is expiring, and because it is expiring, that is 
where the 5 million comes from.
    So there were decisions that you all--I don't know why you 
decided in the IRA to spend $32 billion or $27 million on the 
Green Energy Fund when you could have made this last longer.
    And then my friend from Massachusetts talked about, well, 
this is for the well-connected. We had a hearing yesterday 
where there was a nonprofit that was started by a well-
connected individual who had a hundred dollars in the checking 
account of a non--progressive org and got a $2-billion grant, 
which the CEO's salary of that is over $800,000. So she is 
getting paid five times a Member of Congress to implement a 
grant appropriated by Congress. And if that is not well-
connected--and that is money that could have been spent for 
these,
    And, with rural hospitals, I would love to see when that 
article was written because we really sat down--all of us on 
the--we had a lot of Energy and Commerce people here. I went to 
rural hospitals. I have been--it is urban hospitals. It is any 
hospital that has a high Medicaid population, which typically 
also has a high Medicare population. So the low reimbursement 
rates for those programs affect those hospitals. That is what 
we are talking about here.
    And, if you look at--an item came up that a lot of--I 
didn't know as much about State-directed payments. We sat 
down--and that is probably what they are writing about because 
there were people saying that those should not stay where they 
are. And we sat down with hospitals. We all did. We looked and 
we said, ``Yeah, this really ups the reimbursement for 
hospitals that have high Medicaid so they can stay open.'' So 
we held harmless that provision.
    Now, going forward, there is reform in it, but they had 
held harmless. States said that they had difficult times with 
their budgets and the provider taxes to help them get through. 
You know, President Biden called them a scam. President Obama 
wanted it to be 3.5. So a lot of people know this as sending 
money up to match Federal money. But we said, ``Okay, we 
realized it would be a big burden on the States if we took a 
big approach to it.'' So we held harmless. We said, ``We are 
going to freeze where you are. You can increase, but we don't 
want rural hospitals on the edge closing because we took away 
State-directed payments because we lowered the provider taxes 
for States.''
    And so, if anybody is closing tomorrow because of this 
bill, then it means they were already going to be closing 
anyway because this bill doesn't affect that. And then there 
are people that are eligible for Medicaid--so only ACA. So that 
was another one. So, if you are--they said if you are on 
Medicaid and you fall off Medicaid, you can't go to the ACA. 
The ACA sets up the provision that, if you have other coverage, 
you can't go on the--if you have other coverage.
    So, if somebody has Medicaid--this is what our argument 
was--and saved money--but, if somebody has Medicaid and the 
only reason they become ineligible is because they are able-
bodied under all the exemptions that I read--but they are able-
bodied, and they fall off Medicaid just because they won't 
work, then they shouldn't have the opportunity to go get a 
subsidized plan in another form. And so that is what that 
provision was there for.
    So this whole committee--Energy--we all said we spent a lot 
of time making sure that we reform a program that has grown 
twice the size of inflation. I mean, one State has spent $26 
billion more on Medicaid in the last 3 years. We thought that 
it was unsustainable. We walled off. There are two groups. 
There is the Affordable Care Act.
    So, if I am a healthy Kentuckian and I go to the hospital, 
the Federal Government pays 90 percent. If I am a disabled 
child in Kentucky and go to the hospital, the Federal 
Government pays 72 percent. Talk about values. But we have left 
that alone in our bill because of the States have budgeted and 
put their hospitals around that. So, unfortunately, that is 
what was put into law under the Affordable Care Act.
    And so we looked at all of that. How do we get a handle on 
the growth in Medicaid and make it sustainable and protect it 
for mothers and pregnant mothers--pregnant women, mothers, 
children, the disabled--what the program was originally 
intended for because most of the great growth is in the 
expansion population, and it was--I think this proposal is well 
thought out.
    I received a letter from the Kentucky Hospital Association. 
I said it with all--saying thank you for the path that you took 
because this is something we can deal with. I sat with hospital 
executives when they listened to the rhetoric, and they saw 
where I thought our plan was going, and I can say, ``Look, this 
is where I think it is going.'' They would all say, ``Wow, we 
can all live with this.''
    So we have given them a product that saves the program. It 
makes--well, it puts it on a more sustainable path. You know, 
it is still a growing program. It is going to spend over 1.1--
we are going to spend 700 billion this year and 1.1 trillion 10 
years from now after this bill is in full effect.
    So we are not cutting Medicaid. What we are trying to do is 
deploy the resources for the people that need it the most and 
reform the program and let--States have to take more 
responsibility in the future but hold them harmless today so we 
don't have these hospitals on the edge--like my friend from 
Pennsylvania mentioned, on the edge being affected by what we 
do here in the next few days.
    Mrs. Houchin. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. You 
did spend time with hospitals from my State talking to them 
about what we were doing in this bill. I really appreciate the 
time that you took there with them and with many other Members. 
Any Member who had hospitals with questions, you took time to 
visit with, and we are grateful for that.
    I just want to make a few exclamation points on some of the 
things that you said. Medicaid alone is on pace to outspend and 
outpace defense spending. Medicaid alone is on pace to outpace 
defense spending. That is----
    Mr. Guthrie. We will spend--well, it is going up from 700 
billion out of 1.1 trillion under this bill.
    Mrs. Houchin. That is not sustainable.
    And, Mr. Chairman, what happens to the Medicaid population 
when we can no longer afford that level of spending?
    Mr. Guthrie. Well, it is the fear when the interest on the 
debt just gets so big it overcomes it all. And so I said to 
hospitals--a lot of hospital CEOs that--I have talked to yours 
and others, and I said, look, this is beginning to bend the 
cost curve. This will be a much different conversation when we 
get to the point that we can't borrow money anymore because our 
debt is too high. We need to have this conversation now because 
we can do things that is sustainable and can keep everybody 
operating, but when we get to a point where we can't borrow 
anymore, it is a different conversation.
    Mrs. Houchin. And we have been talking about safeguarding 
Medicaid for the people who need it most. You said it best. We 
are preventing the ineligible, the illegal, and the able from 
accessing benefits and taking dollars away from the very people 
who this program was designed to help: pregnant women, 
children, the disabled, seniors.
    If we did nothing, would there be more or less money 
available to take care of the traditional population?
    Mr. Guthrie. Well, if you think about it, if you are a 
State program and you get 90 cents--in my State, you get 72 to 
90--so 90 cents for one patient and 72 cents for the other--the 
incentive is there. I don't think it was intentional. It was to 
get States to expand, but now the incentive is there to spend 
more--have more access and care for the higher reimbursement.
    Mrs. Houchin. And, finally, we are saving approximately 
$700 million in Medicaid over the 10-year window because of 
making sure people who are ineligible, illegal, and able are 
not accessing benefits designed for the people who need it 
most.
    Mr. Guthrie. Well, the able access them if they work.
    Mrs. Houchin. If they work. Yeah--that is right.
    But we are saving money, but we are still increasing 
spending in Medicaid. So, when Democrats say we are slashing 
Medicaid, we are still increasing our overall spend in Medicaid 
over the window. Is that correct?
    Mr. Guthrie. From about 700 billion to 1.1 trillion.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Langworthy.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. A lot has 
been said here today.
    I would like to offer the opportunity for Chairman Thompson 
from my neighboring district to offer, you know, in similar 
fashion anything that he would like to rebut based on what has 
been said here today.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Oh, I thank my neighbor to 
the north for yielding some time.
    I guess I will just start out by saying, contrary to the 
disparaging remarks we have endured today based on fear, not 
facts, we are--the goal is not to hurt those struggling in 
poverty. The goal is to fulfill the purpose that is in law of 
the nutrition title.
    And the nutrition title, as of the FRA when--by the way, 
any of those who voted for the FRA were the ones that approved 
those benefits that we talked about for the homeless, those 
aging out of foster care, and veterans--you that voted for that 
were the ones that voted to have those expire in 2030. There 
was a question during some of the questioning of where that 
came from.
    But, within FRA, we--obviously, food security has always 
been a part of the nutrition title. Really important. But it 
has a dual purpose that is officially codified and in law, and 
that is workforce development. That became a part of that 
purpose. And I would say we also--not in law but my own 
personal perspective is we need to achieve sustainability of 
this critical program and not to have cuts.
    And I have said all along--and we have had that discussion 
in committee, and I read too often about cuts that are 
happening, and there are no cuts. The House Committee on 
Agriculture is leading efforts to restore integrity to the SNAP 
program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The 
committee's reforms ensure that SNAP works the way Congress 
intended it to going back to the 1970s. We are really proud of 
that program. It has been a program that has restored rungs in 
the ladder of opportunity for folks to be able to full 
themselves out of poverty while, at the same time, meeting 
the--providing supplemental nutritional assistance.
    And the goal was--and we do that in terms of the program 
integrity in areas by reinforcing work. Those who can work 
should. And there certainly are plenty of waivers and 
provisions so that--to address kids. The reason it has always 
been 6-year-olds--6 years and younger is the waiver under 
general work requirements--is because it was recognized that if 
you had a preschool child at home, that you would have to be 
able to care for them. It also applies if you have someone in 
your house that is disabled, including maybe a parent that you 
have to provide care for. Always note that those exemptions are 
there.
    But, by reinforcing work, rooting out waste, and 
instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control 
costs and end executive and State abuse and overreach--because 
when the executive branch and specifically the States do things 
the wrong way, it is the SNAP participants--those individuals 
and those families are the ones that are hurt most.
    So, you know, the reason for this reform--you know, it is 
intended to--you know, through the intent--intended to--intent 
to supplement the food budget for low-income individuals. That 
is what SNAP is. SNAP has ballooned in cost. Since 2019, SNAP 
rules have increased by 17 percent from 36 million to--in 
2019--to 42 million, and a lot of that has occurred at the 
State level. And, while the overall cost of the program has 
grown by 83 percent, ballooning from 60 billion to 110 billion 
annually.
    You know, States do administer the program. They administer 
the program. There is a cost share for administration of the 
program and the--collectively, those--the States make $13 
billion per year in erroneous payments, both overpayments and 
underpayments, and both of those hurt the beneficiaries, the 
people that we have been spending hours now talking about how 
do we help them.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. The national average error 
rate is 11.68 percent, and that has nearly doubled just since 
2019.
    So what is the impact? Obviously, we all know what the 
impact is when it is an underpayment. You know, that single-
parent mom with two little babies don't have--isn't--the States 
are not providing sufficient assistance in putting money into 
their SNAP EBT card, and that is obvious how that hurts those 
families.
    But I will tell you that the overpayments--which, there are 
more overpayments than underpayments, based on the data--has 
even, I think, greater harm. If you are that single-parent mom 
with two little babies and the card gets charged, you are going 
to use whatever is on that card. And I--you know, that is fine, 
because that is the benefits you were given.
    And, by the way, SNAP beneficiaries use an average of two 
to three forms of payment when they go. They are not using just 
SNAP. That is obviously supplemental to, you know, cash and to 
checks or debit cards.
    So how does the overpayment hurt them? Well, because the 
States will come back and claw that back in maybe 3, 4, 6 
months later. Now, where is that single-parent mom with two 
little babies supposed to find that money at that point?
    That is where program integrity is so important. It 
protects--one of the things it does, it protects the 
beneficiary. It protects that single mom from that. And so the 
error rate by these States is completely unacceptable.
    And you know what, why they do it? Because there is no skin 
in the game. They don't have any--there is no accountability. 
They get the money, they execute the program, and if they don't 
do it right--which, with these error rates, is a significant 
amount, I believe.
    Pennsylvania doesn't do it right. It is double digits. And 
there are a lot of Pennsylvanians that are hurt because of 
these error rates. And that is unacceptable. States have to do 
a better job.
    So what we provide is--we could have come in and just done 
a punishment, but we did a carrot and a stick, and we put it at 
just 5-percent cost-share, but it is based on their error 
rates. And I happen to believe that, looking over the past 
couple decades, every State can get their error rate down below 
to be at that 5-percent mark.
    Only 28 percent of able-bodied adults without dependents on 
SNAP have earned income from work. That is largely because of 
how--not because of the law and the regulations that Congress 
passes and the executive branch writes. It is because of how it 
is poorly administered by the States.
    The USDA and the States have intentionally limited 
enforcement of the SNAP work requirement for adults without 
dependent children, able-bodied adults, through waivers, 
leaving 40 percent of these work-ready individuals today under 
waiver of that ABAWD work requirement, remaining on the SNAP 
rolls long after the 3-month time limit for compliance with the 
work requirement.
    So, because the SNAP benefit, unlike other entitlement 
benefits, is 100-percent funded by the Federal Government, 
there is minimal--I would say no incentive for States to 
control cost, to enhance efficiency, and improve outcomes for 
recipients.
    The gentlelady showed the Medicaid paperwork. That is not 
paperwork that comes, I don't believe, from the Federal 
Government, because I know in the SNAP program, you know, the 
States determine that bureaucracy. And there are problems with 
States that will take months in order to process those 
applications under the nutrition title. That is unacceptable, 
and that is why we need to hold States accountable.
    And I don't believe that--no State out there is going to 
cut SNAP benefits. You heard about the passion for that 
assistance----
    Ms. Scanlon. Wow.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania [continuing]. On both sides of 
the aisle in here. And so I think you are being pretty much 
unrealistic and disrespectful to our colleagues that work in 
State capitols to think that this program would be any less 
important to them.
    And we are talking 5 percent, but I believe that they can 
all get there.
    So, with that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Langworthy, would you yield a moment?
    I think, Mr. Thompson, you brought up a very significant 
word in your comments, and that is ``integrity.'' And what we 
keep hearing on our side is, we want integrity in these 
programs, to save them. But integrity--and we are hearing that 
these are moral programs. Well, integrity is moral too. And we 
want integrity in the programs so that we can save them.
    And I think you have just outlined that extremely well. And 
it is a word we have not heard enough of in this debate here 
and, I think, probably in the committees. Because we keep 
hearing about ``cuts,'' when we are talking about having 
integrity in the programs.
    So thank you, Mr.----
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. And if the gentleman from New 
York would yield just a few minutes.
    Mr. Langworthy. Certainly.
    Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. You know, we did not roll 
back the daily amounts that these recipients receive. There was 
an increase when the market basket analysis we had done--at the 
direction of the 2018 farm bill.
    And, again, I agree, it is only, like, $6 a day, something 
like that. That amount was not rolled back within this. Nor are 
we preventing, going forward, adjustments based on inflation, 
because that is the current law.
    And so I think those corrections are really important to 
make, and I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
    Mr. Langworthy. And I yield back to you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Griffith, you are recognized.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    You know, fake news, misinformation--it has long existed in 
human societies. And today we heard several folks reference 
Marie Antoinette and ``let them eat cake.'' She never uttered 
those words. As historians will tell you, there is no evidence 
that she ever said it. I understand the intent in which it was 
used, but she----
    Mr. McGovern. She----
    Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Never said those words. In fact, 
the rumor----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Griffith. Let me finish.
    Mr. McGovern. I was just going to say, you guys make----
    Mr. Griffith. The rumor----
    Mr. McGovern [continuing]. Marie Antoinette look like she 
is down-to-earth.
    Mr. Griffith. No. No. No. Not going there.
    But the rumor that she said those words started circulating 
in the streets of Paris a couple of weeks after her head had 
been severed by the guillotine. And, as everybody knows, the 
brain only functions for 2 seconds--scientific data done at the 
guillotine by a French scientist showed the brain only 
functions for 2 seconds, two blinks of the eye, subsequent to 
the head being severed.
    Misinformation is still out there, and sometimes it is both 
sides of the aisle that just--we start these stories or these 
rumors in the minds of people.
    And one of those that all of us have been guilty of is 
talking about work requirements related to this bill. Because 
it is actually community engagement. So, if you are going to 
school, as we have heard some testimony today, if you are 
engaged in your community in any way, going to school, 
getting--getting a drug treatment program counts. Volunteering 
in your community for that 18.47 hours a week counts, or 80 
hours--it doesn't have to all be done in a week--80 hours over 
the course of the 4.33 weeks in a month, counts.
    And so I heard--because we fall into that trap, I heard, 
you know, ``How can you work when you need daycare?'' Well, you 
could be volunteering with the local daycare and count as 
community engagement.
    So we need to try to get the facts straight in this point 
in history, or else, 200 years from now, they are going to be 
talking about work requirements when, in fact, it is community 
engagement. Just as we have heard today that Marie Antoinette 
said, ``Let them eat cake,'' which she never did.
    Now, we also heard other disparagements today which are not 
accurate. The gentleman from Missouri threw shade on the Energy 
and Commerce Committee earlier by saying that it didn't have 
great jurisdiction.
    Now, having heard some of this, I am sure his opinion has 
changed. And knowing that in order for him to make final 
comments he will need to be recognized by a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, I am sure his opinion has 
changed in the last few hours as we have been debating this.
    And I would now ask the gentleman from Missouri if he would 
like to correct any things that are misunderstood that have 
been said today or that somehow otherwise need correction so 
the historical record will be complete.
    Mr. Smith of Missouri. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for yielding, asking that question, and also for 
serving on a fairly decent committee.
    So I appreciate the work that you all have been doing.
    You know, this bill--this bill is a bill for working 
Americans.
    I am a product of the working class. Like I said earlier, I 
grew up most of my life in a single-wide trailer and we 
upgraded to a double-wide. My dad was one of those 199A 
employees that would benefit in this bill. He was the employee 
of one. He had a two-car garage. He was the best transmission 
overhaul mechanic that you could find. And I was the first in 
my family to ever graduate college. They were the first in 
their family to ever graduate from high school.
    And so the community that I represent, my hometown where I 
live today, has less than 5,000 people. The per-capita income 
is just at $24,000--$24,000 a year. My grandparents never had 
running water on the farm that I live on. I was the first one 
to drill a well so we didn't have to use an outhouse. I 
understand the struggles of working Americans.
    And that is why, for over the last year, Chair Foxx, we 
have traveled throughout this country. We have had 15 different 
field hearings, from a homeless shelter in Chicago to an Indian 
reservation in Arizona, to the second-largest port in Staten 
Island. We went all over this country to hear from real small-
business owners, real working moms, real farmers of the issues 
that they are facing in today's economy. And that is what this 
bill delivers on.
    This bill makes permanent--makes permanent--what is 
expiring at the end of this year. Every individual tax rate 
will be made permanent. The 10-percent tax rate will be made 
permanent--every single one.
    The child tax credit, which affects 40 million Americans, 
40 million children--if Congress does not act by passing this 
legislation, you will see the child tax credit go from $2,000 
to $1,000--to $1,000. That affects working families.
    The guaranteed deduction, which 91 percent of Americans use 
when they file their taxes, that gets slashed in half if we 
don't pass this bill. But guess what? This bill also increases 
that guaranteed deduction $1,000 per individual. That is real 
tax relief for the 91 percent of Americans that use it to file 
their taxes.
    We also enhance the child tax credit $500, to make the 
child tax credit $2,500. Inflation has gone up a lot since 
2017, and we are indexing it for inflation.
    We are also delivering on the promise that we made to the 
voters of no taxation on tips, no tax on overtime, tax relief 
for seniors; also, allowing you to be able to deduct your 
interest from autos made in the United States.
    I will tell you, the senior citizen who is an Uber driver 
is going to benefit the most from this tax package, because no 
tax on tips, senior tax relief, and also they can deduct their 
interest if that car is made in the United States.
    These are real impacts for real Americans. In fact, an 
average family of four, under this tax bill, will see their tax 
cuts of $1,300--$1,300. Where I come from, $1,300 is a lot of 
money in the paychecks of working families who are struggling 
just to get by.
    In this tax bill, what it does for small businesses--what 
it does for small businesses--there are 26 million small 
businesses right now that are wondering, is their tax rate 
going to be 43.4 percent next year or 23 to 28 percent? And 
these are those mom-and-pops on Main Street that are just 
surviving. That is my parents' auto repair shop in southeast 
Missouri. They are deciding how to invest, how to grow right 
now with the uncertainty, and this bill will provide that 
certainty.
    In fact, we also enhance the small-business deduction to 23 
percent, allowing them to have more parity with the big 
corporations, with having a lower tax rate as a small-business 
owner.
    We also go after special-interest tax provisions that were 
passed in the IRA. We eliminate more than a half a trillion 
dollars of bad green scam policies. And those policies will be 
redirected for the working-class Americans--those tipped 
employees, those linemen working overtime, those seniors who 
are living paycheck to paycheck. That is what we are going to 
do with those green credits.
    We are also going to hold elite universities accountable. 
We are going to make sure that they pay their share of revenues 
coming from endowments. The corporate tax rate is 21 percent. 
The top tax rate will be 21 percent. If an endowment can have 
$55 billion, more than most countries, I think that they are 
not really paying their fair share. We are always talking about 
paying their fair share, but we are going to make sure those 
elite universities pay their fair share.
    It is the same way with woke not-for-profits. We are 
holding them accountable.
    We are also saving $140 billion in the Tax Code to make 
sure illegals aren't benefiting from the Tax Code.
    And this is all to deliver real relief for the average, 
everyday American who sent us to Washington for this mandate.
    I appreciate you for allowing us to be here today.
    Mr. Griffith. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Jack, you are recognized.
    Mr. Jack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I will engage Mr. Walberg.
    I appreciate your patience throughout this hearing. I can 
relate that it is a little lonely when you sit at the edge of 
the table.
    But I would welcome any closing thoughts and comments from 
you and the incredible work that your committee members 
produced at the Education and Workforce Committee.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, Mr. Jack, I appreciate that. Bobby and I 
are feeling like Rodney Dangerfield down here at the end.
    You know, I served on the Ag Committee my first term in 
office. Great committee. I have a great ag district that I 
represent. I served on Energy and Commerce up until I took the 
chairmanship of this fabulous committee. And I never wanted to 
serve on Ways and Means. It is not up to my standards yet.
    Voice. Ooooh.
    Mr. Walberg. No. I love you, Jason. I love you. I just had 
to get that in.
    But I do appreciate that. You know, Education and 
Workforce, I don't want to belabor this, but we did some 
amazing work, I believe. $350 billion of savings that will, I 
think, foster better opportunity for students in higher 
education at lower cost.
    In the Northwest Ordinance--and it is probably included in 
some of your States' constitutions--it says, ``Religion, 
morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and 
the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education 
shall forever be encouraged.'' I don't think we have been 
encouraging education as we ought to.
    And, for that reason, Ranking Member Scott and I--and, 
Representative Neguse, I will respond to your question, which 
was a legitimate question--we started at 10:15 in the morning 
on our markup. Five-and-a-half hours later, after 33 or 34 
amendments that we debated together, we completed it. And I 
turned to Bobby, and I said, ``Bobby, what happened?'' He said, 
``What do you mean?'' I said, ``It is still light out.''
    I think that shows how a committee can work together to get 
things done. Whether we agree or not on everything--and we 
didn't--but I think the passion is there for education.
    So what we did in this bill, seeing that right now 40 
percent of master's degree programs and a quarter of bachelor's 
degree programs leave students worse off than if they had never 
started in higher education because of the cost and the debt 
that they have--within the next 10 years, if we don't do 
something, we have $300 billion of debt to the students that 
they are going to lose over the next 10 years. Taxpayers lose 
20 cents on every dollar that they lend to post-secondary 
education right now. That is not a winning formula.
    So, in our legislation, Mr. Jack, we attempted to reduce 
from five disparate loan programs, some without--well, most 
without any limit on them, down to two. And we have put 
reasonable caps in for undergrad, for grad, and for 
professional grad students.
    Why did we do that? To give incentive to colleges, 
universities, trade schools, community colleges to live within 
their means.
    And, ultimately, we gave them something they have asked for 
for many years, and now they have the opportunity to counsel 
their students, on the basis of what their program will afford 
to them once they graduate, what they should take as a loan and 
no more.
    For that reason, we have a chance to give them skin in the 
game, that if students come out at the end of the pipeline and 
they are paying off their student loan, keeping on track to do 
that, and they have advanced in their ability to earn, we give 
them a special carrot called a PROMISE grant. If they don't and 
the students are defaulting and not achieving what they ought 
to achieve, then we give them a portion of risk-sharing to 
contribute. That carrot-and-stick approach.
    Bobby and I agreed on a very significant portion of the 
bill, and that is Workforce Pell, short-term Pell. We know our 
manufacturing entities, our trades, need people in the jobs 
these days. And why not give them certification programs, 
apprenticeship programs, short-term degrees that we can use 
Workforce Pell for, to bring them out of that pipeline with a 
skill, with a job, and without huge student-loan debt?
    And Bobby and I are going to continue to work on other 
workforce programs to ramp up that deal, but we did get that in 
this bill as well.
    So I won't belabor the point, but that $350 billion of 
savings is all being put in to make it more accessible for 
students to come out of the end of the pipeline. We don't agree 
on all of that; I get that. But that is the approach, and I 
think, in the end, we are going to see a better higher-
education system.
    Mr. Neguse. I wonder if the gentleman might give the 
ranking member a chance to----
    Mr. Walberg. Well, he already had a chance to address one 
of your----
    Mr. Neguse. Well, you----
    Mr. Walberg. Concerns, but yeah.
    Mr. Neguse. Said a lot for him. I just heard a lot of 
references to ``Bobby.''
    Mr. Jack. Respectfully, Mr. Neguse, I would reclaim my 
time.
    And I appreciate your comments, Chairman Walberg, and, 
obviously, appreciated your testimony throughout this hearing, 
Mr. Scott.
    And, with that, I yield back to our chairwoman, Ms. Foxx.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair? Can I publicly thank Rules 
Republicans for all those profound last questions?
    The Chairwoman. You just did.
    Thank you all very much.
    The witnesses are excused.
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. Madam Chair. Madam Chair. Madam 
Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Excuse me. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott of Virginia. I would like to thank you and the 
gentleman from Colorado for your kind words about Gerry 
Connolly. He was the dean of the Virginia delegation. Several 
people said very nice things, and I would like to thank you for 
those.
    The Chairwoman. I want to say, I think it is important we 
always acknowledge each other, because we all work hard. And it 
is important that we do that, no matter the party.
    Mr. McGovern. Hear, hear.
    The Chairwoman. I have an important announcement to make. 
To the members in the room who have been waiting patiently to 
deliver amendment testimony, I have a brief announcement about 
how we are going to proceed.
    Those of you who have been excused can go.
    We are going to begin with the leadership panel, but it 
will still be an amendment panel. Democrat leadership has asked 
to testify as a panel of three to begin with, but it is our 
understanding they will abide by the procedures of an amendment 
panel, meaning 5 minutes of testimony each.
    We will then move to calling up Members to testify on 
amendments, eight Members at a time. We have been doing our 
best to monitor when Members have arrived and are arriving. We 
are also doing our best to cross reference our notes on this 
with the staff of our Democrat counterparts so we get it as 
right as possible.
    I will be calling up the Members eight at a time. I have 
been patient this entire meeting, and I ask for reciprocal 
patience here. If you just walked in, you may need to wait for 
a third panel. And for those listening who aren't here, you may 
need to wait for a fourth panel, and so on.
    Again, I am asking everyone to be patient. We will be 
identifying the Members for each panel verbally. I believe, if 
you are on the Democrat side, -and I think everyone who wants 
to offer an amendment is on the Democrat side-, you may talk to 
the Democrat staff outside about where you might be in the 
queue.
    Mr. Jeffries, I understand you want to address the group in 
terms of the loss of Mr. Connolly first, and then I will 
identify you for your testimony.
    Mr. Jeffries. Well, Madam Chair, thank you so much.
    And thank you so much for the moment of silence and the 
kind words of remembrance on behalf of our dear colleague, 
Gerry Connolly, who really was a Member's Member, someone who 
conducted himself with the highest degree of intellect, 
brilliance, resilience, integrity, humor, and wit.
    It is a great loss for his family, a great loss for his 
district, a great loss for the Commonwealth of Virginia, a 
great loss for us as House Democrats, but certainly a great 
loss for the Congress and for the country, given just the depth 
of his representation, the relationships that he had on both 
sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, and the 
fierce representation that he provided to the people that he 
has been privileged to represent for decades.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share some brief 
words of reflection on behalf of the House Democratic Caucus.
    The Chairwoman. Well, I am reminded of an old, old poem, 
``For Whom the Bell Tolls.''
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Jeffries.
    Now I would like to recognize that we have Minority Leader 
Jeffries, Leader Clark, and part of the leadership, Mr. 
Aguilar, at the witness table for our first panel.
    So I now will recognize each of you.
    Will you be going first, Mr. Jeffries.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 
McGovern, for the opportunity to testify at this incredibly 
important Rules Committee meeting.
    I also thank my colleagues, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus 
Chair Pete Aguilar, for partnering with me on this amendment.
    I come before you today with an amendment to strike the 
unacceptable, unconscionable, and un-American cuts to the 
healthcare and food assistance of the American people.
    America is the wealthiest country in the history of the 
world. We are better than this.
    The great American middleclass dream is that, when you work 
hard and play by the rules, you should have the ability to 
provide a comfortable life for yourself and for your family, a 
good paying job, educate your children, purchase a home, and 
have access to high-quality and affordable healthcare, as well 
as be able to put food on your kitchen or dining room table.
    Unfortunately, we are here today discussing a bill that 
would make that American Dream harder to reach for millions by 
increasing costs for families--hardworking American families---
and gutting the things that they need to survive and thrive.
    This reckless budget would take healthcare and food 
assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax 
cuts to the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected. It 
would hurt children, hurt seniors, hurt families, hurt women, 
hurt people with disabilities, and hurt our Nation's veterans.
    If enacted, the GOP tax scam would represent the largest 
cut to healthcare in American history and the largest cut to 
nutritional assistance in American history, in order to provide 
the largest tax breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk in 
American history.
    So let's begin with the healthcare component of this 
amendment.
    Everyone should have access to high-quality and affordable 
healthcare in the United States of America. In 1965, Congress 
created both Medicare and Medicaid. In the intervening decades, 
Congress passed legislation to expand and strengthen these 
important programs.
    In 2010, this Congress, under the leadership of Speaker 
Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi, passed the historic Affordable Care 
Act, which created new protections for people with preexisting 
conditions and expanded healthcare for tens of millions of 
people who couldn't otherwise afford it.
    Since then, we have managed to achieve the lowest uninsured 
rate in history. Why would we go backward? Which is what the 
GOP Tax Scam would do.
    We know, however, that our healthcare system is not 
perfect. Too many Americans continue to be unable to pay their 
medical bills and struggle to get access to the care that they 
need. As Democrats, we are ready to work in a bipartisan manner 
to address these challenges. But we will never support any 
Republican effort to rip away healthcare from the American 
people.
    This GOP tax scam will force nearly 14 million people to 
lose their health coverage and cause millions more to pay 
higher copays, premiums, and deductibles. Hospitals will close, 
nursing homes will shut down, and people will die in all of 
your districts.
    Now, prior to the modern SNAP program being created in 
1964, there was vast hunger and food insecurity across this 
country, including in low-income communities, rural areas, and 
communities of color.
    Thanks to public investigations, community-based 
organizations, and some good journalism, these challenges were 
spotlighted and the need for an expansion of Federal food 
assistance was highlighted. The American people were moved by 
images of children with distended bellies rummaging around in 
garbage and families going hungry.
    It finally compelled Congress to act. And over the last 60 
years, we as a country have made significant progress to reduce 
hunger and help people afford nutritional food.
    Unfortunately, the policies in this GOP Tax Scam threaten 
to undo this progress and return us to an age where far too 
many children or veterans or seniors are struggling to eat and 
get access to the nutrition that they need.
    It is also important to recognize that SNAP is a vital part 
of providing opportunity for our farmers--who we stand with--
food makers, small businesses, truckers, independent grocers, 
and the entire supply chain.
    So, for the Republicans who have promised to love and 
cherish Medicaid, I ask you to support this amendment.
    For the Republicans who believe we should not rip food away 
from the mouths of children, seniors, and veterans, we ask you 
to support this amendment.
    And for the Republicans who believe that the Gospel in 
Matthew 25 and 35 teaches us to stand up for the poor, the 
sick, the afflicted, the least, the lost, and the left-behind, 
we ask you to support this amendment and strike these harmful 
cuts to healthcare and nutritional assistance.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Whip Clark, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATHERINE CLARK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
McGovern and members of this committee.
    I am a proud cosponsor of Leader Jeffries' amendment 
protecting Medicaid and SNAP. And my Democratic colleagues have 
done an excellent job laying out how taking Medicaid and food 
from kids and seniors and veterans and moms to give tax cuts to 
billionaires while increasing our deficit is a triple threat to 
the American people.
    But, unfortunately, it doesn't end there. I am offering an 
additional amendment that strikes a provision that would defund 
Planned Parenthood.
    Speaker Johnson recently said about this provision, it is 
about going after, quote, ``big abortion.'' But he knows better 
than that. We all know, the Federal Government doesn't pay for 
abortion care. We all know, Republicans have already decimated 
access to safe abortions in this country.
    So what does this provision actually do? It further defunds 
women's healthcare. It defunds cancer screenings, prenatal 
care, postpartum services, fertility treatments, preventative 
care.
    Ninety-six percent of Planned Parenthood's clinical work 
has nothing to do with abortion but everything to do with 
serving millions of women, most of them overwhelmingly in rural 
and underserved areas who are having a hard time finding 
reproductive care or any healthcare, especially in States with 
abortion bans.
    Faced with a choice of either breaking the law or breaking 
their oath to put patients first, OB/GYNs are packing up and 
leaving. As a result, 35 percent of counties in America don't 
have a single obstetrician. In Georgia, it is 42 percent. In 
Texas, it is 50 percent.
    Clinics are shutting down while maternal mortality is on 
the rise. Infant mortality is up for the first time in decades.
    How does this bill respond to this Republican-manufactured 
crisis? It piles on. It makes it even harder for women to find 
healthcare. Without this amendment, it would shut down nearly 
600 health centers run by Planned Parenthood, 64 percent of 
which serve women living in medical deserts.
    These are communities that don't have enough healthcare 
providers as it is. These are women who overwhelmingly live in 
rural areas. These are women that you represent.
    If Planned Parenthood is defunded, 7,500 South Carolinians 
will lose their doctor. All of them, 100 percent, live in a 
medical desert. Ninety-two-hundred Georgians are on the edge of 
that same cliff, 75 percent in medical deserts; 22,000 
Hoosiers, 82 percent in medical deserts; 24,000 Virginians, 50 
percent; 37,000 North Carolinians, 67 percent; 51,000 
Minnesotans, 69 percent.
    And 118,000 Texans count on Planned Parenthood, in a State 
where babies and pregnant women are dying at a historic rate. 
Two-thirds of those Texans live in medical deserts. And 141,000 
New Yorkers are about to see 47 clinics boarded up, 61 percent 
of them in the neediest areas in New York State.
    Millions of women are counting on their Representatives to 
make the right decision--women like Sheryl from North Carolina, 
who years ago was overdue for a pap smear, but she didn't have 
insurance, and she kept putting it off. A friend mentioned 
Planned Parenthood would provide this free of charge. She 
booked an appointment, got checked, and it came back abnormal. 
They caught it early, and the cancer was removed.
    Sheryl credits Planned Parenthood with saving her life. A 
lot of stories begin like Sheryl's. They should all end in the 
same way: with healthcare that saves lives.
    I hope this amendment gives you all pause, when the women 
in this country deserve healthcare. And I hope you will think 
about the moms struggling to get by and stay healthy for the 
sake of their children and their families. It is not too late. 
Do right by them. Make this amendment in order for floor 
consideration.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    [The statement of Ms. Clark follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.182
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.183
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.184
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Aguilar.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE AGUILAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
McGovern, distinguished colleagues on the committee.
    I appreciate your kind words about our colleague Mr. 
Connolly as well, Madam Chair.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce amendments 
that would strengthen SNAP, a program that helps families 
across the country meet their basic needs.
    I am also proud to cosponsor Leader Jeffries' amendment.
    State governments can't afford to take on the extra costs 
that this legislation would impose on them. It would force 
leaders in red States and blue States to either raise taxes or 
remove people from SNAP, leaving even more Americans hungrier 
and poorer.
    I wish more Americans had the opportunity to hear from our 
prior panel's testimony during the workday, but this committee 
made the choice to hide from the public and keep hidden what is 
actually in this bill. In fact, we are still told that 
manager's amendments are still being negotiated and are 
incomplete.
    It is outrageous that this committee is debating these 
policies under the cover of darkness. But it shouldn't be 
surprising. Legislation you intend to pass, started at some 
ungodly hour, kicks millions of Americans off their health 
insurance and takes away food assistance for families who need 
it most.
    As grocery prices rise, I cannot understand why my 
Republican colleagues want to take food out of the mouths of 
mothers, children, and veterans, while making healthcare even 
more expensive.
    House Democrats are eager to take on waste, fraud, and 
abuse throughout the Federal Government, but we cannot find a 
willing partner on the other side of the aisle because of our 
colleagues' single-minded focus on cutting healthcare for 
people who need it most.
    This legislation doesn't make Medicaid or SNAP more 
efficient or more fair, Madam Chair. All this bill does is 
ensure that billionaires, who have never had to worry about a 
hospital bill or putting food on the table, can continue to pay 
less in taxes than a teacher, a firefighter, or a nurse.
    Madam Chair, it is a fact that only House Democrats want to 
make healthcare more accessible and more affordable for 
everyone. We will continue to fight back against this effort to 
drive up costs of health insurance and end basic-needs programs 
just to make a group of campaign donors happy.
    The contrast is clear: House Republicans are making 
healthcare more expensive and less accessible. House Democrats 
want to ensure that every American can earn the peace of mind 
of a good-paying job with great benefits.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Aguilar, would you mind leaving your testimony with me? 
Because I don't believe I heard a couple of things that you 
said, and I just want to look at it before I make any 
comments----
    Mr. Aguilar. Of course.
    The Chairwoman [continued]. Okay? I want to double-check 
that I heard some things that I think you said----
    Mr. Aguilar. Okay.
    The Chairwoman [continued]. Before I make any comment.
    Mr. Aguilar. Of course.
    The Chairwoman. I am going to recognize--before I speak, I 
am going to recognize any of my colleagues.
    Mrs. Houchin.
    Mrs. Houchin. No questions. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Scott. You are recognized.
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, I would just like to ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the record an article entitled ``Rich 
State, Poor People.''
    And if I might----
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.064
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.065
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.066
    
    Mr. Scott. If I might just read from it.
    ``The oil and gas boom has helped New Mexico become the 
nation's second-biggest oil-producing State. Taxes paid on the 
state's oil production would generate `more money than we know 
what to do with,' according to Democrat state senator and 
Legislative Finance Committee chair George Munoz.''
    The States are flush with cash.
    Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    First of all, let me just address something that Chairman 
Smith said. You know, he went through all the things in the tax 
section of the reconciliation bill that, quite frankly, most of 
us support--I mean, the child tax credit, the no tax on tips, 
the middle-class tax cuts.
    But what he omitted was the tax cuts for billionaires. What 
he omitted were the cuts to Medicaid that would throw people 
off of healthcare, or the cuts to SNAP.
    Leader Jeffries, I mean, we are reasonable. We would be 
happy to work with them. But there is no way in hell we are 
going to support a bill that is going to throw 14 million 
people off of healthcare, you know, or throw millions of people 
off of SNAP.
    You could maybe comment on, how would children, how would 
seniors be impacted by the legislation that is before us?
    Mr. Jeffries. Well, thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    You know, this legislation would rip healthcare away from 
approximately 14 million Americans, including millions of 
children who will be adversely impacted by the fact that 
Medicaid is being cut in the greatest numbers in American 
history, children who would otherwise be able to see a doctor 
when they are sick but might not be able to as a result of 
Medicaid being ripped away. Children who will no longer have 
the ability to receive preventative care that could catch 
things early enough to avoid serious illness or death, they are 
impacted by the GOP tax scam.
    Seniors, of course, who will have their Medicaid ripped 
away from them will also be adversely impacted, because the 
majority of seniors who receive nursing home care in America or 
home care in America--these aren't statistics; it is our 
parents, our grandmother, our grandfather, our great-
grandmother and--grandfather. The majority of people who 
receive nursing-home care in America or home care in America, 
which allows people to maintain dignity and respect in their 
amazing golden years, they rely on Medicaid to receive that 
assistance. And that, of course, is at risk of being ripped 
away from them.
    And, Mr. McGovern, it is all being done in service of 
enacting the largest tax breaks for billionaires in American 
history, billionaires like Elon Musk, who is the last person in 
this country who deserves a tax break.
    Mr. McGovern. And, Mr. Aguilar, I support your amendment. 
You know, interestingly enough, the House Agriculture Committee 
never did a hearing on the cost-sharing issue with States. And 
there is a reason why Governors all over the country are 
panicking that they may be hit with a bill of hundreds of 
millions of dollars, or even a billion dollars in the case of 
Pennsylvania, which they are not going to be able to meet, and, 
therefore, it will result in them costing--it will end up 
cutting the benefit to people. And so I support it totally.
    And, Leader Clark, you know, let me ask you, is it possible 
at all for other providers, like community health centers, to 
absorb the patients that Planned Parenthood health centers see 
annually? And what services for women would be at risk?
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much for the question.
    And let's bust this myth once and for all. Because we have 
two things going on here. We have the nearly 14 million 
Americans, including many women, seniors, moms, pregnant moms, 
who are going to have their healthcare taken away from them 
totally. And that impacts healthcare centers, FQHCs. They 
receive--Medicaid is the single largest source of payments, 
reimbursements, for our FQHCs.
    And this is what is always pointed to by the right, that 
they will just pick up these services for women out of these 
defunded clinics for Planned Parenthood. It is impossible at 
the same time that you are cutting Medicaid to these clinics.
    In Massachusetts alone, that will be an almost $1.2 billion 
cut to these health centers. And if you are going to pick up 
what Planned Parenthood provides, you would have to increase 
the capacity of our FQHCs by 56 percent.
    So we are going to take away Medicaid over here, and then 
we are going to say, ``Magically increase capacity by 56 
percent'' to serve the women who will no longer have a place to 
get the cancer screenings, the prenatal care, the fertility 
treatments, contraception, reproductive healthcare that they 
need and that is increasingly difficult to find.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    I regret that so much of what is done in this Congress and 
in this current administration around healthcare is so 
politically charged.
    Ms. Clark. Yeah.
    Mr. McGovern. And, again, going back to the SNAP issue, 
people are going to see their benefits cut, again, on average 
of $2 a person, you know, per meal. That is it. And if States 
can't meet their cost-share, they have no choice but to cut the 
benefit--but to cut the benefit.
    And no hearings on this, not one single hearing. And this 
is a major change, major change. And not even the courtesy of a 
hearing. We weren't able to bring in Governors or anybody from 
any States to be able to comment on what the impact of this 
would be or whether even all the States could meet, you know, 
their financial obligation.
    And, again, I mean, that it is part of a reconciliation 
bill? And that nobody even cares enough to do a hearing on it? 
Is that the way you legislate around here?
    I don't know if you want to add anything before I yield 
back.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I think that is 
incredibly important.
    And I would just share that the cost-share discussion 
really breaks a promise of 50 years of a relationship between 
the Federal Government and the States. This is shifting more 
resources so they can be the bad guys.
    Mr. McGovern. Yes.
    Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. And so they can reduce benefits, 
kick people off of eligibility. It is just an existential 
threat and would result in significant reductions in benefits 
to the people who need it most.
    Mr. McGovern. And I will just say, finally, all this does 
is it gives my Republican friends some cover to be able to 
dodge responsibility and, when benefits get cut, say, ``Hey, it 
is not me; it is the States.'' And, again, that, to me, is very 
cynical.
    I yield back my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Mrs. Fischbach.
    Mrs. Fischbach. I don't have anything.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    I think we just heard a little bit about myth-busting. So, 
Leader Jeffries, I was wondering if you could address the myth, 
which we have had thrown at us repeatedly throughout all the 
committee hearings on this bill, that somehow these proposals 
are going to be paid for by kicking undocumented immigrants off 
federally subsidized food and healthcare.
    Is that true? Are undocumented immigrants getting Federal 
healthcare and Federal food benefits?
    Mr. Jeffries. It is a great question. Under current law, 
undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for Medicaid, 
the ACA exchanges, and for SNAP benefits.
    Not a single undocumented immigrant in this country gets a 
dime in Federal taxpayer dollars for any part of comprehensive 
Medicaid coverage. Not one.
    And so, when we are talking about nearly 14 million people 
who are going to be thrown off their health insurance, millions 
of others who are going to be jammed up by this aggressive cut 
to SNAP, the largest cut to food assistance in American 
history, we are talking about American children----
    Ms. Scanlon. Uh huh.
    Mr. Jeffries [continuing]. We are talking about everyday 
Americans, we are talking about Americans with disabilities.
    And when it comes to nutritional assistance, we are talking 
about veterans who have served this country, sacrificed, risked 
it all. And they are going to lose access to the food 
assistance they need to live a life of dignity and respect.
    Those are the facts. That is why we are fighting hard to 
stop this GOP tax scam that will hurt everyday Americans dead 
in its tracks.
    Ms. Scanlon. I appreciate that. Because we have heard this 
gaslighting, you know, for weeks now, and we knew it wasn't 
true, but I appreciate your clarifying that as well.
    And, of course, to the extent that anyone was trying to 
game the system and get benefits to which they were not 
entitled, we have inspectors general who were tasked with 
rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse but unfortunately have been 
fired by this administration.
    So, you know, don't preach about wanting to ferret out 
fraud, waste, and abuse when you are pulling the watchdogs 
whose job it was.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Scott. Oh, I already came to you.
    Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Leader Jeffries, Whip Clark, and Chairman 
Aguilar, for your leadership and for the amendments that you 
have submitted before the committee today.
    As you all know, we started at 1:00 a.m., so this hearing 
has been going now for about 10 hours. We have heard from many 
Republican chairmen. We have, of course, many members of our 
caucus who are here that we will hear from.
    The only person--and, of course, we have all the leadership 
of the House Democratic Caucus, and we are so grateful that 
each of you came forward to testify in this fashion.
    The one person we haven't heard from is the Speaker, who 
came here briefly earlier but was not willing, I guess, to 
testify in the way that you all have.
    Mr. Leader, I know you offered to debate the Speaker on the 
floor, I believe sent a letter to him about a month and a half 
ago on this particular reconciliation bill. And I wonder if you 
might expound a bit on why you think that is important, for the 
American people to be able to hear that debate and that 
dialogue.
    Mr. Jeffries. Well, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from the great State of Colorado.
    And, first of all, let me thank all of the members of the 
Rules Committee, certainly my colleagues on the Democratic 
side, who have done a tremendous job on behalf of the American 
people--Jim McGovern; Mary Gay Scanlon; you, Joe Neguse; and, 
of course, Teresa Leger Fernandez.
    Let me also thank the chair, Chairwoman Foxx, from the 
great State of North Carolina by way of New York City. She may 
have left the Bronx, but the Boogie-Down Bronx has never left 
her. So thank you for providing this opportunity for us to have 
this discussion.
    But one person is missing: Speaker Mike Johnson.
    Over a month ago, I asked our distinguished colleague from 
Louisiana, the Speaker of the House, to debate any of us, but 
certainly myself, on the House floor about this very bill.
    He believes it is one ``One Big Beautiful Bill.'' We 
believe it is ``One Big Ugly Bill'' that is going to hurt the 
American people--hurt children, hurt families, hurt veterans, 
hurt seniors, cut healthcare, cut nutritional assistance, 
explode the debt by a minimum of $3.8 trillion.
    This is being done by people who claim to be the stewards 
of fiscal responsibility? $3.8 trillion, if not more?
    And so the offer still stands. I would love to have the 
opportunity to debate Speaker Johnson anytime, anyplace, right 
here at the Rules Committee or certainly on the floor of the 
House of Representatives. Not a duel. A debate of ideas.
    Mr. Neguse. I couldn't agree more.
    I thank the leader, the whip, the chairman, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to each of you for coming and testifying.
    Whip Clark, as you described the impact that the abortion 
bans have had on States across this country, the lack of 
reproductive healthcare in States around this country, and then 
that this bill would then add to that difficulty, I am reminded 
and I have been sharing lately a story that I didn't used to 
talk about because it was so hard about how, when I was 
pregnant, I almost bled to death.
    And I remember lying on that hospital surgery piece of 
metal. And they didn't put me to sleep because we were trying 
to save the baby. And they were screaming, ``We are going to 
lose her, we are going to lose her, we are going to lose her.''
    Those doctors could concentrate on saving my life. They did 
not have to worry about whether they were going to be 
criminally charged or whether they were going to have to shut 
down their practice because they were working on a complicated 
pregnancy.
    And now we know, across the country, in rural areas 
especially, we are losing our OB/GYN care.
    So I want you to talk a little bit more about what happens 
in those rural areas, what happens in those areas where doctors 
are fleeing, and how what they are doing in this bill, by going 
after Planned Parenthood, does that make it worse?
    Ms. Clark. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that story. And 
it is the story of women across this country. Pregnancy is 
often complicated. And it needs interventions. And we want safe 
outcomes. The way we get that is good prenatal care and being 
able to find that within a 50-mile drive from your home. And 
with the abortion bans, that is becoming out of reach for so 
many people.
    And it compounds the cruelty in this bill that is already 
there in all that they are taking away from women and children 
and families, from their healthcare, from food programs, public 
schools--the list goes on--with this cynical exercise of giving 
tax cuts to people who are too wealthy to need them or maybe 
even notice them.
    So we have to keep our eye focused on what is happening. 
And, with this amendment, it may seem like a sort of 
insignificant or a very detailed part of this overall package, 
but the themes are the same, and at the end of the day, it is 
denial of healthcare for women in this country.
    And at the same time, we have a White House lamenting, 
``Why aren't women having children? Maybe we will give them 
$5,000.''
    If you don't have a safe place to have a child, if you 
cannot guarantee that you will survive, have the medical 
attention that you will need and, if you are able to have that 
child, that that child will be able to access healthcare, that 
you will be able to find affordable, quality childcare near 
where you go to work, that you will be able to have the 
fundamentals of the housing to be able to put a life together--
a recent study showed the majority of families in this country, 
60 percent of families, cannot afford the basics.
    And what they are saying in this and what makes it so 
pernicious is, this has no place in a reconciliation bill. This 
is ideology, and this is policy. And this is saying, ``We don't 
like abortion providers, and it is not enough to outlaw them in 
our own States, to deny that care in those States. If there is 
an affiliate or a subsidiary in any State, then we will shut 
down the clinic that is not providing abortion care but is 
providing this critical primary care for women.''
    That doesn't belong in this bill either. And it is part of 
the pattern and the theme of this bill that the American family 
is put last. And we are making the winner's circle so very 
small. And it doesn't include women in this country, it doesn't 
include working families, it doesn't include seniors and 
veterans and the 99.9 percent of people who get up and work 
hard every single day and want to have a future for their 
children, a place in this economy, want their small business to 
survive this tariff regime, want to be able to put a life 
together that has hope.
    And, instead, we are offering them ideology wrapped up as 
healthcare? It is a cruelty, and it is a shame. And that is why 
we have seen the Democratic Caucus and the American people 
united against this bill.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Whip Clark.
    Chairman Aguilar, your amendment, I think, touches on a 
very important fact, and that is that people are working. And 
they are working really hard. And they are often not getting 
paid enough. And when Democrats were in charge, we increased 
jobs.
    But, right now, there is a recession looming. And what they 
are going to do is kick people out of Medicaid, and they are 
not going to be able to get nutrition programs. And they are 
saying it is because people are lazy.
    Is that right, Chairman Aguilar? I mean, what is really 
happening with regards to American families who are working 
hard and just maybe not making enough money to afford 
healthcare?
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Congresswoman, for sharing your 
story, first of all, and for the question.
    My amendment prevents what I hope is something we can all 
agree on: No child in our country should go hungry. Yet, under 
this bill, nearly 645,000 people, including children ages 7 to 
18, will lose some or all of their SNAP benefit just in my 
State of California. Whether you are a child in New Mexico or 
Maine or California, that isn't right.
    As cruel and failed as that 3-month time limit is, it has 
never been applied to parents and grandparents with dependent 
children. It is right in the name: Able-Bodied Adults Without 
Dependents. So what is supposed to happen? The child turns 7 
and now doesn't need to go to school by themselves? It is just 
plain wrong, and it puts kids at risk.
    No one is staying home for SNAP benefits that are $6 per 
person per day. If my colleagues were serious, we would be 
providing childcare and transportation and fair wages to help 
families make ends meet, rather than cutting these important 
benefits.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chair Aguilar.
    And, Leader Jeffries, thank you for painting the picture of 
what hunger looked like in America and what poverty looked like 
in America when we decided that that was not an acceptable 
picture for us.
    And I think it is a policy choice, but I think you also 
touched on a sense that it is also a moral choice. And I 
entered into the record earlier today a letter from 31 faith 
organizations who were opposing these kinds of cuts because 
they noted that it was against a principle, a moral principle, 
that government should provide for those who are in need.
    And I just wanted to give you the last word--I am the last 
Democrat who gets to ask a question--on these issues of how you 
see the values and the choices that are being made in this 
bill.
    Mr. Jeffries. Well, thank you again for sharing your 
powerful story in such a compelling way, and it really does 
illustrate the challenges that we confront here. When we make 
policy decisions, we are impacting the American people in ways 
that, in certain cases, could be questions of life and death.
    It has often been said--Dr. King made this observation--
that budgets are moral documents. And I don't question anyone's 
faith in this room. There are people of faith on both sides of 
the aisle. But we do have to ask the question: It can't simply 
be enough to go to synagogue or go to the mosque or go to 
church and pray on Sunday and then come to Washington, D.C., 
and prey on the American people the rest of the week--p-r-e-y--
prey on the poor, prey on the sick, prey on the afflicted, prey 
on working families, prey on everyday Americans, prey on our 
children, prey on our veterans, prey on older Americans.
    It can't be sufficient to go to church and pray on Sunday 
but then come to Washington, D.C., advance a bill like the GOP 
tax scam, and prey on the American people for the rest of the 
week.
    Democrats will never stand for it, and we are going to 
fight hard to make sure that we do everything we can to uplift 
the American people, to protect their healthcare, protect 
nutritional assistance, protect our veterans, protect our 
children, protect our women, our families, older Americans, and 
to protect the American way of life.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Leader.
    Thank you, Whip Clark.
    Thank you, Chair Aguilar.
    I will say that, as we did the procession on Palm Sunday, 
our archbishop said exactly that, that he wanted to pray for 
all of us that we would remember the poor and the needy and 
that we would have the grace in our hearts to do what is right.
    Tribal leaders came and met with me yesterday and said that 
they had done their blessings in the morning so that they could 
bring them to Washington, D.C., because the cuts to Medicaid, 
the cuts to Tribal sovereignty, the cuts were something their 
people could not survive.
    And so I think those prayers and those blessings are 
important so that, when we come to Washington, we act from our 
hearts and that we let that lead our decisions.
    Thank you very much, all three of you, for this incredible 
amendment, this incredible testimony.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Mr. Griffith, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Griffith. I do not. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Thank you all for coming.
    The witnesses are excused.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. I need to announce the names.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, but before you do, can I make one 
statement, briefly?
    The Chairwoman. Yes.
    Mr. McGovern. I want to thank all my colleagues who have 
been here for an incredibly long time. Some of them have been 
here since 1 o'clock in the morning. And I feel very proud to 
be part of this caucus, and I feel very proud of all the 
Members who are here who want to make their voices and their 
views heard.
    And I especially also want to thank Speaker Emerita Nancy 
Pelosi for being here for hours as well. And I want to thank 
our leadership team.
    But it means a lot to me personally and I think to 
everybody on this committee that we have so many colleagues 
that feel so strongly that they have waited for hours and hours 
and hours to be able to present their amendments.
    And I thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me say that.
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    The next panel will be Tim Kennedy, Norma Torres, Al Green, 
Mr. Horsford, Mrs. Beatty, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Gomez, and Ms. 
Robin Kelly.
    If you all would quickly get to the tables, please.
    May I suggest, if you are here for the next panel, start 
down here and move up here. It makes it a lot easier to get 
people seated.
    Okay.
    Mr. Kennedy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. TIMOTHY KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Kennedy of New York. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, 
Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee.
    I am here today to offer two critical amendments:
    First, to strike section 44-111 and preserve the current 
10-percent State cost-share for Medicaid expansion, preventing 
the financial burden that would otherwise fall on States and 
safety-net hospitals.
    Second, to strike section 44-126, which targets and defunds 
community health centers that provide family-planning services.
    Taken together, these provisions in the underlying bill, in 
addition to the massive cuts to Medicaid that this bill 
ensures, would decimate access to care for millions of 
Americans, particularly low-income women, children, and 
seniors.
    As members of the majority attempt to shove this bill down 
the throats of the American people and, frankly, some members 
of their own party in a process that started in the middle of 
the night while America slept, my Democratic colleagues and I 
are here to stand up and shed light on what you are hoping to 
hide from the American people.
    As an occupational therapist myself, the husband of a 
physical therapist, the son of a nurse, and the Representative 
of a community with 285,000 people who depend on these 
services, including 110,000 children, let me focus on what is 
at stake with the Medicaid provisions outlined in this bill.
    Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, 
nearly 25 million Americans nationwide have gained access to 
care through the Medicaid expansion. That means moms have 
access to prenatal and postnatal care, children can get regular 
checkups, and people struggling to put food on the table can 
still see a doctor before minor issues become emergencies.
    It means those in rural areas, often far from major 
hospitals, can visit clinics, access telehealth services, or 
get prescriptions filled without having to travel hours for 
basic preventative care.
    States that expanded Medicaid saw the uninsured rate among 
low-income adults decrease by more than half. It is so popular 
that even in States where the legislature and Governor opposed 
it, like Oklahoma, when put to the voters, it was approved.
    In New York, the State I represent, expanding Medicaid has 
given over 1 million people access to care. With this bill, New 
York will face nearly $1 billion in new costs, while other 
States could see their expansions repealed entirely.
    As I have been here since the wee hours of the morning 
participating in a broken process that started at 1:00 a.m., I 
cannot fathom why members of this majority would choose to rip 
lifesaving care away from your own constituents in the name of 
tax breaks for billionaires--aside from the fact that the 
President told you to do so.
    As an occupational therapist, again, I have worked with 
patients young and old, people who rely on Medicaid for 
necessary care. I have seen what happens when patients delay 
care because they cannot afford it. Minor conditions become 
chronic, emergency-room wait times lengthen, and hospitals 
cannot absorb the cost. As a result, our healthcare system 
becomes destabilized.
    In cutting Medicaid, we don't eliminate the need for care; 
we just eliminate access to care. And for those who aren't on 
Medicaid, we only make care more expensive and harder to get. 
We force families to choose between medicine and groceries, we 
push more patients into overcrowded ERs, and we risk lives.
    This Republican bill does not save money, and it sure 
doesn't help the people who sent us here to represent them. It 
shifts the burden to States, to hospitals, and to the people 
who can least afford it. Simply put, it is cruelty.
    My amendments protect Medicaid expansion programs and 
ensure that millions of Americans don't lose the care that they 
need and that our public hospitals and safety-net systems can 
continue to function.
    Without our Democratic amendments, this bill will make all 
Americans less safe and healthcare less accessible, 
particularly for our most vulnerable citizens. I urge my 
colleagues to support these amendments.
    Healthcare, we know, is not a luxury reserved for the few, 
and it shouldn't be. It is a right. And it is our 
responsibility to protect it.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mrs. Torres, you are recognized. You are a former member of 
the committee. We are glad to have you back.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. NORMA TORRES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you. Good morning, 
Chairwoman, Ranking Member McGovern. It is great to be back 
with all of you here, although under difficult circumstances.
    I know how difficult it is to have to work through the 
night, but the work that we are doing here today is really 
important. It is important for Members to be able to share how 
this bill will impact our constituents.
    The bill before the committee, it is truly a disaster for 
the American people. It would throw almost 14 million people 
off Medicaid. It would cause our hospitals to close in areas 
that need them the most. It would cut food assistance for more 
than 3 million Americans. And all to help the multibillionaires 
that pay much less in taxes.
    I fully support many of the amendments proposed by 
Democrats to fix these cruel actions, and I hope that they will 
be made in order.
    I have six amendments that would address problems in the 
bill and in the current policies of the Trump administration.
    First, I have submitted an amendment No. 507, which would 
protect the healthcare of nearly 340,000 of my constituents by 
striking the hundreds of billions of Medicaid cuts contained in 
this bill. It is common sense at this time when families are 
struggling with higher prices of food and goods due to the 
self-inflicted wound of tariffs caused by our President.
    Second, I have an amendment to prevent the $300 billion in 
cuts to food assistance programs like SNAP. The Republican 
reconciliation bill would kick more than 3 million people off 
of food stamp assistance, again, while we are getting imported 
eggs from Turkey and other countries that are willing to help 
us in a time of need when our food prices are so high.
    Third, I have submitted an amendment to lift the SALT 
deduction cap imposed by the 2017 tax scam bill. The reality is 
that this simply shifts more Federal taxes to Californians, 
when California already contributes much more than many of your 
States.
    For example, California is a donor State. We send $692 
billion to the Federal Government, and we receive back $609 
billion. That means we send $83 billion to many of your States 
to help fund the quality of life that all of you enjoy.
    Representative Griffith, Virginia receives $107 billion 
more from the Federal Government than they give. Chip Roy of 
Texas gets back $71 billion more.
    Chairwoman Foxx, North Carolina gets $53 billion more.
    Representative Norman of South Carolina, you receive $35 
billion more.
    Representative Austin Scott of Georgia and Brian Jack of 
Georgia--Georgia receives $35 billion more. And Representative 
Houchin of Indiana receives $30 billion more.
    So, if we want to talk about welfare and welfare to the 
very poor, let's start with your States. Maybe your States 
should pay their fair share.
    Lastly, I have an amendment that would help stop the 
unlawful and dangerous firings of Federal Aviation 
Administration workers who maintain our air traffic control 
systems. They are the backbone of the air traffic control 
system. They are the unseen workers that help keep planes in 
the air and provide safe landings when we land. They support 
our air traffic controllers that ensure a safe flying public.
    While the administration is trying to recruit more air 
traffic controllers, they continue to fire probationary 
employees and reduce staffing for the people who maintain these 
systems. This is something that is critical that we need to 
address.
    Next and lastly, I have an amendment that would strike the 
5-percent Federal tax on remittance transfers in this bill. The 
tax proposal in this bill would disproportionately impact 
immigrant workers, who already pay into a system that they 
cannot reclaim any of the Social Security or taxes--State, 
local taxes that they pay into.
    Lastly, I have an amendment that would disapprove of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' work plan for fiscal year 2025. 
This plan isn't just flawed; it blatantly politicizes the 
project selection process and attempts to leave, once again, 
California, the State that all of you depend for welfare for 
your constituents to have zero projects allocated by them.
    I think the American people should know what is in this 
bill. It is a tax giveaway to the filthy-rich.
    Thank you, Chairwoman, for your patience, and I yield back 
to you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mrs. Torres.
    Mr. Green, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. AL GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Green of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Ranking 
Member, Members all.
    I am here today because of SNAP and a concern.
    But, first, I would like to thank Ms. Meng, Grace Meng, for 
introducing the Fairness for Victims of SNAP Skimming Act. It 
has been reduced to amendment No. 30.
    I had a similar piece of legislation, and this whole issue 
was called to my attention by a news reporter from Channel 2, 
KPRC, in Houston, Texas. And as a result of his engagement, we 
produced a piece of legislation.
    I do not want to see block grants to Texas for healthcare.
    Madam Chair, Texas refused $100 billion to expand Medicaid. 
This is one of the reasons why Texas has the highest percentage 
of uninsured persons and the highest number of uninsured 
persons in the United States of America.
    I don't know that Texas is going to be responsible enough 
to accept the grants. What will you do and what will we do when 
Texas does what it does quite regularly, and that is, decline 
Federal dollars?
    So I am here today to talk about a program that has 
benefited not only Texans but persons across the length and 
breadth of the country. And this has been a bipartisan effort 
in the past. It was in existence until December of last year, 
right around Christmas.
    And it has to do with reimbursing persons who have their 
SNAP moneys skimmed away with electronic devices such that they 
have to sometimes go without food. They are victims. We should 
not allow the----
    The Chairwoman. Al, would you suspend for just a minute?
    There is a knocking noise going on somewhere. Do you all 
hear that? And it is bothering everybody out there because I 
can see it on your faces. I don't know where it is coming from.
    It stopped.
    All right. Okay. It stopped.
    So I don't know what is causing it, but it was making it 
hard to hear you and understand you. So I wanted to make sure 
we can hear you, and it is also distracting.
    So we will start again. You didn't lose any time.
    Mr. Green of Texas. Thank you. I will elevate the level of 
my voice.
    The Chairwoman. If you would speak up a little.
    Mr. Green of Texas. Thank you. I shall.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Green of Texas. As I was indicating, this has been 
bipartisan. It has prevented criminals from causing persons to 
lose food. And I think that it should be bipartisan now in 
terms of reinstating this program, such that people who need 
food and cannot afford the necessity of life will be able to 
acquire the food that they merit.
    I would also add this, that this program is one that has 
been sponsored by Republicans. So Republicans and Democrats 
should be able to agree to prevent criminals from taking food.
    Finally, this: There has been talk about work and how work 
is good. And I agree. Work brings dignity.
    But the thing, Madam Chair, that hit a nerve with me was 
when our dear brother, whose name I cannot call because it is 
not appropriate to do so--but if I could call Mr. Norman's 
name, I would. This dear brother said that work built America. 
And he is right. It did. Over 10 million people working for 
more than 240 years without a paycheck.
    America is a great country, and it is great, Madam Chair, 
because of the economic foundation of mothers and fathers whose 
lives were sacrificed. If you are in this country, you are 
standing on the backs of those persons who were enslaved.
    And you are right, work ought to be recognized. In this 
country, in our Capitol, in Emancipation Hall, the recognition 
for 240 years of enslavement is a plaque not much larger than 
that picture on the wall. That is in Emancipation.
    And it would seem to me that if we truly appreciate the 
dignity and work, then we would express that dignity for the 
people who had a hand in building the White House, a hand in 
building the Capitol, built the roads and bridges, planted the 
seeds, harvested the crops, fed the Nation. Why don't we 
recognize them to the same extent that we recognize people who 
were victims of the Holocaust?
    It just seems to me that if we are going to talk about 
work, let's talk about the people who built the country.
    And, finally, I want to thank you for the time, and I would 
like to thank the ranking member as well, and would hope that 
we can save the SNAP program. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Horsford.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN HORSFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

    Mr. Horsford. Good morning, Madam Chair, and to the ranking 
member, to the assistant Democratic leader, to the members of 
the committee.
    I have been with you since 3 o'clock this morning. I want 
to thank you for your time. But I am here to bring the voices 
of 750,000 people in Nevada who elected me to do a job, and 
that is, to make sure their perspective is heard by this 
Congress and this committee.
    I know we have heard a lot, but I want to touch on what 
this ``bad-built bill for billionaires'' doesn't do, because it 
barely touches housing, a crisis that is affecting more than 
just the people in my district. My disappointment is with what 
is not in here.
    So, once again, like I did in the Ways and Means Committee, 
I am here to let you and the American people know that there is 
nothing to address the fact that rent increases are outpacing 
people's income; that there is nothing in this bill that builds 
out housing for the middle class; that there is nothing in this 
bill that touches Trump's blanket tariffs, which are taxes that 
Americans pay, not some foreign governments, that will raise 
the cost of housing.
    In fact, in 2018, the CBO projected that the initial Trump 
tax cuts would reduce residential investment since their 
provisions are not favorable towards housing. That report 
proved true, as inflation-adjusted residential investment today 
is nowhere close to its pre-2018 trend.
    I will also tell you what this bill does have. It has an 
annual tax cut for billionaires, over $255,000 a year, while 
the average benefit for working people earning less than 
$50,000 annually is a meager $265; the cutting of healthcare 
for 14 million Americans; and the selling of Nevada public 
lands without a single dollar going to the State for which 
those lands are intended.
    So let's recap. Trump is making borrowing more expensive. 
He is raising the cost of housing materials due to tariffs. And 
extending the GOP tax scam means continued reductions in 
residential investment and making Nevadans pay for it with our 
land. Please make it make sense.
    That is why I am offering a package of amendments to help 
our veterans, to address tipped workers, small businesses, and 
the hospitality sector, which has been hit hard by President 
Trump's tariffs.
    However, for the purposes of this hearing, I will focus my 
remarks around helping our veterans.
    My amendment seeks to address the housing crisis that my 
colleagues seem to be ignoring. This amendment would create a 
veterans housing fund through a 1-percent surtax on excessive 
corporate stock buybacks, limited to firms with over $10 
billion in assets. We are asking that the largest companies, 
who reported nearly a trillion dollars in buybacks, pay 1 
percent.
    Over 30,000 veterans are experiencing homelessness. If my 
colleagues are committed to helping veterans, then you can 
support this amendment to help balance that equation.
    This is not a blue-city amendment. According to HUD's 2024 
Annual Homelessness Assessment Report, nearly half of veterans 
experiencing homelessness are in suburban or rural communities. 
And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this 
committee represent eight States that total around 6,000 
veterans who are experiencing homelessness: Georgia, nearly 
650; Virginia, around 400; New York, almost 1,200; Indiana, 
over 400; Texas, nearly 1,850; South Carolina, almost 400; 
Minnesota, 300; and North Carolina, nearly 700 veterans 
experiencing homelessness.
    There is nothing in this bill that addresses shelter, 
mental health, substance abuse, job training, and other 
assistance specifically for our veterans.
    So I am urging my Republican colleagues to work with us now 
to fix this bill before it goes to the floor. We want to work 
with you to address the problems facing our constituents.
    Earlier this month, I introduced three bills that could 
help address the housing crisis. We need legislation that 
addresses the corporate takeover of single-family homes like my 
HOME Act. Not one Republican joined when I brought that bill 
forward.
    I introduced my UNLOCK Housing Act to address affordable 
housing by allowing the Bureau of Land Management to be able to 
lease the land to local governments and Tribes specifically for 
affordable housing. This is a smart method to use the laws that 
already exist to build out more housing. Why? Because, as 
Nevadans know, the land that we sell has not helped create the 
housing that we need.
    But we are seeing the same story over and over, that this 
bill does not have working people in mind. Instead, we have 
people like Representative Mark Amodei pushing to sell off more 
than a half-a-million acres of land in Nevada under the guise 
of creating more affordable housing. He didn't even give a 
second thought to selling out our community. And for what? To 
use Nevada as a cash grab for the Nation's debt? Don't believe 
me? Look at section 80315 of the bill.
    If my colleagues are truly serious about addressing the 
struggles of the middle class and specifically housing 
affordability, then please support my amendments.
    I am also putting on the record that I have sent a letter 
to Chairman Smith and to Speaker Johnson to bring up my TIPS 
Act to ensure that tip workers receive the benefits that they 
are entitled to.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mrs. Beatty, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOYCE BEATTY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 
McGovern, and members of the Rules Committee.
    I urge you to make in order my amendment, amendment No. 
280. This amendment is simple. It would stop the implementation 
of the reconciliation bill's massive cuts for the wealthy if 
the bill's other provisions result in reduction in funding of 
Medicaid, Social Security, or SNAP.
    Let me just put it in simple terms. It says, no tax breaks 
for the wealthiest Americans if you cut the programs that 
everyday Americans, families, seniors, and others rely on.
    If you believe that is true, then you should have no 
problem supporting my amendment, which would make no changes if 
the bill does not cut Medicaid or food assistance.
    We are here to serve our constituents, and I know I am not 
the only one here who has received thousands of letters and 
calls demanding that Congress protect healthcare, food 
assistance, and other critical programs. Constituents are 
saying, what are we doing? Well, I am telling you. This panel 
shows you what Democrats are doing. We are fighting.
    And despite what the title of the Republican budget 
reconciliation bill would have you believe, it is not ``one big 
beautiful bill.'' It is a ``big billionaires' bankroll bill.'' 
And it is one of the biggest and most reckless and heartless 
attacks on American families.
    It would rip away healthcare from almost 14 million 
Americans and 11 million children with food assistance. And the 
worst part of it is, none of this is necessary. It is only 
being done to bankroll a billionaires' tax cut.
    That is why I am offering this amendment. I am offering 
this amendment for the 2.4 million Ohioans who rely on Medicaid 
to access critical healthcare services like blood pressure, 
diabetes screenings, mammograms, mental health services, and 
other life-care situations.
    I am offering this amendment for the millions of women 
across the country who rely on Medicaid to cover the birth of 
their child and to keep them and their babies healthy before 
and after birth.
    I am offering this amendment for the more than 42 million 
Americans without Federal food assistance, that they might not 
eat tomorrow.
    I am offering this amendment for Arnishia, an Ohioan, a 
constituent mother of two, and a recent cancer survivor who 
relies on Medicaid. She is scheduled for surgery that Medicaid 
makes affordable. Her family also depends on SNAP to put 
healthy food on the table. Losing these benefits would be 
devastating.
    In short, I am offering this amendment for Americans who 
are struggling to get by, who are counting on us, Democrats and 
Republicans, to lower their costs and to improve their lives, 
not enrich billionaires.
    Unfortunately, families I am fighting for will not benefit 
from the tax cuts in this package. The top 0.1 percent of 
earners--billionaires--will see a tax break of some $278,000 
per year. And that is a tax break of $762 per day, almost twice 
the weekly salary of someone making minimum wage in Ohio.
    It is clear that this bill is an attempt to sell out 
hardworking American families who are just trying to make ends 
meet to benefit the few. This bill would harm our 
constituents--Democrats' constituents, Republicans' 
constituents.
    Republicans have claimed that this bill does not cut 
benefits. And if you believe that is true, you should have no 
problem supporting my amendment, which would make no changes if 
the bill does not cut Medicaid and food assistance.
    So I would urge you to make this in order.
    And, Madam Chair, I would like to enter into the record 
this article, ``The GOP's budget plan makes it hard to conceal 
its lies about Medicaid and SNAP.''
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.067
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.068
    
    Mrs. Beatty. Thank you.
    Lastly, let me just say to the American people: We have 
been here all night, and we are here because of you. They 
planned this hearing at 1:00 a.m. in the morning to 5:00, and 
here we are now in the first panel at 11:45.
    Is this the way our country should run? Is this what you 
expect from our leaders? Let me answer it for you. The answer 
is ``no.'' And that is why we are here today.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mrs. Beatty.
    Mrs. Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
McGovern, for letting us testify today about issues that matter 
to all of us and to the American people.
    Over the past several weeks, I have been very concerned 
about what this Republican reconciliation bill will do.
    Not only does this bill--the bill, if it is enacted, the 
House bill, would be the biggest loss of healthcare coverage in 
American history that will strip healthcare from almost 14 
million Americans.
    But, as my colleague just said, how many of the pieces of 
this legislation have been considered in the dark of night when 
the American people are not able to watch what is happening? It 
has been too many pieces of this legislation.
    I have offered several amendments.
    Medicaid is the largest payer of long-term care in America, 
which is why I have filed an amendment to ensure Medicaid Home 
and Community-Based Services, or HCBS, are not cut or reduced 
as a result of this reconciliation bill.
    We know that the majority of seniors and individuals with 
disabilities would prefer to receive care in the comfort of 
their homes, in the communities that they have known, where 
they can maintain an independent life, remain engaged in their 
communities, and age with dignity. And, in fact, it is less 
expensive than nursing homes, which is where most long-term 
care in America is paid for by Medicaid. Yet hundreds of 
thousands of Americans are already sitting on State wait lists 
to access home-based care, and this bill will exacerbate this 
issue.
    No one should have to sit for years on a waiting list to 
get the care that they deserve, and caregivers shouldn't live 
in poverty to do this critical work.
    Let's be honest: The long-term-care system in this country 
is broken. And until someone you have loved or you yourself are 
in it, you don't know how bad it is. And this bill is going to 
break the system even more.
    I pray, I am asking that my Republican colleagues change 
course on this misguided bill that would harm seniors and 
individuals living with disabilities.
    I am also strongly supportive and I am a cosponsor of 
Representative Riley's amendment regarding President Trump's 
``most favored nation'' executive order that was issued May 
12th. In fact, I offered this exact amendment during the Energy 
and Commerce Committee markup last week.
    This amendment supports President Trump's executive order 
that aims to lower medication costs for Americans by preventing 
pharmaceutical manufacturers from charging Americans higher 
prices while giving discounts to other nations, when we, in 
fact, pay 2, 3, 4, 10 times as much as other countries do and 
spend more on the research for these drugs than any other 
country in the world.
    No one in America should have to pay higher prices for 
medications than patients in other countries--which, I have to 
admit to you, I was shocked that every single Republican on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee voted against this amendment that 
supports their own President's prescription drug pricing plan.
    And I have to say, I was very surprised, after being up for 
all night, when I watched President Trump Wednesday night say 
this provision was going to be in this bill. So I think there 
are some communication issues too.
    It simply doesn't make sense. This logic is backwards and, 
quite frankly, absurd.
    And on top of this, we had a bipartisan deal that opened 
the door for a solution to lower drug costs for Americans last 
Congress. But, thanks to Elon Musk, Republicans tanked that 
agreement and are now trying to pass a bill with no meaningful 
change that would not only fail to lower drug costs but would 
also rip coverage away from 14 million Americans.
    I am going to end by expressing my concerns with this 
legislation's impact on our environment and natural resources, 
which is why I have filed three amendments that I offered 
during the Natural Resources markup 2 weeks ago.
    Taken together, these amendments would preserve judicial 
review--I think too many people forget we are a system of 
checks and balances in this democracy--protect compliance with 
the Endangered Species Act, which has literally saved thousands 
of species, and prevent the Inflation Reduction Act rescissions 
from NOAA from applying to fisheries, climate resilience, and 
harmful algae bloom forecasted in the Great Lakes.
    I am getting that look, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
yield back.
    [The statement of Mrs. Dingell follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.069
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.070
    
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady.
    She yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Gomez of California for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIMMY GOMEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Gomez. Republicans are playing Russian Roulette with 
the American people. That is right, I said it: Russian 
Roulette. And that is because either you are going to lose your 
healthcare that could probably save your life, or not; you can 
get a tax increase, or not.
    This is serious business. According to the Joint Committee 
on Taxation, Congress's nonpartisan scorekeeper, it says 
families making $30,000 or less will pay an average of $20 
billion more in taxes because of this bill. Families making 
$50,000 a year, you have a 50-50 chance of seeing a real change 
in your taxes, but you will have to wait until April to see how 
lucky you were. Now, the billionaire establishment has nothing 
to worry about. They will get a tax cut of $270,000 a year.
    Right here in this committee, the American people are 
witnessing one of the biggest transfers of wealth in American 
history. Republicans are advancing legislation that will slash 
billions of dollars from Medicaid, healthcare for the working 
class, so that they can give trillions in tax breaks to the 
billionaires, ultra-wealthy, and the largest corporations in 
this country. Republicans are literally stealing from the poor 
to give to the rich, all while adding trillions to deficit 
spending and to the debt.
    They should be ashamed about this legislation, because 
look--it is not what is happening in my district; look at what 
is happening in their districts. In North Carolina, 400,000 
people will lose Medicaid coverage. In Minnesota, 250,000 will 
lose healthcare; Texas, 380,000; Virginia, 390,000; New York, 
1.2 million.
    These aren't numbers; these are real people who will lose 
healthcare coverage. And if they don't have coverage, they 
might not have insulin, they might not have preventative care, 
they might have to go into the hospital to see an emergency 
doctor later, which can cost them their lives.
    We also know that 51 percent of new moms and their babies 
who are covered by Medicaid will lose. The seniors that don't 
get enough coverage through Medicare will lose. The sons or 
daughters that don't earn enough to cover their parents' 
assisted-living facility will lose. People that live in rural 
communities--that are mostly represented by Republicans--will 
lose.
    Republicans are making it harder for working people to get 
by, harder for families to welcome a new child, get postpartum 
care, or cover basic medical needs during one of the most 
vulnerable times in their lives. Families are barely staying 
afloat, many who are working two or more jobs just to get by, 
and they are already stretched thin by the cost of food, 
housing, and childcare, now that Trump's tariffs are hitting 
them with an extra $4,900 a year.
    And Republicans always say that they are the pro-family 
party, but they never do anything that actually values the 
American family. And Republicans say they are the balanced-
budget party, but this bill balloons the deficit and saddles 
future generations with more debt that they have to pay off.
    Voters sent us here to lower costs and create real 
opportunities, and that is what we should be delivering on. We 
should make the child tax credit fully refundable and 
advanceable and make it bigger and pay it monthly. We should 
build millions of starter homes for new families and help them 
buy their first home so that they can build wealth. We should 
make childcare affordable and guarantee paid family leave.
    But this bill does none of that. That is because 
Republicans choose the billionaire establishment that has taken 
root in D.C. over their own constituents.
    Now I ask the same question to my Republican colleagues as 
I asked in the Ways and Means. I want to ask you here--and they 
answered wrong. So I am asking you guys: Are you for the 
working man or woman who is struggling to get by or the 
billionaires? Are you for the babies or the billionaires? Are 
you for the seniors or the billionaires? Are you for the 
American family or the billionaires?
    I have introduced 14 amendments making sure that 
billionaires pay their fair share--to housing, to healthcare. 
And one of those bills is sponsored by the Speaker Emerita--
that is, extend the ACA premium tax credit to help pregnant 
women and children.
    That is one of the things that we know, that some of the 
States that are going to have the biggest cuts to Medicaid also 
are some of these Southern States that have the highest 
maternal mortality rate in the country. You know, California 
has its problems, but we actually have one of the lowest 
maternal mortality rates in this country--the lowest.
    So here is the thing: Once again, are you for pregnant 
women or the billionaires? Are you for babies or billionaires? 
Because that is what this all comes down to.
    And I will ask that, if you vote on just one--just one--
amendment, maybe you can restore a little faith in this kid 
from California.
    With that, I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.071
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.072
    
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Ms. Kelly of Illinois.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBIN KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Ranking Member.
    I have an amendment at the desk titled amendment No. 371. 
My amendment is simple and requires 12 months of continuous 
Medicaid and CHIP coverage of full benefits for pregnant and 
postpartum women.
    We have heard a lot about that. I have dedicated 10 years 
to this topic. This amendment would codify what we already know 
is essential: that 1 year of postpartum care is not just 
medically necessary, it is a matter of life and death.
    Let's remember that the United States' maternal death rate 
remains far higher than other high-income countries' and nearly 
two out of three maternal deaths occur during the postpartum 
period. Our Nation is facing a maternal health crisis, and it 
has been for years. It is shameful and has worsened.
    The maternal mortality and morbidity epidemic is 
particularly dangerous for people with disabilities, who face a 
maternal death rate that is 11 times higher than the rate for 
non-disabled people. Black women are three times more likely to 
die from pregnancy-related causes than White women. And 
American Indian and Alaska Native women are twice as likely to 
die of complications.
    Medicaid improves maternal health outcomes and ensures 
access to vital pregnancy services. Medicaid covers almost half 
of all births in this country, and in many States it is more 
than that. And it covers more than half of all births in rural 
communities.
    Consider a new mom from Arkansas who was finally approved 
for Medicaid in her third trimester following a delay in her 
eligibility determination. Her Medicaid coverage was invaluable 
during a complicated labor and delivery. Her baby was not 
receiving enough oxygen, and she ultimately needed an unplanned 
cesarean section.
    Without Medicaid, that procedure would have resulted in 
profound medical debt, given the cost of a C-section in 
Arkansas is estimated to be close to $10,000 without insurance. 
Ensuring 12 months of coverage can give women the peace of mind 
that they have stable coverage and access.
    Cutting funding means cutting care for moms and babies 
during their most vulnerable time. That means fewer prenatal 
checkups, more lifesaving deliveries, and forcing States to 
choose between vital programs.
    Waivers aren't enough, especially during major budget cuts 
like those in this bill.
    In Michigan, 12-months postpartum Medicaid coverage reached 
nearly 45,000 moms, reducing maternal deaths from 36 to 22 per 
100,000 births in a year. Most maternal deaths occur after 
childbirth. One in three happens between 1 week and 1 year 
postpartum.
    In Colorado, 89 percent of maternal deaths were 
preventable. Continuous, guaranteed, year-long coverage saved 
lives. Overall, over 80 percent of maternal deaths are 
preventable.
    This amendment codifies 12 months of full Medicaid and CHIP 
benefits to postpartum individuals. No more State-by-State 
patchwork. No more expiration dates on care. No more new 
mothers being dropped from coverage just 60 days after giving 
birth, right when they are still at high risk for complications 
like infection, postpartum depression, and more.
    Postpartum coverage for 12 months should be mandatory and 
permanent and immune from shifting State politics and budget 
pressures. We cannot expect someone to recover from childbirth, 
return to work, care for a newborn while also scrambling to 
reapply for coverage. That is not healthcare, it is chaos, and 
disproportionately harms low-income families, rural 
communities, and communities of color.
    We have already seen the impact of this policy. Thanks to 
the American Rescue Plan, Democrats enabled States to extend 
postpartum coverage to 12 months, and 49 States have done so. 
In just 4 years, red and blue States alike chose to prioritize 
maternal and child health.
    But making it optional isn't enough. With the deep cuts 
proposed in this bill, States will soon face painful budget 
choices that could jeopardize this progress. To protect moms 
and babies everywhere, we must make this coverage permanent, 
mandatory, and nationwide.
    This is about saving lives, supporting families, and 
finally treating maternal health as the national priority it 
should be.
    I have deep concerns States will roll back care for 
pregnant and postpartum women. My amendment ensures that all 
women in the United States, regardless of where they live, can 
access comprehensive healthcare for a full year following the 
birth of a child to survive and thrive. I have spoken to 
doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, and this is what all of them 
recommend.
    If Republicans claim, quote/unquote, they want to 
``strengthen Medicaid for mothers,'' as they asserted in their 
press releases, then this should be a no-brainer and something 
that we all can support.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help us 
build a stronger, safer future for all moms and families so 
that people are not being shut out from coverage because we 
have made it too complicated for them.
    And I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Kelly of Illinois follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.073
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.074
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.075
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.076
    
    Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
    Do I have anyone on the Republican side that wishes to ask 
questions?
    Seeing none, I recognize the gentleman, Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you.
    I just have a couple of observations.
    First of all, I want to again thank you all for your 
commitment and your stamina and for being here. Again, I 
appreciate the fact that many of you waited many, many hours to 
be able to testify, but I think that is a reflection of how 
strongly you feel about the issues that you brought before this 
committee.
    And I certainly--I think I speak for all of the Democrats 
here. We all support your amendments and we will do our best to 
try to see what we can do to make them in order.
    But I also, when I was listening to everybody here, I 
couldn't help but think about what could have been. Again, as I 
said before, I mean, there are things in the tax bill that I 
think we all could agree on, the middle-class tax cut, the no 
tax on tips, and child tax credit. All that stuff we could have 
come together and agreed on that.
    And I think that we would have--if Republicans wanted our 
vote, we could have negotiated a better deal on the SNAP 
benefits, which right now is unacceptable, and certainly 
insisted that people don't get thrown off healthcare.
    But I think you could have gotten a bipartisan bill, maybe 
not every Democrat and not every Republican, but you could have 
gotten a bipartisan bill that might have been able to make its 
way to the President's desk that reflected our values and also 
reflected some of the Republican values, but didn't go after 
the most vulnerable people in this country.
    But I think what has happened here in this House right now 
is that the way the current leadership thinks of legislating is 
that whatever the most extreme element of their conference 
wants, that is the direction. And so there is no desire, there 
is no attempt to try to bring Democrats into the process.
    I am reading breaking news: Speaker Johnson and the House 
Freedom Caucus will go to White House today to meet with 
President Trump. Trump is expected to tell the House Freedom 
Caucus that the bill needs to pass today.
    I don't even know--he was up here yesterday morning. I 
don't know--maybe this will make a difference. But it doesn't 
sound like if that is the strategy that this bill is going to 
moderate. And, again, I think that is bad for the country.
    This is a big deal. The implications of this reconciliation 
act on every aspect that was raised by all of you today is 
significant. It is going to adversely impact, it is going to 
hurt our constituents, as well as the constituents of our 
Republican colleagues. There is no doubt about that.
    And so, again, I just--I want to, again, thank you for 
being here, and again I support all your amendments.
    And for what it is worth, and I think I speak for all of us 
up here, it is kind of inspiring for us to see you just kind of 
wait it out, because you know what the stakes are. And I think 
people who are tuning in also appreciate your being here today. 
So I thank you.
    I yield back to the chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize Ms. Scanlon for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    I want to echo the ranking member's remarks. I think the 
outpouring of Members here is inspirational and is a measure of 
just how significant and impactful this bill is going to be in 
a negative way.
    You have all raised important policy issues that deserve 
full legislative consideration. And also the American people 
deserve to know where their Representatives stand on these 
issues. So I would support a full vote on them.
    I did, with respect to Representative Kelly's bill, this 
has been a major issue in my district, and I just wanted in 
support of that bill to seek unanimous consent to enter a 
Philadelphia Inquirer article from September 21, 2022, entitled 
``80 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable, CDC 
says, highlighting a problem in Philadelphia.''
    Yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.077
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.078
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.079
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.080
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.081
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.082
    
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Neguse for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank the chairman.
    Well, first, let me just say thank you to my colleagues and 
echo the sentiments from our ranking member and Ms. Scanlon, 
our deep appreciation.
    And it is not lost on us that there are several of our 
colleagues here, Mr. Chairman, who testified just a few short 
minutes ago, who spent more time in this hearing than 
Republican colleagues of ours on this committee. There are 
several Members--no, no, I am not referencing the chairman, but 
others of your colleagues.
    Mr. Horsford has been here literally since we arrived and 
convened. And we have Members who--as has Mr. Kennedy, I will 
go down the whole list. But every Member here has been here for 
literally going on 7, 8, 9, 10 hours for 5 minutes, to be able 
to speak for 5 minutes on behalf of the people that they 
represent. And I think that is a testament to their convictions 
and their passions for their constituencies.
    I want to ask just a few questions of Mr. Horsford and Mr. 
Gomez, as the two Members who serve on Ways and Means.
    Mr. Horsford, you heard me earlier, at 4 in the morning or 
3 in the morning, I don't remember exactly when, in my exchange 
with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee regarding the 
tax on tips. I am still trying to understand why the 
Republicans on the committee don't just put your bill on the 
floor given that there is bipartisan support for it, given that 
this seems to be an issue that they are passionate about. I 
struggle to understand why that is not the case.
    And I know you have fought vigorously on behalf of the 
people that you represent in Nevada for that particular policy, 
but I want to give you an opportunity to expound upon it if you 
are interested.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you to the assistant Democratic leader.
    Look, to be clear, I have been working with a coalition of 
workers--the Culinary Workers UNITE HERE, One Fair Wage, and 
others--to bring legislation to provide relief to tipped 
workers. Six million tipped workers in America today make as 
little as $2.13 an hour--$2.13. Seventy percent of those 
workers are women, and women of color in particular.
    So on top of giving relief and allowing more tipped workers 
to keep their hard-earned money by eliminating the tax on tips, 
we also need to give workers a raise. And that is what my bill 
does. No other bill does that.
    My bill also has important safeguards so that people 
continue to pay into Social Security so that hedge funds are 
not able to grift off of the policy, so that we define what a 
tipped worker is so that it is not abused under our tax law.
    And so for Chairman Smith to sit here today and say he 
couldn't bring a bill to the committee is just wrong, because I 
am ready, I have been ready, and my bill has been ready since 
the beginning of this Congress, and it comes from the actual 
tipped workers who are affected by the policy.
    I am a cosponsor of the bill that was unanimously passed by 
the Senate, the same version, and I see no reason why the House 
cannot bring up a standalone bill to make sure that we are 
advocating for the needs of tipped workers and all workers.
    You are going to have all these compounding effects of 
cutting healthcare, of cutting nutrition programs, of making it 
harder for working families to get by. Then let's give workers 
a raise. Let's give them a raise that is livable enough to 
actually pay the rent on and to afford to buy a home.
    That is what Democrats stand for, that is what we are 
fighting for, is to give everyone an opportunity to not just 
survive but to actually thrive in America.
    So thank you to the assistant leader for the opportunity to 
talk about that legislation.
    And, Chairman Smith, wherever you are, my letter to you 
asking for a standalone vote on my legislation is at your 
office.
    Mr. Neguse. Well said. Well said.
    Mr. Gomez, there was a robust discussion earlier about the 
tax brackets, and I think the chairman was not as candid as I 
would have hoped with respect to his description of the various 
tax brackets in the reconciliation bill.
    I wonder if you might talk about the billionaire tax 
bracket in the amendment that you proposed.
    Mr. Gomez. Yeah.
    One, first, I have an amendment that would increase taxes 
on billionaires, basically preventing them from getting any 
kind of tax break in this bill and actually require them to pay 
their fair share, increasing the tax bracket from 36 percent to 
39 percent, roughly.
    So in this room, by show of hands, who believes that 
billionaires shouldn't get a tax break and actually should pay 
their fair share of taxes?
    All right.
    How about on the Republicans, you guys can help me restore 
my faith, because here is the thing----
    Mr. Neguse. There aren't many Republicans here on the 
committee, unfortunately. They have all left.
    Mr. Gomez. Okay. But here is the thing. And the reason why 
is that if you increase the taxes on the billionaires, you can 
actually give the people who are getting screwed at the bottom 
rungs of the economic ladder a tax break.
    So for the record, I want to enter into the record the 
distribution chart of the distribution of the estimated revenue 
effects of the tax provisions of the chairman's markup, 
basically what is going to happen, into the record. This is by 
the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is an official record.
    Mr. Griffith. What is it on?
    Mr. Gomez. It basically shows how much--who is paying what 
in taxes under this bill by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
    Mr. Griffith. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.127
    
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
    And here is the thing, the reason why. Let's go over years. 
Calendar year 2027, people that make less than $15,000 a year 
will pay an additional $1 billion in taxes--$1 billion.
    And here is the thing. In the year 2029, people that are 
making less than $15 million are going to pay--$15,000--will 
pay another $2.6 billion in taxes that year. People that are 
making $15,000 to $30,000, $2.5 billion in additional taxes 
that year.
    And we go on to year 2031. They are actually less than 
$15,000, they are going to pay another $3.6 billion that tax 
year--$3.6 billion. And if you are making $15,000 to $30,000, 
you are going to be--all those people will be ponying up 
another $4.5 billion--$4.5 billion.
    And by the year 2033, people that are in that tax bracket 
of less than $15,000, $3.7 billion just that year. And then the 
people making $15,000 to $30,000, $3.8 billion.
    So anybody that says that the people at those low rungs of 
the economic ladder are not getting screwed, are not going to 
be paying more in taxes, are just absolutely wrong.
    And with that, I yield back to Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Gomez.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
    Seeing no one else wishing to ask questions, I thank this 
group for presenting your amendments. Thank you for being with 
us.
    And we will move on to the next group, and I will need the 
names.
    As they are leaving, our next panel will be Ms. Dexter, Mr. 
Carter, Ms. Tokuda, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Tonko, Ms. 
Goodlander, and Ms. Stansbury.
    Mr. Griffith. I now recognize Ms. Dexter of Oregon for her 
5 minutes of presentation.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE DEXTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Ms. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our 
ranking member.
    Today I am offering three amendments rooted in a basic 
principle: Government should work for the people, not silence 
them, not shield corruption, and certainly not rip away 
healthcare.
    Let's start with what this GOP tax scam tries to take from 
the public--their voice.
    Under current law, communities can protest oil and gas 
leasing decisions that threaten their land, water, or climate. 
This bill would impose a $150 fee, plus more for extra pages or 
lease parcels, just to be heard.
    And let's be honest about what that is: a tax on public 
participation, a toll on free speech. And it won't deter 
billion-dollar oil companies. It will deter working people, 
people who love outdoor places.
    At the same time, Republicans are slashing royalty payments 
and handing billions in giveaways to the fossil fuel industry. 
That tells you everything you need to know about where their 
priorities lie.
    My amendment would strike this unjust protest fee from the 
bill and protect the public's right to be heard.
    Second, we must ensure accountability. I am offering an 
amendment to allocate a modest 0.5 percent of new funds to the 
Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector General, a 
nonpartisan watchdog that saves taxpayers money by rooting out 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
    This should be easy for Republicans to support. It is the 
same bipartisan provision they themselves championed by our 
current House Natural Resources chair in 2021. It is simple. 
Let's ensure transparency and pass this amendment.
    And now I want to speak to what I believe is the most 
urgent and dangerous part of this legislation--its impact on 
healthcare.
    Before I came to Congress, I spent nearly 20 years caring 
for some of the sickest patients in our community. I have 
worked in emergency rooms. I know what happens when a system 
doesn't have the resources that it needs to serve its patients.
    That is why I am offering an amendment to require States to 
report on how coverage losses under this bill would impact 
uncompensated care and emergency department wait times in 
safety net hospitals.
    If this bill were really only about rooting out waste, 
fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, we should welcome this kind of 
data. But we know the truth. This bill isn't about waste. It is 
about ripping healthcare away from nearly 14 million Americans 
and destabilizing the healthcare system for everyone else in 
the process. And for what? To give tax breaks to billionaires.
    Medicaid isn't just a lifeline for patients. It is a 
fundamental part of our healthcare infrastructure. Providers 
depend on it to stay open, to serve not only Medicaid patients 
but you, me, everyone in our communities.
    Cutting Medicaid will mean clinics and hospitals in rural 
towns will shut down. Hospitals in cities will be over 
capacity. Seniors will be forced out of nursing facilities due 
to closures. And emergency rooms will go on divert, turning 
away people in crisis, because there simply isn't enough space 
for people to be seen.
    We are talking about longer wait times for pediatric care, 
delays for lifesaving cancer treatment, people suffering and 
dying, not because we don't have the tools to help them, but 
because we have made a political choice to take those tools 
away.
    These cuts will be devastating. And the consequences won't 
be statistics on a spreadsheet. They will be lives lost, 
futures cut short, and suffering that could have been 
prevented. And, again, for what? Tax breaks for billionaires.
    I urge my Republican colleagues, show courage in this 
moment. Stand with the constituents who cannot afford to lose 
their voice and their healthcare. Support these amendments and 
defeat this outrageous and dangerous bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for 5 minutes, 
Mr. Carter.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. TROY A. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    My first amendment, No. 299, preserves the Environmental 
Justice block grants that improve public health.
    The EPA has provided grants for more than 50 years that 
protect our constituents' public health and enhance their 
environment.
    This is especially true for the Environmental and Climate 
Justice Block Grant program, which provides valuable funding 
that serves community centers, environmental rehabilitation 
projects, and public health revitalization initiatives that 
would otherwise not be possible.
    These projects are providing environmental and public 
health benefits in Democratic and Republican districts alike. 
However, this bipartisan bill ruthlessly claws back these funds 
and eliminates this vital program. Not only is this bill 
stealing people's healthcare, it is also making them sicker.
    My amendment will ensure that Environmental and Climate 
Justice Block Grant projects that improve the health outcomes 
in low-income communities do not lose critical funding. If 
Republicans truly prioritize their constituents, they should 
easily agree with me that this funding is valuable and must be 
protected.
    My second amendment is amendment No. 358, which would add 
to the text the bipartisan Next Generation 9-1-1 Act to the 
Republican budget reconciliation legislation before us today 
and fully fund programs using the proceeds from future spectrum 
auctions.
    Because of technology advances in telecommunications from 
the past 50 years, Americans can communicate today in ways that 
weren't even contemplated when the 9-1-1 system was first 
created.
    Yet, our 9-1-1 systems are stuck in the past. Our first 
responders are unable to utilize these tools we take for 
granted in this digital age. We are far behind. Police 
officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians, who 
serve communities we represent, deserve better.
    I cannot think of a better use of dollars raised from 
auctioning off public airwaves than to upgrade old, outdated 
public safety communication systems.
    I hope my colleagues will vote yes on this amendment to 
modernize our 9-1-1 systems for the 21st century. Congress 
should give the FCC the authority to begin spectrum auctions 
now. Those proceeds need to help our constituents and first 
responders, not pay for tax cuts for the ultrarich.
    My third amendment is amendment 373, which states: No funds 
can be used to effectuate the detention or removal of citizens 
of the United States or any noncitizen whose legal status was 
determined or visa revoked due to exercising simply their right 
to speech, free speech. Not breaking any laws, simply their 
right to free speech.
    Last month, I led a delegation of House and Senate members 
to two ICE processing centers in Louisiana to meet with 
individuals who had their legal status revoked and remain in 
immigration detention simply because they exercised their right 
to free speech.
    If these individuals can be jailed for exercising their 
First Amendment rights, any person in this country is under the 
same threat.
    Now, let me be clear: I do not support any hate speech of 
any kind. Speech that supports antisemitism or calls for 
violence I am totally opposed to. The individuals we met with 
were very clear: They don't support these matters either.
    My fourth amendment and last amendment is No. 357, which 
states that 100 percent of Medicaid cuts resulting from waste, 
fraud, and abuse will go directly back into programs to 
strengthen Medicaid for generations to come.
    My Republican friends say that they want to help the people 
that Medicaid was, quote/unquote, intended for, the most 
vulnerable. And to that I say, put your money where your mouth 
is.
    But we all know they won't. It has always been about 
enriching billionaires while ripping healthcare away from 
seniors, children, mothers, and those with disabilities.
    Republicans now say that Medicaid is shameful. We will put 
the most vulnerable at risk. That is why we keep spinning false 
narratives about waste, fraud, and abuse.
    But don't take my word for it. Take it from Republican 
Senator Josh Hawley, and I quote: Will Republicans be the 
majority of the people or a permanent minority speaking only 
for C-suite?
    So if the goal is to protect Medicaid and root out waste, 
fraud, and abuse, we should have no opposition to support my 
amendment to reinvesting these funds into Medicaid.
    I have one final quote, ma'am. And I know I am shortly 
over. But I want to remind people, I am told yesterday that our 
President, Donald Trump, said, and I quote--please forgive my 
language--``Don't fuck with Medicaid.'' I hope he was serious, 
and I hope this committee takes it serious, too.
    I yield.
    The Chairwoman. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    Ms. Tokuda, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JILL N. TOKUDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
McGovern.
    I submit one amendment today, 159, protecting rural 
Americans from SNAP cuts.
    Every day millions of Americans go to bed hungry. For 14 
straight years the United States has led the developed world in 
food insecurity. In 2023 over one in four Americans reported 
struggling to afford food.
    Think about that. In the richest Nation on Earth, 85 
million people are missing meals.
    And where is this pain felt most deeply? Rural America, 
small towns, farming communities, places like Hawaii's Second 
District where food is grown but life is hard.
    Eighty-seven percent of the counties with the highest food 
insecurity are rural. Families face fewer job opportunities, 
fewer doctors, fewer grocery stores, and now even fewer 
lifelines. And Republicans want to make it worse.
    This isn't just a bad bill. It is a big, bad bill. It is a 
big, ugly bill, a brutal assault on rural families, working 
parents, seniors, kids.
    The GOP plan is to slash $313 billion from SNAP, gut 
Medicaid, rip lifelines out of the hands of people just trying 
to survive, and hand billions in tax breaks to the 
ultrawealthy.
    All this as part of the GOP tax scam 2.0, a reckless 
giveaway to billionaires that will add $5 trillion to our 
national debt--$5 trillion in tax breaks for the rich paid for 
by taking food off tables and putting healthcare out of reach 
for working Americans.
    This isn't fiscal policy. It is moral failure. It is the 
wealthiest 10 percent cashing in at the expense of the poorest, 
most vulnerable, hardworking people who labor every day to hold 
on to life in communities too often forgotten.
    Let me tell you about Anna, a constituent of mine from the 
rural west side of Oahu. She and her husband run a small family 
business. Last year just $200 more in monthly sales pushed them 
over the limit for SNAP--$200.
    That tiny increase cost their children meals. Anna told me 
she had to measure every scoop of rice at dinner. She couldn't 
say yes when her youngest child asked for a second helping of 
food. She sent her kids to school hungry.
    Months later, after their sales dropped again, Anna 
reapplied. They were approved, and she cried. But now Anna and 
her husband wonder every day: Should we sell our home? Should 
we leave our community?
    That is the America we are creating, where a family's 
survival depends on a spreadsheet and, sadly, declining sales.
    Anna isn't a cheat. She isn't lazy. She is not gaming the 
system. She is the system, the engine and the heart of rural 
America, working, sacrificing, raising kids, building a future, 
and yet, this bill punishes her.
    SNAP works. It feeds families and fuels local economies. 
Every SNAP dollar we know generates over $1.50 in economic 
activity. It supports farmers, grocers, small town businesses. 
It breaks cycles of poverty. And Medicaid keeps rural hospitals 
open, keeps parents and kids healthy. It keeps people alive.
    Cutting these programs isn't just cruel, it is anti-
American. But here is the truth: The cruelty is the point, 
because this bill is about priorities.
    The GOP's priorities are clear: Cater to the billionaires, 
crush the working families, and let's call it policy. They are 
ready to hand out massive tax breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans while robbing the rest of the country of food and 
care. That is not a budget; that is a betrayal.
    So, yes, this bill will devastate rural America. It will 
mean more hunger, more closed clinics, more families like 
Anna's forced to consider giving up their homes, their 
communities, their dignity so that billionaires can buy a third 
yacht and pay even less in taxes.
    But we have a choice. We can do the right thing. We can 
stand with the families who work hard and ask only for a fair 
shot. We can vote for policies that invest in people, not 
punish them. We can reject the GOP tax scam. We can protect 
SNAP. We can defend Medicaid. And we can refuse to balance 
budgets on the backs of people who can least afford it.
    This amendment is our choice. If you are confident rural 
America will not see SNAP cuts or decreased benefits as the 
chair of the Agriculture Committee has claimed, then this 
amendment will do no harm. Vote yes. But if you have a concern, 
and quite frankly, a conscience, vote yes. Reject this big, bad 
bill.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUZANNE BONAMICI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My amendment, which is No. 24, is pro-family, pro-children, 
and pro-mom. It guarantees that this bill will not take away 
nutrition benefits for moms and hungry kids in the special 
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
children, or WIC.
    Federal nutrition programs like WIC and SNAP and school 
meals are investments in the health, learning, and development 
of children and young adults in communities across the country 
and are some of the most successful tools we have for reducing 
child hunger.
    These nutrition programs have been associated with improved 
educational outcomes and reduced food insecurity, which is 
especially important for children from low-income and food-
insecure families.
    And it is widely known that WIC contributes to healthier 
births, nutritious diets, and improved infant feeding 
practices, better healthcare for children, and higher academic 
achievement. The benefits are indisputable.
    So WIC has served as a lifeline for many mothers and their 
young children, and I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
    I would now like to make a few comments on amendments that 
I am either cosponsoring or supporting. There is one by Ranking 
Member Bobby Scott to protect American children from going 
hungry with regard to the proposed cuts to SNAP.
    Yesterday, the Urban Institute released a new report 
highlighting that as many as 18.3 million children could lose 
access to free school meals as a result of the harmful 
provisions in this bill. And we know that every congressional 
district has children who are hungry. Families are working 
hard, but the income isn't keeping up with the cost. So I hope 
we can adopt Mr. Scott's amendment No. 184.
    I also want to speak in support of an amendment that is 
going to be introduced or has been introduced by Representative 
Sykes to strike the language in the bill that cuts Medicaid.
    In Oregon, one in three people are covered by Medicaid, 
including 57 percent of Oregon children. And make no mistake, 
if you rip away healthcare for millions of Americans, people 
will die. Rural hospitals will close. Cancer patients will go 
without treatment. And I will support this amendment. I am 
proud to support this amendment.
    I also want to raise an issue in the amendment that is 
introduced by Representative Rivas, No. 215. This is an 
amendment that will fix a catastrophic policy that is tucked 
quietly into this bill that would let the world's most powerful 
technology go unchecked for the next decade.
    This is a blank check for big tech, and the bill as written 
will block State and local governments from regulating 
artificial intelligence for 10 years. That is a long time. That 
is a decade of risk.
    Let's be clear: We do not have Federal policies or 
governance laws on data privacy, security, and bias. And I 
served on the bipartisan House AI Task Force, and we spent a 
long time studying these issues. And our report, that was 
signed by both Republicans and Democrats, explicitly warned 
against blanket and impulsive Federal preemption of State AI 
policy.
    And I quote, ``Without comprehensive Federal AI or data 
privacy laws, States are well positioned to address gaps, 
tailor protections, and respond to emerging harms.'' But this 
bill ignores that bipartisan advice.
    Yesterday, 40 State attorneys general, including Oregon's 
Dan Rayfield, sent a bipartisan letter opposing this provision 
because of the unchecked harm it will cause. And let's talk 
about what that could look like:
    An algorithm that denies a disabled person access to 
housing and no State agency could intervene. A company that 
designs generative AI to imitate voices or faces without 
consent, States couldn't stop it. A hiring platform that 
discriminates by race or gender.
    Under this bill, if a company deliberately designs an 
algorithm that causes foreseeable harm, they would be legally 
unaccountable, and it would leave policymakers and the public 
flying blind as a handful of corporations consolidate power 
over rapidly advancing technology.
    And I am not talking about machines. I am talking about 
civil rights, consumer safety, child protection, elections, 
employment, and more.
    The House AI Task Force made it clear we should empower 
good AI policy at the State level, not block it. This amendment 
strikes the provision and gets government out of the way so 
States can protect their people. Let's test whether Congress 
stands with the public or with the powerful.
    I also have a few bills I want to mention that--or, excuse 
me, a few amendments that I am cosponsoring. One by Mr. Beyer 
to keep energy costs low by taking two of the most successful 
energy policies in history, the production tax credit and the 
investment tax credit, protecting those. Also Mr. Beyer's 
amendment protecting bipartisan clean energy tax credits.
    I also want to be on record as supporting Ranking Member 
Bobby Scott's amendment No. 261 that makes it harder for 
students--strikes the language that makes it harder for 
students to access high-quality education.
    And one more, Madam Chair, with your indulgence. I want to 
support the amendment by my Oregon colleague, Representative 
Bynum, that ensures the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
retains current funding for protecting student borrowers.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
    The order now is Goodlander, Stansbury, Delaney, and Tlaib. 
Okay.
    Ms. Goodlander.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAGGIE GOODLANDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Ms. Goodlander. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 
Ranking Member McGovern, for the opportunity to be here today 
on behalf of the people of New Hampshire's Second District to 
offer a commonsense, one-sentence amendment to this truly big 
and catastrophically bad bill.
    We know the bill is big. I brought a copy with me. It 
doesn't fit on this very big table in front of me.
    This bill is catastrophically bad because of what it does 
and what it fails to do, and that is where my amendment comes 
in.
    This bill is catastrophically bad because we know what it 
is going to do to 14 million Americans who will lose health 
coverage, the biggest cuts to healthcare in American history.
    It is going to hurt our kids, people with disabilities, 
pregnant women, seniors. It is going to jack up healthcare 
costs for everyone. Rural hospitals in my State are going to 
close, and people are going to die.
    We know this bill is catastrophically bad because of what 
it is going to do to the more than 10 million Americans who are 
at risk of losing access to food because of the biggest cuts to 
SNAP in American history.
    We are talking about kids, about veterans, about 
hardworking people all across our country, and in the most 
rural parts of my district, in Berlin, in Stewartstown, in 
Winchester. People are going to lose access to food.
    And for what? To give another big tax giveaway to big 
corporations and to billionaires.
    This bill also is going to bring about the biggest deficit 
increase in American history, $3.8 trillion--and that is 
trillion with a ``t''--according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, and it is going to add trillions 
of dollars to the national debt.
    So this bill is bad for all the things it will do. But one 
of the things this bill will not do, and another reason why it 
is catastrophically bad, is what it fails to do, to really make 
government work better for hardworking people and to actually 
cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse. And that is where my 
straightforward, commonsense, one-sentence amendment comes in.
    Title II of this big bill provides nearly $150 billion to 
the Department of Defense, and does this, mind you, at a moment 
when that department is in a state of pure and utter chaos 
under the leadership of a person who has no business serving as 
the Secretary of Defense.
    That is a lot of money, $150 billion. It is 10 times the 
State of New Hampshire's biennial budget. It is also, I should 
note, $50 billion above what the House Armed Services Committee 
was instructed to spend in this bill. And I read every bill I 
vote on, and it is $50 billion above.
    So I am offering a straightforward amendment--it is one 
sentence--that would simply require the Department of Defense, 
before it is able to spend the additional $50 billion, to do 
what it is already required to do by law and what it has failed 
to do under law for decades now, and that is to pass an 
independent audit.
    This is about basic government oversight, but the 
Department of Defense has failed seven audits. It is the only 
Federal department that has failed an audit, and it also 
accounts for more than half of our discretionary spending. We 
are talking about about a trillion dollars. This is not right.
    If you really want to talk about cutting waste, fraud, and 
abuse, I would ask the question: Isn't ensuring a clean audit 
of the Pentagon a top priority? If you want to know whether we 
are actually wasting money, an audit is going to help us do 
exactly that.
    So, look, at the end of the day, this is about--it is about 
military readiness, and that is something that our national 
security depends upon. It is something our economic security 
depends upon. It is also about the public's trust.
    Small businesses across this country, people across 
America, have got to pass an audit to keep doing what they do. 
The Pentagon should be held to the same standard. And it is the 
public's trust that our democracy depends on.
    And so with that, I would say this big, truly big and 
catastrophically bad bill cannot be cured with one amendment, 
but this is a step towards progress on what I think we all 
share, a goal we all share, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. 
That is not what this bill does.
    And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Goodlander follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.185
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.186
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Stansbury, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Stansbury. Madam Chair, Ranking Member, members of the 
committee, before I get started I just want to observe that we 
have been here for almost 12 hours, and I want to take a moment 
to thank all of the staff who have been holding it down for the 
last 12 hours in this room.
    [Applause.]
    Ms. Stansbury. And I want to also observe that I count 
exactly two Republicans in this room while literally dozens of 
Democrats have sat here all night and all day to have 5 minutes 
in front of this committee to speak our piece on behalf of the 
American people.
    I have a lot of ground to cover. If it is not obvious 
already, not only am I a ``no'' on this bill, I am a ``hell 
no.''
    Let me tell you why. This bill puts a massive permanent tax 
break in place for the ultrawealthy and corporations on the 
backs of working Americans. It will literally make the poor 
people of this country poorer while the rich get richer. It 
will give billions of dollars in kickbacks to defense 
contractors, private prisons, and big tech.
    It gives cuts to lifesaving programs, Medicaid and 
healthcare--which all of you said you wouldn't cut for months 
and here we are--food assistance, school lunches, Pell grants.
    It will decimate protections for the environment, NEPA, 
public lands, judicial review, climate and clean energy.
    It decimates protections for our Federal workers. It makes 
them at-will and it threatens their retirement.
    It threatens our consumers.
    It eviscerates the Federal budget.
    And, Madam Chair, despite what I have heard here for many 
hours of lying, it will put into place the largest increase in 
deficit spending this country has ever seen--ever.
    That is what this bill does, and that is why I oppose it.
    I am here to present six amendments, one of which was voted 
down by the Republicans in Oversight that would actually 
protect Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, and food 
assistance.
    I am also here to fight for an amendment to this bill that 
would make it impossible for people like Elon Musk and special 
government employees to self-deal and exploit the government 
for their own personal gain.
    I am also here to present an amendment that would restore 
the protections for our Tribal nations, because notwithstanding 
what I heard the chairman say in the dark of night in this 
room, this bill takes away the judicial rights of our Tribal 
nations to defend their sacred lands and their Tribal trust and 
treaty responsibilities, and it is shameful. It is absolutely 
shameful.
    I am also here to offer an amendment to restore climate 
funding that was cut out of our national budget. And I am here 
to present an amendment, which the Republicans have already 
voted on in a number of different places and spaces, that would 
make it impossible for our foreign adversaries to mine here in 
the United States and take advantage of our system.
    These are but a small offering to a thousand-page bill that 
will literally kill Americans. This is but a small offering in 
the 500 amendments that my colleagues and I have waited all 
night and all day to present in this committee.
    So let me be perfectly clear: This bill will hurt the 
American people, it will raise the debt, it will give permanent 
tax breaks to the ultrawealthy, it will put billions of dollars 
into the pockets of Donald Trump's friends, it will cut 
lifesaving programs, it will decimate protections for our 
communities, and it is happening on your watch. And we are here 
to fight it every step of the way in this committee, on the 
floor, in our communities, and we will not stop fighting.
    And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Mrs. Delaney, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. APRIL MCCLAIN DELANEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
             IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

    Mrs. McClain Delaney. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Ranking Member McGovern. And thanks to all the staff--I agree--
as well, who have been here. I got here around 3 in the 
morning, and I echo what many of my Democratic colleagues have 
said.
    But I just have to say as a preamble, many of the things I 
have said will be repeating others. But my heart is heavy. As a 
freshman Member from Maryland but grew up in the great State of 
Idaho and have lived here for 30 years, I have never seen 
anything like this in Washington.
    And I must say, I ran on common sense, common ground in my 
campaign, and there is none of that right here on Capitol Hill. 
But that takes--common ground takes shared truths and starting 
at at least the same platform and the same set of facts and 
shared value outputs.
    And I would think that we should come back together to 
really look at those things, the way in which we have not been 
able to really have hearings, and an ability to really think 
and probe into all these issues is so important going forward.
    So my amendment, 313, is really about ensuring that 
children and families will continue to receive the food they 
need despite the proposals put forward in the package.
    In this country, I do think that we all agree, and many of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Ag Committee 
believe that no child in this country should go hungry.
    My Republican colleagues repeatedly said that this package 
would not result in the kids going hungry and that benefits 
would remain whole for them.
    My amendment takes them at their word, and it seeks to 
ensure that no cuts to SNAP can be made unless the USDA and 
States confirm that these cuts will not lead to a reduction in 
benefits for households with kids, taking Republicans at their 
word to prevent benefits that I would suspect they would want.
    In sum, nationally 42 million currently depend on food 
assistance programs. And in my district, one in nine households 
depends on SNAP. Half of them are children.
    This isn't just about ending hunger; it is about dignity, 
it is about opportunity, and it is about being able to 
concentrate in school and being able to thrive.
    And if you want to talk about economics, as we said before, 
SNAP pays for itself in economic benefits and health benefits. 
For every dollar in my district but across the country spent on 
SNAP, $1.50 comes back into our economies, and that means many 
of my farmers in District Six sell into the food markets. It 
goes back to 2,700 national retailers and back to our truckers.
    Cutting SNAP hurts, not helps our national economy, and 
these cuts will even be more apparent in rural communities.
    And, by the way, in rural communities there is going to be 
a tsunami of issues that it is going to impact them, not just 
with SNAP but with Medicaid and all these core funding cuts, 
and it is going to hilt our States as well.
    So let me just put another thing in it, and maybe it is the 
lawyer in me. But I dispute the GOP constant messaging that 
this is about financial discipline and tackling the deficit.
    None of these cuts to SNAP or to Medicaid or social net 
programs result in this objective. The numbers do not add up. 
Because we all know that it is widely acknowledged that this 
current proposal is projected to increase the budget by nearly 
$3 trillion through 2034 by locking in tax cuts and spending 
increases that outweigh reductions in Medicaid and SNAP 
funding.
    So let me put a finer point on this. It will strip $18 
billion in benefits from households with children. It will harm 
one in five kids who rely on SNAP. And it lowers the age by 
which a child is considered dependent from 18 to 7. No one I 
know would argue that an 8- or a 10- or a 12-year-old is not 
dependent on their parents for food, housing, or care.
    And the authors of this bill have exempted families within 
this new definition of dependent only if they are married or 
living in the same household. But what about single or 
unmarried parents who are doing their best? This bill leaves 
them behind.
    Last, the bill prevents future increases to the Thrifty 
Food Plan. $37 billion will be cut from food assistance for the 
next decade, and that includes slashing $1 billion from Summer 
EBT, which is a lifeline for millions of kids as they head into 
summer.
    I repeat, children will be hungrier over the summer. So it 
is about feeding our kids and about their future and our 
country's future.
    If you will also allow me, Chairwoman Foxx, I do not serve 
on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but I spent the bulk of 
my life as a child advocate at Common Sense Media.
    Common Sense is a nonprofit dedicated to looking at how 
media impacts the health and well-being of our Nation's 
children vis-`-vis media.
    And the reports that came today about Sykes' bill, H. 215, 
is really important, because we have to stand ahead of making 
sure that AI and the most recent proposals that it would block 
States from regulating it is really, really important not to. A 
hundred forty organizations have already stood up against it. 
And I would also say for our Nation's kids, we need to look at 
that.
    In closing, thank you. I yield back.
    [The statement of Mrs. McClain Delaney follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.187
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.188
    
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Tlaib.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. RASHIDA TLAIB, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much for this opportunity. And I 
echo so much of what my colleagues have said, but I want to 
bring my district into this room.
    They are never going to be able to sit here in this 
audience and express the just anger that they feel that yet 
again we are turning our backs to them and not putting them 
before polluters, before billionaires, and so much more.
    The reality is, Madam Chair, and this is to everyone here, 
it is not just us saying it. It is nonpartisan organizations 
looking at the numbers, looking at this budget.
    And it is, it is our residents of all different likes, 
because to me Medicaid is nonpartisan. I have met people of all 
different likes and backgrounds that are dependent on Medicaid. 
I have met so many people that are on SNAP, Madam Chair.
    And for all of my colleagues to understand. You all know 
many of our residents are in survivor mode. I am not here to do 
shaming and blaming.
    The reality is we have broken systems in place, and we 
wonder why people look at Congress and shake their heads and 
the approval ratings are so low. It is because we don't put 
them first.
    And so I offered six amendments, Madam Chair, and I hope 
you all seriously take them into consideration.
    I have no healthcare cuts for moms and babies. This is 
important as a founder of the Congressional Mamas' Caucus. When 
I look at over 40 percent of births in our country are covered 
by Medicaid. But that is also prenatal care, postpartum, I 
mean, all the different things that you see.
    And I say this because--again, I am bringing my district 
here--we have one of the worst infant mortality crisis in--I 
mean, look at the crisis that we have in our country, but even 
in my backyard. And it is because we don't have the kind of 
care that we have.
    And Medicaid is a Band-Aid, you all, it really is, because 
we do have an inhumane, cruel healthcare system that is driven 
by profit and greed and not about healthcare. That is why a lot 
of my residents don't even call it healthcare anymore. They 
call it sick care, Madam Chair. And so now we are about the rip 
the Band-Aid off.
    So my amendment says do not cut prenatal and postnatal 
care. Again, tackling infant mortality is nonpartisan. Every 
community is, again, seeing that our children are not reaching 
the age of 1, and there is a reason to that. And, again, it is 
because we are not doing our job here in Congress.
    The other amendment, and it is super important, is no money 
for polluters. I want to reiterate to all of you, again, my 
community, the majority of them are frontline communities. We 
have one of the worst air qualities in the State of Michigan, 
in Wayne County, that I represent, and we are making people 
sicker. And then now we are saying we are not going to cover 
the fact that, again, we have allowed corporate polluters to be 
unchecked.
    You should see the lack of enforcement because the bills 
are written in a way, they slap their hands, they pay a fine, 
it is part of doing business.
    But when you go to read to a third grade class in my 
district--and I always tell them, you know, they ask me what my 
job is, and I tell them I am trying to make sure we have clean 
air, and how many of you have asthma, a third of the class will 
raise their hand, Madam Chair, a third of them. And you look at 
the attendance rates and so forth.
    The other is really important. I really believe that we 
need no more aid to billionaires. I am calling it that, because 
I think that is how you all see it. They don't need it. The 
corporations don't need it. Some of them have not paid Federal 
income tax for years. They don't need it. They are going to be 
okay, I promise.
    But I still remember the first Black woman ever elected in 
Congress, Shirley Chisholm, say that children can't learn if 
they are hungry. And I am telling you, that is very real. But 
also children can't learn if they are being poisoned because 
they don't have clean water or clean air. And so I think it is 
incredibly important.
    My other amendment, ``Expand But Don't Restrict Medicaid.'' 
It is important to understand the importance of what Medicaid 
does right now, again, the Band-Aid that I talked about. And we 
try to keep it tight, I know all of us that are fighting for 
Medicaid and making sure that we are expanding it and making 
it, again, closer to something a lot more humane.
    But I think it is incredibly important to understand this 
is lifesaving. I have never had this many people in my 
community call me, parents with special needs children, 
petrified. They are so scared that we are going to put Amazon 
and FedEx and all these other corporations before them. That is 
what they are afraid of. And we wonder why they are so angry.
    My other amendment, again, is around no money for Pentagon, 
because I want to talk to you all about this.
    In my community, I told them: Don't worry. Guess what? 
Guess what? There is one budget that got an increase. Which 
budget is that? The Pentagon budget. Can't pass audits, Madam 
Chair, seven audits in a row. The last audit, the last failed 
audit, showed that over half of the assets of the Pentagon are 
unaccounted for--unaccounted for.
    So we have money for bombs and wars. And shame on any of my 
colleagues that own stocks in war manufacturing. You shouldn't 
even be voting on this bill. That is a conflict of interest.
    But, Madam Chair, it is important to understand, we can't 
prioritize to build ships that can't float, planes that can't 
even fly in the rain. Trillions of dollars are going to that, 
and we are going to go ahead and fund it 150 billion more 
dollars into--talk about waste and inefficiency.
    It is cruel for us to put more money in a budget that can't 
pass an audit, but we are going to go ahead and throw people 
off of Medicaid and SNAP.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield.
    [The statement of Ms. Tlaib follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.189
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.190
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.191
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Thanks to all of you.
    Let me see if there are questions.
    Do you have any questions? No, okay.
    Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, Madam Chair.
    First, I want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
record a letter from Jason Furman, an economist and the former 
chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and the deputy 
director of the National Economic Council.
    In his letter, Mr. Furman shares an outlook of what this 
horrible bill will mean for our economy. And he writes, and I 
quote, ``The legislation would drive up mortgage interest rates 
and inflation, lower economic growth, and ultimately require 
Congress to pass additional tax increases or benefit 
reductions. All of this would further hurt the working and 
middle class.''
    So, Madam Chair, more expensive mortgages, higher 
inflation, basic needs like food and healthcare ripped away 
from people in need, all to give us more tax breaks for 
billionaires. I think it is shameful, and I think this bill 
will actually hurt real, everyday people. I ask unanimous 
consent for----
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.083
    
    Mr. McGovern. And then the other thing I am going to say 
is, I mean, let's remind ourselves why we are here. We are 
dealing with a bill that does a million different things. It is 
so wide in its scope.
    But, I mean, I think what has kind of brought us all 
together is our deep concern over people losing their 
healthcare, people losing their food assistance, all to pay for 
tax cuts for billionaires, and that is just unacceptable.
    And, I mean, we wouldn't be who we are as Democrats if we 
didn't fight this with every ounce of energy we have.
    There are other things in this bill.
    Ms. Bonamici, I am glad you brought up the AI aspect of 
this.
    I am scared out of my mind that there will be a 10-year 
moratorium on States' ability to be able to kind of regulate AI 
within their boundaries.
    Congress should do it, but we can't get our act together 
here. So the idea that we just let it go wild? I mean, there 
are some real dangers to our kids, to our communities.
    And so thank you for raising that.
    But, again, I mean, I am grateful to all of you for 
sticking this out. We have been talking amongst ourselves about 
how incredible it is to see all of you just stay here and 
remain here in solidarity and to be able to present your 
amendments. I think the American people appreciate it.
    And so I support all your amendments. Again, I thank you 
for being here.
    I yield back my time.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Thank you.
    I just want to echo the ranking member's remarks.
    There are dozens of Members still waiting. We really, 
really appreciate your passion, your amendments, which are so 
well taken, everybody bringing their expertise, expertise that 
would have been probably better served if we had been able to 
use regular order, use committee structure to try to work on 
consensus bills.
    But it is so important that your constituents hear what you 
would do if our colleagues across the aisle were willing to 
work in a bipartisan manner and just how much we could 
accomplish if that were an option around here.
    So thank you all. Appreciate it.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I don't have any questions. I just would, again, share the 
sentiments expressed by our ranking member and Ms. Scanlon and 
our deep appreciation to our Members of the House Democratic 
Caucus for hanging in and staying as long as you have.
    Again, we started this hearing at 1 a.m. It is now 1 p.m., 
so 12 hours later, and there are a number of you who have been 
here the entire time, all so that you could, as Representative 
Stansbury so eloquently put it, speak for 5 minutes on behalf 
of the communities that you serve and to present very 
thoughtful, exceptional amendments that are developed by virtue 
of your expertise in your particular areas of expertise. And so 
I would just say thank you.
    And I hope that our colleagues on the other side might 
perhaps reconsider the closed nature of the rule. I suspect 
they won't, but hope springs eternal.
    So I thank my colleagues.
    Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
    And thanks to all of you. I also thank you for coming and 
staying for this period of time. And you are now excused.
    Mr. Jackson, Mr. Fields, Ms. Dean, Ms. Scholten, Mr. Mrvan, 
Mr. Tonko, Mr. Mannion, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, if you could 
come into the seats these people are vacating, please.
    Okay. The way I called out your names is the way I will 
recognize you.
    Okay. Mr. Jackson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JONATHAN L. JACKSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And I thank all of my colleagues for having spent this 
arduous time here all night. I came in here at 1 o'clock in the 
morning, left out at 4:30, and came back. I hope in the future 
we can do our business in the middle of the day where people in 
television land can watch us. Citizens have a right to this.
    I rise today in support--in firm support of my SNAP 
amendment which would protect older Americans, those age 55 to 
64, from being stripped of their access to food assistance 
under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. This amendment 
restores a critical exemption in the Supplemental Nutritional 
Assistance Program--also known as SNAP--for seniors, a group 
who are among the most food-hungry, food-insecure, and least 
able to reenter the workforce.
    Between 2025 and 2030, this amendment ensures that 
Americans over the age of 55 remain exempt from burdensome work 
requirements. Beginning in 2031, it preserves protections for 
those over the age of 50.
    Briefly talking numbers, according to the USDA, in 2023, 
nearly 5 million adults over the age of 50 lived in food-
insecure households, people that are hungry. And, of those, 
roughly 1.1 million were between the ages of 55 and 64. This 
very group this amendment aims to protect. These are not idle 
people. Nearly one in three SNAP recipients over the age of 50 
are either working or actively seeking work, according to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
    Madam Chairwoman, a 60-year-old who loses their job is less 
than half as likely to find new full-time employment compared 
to a 30-year-old. I understand the President has asked for One 
Big Beautiful Bill, but let me tell you this bill is brutal. It 
is not beautiful. This is a monument not to unity but to 
disparity, a structural bill not on the foundations of justice 
but on the shifting sands of privilege. Its architect is not 
that of Lincoln's better angels but of Midas. It is greedy. It 
is glittering, and it is grotesque.
    I have read this bill, as all the thinking citizens must, 
and I find they are not the balm of Gilead but the cunning 
draft of a plutocracy and those who try to enshrine those of 
greater wealth. There are tax benefits for those that are 
already bloated, regulatory rollbacks for the unshakable--for 
the unshackled corporations while tightening the manacles on 
labor requirements, subsidies for oil and wealth but scarcity 
for schoolhouses and clinics.
    Where in this bill is the struggling--where in this bill is 
the struggling mother in Detroit or in Chicago or in Pittsburgh 
who labors night and day not for gain but for survival? Where 
is the Black farmer in Mississippi still bound under the yolk 
of a system that praises liberty yet denies land and capital? 
Where is the sick child whose insurance evaporates beneath the 
ruthless sun of corporate greed?
    This bill is brutal. This bill is a contradiction or a 
mockery of our professed ideals. You say it helps families, yet 
it steals food from their tables. You said it grows the 
economy, but it shrinks the dignity of work. You say it 
strengthens America, but it forgets that a nation is only as 
strong as its poorest citizen is safe, its most vulnerable 
secure.
    I ask you to reject this bill not because it is Trump's 
bill but because it is wrong. Replace it with legislation that 
is rooted in equity and mercy and the simple--but it might have 
to be recognized for all men and their women and their wealth 
and their dignity of work.
    Remember, ladies and gentlemen, that history is watching 
us. And history, though patient, is unforgiving. This bill may 
pass today, and the markets may cheer, but the people will not 
forget. The people shall remember. They will remember not only 
what you did but they will also remember what we failed to do 
when given the chance to lift rather than to loot. And I say 
unto you, let it not be written that this House chose beauty 
over justice, comfort over courage, gilded lies over the golden 
truth.
    Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for your time, and I yield 
back my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.
    Mr. Fields, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLEO FIELDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

    Mr. Fields. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. I, 
too, have been here since 1 a.m. in the morning. My office has 
been flooded with calls, letters, and emails from Louisiana--
from Louisianans worried about losing their Medicaid benefits. 
These voices come from every corner of the State, proof that 
the issue hits home for families, seniors, and working people 
alike. Proposals like the monthly work requirement mandates and 
repeated eligibility requirements is just a bureaucracy trap, 
not a solution. These policies create red tape that 
disproportionately affect vulnerable citizens, not fraudsters.
    That is why I am offering amendment 205 that modifies 
section 44141 of the budget reconciliation bill, specifically 
targeting language related to Medicare eligibility requirements 
under the Social Security Act. The key substantive change is 
adding protection for individuals who are--I am sorry. Is that 
better?
    The Chairwoman. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Fields. That is why I am offering amendment 205 that 
modifies section 44141 of the budget reconciliation bill, 
specifically targeting language related to Medicaid eligibility 
requirements under the Social Security Act. The key substantive 
change is adding protection for individuals who involuntarily 
lose their job or who have work hours--had their work hours 
reduced during the preceding 12-month period and if longer if 
States require it.
    This amendment would create a commonsense exemption for 
Medicaid workers reporting requirements for those who have 
experienced involuntarily job loss or a reduction in work hours 
that are outside of their control.
    Most Medicaid recipients do work, but they still can't 
afford basic care. That is why Medicaid offers a path to health 
and stability, not a free ride. My State specifically stands to 
lose more than healthcare. We risk losing the cornerstone of 
our State economy and stability. Medicaid brings about $15 
billion in Federal funding to Louisiana. That is over 35 
percent of the entire State budget. Over 1.6 million 
Louisianans depend on Medicaid, including half of which are 
children, two-third are mothers with newborns, and three-
quarters are nursing home residents.
    According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 
the current proposal would leave at least 8.6 million more 
people uninsured over the next decade. I support cutting waste, 
fraud, and abuse, but I will not support gutting the lifeline 
of many people. America needs smart, compassionate, fiscally 
responsible healthcare policies but not blunt-force cuts. This 
is a catastrophic and unacceptable outcome for Louisiana and 
for the American people.
    I thank the chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Fields.
    Ms. Dean, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE DEAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I thank you, Ranking Member McGovern, and my Democratic 
colleagues, for your endurance and for being here, standing 
watch over this proposed budget, this proposed reconciliation, 
and the disgraces that are within it that we have really yet to 
uncover.
    You know, Madam Chair, I had a very wise and funny 
godmother. Her name was Joan Cassin, and she used to say to me, 
``Mad, remember, nothing good happens after midnight.'' So I 
came here in the middle of the night to see if Joan Cassin was 
correct. And I sat here for hours and hours in the dark of 
night as Members struggled to even stay awake because you 
noticed this hearing in Rules of one of the most important, big 
pieces of legislation--I won't call it beautiful--that we will 
vote on this year. One of the most important, and I am baffled 
that you called this important hearing on this important 
legislation that you all seem to--well, some of you seem to 
prize--for 1 o'clock in the morning. Joan Cassin was right. 
Nothing good and nothing that you are proud of happens after 
midnight when you call such a hearing.
    A couple of things that I wanted to talk about. They are by 
way of amendment, but, really, they are just by way of my 
heart. There is an amendment that our colleague, Mr. Thompson, 
is offering which will strike--this is--bear with me. This is a 
double negative. I hate double negatives. It strikes the 
removal of the $200 tax on silencers. Right now--and this is 
since 1934--there has been a $200 tax on silencers. Never 
adjusted for inflation. It has been solid since 1934. But I 
believe it is Mr. Clyde who wants to die on this hill. Well, 
others might die on this hill. He wants to remove the tax 
altogether. Baffling to me.
    And you know what the dollars are? It is $1.4 billion over 
10 years. I did the math. That means something like 700,000 
silencers are sold in this country a year. That baffles me. I 
don't know if that is accurate. But, by the numbers and by the 
math, that is what we are talking about.
    In 1934, you know what $200 looked like adjusted for 
inflation? It is at least 46-, 47-, $4,800 would be the tax if 
we did that today. Why do you think they put such a steep tax 
on that silencer in 1934? Take a look at the history. The 
history is the tax was used to try to discourage the purchasing 
of silencers.
    Well, this is a committee. This is an amendment--excuse 
me--this is an initiative that Mr. Thompson will correct in his 
amendment--which I am sure you are all going to go for--that 
would reduce the revenue, take us down $1.4 billion over 10 
years--I don't know why--and probably encourage the sale of 
more. It sounds to me like it is just to appease the NRA and to 
encourage the industry, all at the cost of our revenues.
    If we doubled it, if we just went to $400, you could sell 
only half as many and not lose a penny in revenue. If we 
tripled it, you might actually discourage some sales of 
silencers. Wouldn't that be a good thing for us to be doing in 
this committee?
    The other thing I want to talk about is substance abuse 
treatment and substance abuse dollars in Medicaid. In 
Pennsylvania, in my State, 100,000 Pennsylvanians have access 
to healthcare, recovery, treatment--100,000 in Pennsylvania 
alone--thanks to Medicaid. What this budget proposes to do? 
Slash that. Let those people go out in the cold. Let them try 
to find recovery on their own. Let them try to get a life 
worthy of what they want to become so that they can continue to 
work and provide for their families. 100,000 people are at 
risk.
    So I support an amendment that I know Mr. Tonko is going to 
be supporting also. He and I are co-chairs on really important 
committees and caucuses around addiction and mental health and 
fentanyl poisoning and all the rest. I come at it because I 
have a son in recovery. I want other families to have children 
in recovery--not dead.
    And so this proposed cut to--deep cuts to Medicaid make no 
sense whatsoever, especially at a time, Madam Chair, that I 
know you care about, at a time when we have reduced the number 
of overdose deaths in this country last year by 27 percent. 
That is something like 30,000 fewer people dead as a result.
    I implore this committee to make sure you pass this 
amendment. Make sure you pass the Tonko amendment. Let's save 
lives from these scourges of gun violence and overdose death.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Scholten, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Ms. Scholten. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and to this 
committee for your tireless efforts here and to the incredible 
staff for supporting you through the night.
    As my colleagues have said here, I am just baffled at the 
reason this committee would start a hearing at 1 o'clock in the 
morning to hear amendments and testimony on a bill that has 
such significant impact on the American people. We are 
responsible to the American people, and transparency is at the 
heart of what we do.
    Republicans are doing this because they know--they know 
that this is bad. It is the same reason why, when the President 
pulled Republicans to the White House when there were holdouts 
on the budget proposal--that he told them just to close their 
eyes and vote for it. ``Just close your eyes and get there.'' 
The same reason the Budget Committee called people back at 10 
o'clock at night to do this work in the middle of the night.
    Well, I am not closing my eyes. I am paying attention to 
every single thing that is in here--that is going to hurt 
hardworking Americans like those back home in west Michigan who 
I represent. I am paying attention. And I am offering 
amendments that will help take us down a different path. I have 
offered several amendments here today that protect working 
families, our Great Lakes that I proudly represent, the largest 
freshwater resources in our entire country.
    But we only have time to focus on one. So I am talking 
today about my amendment No. 66 that makes the enhanced 
Affordable Care Act subsidies permanent. These subsidies are 
one of the most effective tools we have to make health 
insurance affordable for hardworking families, middle-class 
Americans, and those who fall into the coverage gap just above 
traditional Medicaid eligibility.
    This amendment eliminates the previous income cap that cut 
off subsidy eligibility at 400 percent of the Federal poverty 
line so that no family is forced to pay unaffordable premiums 
just because they make slightly too much. It also maintains a 
sliding scale cap on how much of a family's income they are 
expected to contribute to their premiums, ensuring no one pays 
more than 8.5 percent of their income for coverage and, in many 
cases, significantly less.
    What does that mean? That means that a family of four 
making $125,000 a year can still afford quality insurance 
without facing crushing monthly premiums. It means a self-
employed contractor with variable income isn't penalized for 
working hard. And it means that millions of Americans who don't 
qualify for Medicaid but can't afford private insurance have 
access to care. Without this amendment, those enhanced 
subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year.
    If you are at home listening to this and you thought this 
was all about Medicaid, think again. Your premiums could go up 
significantly. When these premiums expire, over 4.2 million 
Americans are projected to lose their healthcare coverage. That 
is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 
Millions more will see their premiums double or even triple. We 
are staring down a cliff, and my amendment pulls us back from 
the edge.
    In my home State of Michigan, these subsidies have helped 
hundreds of thousands of people afford health coverage. That 
includes families with children, small business owners, those 
who are self-employed, and part-time workers. If we let these 
subsidies lapse, people in every single one of our districts, 
red and blue, are going to feel the impact. We better be paying 
attention.
    At the same time, this budget plan slashes nearly a 
trillion dollars from Medicaid. As we know, those proposals 
threaten coverage for nearly 14 million Americans, including 
children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income 
families. While one side of the aisle is proposing taking 
healthcare away, I am working to keep it. This amendment offers 
a responsible, proven way to keep people covered.
    Let's not forget these subsidies work. We have shown that 
they work. They have reduced the uninsured rate to a historic 
low. They have brought down premium costs. They have given 
people peace of mind in moments of crisis, whether facing a 
chronic illness, job loss, or pregnancy. Making these subsidies 
permanent is not only the responsible thing to do; it is the 
moral thing to do. It is pro-family, pro-worker, pro-stability, 
and it is a fraction of the economic cost and the human toll 
that we will pay if millions of people lose their coverage.
    We need to be asking ourselves, why? Why are we doing this? 
We have the resources to cover the healthcare coverage that we 
need if we will just tell the billionaires that they need to 
pay their fair share. This tax plan will allow the top 1 
percent to get an additional $700 a day.
    [The statement of Ms. Scholten follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.192
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.193
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.194
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scholten. Thank you.
    Mr. Mrvan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK J. MRVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

    Mr. Mrvan. I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx and also Ranking 
Member McGovern for allowing us to be here.
    I offer up an amendment that would require the Medicaid and 
CHIP Payment and Access Commission to produce a study on the 
effect of the Medicaid title on out-of-pocket costs for 
services to prevent and screen for and treat cancer. The 
amendment would require the study to focus on individuals 
eligible for Medicaid or CHIP under the eligibility rules in 
effect on April 1, 2025, and the health outcomes for such 
individuals.
    As a local elected official for 15 years, I was elected to 
take care of the most vulnerable populations. Those that 
couldn't afford or have access to healthcare during that 15 
years would come to my office. We had 142 case workers that 
would work with individuals that were the most vulnerable 
populations.
    That being said, this is in my wheelhouse, and it is worth 
being here through the middle-of-the-night marathon to make 
sure we are fighting for access for healthcare for all 
individuals.
    I specifically choose this amendment for cancer because, 
each year, I meet with NICK, which is northwest--Northern 
Indiana Cancer--children, and what their 300 families that they 
have provided for are worried about is losing access to 
healthcare for their children and losing access, obviously, for 
individuals with cancer, as we reduce the numbers of people who 
are on Medicaid.
    I also, as a local elected official, have a very unique 
position where part of the process was work requirements. Well, 
what happens when a family member has an illness that is going 
to cause death? People stop working to take care of that family 
member. And, if you have to provide proof each 6 months while 
you are facing a crisis in your family, that is going to be the 
last thing you would do, which puts your healthcare at risk.
    And so, ultimately, why I am here offering up this 
amendment is because what my colleagues have talked about. The 
features and benefits of your bill are ultimately the most 
wealthy corporations are going to get tax cuts where the most 
vulnerable are going to be punished.
    And, ultimately, I leave with this message: The American 
Cancer Society--if we can agree upon one aspect of life, 
Chairwoman, the American Cancer Society has an ad on social 
media saying one in--just to be specific, one in three children 
will have cancer. One in 10 adults with a history of cancer 
have Medicaid for their care. They are advocating against this 
bill because they know the impact of it. So, ultimately, today, 
what I am asking for is support of this amendment to make sure 
that the most vulnerable of populations have access to 
healthcare.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan.
    Mr. Tonko, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, 
and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify on two of my proposed amendments.
    It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I 
just don't see what Republicans find beautiful about this ugly 
bill. Is it the 13.7 million Americans that will lose their 
healthcare? Children that will go hungrier? The energy bills 
that will go higher thanks to repealing critical tax credits? 
Clearly, Republicans can't be too proud of it; otherwise, they 
would not have started this whole process at 1 a.m. in hopes of 
suppressing debate on its many, many flaws.
    Given the many problems with this legislation and the fact 
that it is being changed in the dead of night, I urge you to 
have an open rule so that all submitted amendments can be 
properly debated on the House floor. But, short of that, I 
would ask you to make my two amendments, Nos. 89 and 270, in 
order.
    193,000 people in my district rely on Medicaid. That is 25 
percent of all residents, including 57,000 children and nearly 
20,000 seniors. Every single one of them will be impacted by 
this heinous package. These are not just numbers on a page. 
They are deliberate choices with real-world consequences, 
including real people's lives. And for what? Why are 
Republicans so hell-bent on cutting Medicaid and forcing people 
off of their health insurance? So rich people like Elon Musk 
can get a massive tax handout that they don't need?
    Amendment 89 supports continued access to behavioral 
healthcare through Medicaid. This amendment requires States to 
stop implementation of the red-tape requirements included in 
the bill if access to substance-use disorder treatment services 
amongst low-income adults decreases.
    You heard my colleague, Representative Dean next to me 
here, speaking in favor of this amendment and rightfully so. 
She knows the benefits that this could bring. This would be 
determined by the number of available SUD providers in the 
State that participate in Medicaid, the geographical distance 
for beneficiaries to access a SUD provider that participates in 
Medicaid, and the rates of SUD treatment amongst low-income 
residents of the State.
    Republicans want us to believe that these new paperwork and 
red-tape requirements won't impact treatment for addiction and 
behavioral health, but Medicaid is the single largest payer of 
behavioral health services. These red-tape requirements will 
rip coverage away from millions of individuals struggling with 
addiction and behavioral health needs. If these Medicaid cuts 
are put in place, States will be forced to take on more 
financial burden and may shift resources away from critical, 
lifesaving services, including prevention, treatment, and 
recovery.
    Additionally, most Medicaid enrollees struggle with 
substance-use disorder and find their way to treatment after--
after getting on Medicaid, not before. If a diagnosis is 
required before providing someone with access to Medicaid, then 
how do the undiagnosed ever get care? Under the Republican 
plan, they won't get access to substance-use disorder 
treatment. Care will be delayed or never happen, and lives will 
be lost. This is a commonsense amendment to ensure that 
Medicaid cuts won't prevent our loved ones living with 
substance-use disorder from accessing the treatment they need.
    My second amendment, amendment 270, would only allow the 
repeal of EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and rescission of 
its unobligated funds to take effect after GAO certifies that 
it will not increase costs on consumers. This program was 
designed to help Americans who are struggling with their energy 
bills by leveraging billions of private sector dollars to 
support projects that will lower costs and create good-paying 
jobs.
    To do this, EPA tapped into nonprofit coalitions of 
experienced community-based lenders. The potential benefits are 
massive. Recent analysis from the University of New Hampshire 
estimated that these investments will result in $52 billion 
worth of energy cost savings for consumers over the next 20 
years. Despite these major benefits to everyday Americans, this 
bill would continue the Republicans' ideological crusade 
against the program to help offset the cost of tax cuts for 
billionaires.
    Let's be clear: There has been absolutely no evidence of 
fraud or criminality by grant recipients. In court this week, 
attorneys for the administration admitted that we are not 
accusing anybody of fraud, and there aren't any particular 
instance of waste and abuse. This bill doubles down on the 
Republicans' longstanding policy objective of undermining the 
program, having sought its repeal on numerous occasions. At the 
moment, only $19 million of the original $27 billion remains 
unobligated, which is intended to be used to administer and 
conduct oversight of the grants. If Republicans were genuinely 
concerned about the program's risks for fraud, waste, and 
abuse, they would not be rescinding these oversight dollars.
    Americans are struggling with the cost of living. Energy 
bills, despite President Trump's promises, are going up. It is 
outrageous that Republicans would target funding and reduce 
energy bills at this time. So let's make certain we go forward, 
support these amendments in order, and defeat this ugly bill.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.084
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.085
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.086
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
    Mr. Mannion, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN W. MANNION, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you to the 
ranking member and members of the full committee. I appreciate 
the opportunity to testify today and offer amendment 156 for 
your consideration.
    This amendment is simple. It says none of the changes in 
the health title should go into effect unless the Congressional 
Budget Office can confirm they won't raise out-of-pocket 
healthcare costs for working families. That is it. That is the 
whole thing. And, to me, it is just basic accountability.
    I represent New York's 22nd Congressional District, a true 
50-50 district. Republicans and Democrats living side by side. 
And, right now, I am hearing the same thing from all of them: 
Fear. Fear that changes in this bill could jeopardize their 
ability to pay for their care, fear that their kids or aging 
parents will lose the services they depend on.
    Let me tell you about Betsy, a mom who has a child on the 
autism spectrum and has Tourette syndrome. He has significant 
needs. And, through Medicaid, he has been able to access 
therapists, medical providers, and a communication device that 
gives him a voice. And that is not an exaggeration. His device 
is literally how he speaks to the world. And, through these 
services, her son has built independence, he is learning to 
thrive, and, as Betsy put it, this is how he lets the world 
know that he is a fighter and he deserves to live a full, 
meaningful, and enriched life.
    But, if we cut Medicaid services, what happens to families 
like Betsy's? What happens to a child who literally loses their 
voice because we can't take the time to understand the impact 
of this legislation? So this is a commensense amendment that 
ensures that we are not balancing the budgets on the backs of 
the families who can least afford it.
    In central New York and the Mohawk Valley, we are common 
sense people. It is common sense to support this amendment. It 
is common sense to reject a $400-million gift from a State that 
sponsors organizations that carry out terrorism potentially 
against our allies. It is common sense to investigate the 
creation of meme coins and stablecoins to enrich those in 
positions of power and their families. I urge the committee to 
adopt this important amendment, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Mannion.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, A 
      REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair, my 
classmate. It is good to see you. And thank you for the 
opportunity to present amendments to this bill.
    For months, Republicans promised repeatedly that their 
budget would not affect Medicaid, would not make any cuts to 
Medicaid, and that no one would lose their Medicaid. It is the 
same promise Donald Trump made on the campaign trail among his 
countless other lies. Well, here we are about to bring one big, 
ugly bill to the floor with this committee hiding behind closed 
doors in the dead of night when presenting the details of this 
harmful legislation.
    Republicans are trying to ram through a slew of dreadful 
policies that will weaken our country, economy, communities, 
and families everywhere. This bill is pure cruelty. Republicans 
and President Trump lied to people all over America, and 
millions will lose their Medicaid coverage. The CBO confirmed 
this. It is a fact.
    Therefore, my first amendment strikes the provision 
limiting State-directed payments, which I know worries many of 
my Democratic and Republican colleagues alike. State-directed 
payments are a lifeline for hospitals, nursing homes, and other 
providers in our safety net that treat a high volume of 
Medicaid beneficiaries.
    Medicaid often reimburses providers at rates below the 
actual cost of care. In Florida, Medicaid repays providers 
about 48 cents for every dollar spent to provide care. This is 
why States like Florida have these agreements in place: to 
address the shortfalls for hospitals that operate on razor-thin 
margins and need help bridging that gap.
    The Republican bill before us today would hamstring 
States--ironically, most of them red--by taking away their 
ability to manage their programs effectively and removing 
needed flexibility. This will have a cascading effect. 
Providers will be harmed and then be forced to limit services, 
which negatively affects Medicaid patients. And where will the 
Medicaid patients turn? To the emergency room. And that, of 
course, hurts hospitals even more because it is the costliest 
point of entry into our healthcare system. This will make 
healthcare pricier and harder to find.
    In other words, working families pay for Republican tax 
cuts to the wealthiest by giving up their own healthcare. That 
is why my first amendment strikes this provision so that the 
safety net hospitals in my community and the people they serve 
in my district don't suffer needlessly for the benefit of the 
wealthy. And this affects hospitals across the country, and 
many will close as a result of this change. Mark my words.
    Moving on, my second amendment is deeply personal to me 
because, as many of you know, I am a breast cancer survivor, 
and we have millions of other cancer survivors in the country. 
I know what it feels like to wake up every morning not knowing 
what the next scan will show, not knowing if I would be there 
for my children's next birthday or see them grow up, get 
married, and maybe have their own kids one day, and it shatters 
me to know that this bill will harm people who are grasping for 
hope, desperate to survive this terrible disease.
    My amendment prevents this horrible, ugly bill from taking 
effect until the HHS Secretary certifies that not one of its 
provisions harms cancer patients and their access to care. Over 
10 percent of cancer survivors rely on Medicaid for their care, 
and more than one-third of children newly diagnosed with cancer 
in our country are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP.
    Medicaid is the lifeline to so many cancer survivors, and 
they don't need any obstacles or uncertainty to accessing their 
care, nor do they need to struggle just to stay alive all so 
Republicans can stuff more big tax breaks into the pockets of 
big corporations and the super rich. Survivors who rely on 
Medicaid will die because of this bill, full stop. It is 
shameful.
    You want to talk about saving taxpayer dollars? Then fund 
early screening. Fund treatment. Help prevent advanced stage 
cancer because we all know that preventing diseases like cancer 
and catching it early, as I was able to, is far less costly 
than treating it when it has advanced and spread.
    Access to insurance saves lives and lowers costs. I know 
you know that, but you simply don't have the courage to stand 
up to Donald Trump and defend your constituents for fear he 
will tweet a primary opponent for you. And spare me the excuse 
this bill only kicks off ineligible people from Medicaid. That 
is false, and you know it.
    This moment calls for courage, not self-interest. It 
requires a heart, not a headline. There are 110,000 people in 
my district who are at risk of losing their Medicaid healthcare 
under this terrible bill. A majority of them are children. 
Nearly 30,000 are seniors.
    And I am up here meeting--I am up here in the middle 
meeting--I am sorry. I have been here since the middle of the 
night fighting for them. Why? Because Republicans turned their 
back on the people that you represent. You have to push this 
midnight madness because you are putting your constituents in 
dire situations, and you want to block them from defending 
themselves, and you want to ensure they can't by yanking their 
healthcare while they are sleeping.
    I know how important Medicaid is to so many Floridians and 
people across the country, and I swear I will defend it to my 
last breath. So I ask each of you, would you vote for a bill 
that could take away the care of a loved one facing cancer when 
they needed it most? Hide in the dark if you want, but history 
is watching, and the people that we all serve will remember how 
you answered.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    I am going to take a point of personal privilege and ask 
Mr. Jackson if he would--there are three of us who attend the 
prayer breakfast regularly with you. Would you like to invite 
other people to go tomorrow morning, Mr. Jackson? I will give 
you a point of personal privilege.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you so much. Yes. I am the 
bipartisan cochair of the National Prayer Breakfast. I would 
like to invite all of my colleagues out for friendship, 
fellowship, and exhibition of faith. Please join us tomorrow 
morning at 8 a.m. in the--here in the Members' Dining Room. And 
let us pray for the food we are about to receive, not the food 
that has left our table.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Norman, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Norman. No questions.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Again, I don't have any questions. I support 
all of your amendments.
    You are like my heroes lasting as long as you have and 
being here because I think it is important to remind the 
American people that there is a lot in this bill. I mean, 
everything from the, you know, repeal of the tax on silencers 
to the issue about making sure that people get adequate 
healthcare, especially young kids when they are diagnosed with 
cancer.
    And, again, I just really would say that it is a profoundly 
bad bill that is going to hurt so many people, and I think, you 
know, we just need to make sure that the American people know 
that we are on their side. And so I thank all of you, and I 
yield back my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Again, I want to thank you all for your willingness to 
tough it out here with us as we are now on hour 13, which is so 
much fun. But I really appreciate the attention and the care 
you have brought with your amendments--thoughtful amendments to 
try to improve this bad bill and to highlight the economic, the 
environmental, and even the existential harms that it is likely 
to cause the American people.
    I especially want to thank my sister in service to 
southeastern Pennsylvania for the lifesaving amendments that 
she has introduced to reverse cuts to substance-use disorder 
services and to address this tax cut that would make it easier 
to purchase silencers for firearms. So thank you all.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Scott.
    Ms. Scanlon. Sorry. I yield back.
    Mr. Scott. Well, first of all, Madam Chair and Mr. Jackson, 
I appreciate the invitation and especially the optimism that we 
may be done by the time the prayer breakfast starts tomorrow.
    I will just point out that there is a lot that has been 
said about suppressors. With modern printing and 3D 
technologies and everything else right now, you can go on 
Amazon and buy all the parts to make anything you want. So I 
think there is----
    Ms. Scanlon. We have a bill for that.
    Ms. Dean. We do.
    Mr. Scott. Well, either way, it is unrealistic to think it 
could be stopped once the technology has reached the level it 
has. And, in many countries, it actually mandated----
    Ms. Dean. Really? That is your argument? We can't stop----
    Mr. Scott. In many countries--it is my time. In many 
countries, it is actually mandated that you use a suppressor if 
you are going to hunt.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. No questions, Madam Chair. Just, again, 
gratitude to our colleagues for being here and for submitting 
your amendments, all of which, of course, we agree with and 
support. And I will yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Griffith.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh, sorry about that.
    Mr. Griffith. It is all right.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I actually really love hearing from 
you; so I am sorry.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, you never know what I am going to say.
    Today, I am going to echo the chairwoman's comments and 
encourage everybody, whether it is this Thursday or any 
Thursday we are in session, to attend the bipartisan prayer 
breakfast. It really is a good group.
    The one thing that has not been mentioned yet is that, for 
those of you like me who love to eat, one of the regulars 
provides breakfast every Thursday morning. So we have eggs and 
oatmeal and sausage and bacon and potatoes. It is a good time 
to get together and reflecting that we all have losses from 
time to time. Today, of course the loss of Gerry Connolly. It 
is sometimes good to get together not as adversaries but just 
getting together as human beings who care for one another.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I really do want to thank both--all the members of this 
panel, the previous panels, and the people who are waiting to 
speak because I want to point out that, because of all of my 
Democratic colleagues, we did prevent them from passing this 
bad rule in the dead of night. You have made sure that the sun 
is shining on this process.
    And you are, by the way, I think, the third panel and ABC--
there are nothing but great Cs that I have heard in this. We 
have talked about corruption and the need to fight it, about 
having the courage of standing with your constituents about 
cancer and the fact that we can do something about it because 
we know what it feels like. Today of all days, we know what it 
feels like when you lose somebody to cancer.
    We have talked about the cruelty of the bill and the 
importance of care, which I think ties into the idea of the 
prayer breakfast. Care. Care for others, the elderly, those 
with mental health issues, those who need help with drug 
addiction.
    So thank you, this third panel, for enlightening us as to 
all of these subject areas. Muchisimas gracias, and I yield 
back. I don't know how to say that in Spanish. I have got to 
learn that so that I can do it with Chairwoman Foxx.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    And I thank the panel for being with us, and there being no 
further questions, you are excused.
    And I will ask Ms. Barragan, Ms. Randall, Mr. Larson, Mr. 
Whitesides, Mr. Casten, Mr. McGarvey, Mrs. Trahan, and Mr. 
Danny Davis to come forward.
    If some of you would go down before you----
    Ms. Budzinski, if you would come forward. You dropped 
something.
    I will recognize you in the order that I called out your 
names. Some people want to know what order you are in. So, 
again, we are just doing it by the names that are given to us.
    Ms. Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment 
titled ``Health FCD-AMD-088.'' My amendment removes red tape 
and improves access to the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
also known as CHIP.
    Let me be clear: This amendment does not expand CHIP 
eligibility. It simply makes sure that kids who are already 
qualified can actually get the coverage they need and keep it. 
That is it. CHIP provides low-cost health coverage to children 
and families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not 
enough to afford private insurance. When kids have health 
coverage, they do better not just in childhood but for life. 
They are healthier adults. They attend school more regularly, 
and they succeed more in the classroom.
    My amendment takes two simple powerful steps to protect 
kids. First, my amendment ends waiting periods because, when a 
child loses coverage, they shouldn't have to sit and wait for 
care. Right now, nine States force children to wait up to 90 
days before they can enroll in CHIP, even after they lose 
coverage. Three months with no access to check-ups, a 
prescription, or a specialist. Imagine being a parent in that 
position. These gaps can result in delayed treatment and 
increased financial risk for families. Some of the States that 
impose waiting periods also have the highest rates of uninsured 
children in the country. It is cruel and unnecessary.
    Second, my amendment ends annual and lifetime limits on 
benefits. In 13 States, kids enrolled in CHIP can face strict 
limits on the care they receive, including limits for dental 
care. That means, even if a child needs treatment, their plan 
may stop paying once they hit a cap not just for the year but 
for their entire life. Limits like this are not allowed under 
most insurance programs, and it shouldn't be allowed for 
children under CHIP. It is unfair.
    Let me tell you about Emily Dent, a mother from Cape Coral 
in Florida's 19th Congressional District. Emily's 8-year-old 
son James was kicked off of Medicaid because their family's 
income was too high, but leaving James uninsured is not an 
option. He has a rare genetic disorder. It is called Pallister-
Killian syndrome, and he relies on around-the-clock care from a 
nurse. Emily, his mother, said he has to have health insurance, 
but it is going to drain my savings, which was going to be to 
save for a house one day.
    For families like Emily's, higher health care costs would 
mean a breaking point. Why should she have to choose between 
children's healthcare and other essential needs like housing? 
This is why it is so absolutely vital that we take steps to 
protect CHIP today so there is an option for kids like James to 
have healthcare.
    CHIP and Medicaid work hand in hand together to cover kids 
from low- and middle-income families. Together, these programs 
cover nearly half of all children in the U.S. When Medicaid is 
cut, CHIP suffers, too. States could impose new or higher CHIP 
premiums and cut people's access if they fail to pay. States 
could cut CHIP benefits, eligibility, or outreach to deal with 
budget shortfalls, or doctors in hospital could get paid less, 
which means longer wait times and fewer available providers for 
kids.
    In this budget, Republicans are gutting hundreds of 
billions of dollars in Medicaid funding. Failing to extend 
enhanced premium tax credits for the ACA marketplace is making 
it harder for kids to access CHIP coverage. This is a triple 
blow to working Americans' access to healthcare, and kids will 
suffer, all to pay for billionaire tax cuts.
    No parent should have to choose between paying the bills 
and getting their child the healthcare they need. Right now, 
kids face dangerous and unfair waiting periods and lifetime 
limits on their care. Why shouldn't we fix this for children?
    My amendment is simple. It says kids shouldn't be punished 
with unfair rules just because their families are struggling to 
make ends meet. Every child deserves a healthy start. I urge 
this committee to adopt this amendment not for politics but for 
children who depend on us to do the right thing.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Barragan.
    Ms. Randall, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. EMILY RANDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Ms. Randall. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, 
members of the Rules Committee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify on the Republican budget scam.
    Well, it is deeply unfortunate, Madam Chair, that you chose 
to begin this hearing literally in the dead of night to try and 
hide from the American people. It is daytime now, and my 
Democratic colleagues and I remain here and continue shedding 
light on the harms of this big, bad bill that only benefits 
billionaires.
    An estimated 15 million Americans stand to lose their 
healthcare because of this deeply unpopular bill you are trying 
to jam through. My Republican colleagues are gutting Medicaid, 
which will destabilize hospital systems across the country, 
especially in rural communities like mine, but not only in 
mine.
    Mrs. Houchin, I understand a hospital in your district is 
projected to lose $2.5 million in revenue under this proposal 
and----
    Mrs. Houchin. Madam Chair, it is my understanding that in 
debate, there may be--I am not sure about testimony, but I just 
want to ask for a point of clarification if Members are allowed 
to refer to panelists--members of this committee by name.
    Mr. McGovern. Do you want to speak in code?
    Ms. Randall. Apologies. It is my first time before the 
Rules Committee.
    The Chairwoman. You can refer to other Members by State.
    Ms. Randall. Okay. I appreciate the clarification. Thank 
you.
    And there are other colleagues on this panel whose 
hospitals stand to lose $884,000 from this proposal. So many of 
our hospitals are on the verge of shutting their doors because 
of this bad bill.
    Just yesterday, President Trump even told your Conference, 
``Don't F around with Medicaid.'' He seems to know what members 
on this committee aren't willing to face up to, that so many 
families like mine depend on Medicaid, which is why I filed an 
amendment to prevent provisions in this bill from going into 
effect if this administration makes any cuts to Medicare or 
Medicaid.
    Beverly from Tacoma called my office telling me that losing 
Medicaid will literally kill her as she has multiple surgeries 
she needs to have this year. Another constituent, Kelly, is 
worried that her daughter will be homeless if she loses 
Medicaid coverage. Evangeline wrote me saying, as someone with 
a husband who is 83 years old, a kidney cancer survivor, and 
living with dementia, the importance of maintaining these 
healthcare services cannot be overstated. They are vital for 
seniors and those with chronic conditions to receive necessary 
medical support and assistance.
    It is not just Medicaid that is at risk. Millions stand to 
lose health coverage because the majority is not extending the 
ACA's enhanced premium tax credits, which my constituent Denise 
wrote me about, saying she has lupus, and she won't be able to 
afford health insurance and treatment without those benefits.
    For the American people watching at home--because, Madam 
Chairwoman, despite your attempts to deceive the American 
people by beginning this meeting in the middle of the night, 
know that they are still watching this majority's every single 
move. And the bottom line is that this bill will make your air 
dirtier, your water filthy, and dismantle the healthcare system 
so that when you inevitably have health complications from all 
this increased pollution, you won't even be able to afford 
treatment, all so that Republicans can finance trillions of 
dollars in tax cuts for wealthy and well-connected people.
    While President Trump and his friends get jets and 
giveaways, he wants Americans to be forced to choose between 
feeding their families and paying for prescriptions. I won't 
stand by and watch it happen. I urge the members of this 
committee to follow the President's direction to protect and 
preserve Medicaid. Stand up for healthcare access and the 
hospitals in your communities and support my amendment. These 
cuts to Medicaid are just the beginning of harmful provisions 
in this bill that I am concerned will hurt my neighbors back 
home and hurt all of your neighbors.
    On behalf of the 27,000 Federal employees I represent, I am 
incredibly concerned that this bill would steal their 
retirement benefits and strip away other protections. That is 
why I have also gotten an amendment to prevent a provision that 
would chill the reporting and appeal process with the Merit 
Systems Protection Board by requiring them to spend several 
hundreds of dollars on fees from going into effect.
    Our government cannot function without a strong, healthy 
Federal workforce, and their ability to approve Social Security 
benefits, to work in our national forests, to protect against 
fire, and to protect our national defense is essential.
    We are seeing already how gutting agencies is harmful to 
critical infrastructure and Tribal priorities in the Pacific 
Northwest. That is why I am also offering several additional 
amendments to ensure proper staffing at NOAA, force the 
administration to release Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding 
appropriated by Congress, require Tribal consultation, and 
increase funding for critical Tribal education programs.
    Unfortunately, in committee, my Republican colleagues seem 
to be scared to even engage in conversation or debate on this 
bill or any of my amendments. So that is why I am back here in 
front of the Rules Committee asking if any Republicans here are 
willing to speak up and defend the terrible cuts included in 
this bill. And, if you also aren't able to find it in you to 
speak up about these cuts, then I urge you to make my 
amendments in order and let's take it to the House floor. Thank 
you.
    The Chairwoman. I am going to take a point of personal 
privilege here and say I thought Members could see from the 
last panel and from the way I have conducted this meeting that 
I am trying to be very bipartisan and to respect everybody who 
is here. I generally do that.
    I hope that is what is coming across. So I would ask people 
to see that we try to be a role model here and being bipartisan 
and not to attack Members personally. We can disagree on 
policy, but we don't need to attack each other personally.
    Mr. Larson, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN B. LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

    Mr. Larson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me thank you 
for your perseverance, your patience, and your practical 
application of getting through this process.
    Let me also commend my colleagues on the Democratic side 
for their persistence in making the public fully aware that all 
legislation has consequences.
    I have an amendment that's focus is on economic 
development, it is on tax cuts and just happens to be the 
Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the 
Nation's number one antipoverty program for children.
    And Congress hasn't acted to enhance this program in over 
50 years. Richard Nixon was President of the United States the 
last time that Social Security was enhanced. And yet it is 
Social Security that at its heart demonstrates the genius of 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and also the Congress to put in place 
a plan that would be the safety net for entrepreneurialism and 
capitalism.
    How? By making sure that every congressional district and 
the people within those districts, in difficult times, whether 
in retirement or whether through no fault of their own there 
were layoffs, that people were able to continue to receive a 
payment.
    No one gets wealthy on Social Security. You all know that. 
But it is able to sustain families during difficult times.
    And the shame here is that these are very difficult times, 
in post-pandemic and now in this inflationary, global 
inflationary period that we are going through as well. People's 
kitchen table discussions are: How are we going to do this?
    And here is the startling fact, and I think every Member 
probably knows this on both sides of the aisle: 10,000, 10,000 
baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security.
    On average--and you are blessed here in this committee and 
especially on the Republican side--the average Social Security 
amount of money that goes to every district weekly--excuse me, 
monthly--is in excess of $200 million. In the case here, it is 
over $300 million. That is the good news.
    The bad news is it hasn't been adjusted in more than 50 
years. Imagine how the people in all of our districts feel when 
they get these statistics.
    Now, I give every Member of Congress a little card, and on 
that card it demonstrates not only how much people get in 
retirement, but what spouses, what widows, what dependent 
children, and disability, another thing we don't mention enough 
about Social Security.
    I come from an insurance center of the world. And the 
administrative costs for insurance companies run anywhere 
between 16 and 28 percent, and we have some damn good insurance 
companies in Hartford, Connecticut.
    But Social Security manages the largest insurance program 
in the country, maybe the world, and it does so at under 1 
percent administrative cost. And to see the closing of regional 
offices, the shutting down of work so that people aren't able 
to actually talk to a human being?
    You are all good people. You all have the same kind of 
constituents that we have. I know, Madam Chairwoman, that 
people like us--or at least my age--want to be able to talk to 
a human being, don't want to go through press button number 
one, press button number two, press button number three, and 
you are lucky if you ever get to talk to anybody.
    So here is something that has to be enhanced that improves 
the whole economy, gives a tax cut, a real tax cut to more than 
23 million Americans. There should be no double taxation of 
Social Security, and yet there is.
    So I implore and ask your help to pass this amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Whitesides, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE WHITESIDES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Whitesides. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I am George Whitesides, the new congressional 
Representative for California's 27th Congressional District.
    I find it amazing that we are working on what may be the 
most expensive bill that the Nation has ever seen and putting 
it through Congress in this way, but that is for another time.
    I am here because I thought it was important to bring the 
voices of our district to this debate.
    I want to start by talking about what would happen if we do 
not pass this bill.
    First, for folks in my area, if we don't pass this bill, 
most people would actually get a tax cut. That is because this 
bill does not fully fix the State and local tax deduction 
problem that President Trump created in his first term.
    If we don't pass this bill then we won't add $3.8 trillion 
to our national debt. We won't saddle our children and our 
grandchildren with our own irresponsibility.
    If we don't pass this bill, then we won't cause 14 million 
Americans to lose their health insurance coverage and millions 
more who will see their healthcare costs increase.
    We won't hurt local hospitals, like the Antelope Valley 
Hospital or Palmdale Regional or Henry Mayo Hospital in my 
district. We won't cause emergency rooms to become even more 
crowded.
    If we don't pass this bill, then we won't leave millions of 
Americans, millions of children without the ability to put food 
on the table.
    The bottom line is that this bill threatens the most basic 
needs that Americans rely on. People want us to be focused 
instead on lowering their everyday costs and growing jobs.
    I put forward two amendments to this bill that would cut 
costs and help grow jobs.
    The first amendment would help folks in my area who have 
been devastated by the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. That is No. 
214.
    The second, No. 218, would preserve the tax incentives for 
hydrogen, one of the industries of the future that this bill 
would catastrophically damage if passed.
    Let's be clear. These clean energy tax credits are not 
frivolous spending. They are strategic investments that are 
already yielding tangible benefits across our Nation. Since 
their passage, we have seen roughly $500 billion in new clean 
energy project announcements and more than 500,000 new jobs 
created.
    This isn't just about environmental policy, it is about 
turbocharging American manufacturing, creating good-paying 
jobs, and lowering energy costs for families. In fact, if we 
repeal all of the clean energy tax credits, the average 
American family will see their energy bills increase.
    Every dollar of Federal investment is stimulating 5 to 6 
dollars in private investment. That is a powerful engine of 
economic growth, not a drain on our Treasury.
    Hydrogen in particular is not just another fuel, it is a 
game-changer, Madam Chair. It is the critical link to 
decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors that traditional renewables 
struggle to address, like heavy-duty trucking, steel 
manufacturing, and cement production. These are the industries 
that employ millions of Americans and are foundational to our 
economy.
    Eliminating these hydrogen tax credits would be a 
catastrophic mistake. It would devastate projects already 
underway across the country, like the ARCHES Hydrogen Hub in my 
district. It would stifle innovation, cede our leadership in 
this burgeoning global market to competitors, like China, 
Europe, the Middle East, Australia. They are not letting up. 
They are heavily investing in their own clean hydrogen 
capabilities.
    Estimates show that reaching our target of 10 million tons 
of hydrogen by 2030 could unlock up to $240 billion in 
investments and create over 200,000 new jobs.
    These are not mere projections. They are opportunities 
waiting to be seized.
    To pull the rug out from under these investments now would 
be to undermine our future. It would signal to investors that 
America is not a reliable partner, chilling future domestic and 
international investment, will raise energy costs for American 
households, stifling innovation, increasing pollution, and 
putting a meaningful portion of half a trillion dollars of new 
manufacturing at risk.
    Let's remember, many of these investments are landing in 
States represented by both Republicans and Democrats--to your 
point, Madam Chair, about bipartisanship--demonstrating a 
widespread economic benefit. This should not be a partisan 
issue. It is an issue of American competitiveness and 
prosperity.
    This bill hurts our future. For folks in my district, it 
raises their costs, cuts their healthcare, mortgages their 
kids' future, kills new jobs, hurts our planet.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitesides.
    Mr. Casten, welcome to the Rules Committee again.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SEAN CASTEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Casten. A pleasure to be back, Madam Chair, Ranking 
Member, Members.
    I am here in support of four separate amendments.
    No. 376 corrects a conflict in this bill between the bill 
and current law, specifically Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 
which requires that any new natural gas export facility has to 
be in the public interest.
    That law is contradicted by the pay-to-play provision in 
section 41004, which says that a developer who pays the lesser 
of $10 million or 1 percent of construction costs receives 
automatic approval if their review is not completed in an 
expedited timeline.
    My amendment fixes this section by clarifying that the 
approval of any new LNG facility not associated with an 
existing free trade agreement has to get a prior determination 
by the Secretary of Energy that the project is in the public 
interest, consistent with an analysis that was just done by the 
DOE on a separate facility last year.
    That analysis found that new LNG facilities would raise 
domestic natural gas prices--makes sense, tighten domestic 
supply, price goes up--would not facilitate national security 
since new exports flow predominantly to commodity brokers and 
U.S. adversaries in Asia. And it also quantified the massive 
climate risks created by those facilities.
    Now, I realize that some of my Republican colleagues don't 
believe in climate change, and I also realize that the fossil 
fuel industry prefers higher fuel prices. But if you hold those 
views, I would ask you please to consider our national 
security.
    Gas demand has flattened in Europe. It has peaked in Japan. 
It is expected to flatten in South Korea by 2030. China is now 
the world's largest importer. It is in China's national 
interest that we send them our natural gas. It is not in ours.
    Amendment 380 restores the appropriated funding from the 
Inflation Reduction Act for electric transmission and offshore 
wind. This amendment is necessary to ensure that American 
homeowners and businesses continue to have access to affordable 
and reliable electricity.
    Over the last decade, U.S. coal demand has fallen by over 
50 percent, 5-0. Oil demand is flat over the same time period. 
Natural gas is losing market share.
    That transition is the result of market forces, because 
fossil-fired plants can't compete on the margin with plants 
that don't pay for fuel, and markets favor cheaper energy.
    Now, a company that is losing market share generally has 
two choices: They can change or they can go bankrupt. The 
fossil industry has taken a third path: Persuade Congress to 
block construction of assets that would expose them to 
competition.
    So a bill that repeals incentives to build transmission is 
a bill that sides with the economic losers.
    And I want to point out this is not just about markets, 
because as companies consider whether they are going to build 
their next factory in the U.S., we don't want them to wonder 
whether our grid can handle the load.
    And when extreme weather knocks out the part of the grid 
that serves your town, I want to make sure that there is a 
redundant transmission path available to ensure that your 
family stays safe. So we need those back.
    Amendment 385 would reinstate incentives for cleaner 
transportation options and charging facilities; also includes 
legislation I have introduced with Representative Matsui to 
spur innovation in the U.S. automotive sector.
    Let's talk about global, not U.S., global automotive 
markets.
    More than 25 percent of all cars sold this year are 
electric. That number is projected to rise to 40 percent by 
2030. China now produces more than 60 percent of the world's 
electric cars and 80 percent of the batteries that power them.
    The EV demand is not because the world got woke except in 
the sense that you have got to be damn close to comatose to 
prefer a car that costs more to fuel, more to maintain, and has 
crappier acceleration.
    This bill is not going to change those trends. It simply 
determines whether or not we cede control of that growing 
market to the Chinese.
    So if you count yourself among the so-called America First 
movement, this amendment is for you.
    Finally, amendment 386 would strike section 50003 to ensure 
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, has the 
funding necessary to do their job. As drafted, that section 
would cut CFPB's funding by 70, 7-0, percent.
    Now, recall that the CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank Act 
in response to the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis was 
driven because we had this financial regulatory system created 
in the 1930s where financial firms were regulated according to 
their designations--are you a bank, are you a thrift, are you 
an insurance company, et cetera--rather than by their 
activities.
    And as financial markets evolved, that left regulators with 
conflicting and frequently incompatible supervisory 
responsibilities. That weak supervision caused risk to migrate 
outside of the traditional banking system, ultimately landing 
on taxpayers and consumers, and so the 2008 financial crisis 
came.
    Congress created the CFPB to ensure that wouldn't happen 
again, and it has been wildly effective. It has returned more 
than $21 billion, with a ``b,'' dollars in relief to 205 
million Americans.
    But even that understates the benefit, because a cop on the 
corner stops more crime than he catches just by his presence. 
Defunding the police force will cost us a lot more than the $21 
billion that they have already recovered.
    And the need for this particular cop is growing as the CFPB 
is the primary regulator of nonbank financial technology 
companies. That category will soon include Elon Musk's new 
platform, X Money.
    Now, I don't know if you know who Elon Musk is, but the 
more I learn about him the less I like him. Up until recently 
he was a special government employee who embedded people 
without proper security clearances in our Treasury payment 
system with read and write access, is now suspected to have 
private confidential information about the income, expenses, 
and bank routing numbers of every American taxpayer. He is an 
active supporter of neo-Nazis in Germany and White supremacists 
in South Africa----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Casten, your time----
    Mr. Casten. And owns several companies that have economic 
ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Casten----
    Mr. Casten. I hope you share my concern that that 
individual should be closely monitored.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Casten, your time is over.
    Mr. Casten. I encourage support for all four amendments.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Casten.
    Ms. Budzinski.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKKI BUDZINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this 
opportunity. And thank you to Ranking Member McGovern.
    I am here to testify in support of amendment No. 216, which 
is intended to make high-speed internet access more affordable.
    I want to also just take a moment, though, to say that I 
am, in part, here to stand up for my constituents, that there 
are some really damaging provisions within this bill that are 
going to impact them directly.
    Nineteen thousand of my constituents are going to see over 
a thousand-dollar increase in their premiums for healthcare. 
Twenty-eight thousand of my constituents are going to lose 
healthcare coverage. And additionally, 15,000 families are 
going to lose access to SNAP, and many of those families are 
families that have children in those homes.
    So I just wanted to say that I am speaking on behalf of 
this amendment, which gets to affordability, which I think is a 
bipartisan issue that we all want to address, but I would be 
remiss if I didn't stand up and speak out for the constituent 
impact that is going to be on these healthcare and SNAP 
provisions as well.
    My amendment would lower costs, though, for working 
families by using a small portion of the revenue from spectrum 
auctions to reestablish a broadband affordability program, like 
the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    Right now, this is what the American people need. This is 
what rural America needs. But instead of policies to lower 
costs and make life more affordable, the President has 
entangled us in expensive trade wars.
    Moving forward with this bill will raise prices. In fact, 
these trade games could cost the average American family up to 
$4,000 more per year. That is $4,000 to many folks that simply 
just do not have that money in their pocketbooks.
    My amendment introduces a measure of fairness into this 
otherwise harmful bill. This bill--this simple amendment puts 
working families first.
    Spectrum, the invisible radio frequencies that carry our 
wireless signals, is a limited public resource. The proceeds 
from auctioning it off should be reinvested in the public good, 
not to offset tax cuts for billionaires.
    Let's be clear. Broadband is not a luxury, it is a 
necessity. Families rely on it to pay bills, do homework, and 
earn a living. Yet, the high cost of service remains the number 
one barrier to staying connected.
    A recent survey found that nearly two-thirds of adults saw 
their internet bills rise over the past year. One in five said 
rising prices forced them to downgrade, switch, or cancel 
service altogether. Every time a family is pushed offline 
because of cost, we fall behind as a country.
    The Affordable Connectivity Program, or ACP, was a proven 
solution that brought millions of Americans online. But despite 
its success, Republicans allowed its funding to lapse last 
year.
    Nearly 23 million households rely on ACP, including 78,000 
households in my congressional district in Illinois alone. When 
the program expired, many saw their internet bills spike 
overnight, and those who couldn't afford to pay were cut off 
entirely.
    This was just the beginning of a wave of Republican-led 
price hikes that continue to hit working families. Now the 
President wants to unilaterally repeal the Digital Equity Act 
and clawback funding Congress appropriated to implement it.
    These programs were designed to help seniors, veterans, 
rural residents, and people with disabilities get the tools and 
training they need to get online.
    Republicans are also attempting to eliminate the 
requirement under the BEAD program that internet service 
providers offer affordable plans despite the fact that these 
networks are built with taxpayer dollars.
    Just this month, Senate Republicans voted to permanently 
repeal an FCC program that would provide WiFi hot spots to 
schoolchildren. We have seen what these choices lead to, kids 
doing homework in fast food parking lots or outside of 
libraries, like what we saw during the pandemic, and this is 
just quite simply unacceptable.
    We have made progress in closing the digital divide, but it 
is critical that we finish this job.
    Study after study confirms that cost is the biggest barrier 
to broadband access. Any serious solution we must tackle that 
head on.
    My amendment does just that. It delivers real relief to 
working families already struggling under President Trump's 
price hikes. I urge my colleagues to support this.
    And I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Budzinski follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.087
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.088
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.089
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Trahan, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LORI TRAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I am offering amendment 307 to safeguard 
access to IVF for millions of women who rely on it to start 
their families.
    And while I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to 
offer this amendment, as well as this committee's perseverance, 
there is nothing bipartisan or transparent about this process 
when so much of the debate over this bill happened in the 
middle of the night while most Americans were sleeping. It was 
a blatant attempt to prevent folks from tuning in, from hearing 
the contents of this disastrous bill.
    But people are watching. They are seeing what you are 
trying to do. And they are going to see how you vote on this 
amendment, which would simply require that the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services certifies that the GOP's 
reconciliation bill does not reduce or restrict State Medicaid 
programs from covering infertility treatment, because the 
ability to start a family should never be a privilege reserved 
only for the wealthy.
    Like so many couples across the country, my husband and I 
turned to IVF to have our girls. I know the pain of hearing 
that pregnancy might not happen. I know the silent heartbreak, 
the financial strain, and, yes, the overwhelming joy when, 
thanks to modern medicine, I was finally able to hold my 
children in my arms. Every woman deserves that chance.
    President Trump recently called himself the father of IVF 
and claimed he wants to make it easier for women to have 
children.
    But actions speak louder than words. Just last month, this 
administration eliminated the CDC's Reproductive Technology 
Surveillance and Research Team, the very experts who tracked 
IVF outcomes and access for over 30 years. Without that data, 
we are flying blind.
    And now House Republicans are threatening deep cuts to 
Medicaid, the very program that could make IVF accessible to 
working families.
    Today, most Medicaid programs don't cover IVF, and for the 
majority of Americans without insurance coverage IVF, which can 
cost upwards of $15,000 per cycle, is simply out of reach.
    If Republicans succeed in cutting Medicaid even further, 
that dream won't just remain out of reach, it will disappear 
completely. It will be women living paycheck to paycheck, women 
in rural areas, women of color, the very women already facing 
the steepest barriers to care who will suffer the most.
    This amendment is about more than reproductive technology. 
It is about whether we believe that every woman, no matter her 
income, her ZIP Code or insurance status, deserves a fair shot 
at motherhood.
    Unfortunately, the consequences of this bill don't stop at 
IVF. Every one of us here has heard stories from our 
constituents--mothers, daughters, families--about how hard it 
is to access the care that they need.
    And yet this bill, crafted behind closed doors by 
Republicans in this Chamber and considered here in the dead of 
night, will only deepen that crisis.
    At a time when the United States ranks last in maternal 
mortality among industrialized nations, when hospitals are 
closing and care is harder to find, this bill pours gasoline on 
a fire that is already raging.
    Cutting Medicaid doesn't just mean cutting coverage. It 
means cutting off care to women when they are most vulnerable.
    In my district, those failures are real. In 2023, the only 
maternity ward in the western part of my district closed due to 
staffing shortages. Then the collapse of Steward Health Care 
forced two more hospitals to shut down, including one that 
served as the primary provider for thousands of families.
    These aren't hypotheticals. These are closed doors, 
darkened hallways, delivery rooms that will never welcome a 
newborn again.
    According to the March of Dimes, one in 25 obstetric units 
has closed in just the last 2 years. Over 1,100 counties in 
America are now maternity care deserts, with no hospital, no 
OB, no place to give birth safely.
    And now this bill proposes gutting the program that keeps 
what little is left afloat, Medicaid. If we do that, we won't 
just lose coverage, we will lose hospitals, we will lose 
doctors, and we will lose lives.
    So to my colleagues, especially those who claim to support 
IVF, who care about mothers and family values, I just ask you 
to prove it. Support this amendment to protect IVF access. 
Reject the deep cuts to Medicaid in this bill to protect the 
hospitals, doctors, and services that make motherhood possible 
in the first place.
    Because if you are serious about being pro-family, pro-
mother and pro-life, then you must be serious about protecting 
Medicaid and you must be honest about what is at stake. I urge 
my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANNY K. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member.
    The Good Book teaches us to care for the least among us. My 
four amendments do just that.
    For parents, childcare is the work-related expense. My 
amendment would reimburse working parents up to $8,000 in 
childcare costs.
    The meager current maximum of $1,200 was set at the turn of 
the century. Now the cost of centered-based care for two 
children is more than the average rent in all 50 States. Yet, 
the Republican bill fails to directly help struggling parents 
with the crushing burden of childcare.
    Instead, the bill gives $731 million to businesses and 
ignores the tens of millions of working parents whose employers 
will never offer childcare. And the small temporary $500 bump 
in the child tax credit excludes the poorest parents and is 
dwarfed by the $8,000 in relief offered by my amendment.
    If Republicans want parents to work, then please accept my 
amendment.
    The second amendment would provide life-changing help to 
hardworking, rent-burdened Americans earning up to $100,000.
    Rent unaffordability is at an all-time high, with about 
half of all renters being cost-burdened, especially extremely 
low-income households, seniors, and rural Americans.
    My amendment would create a new tax credit for low- and 
middle-income renters that would cover a percentage of the gap 
between 30 percent of their adjusted gross income and their 
actual rent. For renters earning less than $25,000, the credit 
would cover the entire 30 percent income-to-rent gap and then 
phase out. The Republican bill offers nothing to help 
struggling renters.
    Supporting my amendment would provide financial relief to 
thousands of individuals so that they can thrive without fear 
of eviction.
    My third amendment would provide a tax cut to tens of 
millions of low-income workers by enhancing the earned income 
tax credit. The EITC is a powerful tool to reduce poverty. 
Although the Republican bill gives an increased EITC for some 
Purple Heart recipients, it ignores the vast majority of 
individual workers.
    Workers aged 65 and older represent one of the fastest 
growing groups in our labor force, millions of people, of 
workers, receiving and not receiving.
    We would also lower the eligibility age to 19 while 
enhancing the credit for all childless workers.
    Further, my amendment would include important flexibilities 
for foster and homeless workers--homeless youth. If the GOP 
bill can spend $211 billion on tax breaks for wealthy heirs, 
surely it can help vulnerable workers who are young, old, 
single, homeless, or foster youth.
    Finally, my fourth amendment would strike the permanent tax 
hike on foundations that would rip $15.8 billion in charitable 
aid from our communities, aid that supports food banks, houses 
of faith, veterans, disaster relief, rural healthcare, 
emergency assistance during economic downturns, and other 
critical needs.
    Policies that hurt foundations reduce grantmaking to 
charitable nonprofits across the country. Forefront, the 
association of grantmakers for the State of Illinois, estimates 
that the proposed tax increase on private foundations would 
result in $160 million less in grants made to Illinois 
nonprofits each year.
    Charitable giving represents the best in American 
generosity. At the exact time when charitable giving and 
philanthropy are needed the most to offset the cuts in Federal 
investment Congress must strike this charity-reducing 
provision. Government should help people, not harm them.
    My amendments would help lift the burdens of tens of 
millions of families and workers, as well as promote charitable 
service.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Norman, any questions?
    Mr. Norman. No questions.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I just want to say to all of you, thank you, 
thank you, thank you for not giving in and for staying the 
course and fighting for your constituents and for the people of 
this country.
    Those of us on the Democratic side on the Rules Committee 
are grateful that you are here, and I know the American people 
are grateful that you are here.
    So, again, thanks so much.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    There being no--any of my colleagues?
    Thank you all very much. You are now excused.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Olszewski, Mr. Garcia, 
Mrs. Sykes, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Simon, Mr. McGarvey, Ms. Gillen. 
And if you all would come down this way so we can spread out if 
you don't mind.
    Mr. Johnson, you will be in the next group. You are not in 
this group, Mr. Johnson. Okay?
    Mr. Schweikert, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID SCHWEIKERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and to members 
of the committee. I am really impressed. I hope you are all 
very well-caffeinated.
    Madam Chair, members, I am actually trying to do something 
honest and unique here. The two pieces of legislation I have, I 
have preliminary CBO scores that reach $2 trillion in offsets 
and savings over the next 10 years.
    They are both morally, economically quite rational. They do 
good things. The problem is they take on big concerns that 
often scare the crap out of all of us, but they are the right 
thing.
    So let's do the first one. I can do it fairly quickly.
    For anyone who has been here for a while, you have been 
tracking the MedPAC reports for the last half a decade, 
basically making it very clear that we have a major problem in 
Medicare Advantage and its offsets. As you saw last night, 
there was another scandal that broke in the media and 
potentially another set of indictments and criminal activities 
coming.
    So what happens when those of us who want the incentives of 
a system that manages care but benefits by helping our brothers 
and sisters, particularly in the seniors with their earned 
benefits, be healthier, that the insurers who manage it make 
their profit by having the population be healthier and not by 
constantly scoring that population as sicker and those margins.
    And for those of you all the way back to the Obama years, 
let alone the Biden years, which that is when this one was 
written, they demonstrate that today Medicare Advantage is 
coming in at 120 percent of fee-for-service.
    The design was supposed to be at 95 percent. Just divide 
that by the money and then do it over the decade. That there is 
almost a trillion and a half dollars.
    We have introduced--sorry, there goes what happens when you 
use binders. A piece of legislation has already been introduced 
and we have turned it into an amendment for your consideration, 
Madam Chair, that would over the decade a pilot program but 
also become self-executing, realign the incentives in Medicare 
Advantage to actually fixate on helping populations be 
healthier than what is today scamming the system.
    There are about 20, 25 Democrats that a couple weeks ago 
wrote a letter basically demanding something similar to this 
model. There are those of us, as Republicans, who have spent 
almost a year with healthcare economists. To the Speaker's 
credit, he let me hire a healthcare Ph.D. for the Joint 
Economic Republicans.
    This isn't Republican or Democrat. It is good policy. In 
just that bill, our preliminary score is $1.840 trillion.
    If you want to do amazing things to help this country and 
do the right thing, there are these handful of policy 
opportunities that don't necessarily break down the left and 
the right. They are just great math, great delivery of 
services, and alignment of incentives.
    Madam Chair, the second bill is one that we have worked on 
for about a year. As a matter of fact, the young woman sitting 
in the back who abandoned me was actually the primary author of 
this. And it is a talent-based immigration bill. Within it we 
added the President's Golden Visas, some other things.
    This one, our preliminary score is $174 billion over 10, 
but in the second decade it makes amazing differences, because 
we do something insane in this country. We educate populations, 
and then we send them to their home countries to compete with 
us.
    Why would we do that? If we know we have--the models here 
are saying we are going to have these sorts of GDP growth. 
Almost none of my economists can hit that GDP number without a 
major change in our demographics. And that demographic says: 
How do you fight with the rest of the world who is trying to 
steal our smart people? We need to enter in the game.
    And it turns out a STEM-based, talent-based immigration 
system is one of the most elegant ways for productivity, for 
new inventions, and also for tax receipts and GDP growth.
    Both of these are written more by economists than 
politicians. We wanted to get the alignment of the actual math 
together instead of some of the--forgive me--insane things I 
have heard people say behind the microphones here today where 
it is the political wedge for the next campaign.
    How about for once we get the alignment of the economics 
and the math and do good things. And those are my pitch.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Schweikert.
    Mr. Olszewski.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE 
             IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

    Mr. Olszewski. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the 
committee member, Ranking Member McGovern. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    Before I begin, I wanted to just address a comment earlier 
from the gentleman, our colleague from South Carolina. To be 
clear, the government is not my God. Jesus is my God.
    So I just want to be clear that Democrats, we actually have 
faith too, and I am proud to sort of wear that and share that 
with all of you.
    I also deeply believe in the value of work. And so you and 
hopefully your colleagues will love my amendment today. Because 
it is an indisputable fact: The more people that have access to 
healthcare, the better it is for everyone. It is better for 
families. It is better for communities. It is better for 
businesses.
    There are a lot of reasons to vote against the 
reconciliation bill before you. It adds trillions to the 
Federal deficit to fund tax breaks for Americans who need them 
least. It does nothing for working-class Americans to lower 
costs in any real way. It will increase healthcare costs for 
millions of Americans, for those lucky enough to still have 
healthcare coverage.
    The bill proposes sweeping changes to Medicaid to help 
offset these tax breaks for wealthy individuals and large 
corporations. One such change is new work requirements that 
would result in millions of Americans losing their health 
coverage entirely.
    Hundreds of millions of Americans are set to literally--
sorry, hundreds of Americans will literally lose their lives, 
according to the Center for American Progress.
    These changes won't even achieve the savings that we 
believe our Republican colleagues think they will. That is 
because nearly everyone with Medicaid coverage who is able to 
work already is.
    Ninety-two percent of adult Medicaid enrollees are either 
already working, in school, or serving as a caretaker, or 
unable to work due to illness or disability. Most are working 
low-wage hourly or seasonal jobs in vital industries, including 
healthcare, manufacturing, or agriculture, that don't offer 
employer-sponsored healthcare.
    So it was no surprise that when States began implementing 
work requirements, employment did not go up. Instead, the 
arduous paperwork meant that even more who were working or 
should have been exempt lost their coverage anyways.
    These are not people who are gaming the system. These are 
honest, hardworking people just trying to get by. But if our 
Republican colleagues insist on implementing new work 
requirements, we should also insist that work is actually 
available.
    Anyone who needs a job to satisfy these misguided work 
requirements should be able to find one. So I want to connect 
Americans to work. I know that you all do too. For that reason, 
I am introducing amendment 151.
    My amendment requires the Secretary of Labor to establish a 
national employment placement program that provides a broad 
range of public and private employment opportunities. And under 
the amendment, anyone seeking employment within the job program 
will be exempt from Medicaid work requirements. Americans who 
are seeking work in good faith will keep their healthcare 
coverage.
    The amendment empowers the Secretary to create the program 
and its operation, to define acting in good faith, to determine 
the scope of the placement program, and all other relevant 
details.
    The amendment is reasonable. It simply says, before you 
take healthcare away from able-bodied constituents, let's make 
sure they actually have access to a job.
    Madam Chair, I have been here since early this morning, and 
I want to commend you for the respect and the decorum that you 
are keeping in this meeting, and I mean that sincerely. So 
thank you for the ways in which you are conducting this 
meeting.
    I also heard you mention, though, that you want to operate 
in a bipartisan fashion. Bipartisanship requires consensus and 
agreement.
    So, in that spirit, I will say that I offer one of over 500 
amendments that this committee can adopt, can take up. I 
challenge the committee to consider a dozen or two really good 
ideas that have been presented to at least truly move forward 
in that spirit of bipartisanship.
    And, with that, I thank you for the opportunity. And I 
yield back.
    The Chairwoman. We did have bipartisan votes in the 
committee. So maybe you would like to vote for the bill and 
make it bipartisan.
    Let me see.
    Mr. Garcia.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Garcia. Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity. I 
am here to discuss the amendments that I submitted, Nos. 112 
and 420.
    Amendment 112 eliminates a provision that cancels 
unobligated funding from the Neighborhood Access and Equity 
Program.
    This amendment is not explicitly about the devastating 
Medicaid cuts that the majority is trying to move forward, 
kicking millions of Americans off their healthcare; nor is it 
about the billions of dollars in cuts to food assistance that 
families rely on to put food on the table.
    This amendment is about the way people move from point A to 
point B safely. It is about the glue that enables people in 
urban and rural districts alike to actually get their 
healthcare appointments or go to the store for groceries.
    And if the majority is set on imposing strict work 
requirements as a condition for receiving Medicaid and SNAP 
benefits, they should be supporting my amendment. Why? Because 
the NAE Program helps people get to and from their jobs.
    NAE was created to support infrastructure projects that 
increase safety and transportation access. That transportation 
access is the lifeline that allows a grandmother who depends on 
a bus to get to her doctor's appointment. And that safety focus 
creates a complete streets approach that protects kids when 
they walk to school and cyclists when they commute to work.
    In fact, a city represented by one of my Republican 
colleagues in this room received NAE funding to build a 
pedestrian bridge over railroad tracks, accomplishing two 
goals. One, connecting two communities that were separated by 
said railroad tracks; and, two, protecting pedestrians and 
cyclists moving between communities.
    The bill before you places billions of dollars for safety 
projects at risk nationwide. We should not be putting the 
safety of our constituents at risk to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthy.
    And if you all really want people to fulfill work 
requirements as a condition for Medicaid and SNAP, the very 
least that you can do is ensure that people get to their job 
safely.
    I urge you to support amendment 112.
    Next, I would like to discuss amendment 420. This amendment 
ensures that revenues from new registration fees on electric or 
hybrid vehicles are also spent on public transit.
    Since 1982, Congress has ensured that revenue increases for 
the Highway Trust Fund cover authorizations under the mass 
transit account in addition to the highway account.
    As written, all of the revenue will be deposited in the 
highway account, meaning transit will see its small share of 
the total further reduced. This moves us in the opposite 
direction of where we need to go.
    You all may think that this is only a big city problem, but 
maybe big city problems aren't your top concern. But defunding 
public transit is just as much a problem for rural America.
    In April, the transportation committee heard from the 
executive director of the Prairie Hills, South Dakota, transit 
agency, not a big city. She testified that America's rural 
population is declining, but rural transit ridership increased 
15.6 percent in 2007 to 2019.
    And who are the people relying on rural transit? Senior 
citizens, who take their local bus to get to the grocery store, 
disabled veterans trying to get to the VA, and patients who 
rely on nonemergency medical transportation to get to their 
dialysis appointments.
    Amendment 420 simply directs the vehicle registration fees 
in the reconciliation bill to cover authorizations from both 
the highway account and mass transit account.
    I urge your support on amendment 420.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the members of the 
committee for allowing me to testify.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    Mrs. Sykes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EMILIA STRONG SYKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, to the ranking 
member, and to all the members of this committee. Thank you for 
allowing me to come and testify before you today.
    This is my first time in the Rules Committee, and hopefully 
next time it won't be as long of a committee. But you all are 
lovely and it has been a pleasure getting to know you and hope 
I can acquaint myself with you further.
    I am honored and proud to represent Ohio's 13th 
Congressional District, and we are in northeast Ohio. And I 
often call my district the birthplace of champions. We work 
hard. We are kind. We are creative. We have the Midwestern grit 
that people are so jealous of all over the country. And the 
people who I represent are worthy of my being up almost all the 
night and the morning to advocate on their behalf.
    The people in Ohio's 13th Congressional District are 
looking for opportunity, and that is exactly why I came to 
Congress. They want the opportunity to live.
    In Ohio, we have some of the highest infant mortality in 
the entire country. In Ohio, we have some of the highest 
maternal mortality in the entire country. And for Black women 
and for Black babies, deaths are even higher than their White 
counterparts.
    We were proud to expand Medicaid in the State of Ohio to 
make sure that we had healthy moms, because if you have healthy 
moms you will have healthy babies. But this current 
reconciliation bill will put that in jeopardy and make us lose 
all of the gains that we have, saving the lives of these 
gorgeous, beautiful infants and their mothers.
    We also, like many other parts of this country, have an 
issue with substance abuse and mental health treatment. And 
because of the Medicaid expansion and Medicaid itself, people 
are able to get the treatment that they need and want. People 
want to live, and I want to make sure we are giving them the 
opportunity.
    Furthermore, Madam Chair, our seniors rely on Medicaid, 
many of them as their primary way in which they get their long-
term care. I don't think most people thought going into this 
election that the mandate was that their grandmothers would be 
kicked out of the nursing home.
    And so I am very concerned for this reconciliation bill, 
especially if it were to pass. And, unfortunately, as this bill 
continues to take access to care from my constituents, to 
counter this I am offering an amendment to strike the entire 
section addressing Medicaid from this bill that protects more 
than 201,000 people, including more than 83,000 children and 
nearly 18,000 seniors, who would risk losing coverage in my 
district.
    Madam Chair, I heard one of the members of this panel, one 
of the Republican members say that if you have your health, you 
are pretty rich. Unfortunately, this bill will bankrupt people 
all over the country in more ways than one.
    And I also heard some Republican members on this committee 
talk about the value of work. Well, here is an interesting fact 
for all of you.
    The number one employer in Ohio's 13th Congressional 
District are--number one employers--are healthcare systems. And 
I can guarantee you, if this bill goes forward, you would be 
putting people out of work. Let me say that again. You would be 
putting people out of work in Ohio's 13th Congressional 
District.
    The nearly 30,000 people who work for our hospital systems, 
who rely upon the Medicaid program to reimburse hospitals for 
care will be jeopardized. Their jobs and their livelihoods 
would be jeopardized.
    So not only is this a matter of decreased care in my 
community. You are going to put people out on the streets, 
impoverish them, and decimate our local community.
    That is the reason why I was willing to be up all night and 
stay here for hours to testify on my community, because we 
cannot afford this bill.
    Additionally, as it stands, this bill moves to defund 
Planned Parenthood, wiping out access to reproductive 
healthcare for at least 20,000 Ohioans. With my amendment--with 
one of my amendments, because I have eight of them--this 
section of the bill would be removed, ensuring that Planned 
Parenthood can continue to provide healthcare access across the 
United States, including the clinic that is in my district in 
Akron, Ohio--which, by the way, is the most active clinic in 
the entire State of Ohio.
    This reconciliation bill as it stands does not improve the 
lives of people of Ohio's 13th District or really anywhere in 
this country. And if the committee were to adopt my amendments, 
constituents in all of our districts would have more money in 
their pockets, greater access to healthcare, and more food on 
their tables.
    My third amendment is the Lower Your Taxes Act, which is a 
bill that I introduced early this year and 2 years ago, and 
would love it to be included in the reconciliation bill. This 
amendment would help families across the Nation by making 
corporations pay their fair share and expanding the earned 
income tax credit and the child tax credit.
    Additionally, I am offering an amendment to include the 
earned income tax credit lookback, which would allow all 
taxpayers to use their earned income from previous years for 
calculating EITC.
    People have told us they cannot afford living in the United 
States, and putting more money in people's pockets in order for 
them to pay for gas and groceries and housing and healthcare.
    Madam Chair, I see that my time is coming to an end, and I 
want to continue to be respectful of your committee, so I won't 
offer the other two. But thank you for giving me the 
opportunity to speak before this committee and advocate on 
behalf of my hometown.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. You may submit your statement for the 
record.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you, Madam Chair and all 
the members, Ranking Member McGovern, for being here all day, 
all night, all morning.
    And thanks to all of my colleagues who came to testify to 
ensure that our constituents would have an opportunity to have 
a little daylight shine on the debate regarding this terrible 
bill, a bill that adds to our national debt somewhere between 
3.4 and 4.3 trillion dollars, and that doesn't include the 
interest on that debt.
    It takes healthcare away from 13.7 million people. And it 
doesn't make them immune to being ill or injured. It just makes 
them uninsured. So this is going to add extra cost in the way 
of uncompensated care to our hospitals.
    Nine million people would lose food security.
    And all of this is to give a big tax cut to people who 
really don't need one in this environment.
    Madam Chair, I have a couple of amendments.
    My first amendment would strike the energy provision and 
restore the green energy tax credits.
    The American energy resurgence is at a crossroad, and my 
Republican colleagues seem eager to take the country down the 
wrong path.
    This reckless bill would gut America's clean energy 
production, raising the energy cost for millions of families 
and killing hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing 
jobs.
    Repealing these clean energy credits would raise electric 
costs by more than $110 per year per household. That is to all 
of our constituents, in red States and blue States.
    And despite what my Republican colleagues say, clean energy 
is the industry of the future. Ninety-three percent of all new 
American energy supplied last year came from solar, wind, and 
battery storage.
    When we passed the clean energy credit, we deliberately 
paired supply and demand side incentives. By repealing some of 
these credits, you put at risk the entire supply chain at a 
time when the need for energy has never been greater.
    And just as energy demands dramatically increased with AI 
and crypto, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
looking to decrease our Nation's ability to meet this demand.
    Repealing these credits also cause economic pain to all 
American families. Whether my colleagues believe it or not, 
clean energy is the industry of the future, especially in 
Republican States and districts. Over 400,000 new clean energy 
jobs have been created since 2022. More than half are located 
in Republican districts.
    And this also disadvantages us at a time when China is 
trying to dominate the global clean energy supply chain. 
Shutting off the most impactful tool we have to combat this is 
absolutely reckless. I would urge all of my colleagues to 
support this.
    My second amendment deals with the--would strike the 
provision the Republicans stuck in this bill to eliminate the 
$200 tax on silencers.
    At a time when Republicans are taking healthcare away from 
3.7 million Americans, food assistance away from 9 million 
Americans, and child tax credits away from 4.5 million 
children, it is outrageous that they would spend $1.4 billion 
to make silencers cheaper.
    I am disgusted that the congressional Republicans are 
spending $1.4 billion to make it harder for victims of mass 
shooters to know where their shots are coming from when they 
are trying to run for cover, and it is appalling that their 
actions will make it more dangerous for law enforcement when 
they respond to these mass shooters.
    Madam Chair, silencers kill cops and make it easier for 
criminals to evade capture, but they do nothing to muffle the 
devastation that family members feel when they lose a loved 
one.
    As a combat veteran, a lifelong hunter and gun owner, I can 
tell you this provision has nothing at all to do with hearing 
protection, but it has everything to do with making money for a 
certain segment of the gun industry. If you are concerned about 
protecting hearing from gunfire, buy and use earplugs.
    I urge Members to support these two amendments, and this 
one in particular to restore the tax on silencers and to 
promote public safety.
    And I would like to submit for the record, Madam Chair, a 
list of data showing where silencers were used in mass 
shootings to kill cops, to kill kids, to make it more difficult 
for police to respond and to make our communities less safe.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Without 
objection----
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. That will be done.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Simon, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. LATEEFAH SIMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Simon. Thank you, ma'am.
    I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all 
today, and what a day it has been.
    Madam Chair and Ranking Member, allowing me to speak on 
behalf of my constituents is one of the great honors of my life 
as a new Member of the United States Congress, so thank you.
    And, as you have heard from my Democratic colleagues today, 
the consequences, the deep--the deep, profound consequences of 
this bill and what the real-life consequences will have on 
families, families in my district and across this great Nation, 
are devastating.
    My amendments are about, one, protecting access to 
reproductive healthcare; and, two, protecting our social safety 
net and our Federal workforce.
    One, my amendment focusing on repro health, we all know 
that Medicaid ensures that millions of Americans, millions of 
working poor, low-income Americans, have access to essential 
reproductive healthcare, essential reproductive healthcare, 
including birth control, including prenatal care, including 
postpartum.
    My amendment would prohibit cuts to reproductive health 
services, including counseling, birth control, prenatal care, 
pregnancy, and, of course, again, postpartum care. It would do 
so by requiring that the actuary of CMS certify that the 
majority's bill would not decrease access to or coverage to any 
of those things. Mercy, mercy. Don't touch women's reproductive 
healthcare.
    But there is no question in any of our minds on both sides 
of the aisle that this bill would do exactly that, attacking 
women.
    When we talk about the majority's pushing through the 
largest cuts to Medicaid in United States history, here is what 
it really means. It means Medicaid, now covering 40 percent of 
all births in this great Nation, including prenatal, including 
pregnancy care and postpartum.
    It means that millions of people in California, my 
district, and across this country will lose access to 
contraception, to family planning, and cervical cancer 
screenings. My God. Cutting Medicaid would mean rolling back 
progress.
    The second amendment that I presented--and that was voted 
down shamefully by my Republican colleagues in the Oversight 
Committee--it was an amendment that would protect access to 
SNAP and support Federal employee benefits. Simply put, this 
second amendment says that, one, if the Trump administration 
cuts SNAP, the budget by even one dollar, that the provisions 
in this bill that would cut Federal employees' salaries, their 
pensions, labor protections would immediately expire.
    I know my time is about to expire, but I want to say one 
thing. Being a new Member of Congress, what has hurt me the 
most, what has hurt me the most, as a woman who was a teen mom, 
who took my daughter on the bus every single day to childcare, 
and I got support.
    Then, as a transit-dependent person, once a month took an 
hour and a half bus to get $26 worth of food stamps, then would 
go to college and then my day job, and then pick that baby up 
and come back again. That baby is an attorney. She passed the 
bar on the first time. How dare we cut benefits of hardworking 
Americans.
    I got to tell you the second thing that is really deeply on 
my heart. I learned that the childcare workers in this here 
building, this here building who take care of the children of 
Members of Congress, make $30,000. You think they can pay for a 
two-bedroom in Washington, D.C.?
    If you haven't been poor, don't legislate for the poor. 
Let's step up and protect Americans who are working with their 
full bodies, their full spirits.
    Instead, you are putting forth a bill that pathologizes the 
folks who need us most.
    Lastly, Madam Chair, I ask every Republican in the 
Conference to walk with me after you vote. This weekend, get on 
a plane, come to the children's hospital in Oakland, and you 
tell the BMT nurses, you tell that mother who has a child with 
TMP in her nose that that child may, in fact, die. Come with me 
and walk with me and stand in line like I did when my husband 
died at the Social Security office begging for a $600 death 
benefit. Walk with me.
    You all have an opportunity to vote your conscience, your 
spirit. Vote for the people. Vote for the real people of this 
country that keep a tapestry moving.
    And I will yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Simon.
    Ms. Simon. Thank you, ma'am.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGarvey, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. MORGAN MCGARVEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

    Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member.
    The Congressional Budget Office and every single credible 
expert who has looked at this proposal says that this bill cuts 
Medicaid. It takes health insurance away from millions of 
Americans. But, despite that, Republicans insist that this 
doesn't cut Medicaid.
    Okay. Fine. Great. If that is the case, then my amendment 
should be the least controversial and most bipartisan thing we 
have heard today. This amendment, amendment 224, merely states 
that every child and disabled veteran who gets their healthcare 
through Medicaid gets to keep it.
    The bill doesn't go forward unless children and disabled 
veterans are guaranteed to keep their healthcare. This is 
incredibly important because 40 percent of Medicaid recipients 
nationwide are children.
    In my State of Kentucky, it is--over 40 percent of our kids 
rely on Medicaid for their healthcare. Veterans, 10 percent of 
our veterans use Medicaid to get healthcare. So, for our 
children who need us, for our disabled veterans who have served 
us, let's protect their healthcare.
    The numbers don't lie about how important it is, but the 
numbers don't tell a story. I had a Medicaid roundtable in my 
hometown of Louisville, Kentucky. And June, her mom, Meg, 
showed up. June is a little girl. She has quadriplegic cerebral 
palsy. She relies on PT, OT, speech therapists so she can stay 
at home with her two brothers, her dogs, Vinny and Pepper, and 
her mom, who is the only caretaker who can make her smile.
    She can't be at home getting the care and the love she 
needs without Medicaid. Do her parents work? Of course they do. 
Her mom works multiple jobs. But a couple of weeks ago June had 
three spine surgeries in a week. Medicaid paid for that. No 
family can cover these types of costs, and June wouldn't have 
them if it weren't for Medicaid and the Medicaid waiver she's 
on.
    Madam Chairwoman, we simply cannot deprive June or any 
other child or any other family in this country of the 
healthcare that they need. This should not be controversial. It 
should be guaranteed. And my amendment does that.
    And the only way this bill should go forward is if we know 
that our kids will not lose their healthcare.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
    Ms. Gillen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAURA GILLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Gillen. Well, good afternoon, everyone. It is a 
pleasure to be before the Rules Committee again. Thank you, 
Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member McGovern.
    I am testifying today to speak in support of my amendment, 
No. 2, which will eliminate the SALT cap and restore the full 
State and local tax deduction to cut taxes for my constituents 
and millions of American families who are being hurt by this 
unfair cap.
    My amendment will deliver on the promise that President 
Trump made when he campaigned in my district on Long Island and 
said he would get SALT back.
    Madam Chair, State and local taxes were made deductible 
from Federal income tax in 1913 based on the fundamental 
principle that Americans should not be double taxed on the same 
income. Double taxing Americans is simply unfair, and this 
principle held firm for over 100 years.
    My constituents pay some of the highest taxes in the 
country and send far more to Washington than we get back. Many 
of them are facing a cost-of-living crisis right now, and they 
are counting on all of us to lower their taxes and bring their 
costs down. I came to Congress to try to make their life more 
affordable.
    However, despite 100 years of precedent, for the past 8 
years, Long Islanders have been crushed by double taxation of 
the SALT cap. Right now, Congress has the opportunity to 
correct this wrong and ease my constituents' burden by 
eliminating the SALT cap that is making it so hard for families 
and small businesses in my district to get by.
    This is about fundamental fairness for high-cost States 
like New York, which, again, give more to Washington than we 
get back. And let's just put an end to the inaccurate 
proposition that reinstating this full deduction of SALT is red 
States subsidizing New York, California, and other high-tax 
States. That is false. And, in fact, the exact opposite is 
true.
    For every one dollar that New Yorkers send to the Federal 
Government, we only get around 86 cents back on average, while 
the majority of other States get more back than they send to 
Washington. In 2017, the year that the SALT cap was instituted, 
New York sent $35.6 billion more to the Federal Government in 
taxes than it received back in Federal spending.
    Restoring SALT helps adjust this imbalance and makes sure 
that hardworking Americans on Long Island, in New York, and in 
other high-cost States are treated fairly.
    Long Island is one of the most expensive places to raise a 
family in the United States. Having a cap on the SALT deduction 
has hit everyone's pocketbooks.
    The President has talked about red versus blue. But I 
assure you, this double taxation hurts Republicans and 
Democrats alike in my district. It hurts union members. It 
hurts teachers. It hurts firefighters, and it hurts police 
officers.
    I have heard from countless hardworking families and small 
business leaders in my district who have had to pay tens of 
thousands of dollars more in taxes making their lives even more 
expensive.
    And, Madam Chair, by way of example, I would like to offer 
a letter into the record that was sent by a delegation--to 
every Member of the Long Island delegation, from business 
leaders and economic development leaders in the district asking 
us to reinstate the full SALT deduction.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.090
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.091
    
    Ms. Gillen. Since taking office, I have been fighting to 
fully restore this deduction by writing to leadership in the 
Senate and in the House, by testifying before the Ways and 
Means Committee. I joined the bipartisan SALT Caucus. I even 
volunteered to go to Mar-a-Lago to talk to the President about 
how important it is for my constituents to get the full 
deduction back.
    And that is why I am proud to lead this amendment to lower 
taxes for Long Islanders and others who are harmed by the SALT 
cap.
    My amendment has been cosponsored by 16 of my colleagues 
from across the country, and today I ask the members of this 
committee to make my amendment in order and bring an up-or-down 
vote on eliminating the SALT cap and cutting taxes for Long 
Islanders and millions of other hardworking Americans to the 
floor.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Norman, any questions?
    Mr. Norman. Congresswoman, thank you for your testimony. 
Now, to eliminate the SALT cap, are you talking about take 
the--it is 10,000 now; take it off completely?
    Ms. Gillen. That is what my amendment does. It strikes the 
cap altogether.
    Mr. Norman. How is that not a tax break for the rich?
    Ms. Gillen. Oh, Congressman, in Long Island----
    Mr. Norman. Just real quick. I have got 5 minutes. Just 
real quick. It is an easy answer.
    Ms. Gillen. In my district, this cap impacts middle and 
working-class families.
    Mr. Norman. I get that. But, if you own five--let's say--
and I am a real estate developer. If you have five houses, 
should I be able to deduct the local and State property tax on 
five houses?
    Ms. Gillen. You should be able to deduct it for all the 
houses that you own.
    Mr. Norman. Okay.
    Mr. McGarvey, now, you said Medicaid for everybody ought to 
be guaranteed. Did I understand you right?
    Mr. McGarvey. My amendment is for children and disabled 
veterans only, Mr. Norman.
    Mr. Norman. Oh, just for disabled veterans. Okay.
    Mr. McGarvey. And children. Children and disabled veterans 
who are already on Medicaid should be able to keep their 
Medicaid. It is a guarantee that this plan doesn't kick them 
off.
    Mr. Norman. You would make sure that it is not done 
fraudulently. If something wasn't--you know, there is a lot of 
fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system. Your President Biden 
admitted that. Was that not--I mean, if it is fraudulent, 
regardless of who it was for, are you for rooting that out?
    Mr. McGarvey. I think we should get rid of all waste, 
fraud, and abuse. My question to you is, are you in favor of 
kicking kids off their healthcare? That is all this amendment 
does is prevent kids from getting kicked off their healthcare.
    If you are not in favor of this, you are in favor of kids 
losing their healthcare.
    Mr. Norman. It has got to be--you got to get the waste, 
fraud, and abuse out, I think.
    Mr. McGarvey. How many kids like June who have quadriplegic 
cerebral palsy are fraudulently using Medicaid? We are talking 
about children and disabled veterans.
    Mr. Norman. The very picture you showed is the kind that 
you want to be helped.
    Congressman, did I understand you believe in the work 
requirements?
    Mr. Olszewski. I disagree with the work requirements. I am 
simply saying, Congressman, if we are going to have them, we 
should make sure there are actually jobs are available.
    Mr. Norman. Okay.
    Mr. Olszewski. And, if people are seeking them in good 
faith, they should be able to keep their healthcare.
    Mr. Norman. And who should judge whether a job is 
available?
    Mr. Olszewski. My amendment fully authorizes the Secretary. 
It is very flexible. It allows the Secretary to promulgate all 
the regulations around this program to define ``good faith.'' 
But I think we should agree that, if we are going to require a 
work requirement for health coverage, that we should at least 
make sure we are encouraging people to actually seek that work.
    Mr. Norman. How would that actually--a secretary has a lot 
of--I assume you are talking about the Secretary of State, or 
what Secretary?
    Mr. Olszewski. Secretary of Health.
    Mr. Norman. Secretary of Health. Would he have time----
    Mr. Olszewski. Secretary of State definitely does not have 
time. He has too many jobs as it is, Congressman.
    Mr. Norman. Secretary of Health, how would he have time to 
go out and see--determine if there is work available. How many 
people--where do you live?
    Mr. Olszewski. I live in the Baltimore suburbs.
    Mr. Norman. Okay. How do you logistically put that pressure 
on the Secretary of Health to find work--see if work is 
available? Walk me through real quick how you do that.
    Mr. Olszewski. Well, first of all, I would restore all the 
firing that the Secretary did so he actually has the staff to 
implement the program.
    But following that--this is what I said in testimony. We 
know that--we actually have not seen the savings in States that 
have implemented these work requirements. But, if we are going 
to, let's provide the Secretary with the supports and allow--
again, this is why the amendment is flexible. Allows the 
Secretary to define what that job placement program looks like 
and what acting in good faith looks like.
    Mr. Norman. What if it doesn't fit what the particular 
person wants? How does that work?
    Mr. Olszewski. That is why it is up to the Secretary. It 
gives full discretion to the Secretary to define what acting in 
good faith looks like.
    So, if the Secretary says, ``You need to be looking for a 
job; you are not acting in good faith,'' that person would then 
not be eligible for health coverage because the program would 
define that. So I--yeah.
    Mr. Norman. I can see you really--you believe that. We have 
all been up for kind of a long time. It would take a Secretary 
of Health living--not sleeping at all to try to handle all that 
if you have to--if he has to be the arbiter and finding whether 
you have got a job available, I would think----
    Mr. Olszewski. With all due--sure. But, then, with all due 
respect, just imagine how hard it is going to be to prove that 
people aren't seeking work. You have the same problem by 
putting this requirement in the bill.
    Mr. Norman. What they do is----
    Mr. Olszewski. How is the Secretary going to do that with 
this requirement, without the staff, et cetera? I mean, they 
are the same logistical challenges of actually requiring proof 
of work.
    Mr. Norman. What you normally do is you have them go in, 
have them sign a piece of paper that you have interviewed at a 
particular job and had some--and they have--the employer has to 
sign it. So that is the only way--I don't know how one man 
would be able to do that.
    Mr. Olszewski. Well, then, if you are going to do that, you 
have got the foundation for a job program that allows people to 
be connected to those opportunities.
    Mr. Norman. Ma'am, thank you. I know this is your first 
time. Welcome here.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you.
    Mr. Norman. You did a good job on presenting your 
amendment.
    Mrs. Sykes. I have done it before. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Norman. I will just tell you, I think sleep is 
overrated. We don't need sleep. We can do this. Thank all of 
you for coming.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. You know, I think one of the problems in this 
Congress is that there is a disconnect, I think, between a lot 
of people who serve here, who live pretty privileged lives, and 
the reality of millions of people in this country who are 
struggling to get by.
    I mean, the idea that somehow people just want to be poor, 
that people want to be on SNAP, that people want to be on 
Medicaid, that that is their life goal is just so absurd, it is 
beyond words.
    And I support making all of your amendments in order. I am 
not sure I support all of Mr. Schweikert's ideas, but I----
    Mr. Schweikert. You will eventually love them.
    Mr. McGovern. I know he is a thoughtful Member, and he 
should be able to make his case on the floor.
    You know, I am somebody who has been advocating that our 
healthcare system be more oriented toward keeping people 
healthy, and I authored legislation that produced the second-
ever White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health 
that we did during the Biden administration.
    You might want to read that report. I mean, it has a plan 
to eliminate hunger, but also has a plan on how to change our 
healthcare system, focus more on keeping people healthy as a 
way, you know, not only for good healthcare but controlling 
costs. I think we ought to figure out--maybe that is a 
bipartisan area where we can work together.
    But that is precisely one of the reasons why you have been 
hearing me scream about not cutting programs like SNAP. Because 
if you want people to make healthy choices, you have to be able 
to afford to make those choices when they go to a grocery 
store. Sometimes they don't even have access to a grocery 
store.
    I mean, the average benefit is about $2 per person per 
meal. I mean, you can't even buy a cup of coffee in the Capitol 
Complex for that. So, I mean, let's not undercut programs that 
give people the ability--and in the case of SNAP, they have a 
Double Up Bucks program, which enables people to buy, you know, 
fresh produce from local farmers in their areas, and they get 
double the value if they make those healthy choices. I think 
all of that is good.
    Because, if not, if we start to continue to erode these 
programs, the cost is going to be incredible. Hungry kids don't 
learn in school; there is a cost to that. Senior citizens who 
take their medication on an empty stomach when they are told to 
take it with a meal, they end up in an emergency room. People 
develop chronic illnesses that last a lifetime. So I would love 
to talk to you about that.
    You also said that all your ideas came from economists, not 
politicians. But, correct me if I am wrong, I think the golden 
visa idea came from a politician, Donald Trump.
    Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Ranking Member, we wove that in as--as 
a----
    Mr. McGovern. Okay----
    Mr. Schweikert. But we, actually, actually did a modeling 
with a couple economists that the total number was like 800 a 
year.
    Mr. McGovern. And I have another question, which is just 
pretty straightforward; I hope you can answer yes or no.
    I mean, do you support adding trillions of dollars to the 
national debt as this bill does? And I know you know it does.
    Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Ranking Member, that is actually why I 
just gave you a solution to that.
    Mr. McGovern. That is why you gave me what?
    Mr. Schweikert. Gave you a solution.
    Mr. McGovern. I know, but I mean, I am assuming your 
solution may not make it to the House floor.
    Mr. Schweikert. How is that possible? It is so----
    Mr. McGovern. Well, I am not the chair of the Rules 
Committee. But, I mean, it is a serious question.
    I mean, there is no doubt that this bill, as written, adds 
trillions of dollars to the debt and--so all the deficit hawks 
out there who say that they want to do something about the 
debt, and they just kind of go along to get along, I don't 
really think that that helps very much.
    But I mean--and, Ms. Simon, whatever you are taking and 
drinking, I want to do that, too. I am like--I am out of steam. 
But I appreciate everybody's passion here.
    Ms. Simon. Sir, can I say one thing?
    Mr. McGovern. I want to say this to every panel. Thank you, 
thank you, thank you, thank you for being here, for presenting 
your ideas. I think it is--I think it means a lot to people who 
are observing this process, and I think it is reassuring to the 
American people that, you know, people get it and people are 
fighting for them.
    I yield back. Oh, hold on.
    Ms. Simon. Just very briefly. With all the love and all the 
respect, why I did call folks in--I ran an organization, Young 
Women's Freedom Center, for over a decade. I got my MacArthur 
Genius Fellowship for doing that work because what we found and 
what we knew: Young parents don't want to be poor. They want 
good work. Work requirements require something on the other 
side, an employer who wants to give the job and provide a 
prevailing wage and provide the healthcare and the skill-
building and the opportunity. You don't put wealth development 
on the poor.
    And so I would love to work with you----
    Mr. McGovern. Sure. Yeah.
    Ms. Simon [continuing]. And every member of this committee 
moving forward running organizations, running re-entry 
programs, creating jobs, lifting folks out of poverty. We can't 
legislate from ideology. We need practitioners to tell folks 
how to do it. That is how we create real sustainable 
opportunities for folks to get out of poverty.
    Mr. McGovern. And I will just say one last thing. I mean, I 
don't know when it became okay to stigmatize people who are 
struggling in poverty, to kind of generalize in a way that they 
all fit into this category that none of them want to work. That 
is just not true. That is just not accurate in any way, shape, 
or form.
    And maybe, you know, if some of the committees with 
jurisdiction that came up with some of these ideas to go after 
programs like SNAP and Medicaid or whatever, maybe if they 
actually talked to real people, you know. I mean, not 
individuals from some right-wing think tank, but real people, I 
mean, we might have a different outcome.
    Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. And I just want to reiterate the 
ranking member's thanks to everyone. Everyone who has been here 
for so many hours with us, we really do appreciate it.
    Particularly, I appreciate the emphasis in the amendments 
on controlling costs for people and recognizing what costs do 
to families. Because we did last night after 5 o'clock, we got 
this letter from the CBO in which they looked at--they 
estimated household resources and what would happen to 
household resources based on this bill.
    And what they found was that household resources would 
decrease for folks who are in the lowest tenth of income 
distribution, and they would increase for those in the highest 
tenth because they are looking at both the tax cuts that are 
included in this bill and the cuts to benefits that families, 
particularly lower income families, rely upon.
    So there is a lovely graph that shows just how those cuts 
are going to impact household income if this bill were to 
become law.
    So thank you for your amendments to try to ameliorate some 
of the impact there, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Scott, you have no questions.
    Mr. Scott. I have no questions.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank the chairwoman and thank all the 
witnesses for their testimony and their thoughtful 
presentations to this committee.
    Without belaboring the point, as I proceed to belabor the 
point, I do want to ask my friend from Arizona a question. I 
don't know that there is a Member of the House who has spent 
more time on the House floor bemoaning the deficit and our 
national debt than you, Mr. Schweikert. I know that you have a 
Special Order hour every week. I have watched it from time to 
time.
    Mr. Schweikert. So you are the one?
    Mr. Neguse. I may be--who has watched it waiting for a 
moment like this one where I could finally pose this question 
to you, which is, I have to imagine that this is a painful 
exercise for you in light of the Committee for a Responsible 
Federal Budget's condemnation of this bill in terms of what it 
would do to the deficit.
    Mr. Schweikert. And to my friend, you know you are one of 
the people I actually think very fondly of because you have 
asked some brilliant questions over the last couple years when 
I have done floor speeches and how things work.
    But what I have found around here is we do lots of 
complaining and very little intellectual capital. So I started 
almost a year ago on part of this project, and the idea is I 
just showed up in front of you with slightly over 2 trillion in 
savings offsets, however you want to--and they are not 
particularly partisan. They are actually great economics and 
alignment of incentives, so----
    Mr. Neguse. Just to be clear, I mean, the ranking member, I 
think--I don't want to speak for him, I think he indicated that 
we would be happy to consider that amendment. It is the 
chairwoman that you have to convince, not us. It is----
    Mr. Schweikert. Part of my battle--and many of us are--when 
you end up in the majority or vice versa, you go through this, 
is the body doesn't really like complexity anymore or maybe it 
ever did. And we have really complex problems.
    Understand, the movement in the interest rates today, if 
you look at them just even--since now, it is 2 trillion over 
the tenth. Just the movement in interest rates that we have 
seen recently is the debt we are talking about here. And I 
don't think we understand, how----
    Mr. Neguse. You make a real compelling argument against 
this bill. I actually agree with you.
    Mr. Schweikert. Actually, we have the flip side. If we 
don't do some of the extensions and particularly the 
accelerated depreciations for research and development, those 
things, we can't--you know, we have a demographic crisis.
    Mr. Neguse. Why not just do those?
    Mr. Schweikert. Actually, tax cuts for individuals----
    Mr. Neguse. I mean, this is what the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget has said, right? They have 
essentially said that----
    Mr. Schweikert. But even that has--there is three--that is 
about another 600 billion. So even that is $3.6 trillion, just 
those two things in costs. You still have to find offsets even 
with those.
    My argument to you is, Madam Chair and Members--and maybe 
some Members on my side--give this a fair read because it would 
be the one moment we could also communicate to those bond 
markets that are functioning now running our country that we 
are doing something to offset policy.
    If I can't change the policy, maybe I can find a way to pay 
for it.
    Mr. Neguse. I know we have a lot of Members who have been 
really patient about presenting their amendments. I will just 
ask you this last question.
    As I struggle to get some of your colleagues to provide 
what I would deem to be an intellectually honest answer, just, 
again, in terms of the impact of this bill on the deficit. So 
the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, they put out a 
press release yesterday or May 20--I don't know if that is 
today or yesterday, blended through multiple days. The title is 
``House bill would be 3 percent deficit far out of reach,'' and 
I will just read from it.
    It simply says, ``Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has 
frequently discussed the importance of reducing annual deficits 
of 3 percent of GDP, which would be enough to stabilize and 
reduce the debt relative to the economy. Unfortunately, the 
House reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, 
would increase deficits significantly and put the 3 percent 
deficit target further out of reach.''
    You don't disagree with that, right?
    Mr. Schweikert. Oh, no, no, no. The math is--look, this 
year----
    Mr. Neguse. No, no. I am just asking if you agree with 
that, right or wrong.
    Mr. Schweikert. Let's get this. This year, we are going to 
borrow 7.33.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    Mr. Schweikert. Every tax hike proposed by the left is one 
and a half percent of GDP. All the austerity is 1 percent of 
GDP. The fact of the matter is we are not telling the truth. 
None of us are here telling the truth, that all the tax hikes 
and all the spending cuts, I can get 2 and a half for borrowing 
7.3.
    Moody's says--and now a couple others--in 9 budget years, 
we are borrowing 9 percent of GDP. Now, we can't tell our 
voters that because they will lose their minds if we tell them 
the truth that interest and demographics are the driver of 
debt. So unless we do the revolution----
    Mr. Neguse. Is the Committee for a Responsible Federal 
Budget right? I guess what I just read is wrong?
    Mr. Schweikert. But in some ways that is the same numbers 
that just came up from CBO.
    Mr. Neguse. Right. But this bill would increase the deficit 
significantly, right? You concede that.
    Mr. Schweikert. This bill will increase the debt by about 
2, 2.3.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay.
    Mr. Schweikert. I would add another 400--and I can do the 
math off the top of my head because, you know, that is my 
parlor trick. I would add another 400 in interest. I just gave 
you 2 trillion in savings; please vote for it.
    Mr. Neguse. I hope the chairwoman gives you a chance to 
consider it.
    I will yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much.
    And thank you, Mr. Schweikert, for suggesting a lot of 
amendments that we know are not going to go into this bill, 
right.
    So, in the end--there can be a lot of proposals and 
suggestions, but in the end, our job is to vote. And you have 
acknowledged that this bill will increase the deficit.
    And so the question then that the ranking member asked you 
is: You stand up week after week--and I have sat as the 
presiding speaker. That is how I first got to know this man 
with the graph is--and said, ``this is the wrong thing to do.''
    But what will your vote be? If you are so against 
increasing deficits, will you be as principled as Tom Massie 
who says, ``I am not going to vote for this bill because it 
will increase deficit''? It is a yes-or-no answer.
    Mr. Schweikert. No. It is actually----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Are you going to vote for this bill. 
Are you going to vote for this bill with deficits?
    Mr. Schweikert. It is actually not a yes-or-no answer 
because your baseline--no, no. Let's intellectually--just a 
second.
    Baseline borrowing is 22 trillion over the next 10. This is 
adding 2 and a third. But, if you don't do a series of things 
to actually start to actually promote growth and the technology 
savings--I am sorry--the differential between being at 8.8 in 
10 years percent of GDP to debt; that is our baseline to go to 
9.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. The question is--Mr. Schweikert----
    Mr. Schweikert. No.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez [continuing]. We are not in the Special 
Order hour. Mr. Schweikert, we are not in a Special Order hour. 
We are here to ask you, this I have a question----
    Mr. Schweikert. So let me--if you are going to allow me as 
a Member to respond----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. One at a time.
    Mr. Schweikert [continuing]. I will give you--I will give 
you a simple answer.
    Leadership doesn't have my vote yet. I have whipped ``no'' 
at this point. When they come to me and say, ``David, this is 
too big to go in this bill, but I will guarantee you an 
opportunity to get a fair hearing on it,'' I got to--you got 
run with that.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh.
    Mr. Schweikert. You have got to run with that because--
because the fact of the matter is, your side does the same 
thing, and there is very few of us who are willing to take both 
the political risk and the mathematical risk to do it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So.
    So are you going to come to me and say, ``Look, you are a 
Conservative; I am a leftist. I am going to stand with you if 
you get a chance''--okay, Libertarian, whatever you want to be 
called--an opportunity to have a fair hearing both from the 
Democrats and the Republicans on things that I believe disrupt 
the cost curve in the future.
    This is only one of a handful of things I have tried to 
bring. I have never been able to get a vote on them. Could I 
get a guarantee of the vote in the future? You might be able 
to--you might be able to buy my vote in this bill if I knew----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, you know, our side doesn't buy 
votes. We don't--We do not accept.
    Mr. Schweikert. Really?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. We do not accept----
    Mr. Schweikert. Really? Do you want to see----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. We do not accept $400 million----
    Mr. Schweikert. Do you want to see the amendments you all 
did during the Inflation Reduction Act?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Schweikert, I have not asked you a 
question.
    The Chairwoman. Stop. Stop.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Schweikert, I have not asked you a 
question.
    Mr. Schweikert. I would almost like to take her words down 
for a bold lie.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I am reclaiming my time. I am 
reclaiming my time. It is a simple question, and we did not get 
a simple answer.
    And that is the thing is this--I have not asked a question. 
This is the issue. The question was whether or not somebody 
would take the political courage to vote ``no'' when there is a 
deficit and that is what they stand for?
    And I need to acknowledge--I need to acknowledge the 
gentleman from Kentucky because the gentleman from Kentucky, 
you know, you are a colleague of Tom Massie, and so I know you 
have conversations. I often have conversations with Mr. Massie. 
And he really is--this is a line for him, and he is willing to 
have the courage of that conviction.
    And I want to thank you for bringing up the story of June. 
And I want to thank everybody on this panel for bringing the 
stories of what does it look like in Ohio, the idea that, if 
there is not work, how do you punish people? And we are likely 
headed into a recession. We have had the first quarter of 
negative growth.
    And it is absolutely true that our job is to create the 
opportunities and the possibility for people to realize their 
potential and to not starve them while they are trying to get 
an education or take care of their children and to not penalize 
them depending on where they live and in what State they live 
and to focus on the stories that all of you have brought to us 
today.
    And, while there might not have been very many Republicans 
on the dais, you looked at the Democrats, well, we have to go 
out to get a little break because we have been here since 1 
o'clock in the morning--I can tell you that the American people 
are listening. And so this panel, like the panel before it, the 
panel before that, the panel before that and the many more that 
are going to come, because I am looking at this audience, and 
these--these are Representatives who know that their job isn't 
about charts. Their job is about bringing to the American 
people the stories of how this bill is going to hurt the 
constituents. And then you know what they are all going to do, 
is they are going to have the courage to vote their conscience 
whenever this bill makes it out of this committee.
    So thank you very much.
    And, Madam Chair, I want to tell you that I did say I would 
learn how to say [speaking foreign language] in Spanish. So 
[speaking foreign language] for the time.
    And I am yielding back. [Speaking foreign language].
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. There are, 
I believe, no other questions for the panel. Therefore, you are 
excused.
    I am going to announce the next panel, and what I would 
like you all to do is to move down this way to leave the places 
in the middle so people can move.
    So, Ms. Castor, Mr. Levin, Ms. Sewell, Ms. Titus, Ms. 
DelBene, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Amo and Mrs. Susie Lee from Nevada. 
So come on down.
    So I am going to call on you in the order in which I called 
your name to come up to the table.
    Ms. Castor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the 
Rules Committee and your professional staff for the opportunity 
to give voice to my neighbors back home across the Tampa Bay 
area.
    If you ask my neighbors right now what they care about, it 
is affordability. It is the affordability squeeze. Many of them 
are rebuilding their lives, their homes after the devastation 
of Hurricanes Helene and Milton. They are trying to figure out 
what the highest import taxes and tariffs in a hundred years 
mean on their rebuilding efforts.
    And now they are confronted with this billionaire 
boondoggle that is going to impact the affordability of their 
health coverage, their electric bills.
    It is really harsh news to them to hear that the Republican 
budget bill is going to rip away health coverage for 13.7 
million Americans, and that it is going to increase electric 
bills. It is going to restrict nutritional assistance, healthy 
food for kids and older neighbors, in order to provide a major 
tax cut to billionaires who simply do not need it.
    And then, on top of all that, this last discussion was very 
illuminating, let's not forget, this will add about $3 trillion 
to the debt. So that is going to weigh down their purchasing 
ability, it is going to weigh down their lives. Everyone who 
has kids, you are looking at this huge weight around their 
necks going forward.
    And this bill is one that is going to hit Floridians 
particularly hard because we have the most neighbors who use 
the Affordable Care Act for affordable health care coverage. 
So, when you rip away that little bit of help to pay for their 
copayments and their premiums under this bill, that means that 
they could lose coverage or they are going to be paying a whole 
lot more.
    For the 3.9 million Floridians who rely on Medicaid, it is 
the people we love the most, a lot of our children, our parents 
and grandparents in long-term care, 40 percent of all births in 
the State of Florida, they just look at these proposed cuts, 
and they say what a contrast to what Democrats focus on.
    Democrats focus on making sure people have affordable 
health care coverage. That is what the Affordable Care Act was 
all about: outlawing discrimination against preexisting 
conditions, allowing young people to stay on their parents' 
plan to age 26, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, 
restraining the cost growth in health care.
    That is why it has been so difficult to listen to the 
debate today--and we have done some myth-busting here. It has 
been difficult to hear, ``No one is going to lose health 
coverage under the billionaire tax giveaway,'' but we know what 
the CBO has said.
    And that is why I am offering a couple of amendments: one 
with Representative Gray that says none of the provisions of 
this bill can go into effect if they increase the number of 
uninsured individuals and then another that is focused truly on 
Medicaid fraud. If you all haven't followed this story out of 
Florida on Medicaid fraud, I encourage you to do so. We can do 
that by passing my amendment here.
    There was a settlement for overbilling of drugs by 
Florida's largest Medicaid provider. They entered into a 
settlement agreement where the Governor took $10 million out of 
the $67 million settlement and funneled it to political action 
committees to oppose a constitutional amendment on the ballot 
last year that were totally unrelated. It was actually on 
cannabis. So he took the Medicaid dollars, funneled it through 
nonprofits, and then to political campaigns.
    So this has been a bipartisan investigation in the Florida 
legislature. And, while there has been so much discussion here 
that there is so much fraud and waste and abuse in Medicaid, it 
is time to really go after some of the fraudsters in Medicaid. 
And I think this can be a bipartisan effort to tackle it.
    But back to the affordability. And the fact is, what I am 
hearing from folks--it is not just from neighbors. It is from 
all of our hardworking providers. Most doctors' groups are 
opposed to the billionaire tax giveaway, nurses organizations. 
And I wanted to read just a few for the record that have come 
to my attention.
    This is a letter from leading health advocates.
    The Chairwoman. You have 15 seconds.
    Ms. Castor. Okay. I am going to offer this for the record 
and maybe hope that a few of my colleagues will ask about these 
when we get to Q&A. But this isn't right. Let's put the 
people's interests first over the special interests.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.092
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.093
    
    The Chairwoman. Without objection, that will be put into 
the record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.094
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.095
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.096
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.097
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.098
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.099
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.195
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.196
    
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Levin.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE LEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Levin. Madam Chair, thank you. My colleagues have made 
many powerful arguments against this bill today, and I am here 
for a very simple reason. That is to offer what I believe is a 
reasonable bipartisan amendment focused on a shared goal: 
protecting the American people from higher energy costs.
    This amendment would ensure the key provisions in this 
bill, particularly those that eliminate support for clean 
energy and roll back environmental protections cannot take 
effect unless the Energy Information Administration confirms 
that they will not increase monthly household utility bills. 
That is it.
    If the policies in this bill are truly going to reduce 
costs, then this amendment simply adds a commonsense 
verification step to confirm it. Nothing more. But independent 
analysis already indicates this bill would raise energy costs 
for American families by at least 7 percent.
    That is an average of more than $110 per year per household 
at a time when nearly 80 million Americans are struggling to 
pay their utility bills. We shouldn't be adding to that burden.
    Now, some of my colleagues have asked, ``Look, if clean 
energy is so affordable, why does it still need tax credits?'' 
That is a good question, and the answer is this: Clean energy 
is already the cheapest source of power in many markets, but 
the transition still requires upfront investment. We need to 
build transmission lines, upgrade the grid, and scale American 
manufacturing.
    The credits help unlock those investments and deliver long-
term savings to consumers. At the same time, fossil fuels 
continue to benefit from longstanding subsidies and 
infrastructure that has been built and paid for over decades. 
Without tax credits, we are not creating a level playing field. 
We are favoring the status quo at the expense of innovation and 
competition.
    These investments are not only saving families money in the 
long run; they are creating jobs, and not just in any one part 
of the country. The clean energy economy is growing in red 
districts and blue districts alike. Solar plants, battery 
storage facilities, wind farms, electric vehicle factories, 
grid modernization projects. These are putting people to work 
in rural areas, in small towns, in manufacturing hubs, and 
communities that have seen jobs vanish in past decades.
    From Georgia to Michigan, North Carolina to California, 
clean energy is rebuilding America's industrial base and 
restoring pride and prosperity, including in places that have 
been overlooked for far too long. If we eliminate the tools 
that are making this growth possible, we don't just risk 
raising prices; we risk losing momentum on job creation, 
competitiveness, and true energy independence.
    This bill also contains provisions that raise fees on 
renewables that will make it easier and cheaper for fossil fuel 
developers to access public lands. It weakens permitting 
protections and it undercuts the economic foundation for one of 
the fastest-growing sectors in our economy, all while shifting 
costs back to American families.
    Regardless of how you feel about clean energy or climate 
change, I hope we can agree on this: If we are going to pass 
legislation that affects energy markets, we have a 
responsibility to ensure it doesn't drive up costs for the 
people we represent. That is what this amendment does.
    It doesn't block the bill. It doesn't impose ideology. It 
simply says, ``Let's get the facts first. Let's verify the 
real-world impact before we make irreversible changes.'' Our 
constituents expect us to be responsible stewards, not just of 
the environment but of their hard-earned money.
    Let's show that we can work together to protect them and 
preserve the job growth we are finally seeing across this 
country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to 
stand up for families, for fairness, and for the future.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
    Ms. Sewell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERRI A. SEWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity for 
me to give a voice to the great people of Alabama's Seventh 
Congressional District on this debate.
    I have two amendments. My first amendment, amendment No. 
209, would extend the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits 
to Americans in non-Medicaid expansion States like Alabama who 
are caught in this coverage gap, as well as Americans who have 
lost Medicaid coverage as a result of the Republicans' cut in 
this bill.
    1.5 million Americans are in the Medicaid coverage gap. 
These are the working poor. They work every day, many minimum 
wage jobs, and they make too much money to be on Medicaid, but 
they don't make enough money to be able to afford health 
insurance. They are truly the working poor.
    We must not let the ACA enhanced premium tax credits expire 
December 31, 2025, and we must expand the premium tax credit 
for low-income citizens below 138 percent of the poverty line.
    I have heard from countless constituents who fall in this 
Medicaid coverage gap and are desperate to get healthcare. I 
spoke recently with one of my constituents, Kiana, who was 
caught in this gap. She lost her Medicaid coverage following 
the end of the COVID public policy emergency exemption.
    When she tried to qualify for Medicaid again, she was told 
that she made more than the $295 a month that would make her 
qualify. This was no help to her. And you know what? The big 
billionaire boondoggle bill won't be of any help to her either.
    In my State, Medicaid is a bare-bones program. You have to 
be really, really poor. Back home in Alabama, you must be 
``po''; you can't afford the O or the R in order to get 
Medicaid in my State.
    So, instead of giving handouts to the billionaires, I would 
say, let us use this opportunity to increase the number of 
Americans who have healthcare coverage. This amendment would 
jump-start coverage for people who have been left out for far 
too long. These are parents. They are people with disabilities. 
Individuals who work but can't afford and don't have jobs that 
have healthcare benefits.
    Simply put, as 10 States seem committed to denying benefits 
for Medicaid expansion, I want my residents in the State of 
Alabama who fall in this Medicaid gap to get coverage. So I 
would ask you to consider that amendment.
    My second amendment is amendment No. 139. It strikes the $5 
billion worth of private school voucher schemes that are in 
this bill. Under the Republican plan, donors who contribute 
money or stock to these voucher plans will receive a tax credit 
of 100 percent contribution back in the form of a discount on 
their tax bill.
    It really is outrageous that we would actually help the 
wealthy and well-off pay for private schools for their own 
children. There is nothing in this bill that stops them from 
making their own children eligible to receive this private 
voucher.
    I know this issue way too well. My home State of Alabama 
has adopted a dollar-for-dollar tax shelter for donations to 
voucher schemes. And Alabama's public schoolchildren and 
teachers are paying the price. The private school voucher 
scheme is modeled after States like Alabama.
    Many southern private schools were established during and 
after integration. Today these same schools are benefiting from 
taxpayer dollars flowing, rapidly expanding voucher programs 
that are rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead of 
tackling the fraud in these programs, Republicans are hell-bent 
in overdrive giving tax shelters in the form of a Federal 
level.
    There is nothing in this bill that stops Alabama's 
wealthiest from being able to take a tax credit on the State 
level and now on the Federal level. These academies do not have 
to live--do not have to live by the same standards as public 
schools.
    You know, in the State of Alabama, school choice doesn't 
really mean a choice when you live in small rural communities 
that only have two schools, one that is public and all Black 
and one that is private and all White. That is in 2025, not in 
1965. We should not be promulgating these opportunities.
    Public schools don't have the same benefits. I know that my 
colleagues will probably ask me about these private schools in 
the State of Alabama. I look forward to that robust discussion.
    But I ask, Madam Chair, for unanimous consent to put into 
the record these articles about segregated academies across the 
south that are getting millions in taxpayer dollars.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection, Ms. Sewell.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.128
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.129
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.130
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.131
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.132
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.133
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.134
    
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much. And I ask for support of 
both of these amendments.
    [The statement of Ms. Sewell follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.100
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.101
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.102
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.103
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.104
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.105
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.106
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.107
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Titus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the 
committee.
    I agree with many of the things that have been said so 
eloquently before me about the cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, and I 
have several amendments offered. They range from helicopter 
roundups of horses to saving the National Endowment for the 
Humanities.
    But I am here now to advocate for an amendment that would 
strike a provision in the reconciliation bill that allows for 
the sale of at least 65,000 acres in Clark County, Nevada. Now, 
this--my amendment doesn't impact northern Nevada, nor does it 
impact Utah, where the Representatives there agree with those 
sales. I am talking about my district in Clark County, Nevada.
    About two weeks ago, during the 11th hour of the House 
Natural Resources Committee meeting, Representative Amodei 
introduced an amendment to sell off public lands in southern 
Nevada. Again, this is an area that he does not represent.
    He snuck this provision in during the middle of the night 
without consulting with me, any Members of the Nevada 
delegation, or the Clark County Commission. If he had, he would 
have known there was not support for this, and this was not a 
responsible way to accommodate growth or manage our natural 
resources.
    So I am here to defend the public lands in my district and 
stop them from just being auctioned off by the GOP and have the 
money used from the option to pay down the tax breaks for the 
wealthy. Decisions to sell public land should not be made on a 
whim; they deserve careful consideration with input from the 
public and collaboration with the stakeholders who will be 
impacted by the sales.
    I know this because I have worked on this issue for decades 
as a Member of Congress and as a State legislator. In fact, I 
had a bill that came to be known as ``ring around the valley'' 
when I was in the State legislature that looked at growth 
boundaries.
    It encouraged high-density development, rewarded infill 
over sprawl, and required developers to contribute to the cost 
of infrastructure. Well, that didn't become law. It was kind of 
called ``ring around the neck'' or ``ring around the collar'' 
by some of the opponents, had a picture of me with a noose on 
the cover of a magazine. But, nonetheless, it started the 
conversation, and some of those things over time have been 
adopted.
    Representative Amodei's amendment was an irresponsible 
departure from that and will just roll back our attempts to 
kind of balance smart growth with conservation. His proposal 
includes no offsets for land conservation. And, in fact, it 
appears that it overlaps Avi Kwa Ame, a national monument that 
we just got created. Nor is it a silver bullet for addressing 
housing needs in Nevada.
    It does nothing to address the other factors that 
contribute to housing problems besides land costs. This 
includes supply chain issues, the Trump tariffs, a shrinking 
construction workforce, and lack of tax incentives to build 
affordable housing.
    What is more, it does nothing to address the infrastructure 
that will need to be built to accommodate far-flung 
developments caused by sprawl, and it ignores the drain on our 
very valuable resource of water because there are no built-in 
guide rails--or guardrails.
    In fact, just this month, the report from USDA's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service showed just how serious our lack 
of water is, both in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, at 33 percent 
capacity, down 920,000-acre feet, which equates to enough water 
to service 1.8 million homes.
    Ms. Titus. Furthermore, the U.S. Drought Monitor shows that 
areas in Clark County slated for land sales in this amendment 
to the reconciliation bill are in conditions that range from 
severe to exceptional drought, that being the most extreme.
    Nor does it take into account the new guidelines, the soon-
to-be-determined post-2026 operating guidelines for the 
Colorado River, and that has potential to shape our water 
allocation. If we are going to develop more land, we certainly 
need to take in that reality.
    Finally, nearly $1 billion in estimated revenue from the 
sale of this land in southern Nevada would go directly, under 
this amendment, to the U.S. Treasury, not come back to the 
State to be used for outdoor recreation, preserving critical 
ecosystems, or wildfire protection.
    So the public lands of Nevada will not be sold to benefit 
southern Nevada, nor will they be put up for sale by someone 
who represents southern Nevada. So, for all these reasons, I 
would ask you to take this into consideration and let the 
people of southern Nevada have a say in what happens to their 
public treasures.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
    Ms. DelBene, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUZAN DELBENE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
McGovern.
    I am offering an amendment that is a proven solution to 
grow the middle class and significantly slash childhood 
poverty.
    Families across the country are struggling to make ends 
meet, and addressing the high cost of living is the number-one 
concern for Americans.
    My amendment would restore the largest-ever middle-class 
tax cut by increasing the child tax credit and making it fully 
refundable.
    The current child tax credit leaves out one in three kids 
because they live in families that don't make enough money to 
access the full benefit. The Republican bill will leave out 17 
million American children who are in families that don't earn 
enough to receive the full child tax credit.
    This Republican billionaire-bailout bill would give the 
ultra-wealthy millions of dollars in tax breaks, while a two-
parent family working full-time earning minimum wage wouldn't 
qualify for the full child tax credit.
    Republicans claim to be pro-family, but they are knowingly 
leaving out the parents and children--the families--that are 
struggling the most to make ends meet.
    I recently met a mom from Washington who has four adopted 
kids. One of her children has a severe developmental disability 
and requires constant care. She worked multiple jobs so she 
could provide for her children.
    In 2021, she began receiving monthly child tax credit 
checks under the Democrats' American Rescue Plan. These 
payments allowed her to bring in extra help to care for her 
special-needs child so she could also spend more time with her 
other children and do things like take them sledding in the 
winter. She told me that she had finally felt like she had room 
to breathe with the extra money that helped support her family.
    That is what families really want: the stability and 
certainty that they cannot only just get by but also get ahead.
    Since the child tax credit payments ended in 2021, she has 
had to pick up more work to make ends meet again, meaning she 
spends less time with her kids.
    This budget bill shows where people really stand and shows 
where Republicans really stand, and it is not with hardworking 
Americans. If they did, they would be giving tax cuts to the 
middle class, not the wealthy and the well-connected. They 
would be expanding programs like the child tax credit so that 
parents who are working full-time but still struggling to make 
ends meet can get the full benefit.
    I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.
    I also have a second amendment that will reassert 
Congress's authority over trade, which is based on my 
legislation, the Prevent Tariff Abuse Act.
    President Trump has been waging a trade war around the 
world since he took office. This includes our close allies and 
economic partners like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. 
These tariffs are increasing costs for small businesses and 
raising the price of goods that families rely on every day, 
like groceries and household products.
    The President has callously said he could care less if 
prices go up because of his tariffs. Trump is openly telling 
Americans that they will have to live with less and pay more 
under his economy, and for no reason.
    It is abundantly clear that there is not a plan or ultimate 
goal for what he wants to accomplish with these tariffs. He 
imposes tariffs one day, then removes or delays them the next. 
And this chaos is damaging to our economy and making America a 
difficult place to do business.
    If someone comes to the White House or Mar-a-Lago to bend 
the knee, maybe they will get a special deal. And that reeks of 
corruption.
    The justification the President used to enact these tariffs 
was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. 
For example, Trump imposed tariffs on Canada under the guise of 
a national emergency over fentanyl. But, in reality, 
significantly-orders-of-magnitude-more fentanyl goes into 
Canada from the United States than comes the other way around.
    Sweeping tariffs should not be put in place at the whim of 
a President. There should be a vote in Congress. We used to 
have bipartisan support that we needed to assert our 
congressional constitutional authority over trade, and we had 
that bipartisan support when President Biden was in office, but 
suddenly Republicans are silent.
    If a Democrat was in the White House today, would you let 
them raise taxes on your constituents by thousands of dollars a 
year without a vote in Congress?
    I offer this amendment to give everyone the opportunity to 
make it clear that any President must come to Congress for a 
vote before he can put in place sweeping tariffs. We are a co-
equal branch of government, and it is our job to stand up for 
our communities, not blindly follow the executive branch.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well.
    And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. DelBene.
    Mr. Espaillat?

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member.
    Madam Chair, this debate about Medicaid cuts is really a 
debate about life and death.
    The Medicaid program is not a Democratic program; it is not 
a Republican program. It is an important program for 
constituents in red districts and blue districts. And I have 
488,000 people in my district that are Medicaid recipients, and 
I am sure that many Members across the aisle, perhaps including 
yourself, have many constituents that rely on the Medicaid 
program.
    So this is ultimately a debate about life and death.
    And I feel that this bill does not live up to the promises 
that the majority has made to the American people. For months 
and weeks, we have heard how Medicaid would not be touched. 
Americans were told that this bill would also reduce the 
deficit and restore the middle class. Instead, the bill will 
allow for millions in tax cuts to the very wealthy and increase 
by $2.3 trillion the national debt.
    Americans were told that the Medicaid program was safe and 
cuts aren't occurring. Instead, we see provisions that would 
cause nearly 14 million Americans to lose their healthcare, and 
millions more will have to pay higher premiums and copays.
    Adding ineffective work requirements and lowering the 
Federal matching rate for Medicaid in States are just some of 
the provisions that will result in millions of Americans losing 
their health coverage.
    Again, this is a debate about life and death.
    The loss of coverage would have a rippling effect on 
healthcare. Federally Qualified Health Centers and safety-net 
hospitals rely heavily on Medicaid reimbursement to provide 
high-quality care.
    In my home district, New York's 13th District, 72 federally 
funded health centers rely on Federal investment to serve close 
to a million patients. Clinics like the Boriken Health Center 
in Harlem, the Morris Heights Medical Center in the Bronx, and 
the Ryan Health Center in Washington Heights in Manhattan are 
essential to the medical ecosystem of that district.
    These clinics are much more than just health centers. They 
provide primary care. They provide preventive healthcare to 
kids with asthma, adults with diabetes. They host food 
pantries--the ranking member was in my district to see one of 
those at a school--because they understand that food is 
medicine.
    Because this is a debate, ultimately, about life and death. 
This is not a comfortable debate. This is not an easy one. This 
is not one that we can laugh about. This is about life or 
death.
    Without a strong Medicaid program, these health facilities 
will be forced to limit the services that they offer, they will 
lay off staff, and they will even have to close.
    That is why I have introduced amendment 309, which would 
require the Health and Human Services Secretary to conduct a 
study and report to Congress on the effects of Medicaid cuts on 
the reduction of services in Federally Qualified Health Centers 
like the ones I described, community health centers, and 
safety-net hospitals.
    These safety-net hospitals are the last resort for working 
families that are sick, that cannot provide or have the money 
to pay for a Cadillac health plan, a private health plan that 
is so expensive. That is why I have 488,000 patients. Cuts to 
Medicaid will increase the uninsured rates and will dismantle 
healthcare. We must protect safety-net programs.
    I urge the adoption of this amendment.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Amo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. GABE AMO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                 FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

    Mr. Amo. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you, Ranking Member, 
and thank you to the members of the Rules Committee who have 
been here from darkness to light and hopefully not to darkness 
again.
    But I have to be clear that the moral darkness of this plan 
remains. There is a clear contrast in values here. And budgets, 
as we know, are a statement of values. And my Republican 
colleagues have been showing, through their force, the stature 
of their values, and I don't find them to be high in this 
moment.
    As Americans slept and as they awoke, they are experiencing 
a reality where there is a strategy, an attempt, a plan to take 
away healthcare for more than 3.7 million Americans, school 
meals for 18.3 million children, food assistance for about 11 
million hungry people, and access to higher education for 4 
million aspirants.
    In my home State of Rhode Island alone, 28,000 people would 
lose health coverage by 2034; over 12,000 students would lose 
some or all of their Pell grant funding; and 21,000 Rhode 
Islanders would lose some or all of their food assistance.
    These are people's lives. This is their health. This is 
their future.
    And I will say it again, that, you know, budgets are a 
statement of values. And this tells tens of thousands--hundreds 
of thousands of Rhode Islanders that they don't matter. And 
that is not true.
    These cuts are made all the more egregious by the fact that 
they are being used to finance a tax scheme that gives handouts 
to the richest Americans. As written, this disastrous 
reconciliation bill would give the richest Americans an extra 
$82,000 just to begin, going up for more and more and more, you 
know, yachts and fancy cars and trips to exotic places, while 
people on the other end suffer.
    It, meanwhile, would also hike the lowest-earning 
Americans' tax rate by 19 percent. It is a moral inversion, a 
reverse Robin Hood scheme to steal from the poor and give to 
the rich.
    You know, we saw the numbers from CBO, seeing household 
resources for the bottom 10 percent go down by 4 percent; for 
the top 10 percent, go up by 2 percent. And those might seem 
like small numbers, but the scale of the increase for the top 
is just immoral.
    And that is why I introduced amendment 355, which would 
raise the top tax rate back to 39.6 percent.
    And, conveniently, this is something that President Trump 
said himself, right? A broken clock is right twice a day.
    And I think we know that we have a revenue problem. We know 
that this is something we will have to deal with. And we know 
the wealthy not only can but they should pay more. We just have 
to have courage. And I encourage support for this amendment 
from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
    And this amendment, of course, won't solve everything. We 
know that this Republican bill still strips healthcare from 
over 13 million Americans and puts one in four SNAP recipients 
at risk of losing benefits. It remains a betrayal. Raise the 
rate, it still doesn't solve for that. But it makes it slightly 
less fiscally irresponsible.
    Moody's cited our revenue challenges specifically in their 
downgrade.
    Now, on to another amendment. Because, you know, the devil 
is really in the details here and beauty is truly in the eye of 
the beholder when it comes to this legislation, and I had to 
pay real close attention to this one to see how ugly this 
portion is. It is why I am proud to co-lead Congressman Mike 
Thompson's amendment 374, which would repeal the provision that 
eliminates the $200 tax on silencers.
    Silencers make mass shootings worse, more deadly. They make 
it harder for victims and law enforcement to locate the source 
of the shooting. What is beautiful about that? Making them 
cheaper?
    Not only does this provision make silencers more 
accessible, it would cost $1.4 billion. Here we are, stealing, 
seeing a theft from Republicans of healthcare so that we can 
eliminate silencers? It is illogical, and I can think of better 
uses for $1.4 billion.
    Let's focus on caring for the sick and feeding the hungry 
and not making silencers cheaper. It is not fiscally 
responsible that you would do all of this while adding 
trillions to the national debt. And because of policies like 
these, we will face challenges.
    So, with that, I encourage support for these two 
amendments, and let's get our house in order and focus on the 
people who need our support.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Amo follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.108
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.109
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.110
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUSIE LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I am here to ask for support to my amendment to this big, 
bad, billionaire bill or whatever it is called. It is not about 
the nearly 100,000 Nevadans who will be left without 
healthcare. It is not about the thousands of homebound seniors 
who will no longer receive Meals on Wheels. It is not about the 
trillions that will be added to our national deficit. It is 
about water, something so precious and important in my home 
district of southern Nevada.
    My amendment aims to stop Congressman Mark Amodei and the 
House Republicans from moving forward with the Trojan-horse 
Utah land grab that jeopardizes Nevada's water security and 
could very well derail sensitive and complicated negotiations 
about the future of the Colorado River.
    I am here because, 2 weeks ago, literally in the middle of 
the night--seems to be a recurring theme for how Republicans 
legislate--Rep. Amodei advanced legislation in the Natural 
Resources Committee to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres 
of Federal land in Nevada and Utah. The proceeds from those 
sales would go to Washington to pay for billionaire tax breaks 
in the budget bill.
    Mr. Amodei claims that this sell-off is necessary to lower 
the cost of housing. I have always supported releasing more 
Federal land for housing in Nevada. In fact, I have introduced 
and passed bipartisan legislation to do exactly that. But my 
first problem is that this proposal really isn't about housing. 
The Amodei proposal doesn't require that land sold in Nevada be 
used for housing. In fact, there is very little information on 
how exactly this land would be used.
    Which leads me to my second issue with the proposal. For 
decades, the law has ensured that proceeds from Federal land 
sales in southern Nevada, which, as Congresswoman Titus has 
said, have been negotiated and supported by local government, 
but--that those proceeds stay in Nevada. This proposal from 
Amodei would instead send these proceeds to the Federal 
Government, and Nevada would lose billions of dollars. This 
would mean less money to build more schools, water 
infrastructure, parks, and so much more.
    In fact, Federal land sales in southern Nevada have 
generated about a half-a-billion dollars to date to invest 
directly in southern Nevada water priorities. Under Rep. 
Amodei's own projection, this move could divert nearly $8 
billion over 10 years from Nevada. Think about it. Who would 
then pay for things like water and parks and schools? Nevada 
homeowners. So Amodei's move actually increases housing costs 
for Nevadans, not decreases them.
    And let me remind you that Rep. Amodei does not represent 
any part of Clark County, and his proposal is not supported by 
the county government or any member of Nevada's Federal 
delegation elected by voters of Clark County. I would never 
introduce a bill to sell off land in another Congressperson's 
district without consulting with them.
    Congresswoman Titus just proposed an amendment which I 
support, but I finally want to talk about the third issue with 
this proposal and the purpose of my amendment, which relates to 
Nevada and the Southwest's water security.
    Arizona Congressman Greg Stanton and I have been alerted by 
water officials in Nevada and Arizona that the public land that 
Amodei wants to sell off in Utah could be used for a 
controversial water pipeline.
    The parcels of land marked for sale in this proposal 
coincidentally line up with the land in Utah that has been 
targeted for the so-called Lake Powell Pipeline. This proposed 
pipeline has greatly concerned water managers in Nevada, 
Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. These 
are six of the seven States that depend on the Colorado River, 
every one except Utah.
    If this land is sold and the pipeline is built, this could 
divert 28 billion gallons of water each year from Lake Powell 
and the Colorado River to communities in southern Utah, away 
from Nevada, Arizona, and other basin States.
    Look, Amodei did not consult local authorities in southern 
Nevada, and it shows, because he clearly doesn't understand the 
relationship between water and development and housing costs.
    I support the Titus amendment, and I am asking you to 
advance my amendment to repeal the Amodei land sale in Utah so 
we can stop this Trojan horse to steal Nevada's water.
    Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Langworthy, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Langworthy. I have no questions.
    The Chairwoman. No.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Ms. Sewell, I don't know, did you have 
anything else you wanted to add?
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much. Yes.
    You know, I was starting to talk about the effects of this 
horrible bill on public schools and the fact that these school 
vouchers are now being federalized. I mean, there are lots of 
States, including my own State, that gives tax credit to 
parents who put their money in a, you know, foundation. They 
call it a foundation. There are no requirements as to who is 
eligible. So what happens is that lots of parents who already 
have their kids in private school now will have an opportunity, 
one for one, to get a tax credit for that.
    And in my State of Alabama, a lot of those private schools 
popped up as a way of avoiding all deliberate speed in Brown v. 
Board of Education and created these segregated academies. And 
so I don't want, you know, this bill to give further credence 
to these vouchers being about choice, when there are very 
little choices when you have small communities that are made up 
of 5,000 people and there is one public school and there is 
only one academy and that academy is still all-White in 2025.
    And, you know, as a public-school kid and parents who were 
public-school teachers and my dad was a--my mom was a librarian 
and my dad was a high-school basketball coach--I can tell you 
that, in Selma, when I was growing up, the best school was 
Selma High School. It was Selma High School that sent kids off 
full-scholarships to Duke and to other places. It wasn't the 
private academy that was private but didn't have a full array 
of sports or debate team or any of that.
    And I don't want to, as a Member of Congress, promote these 
vouchers which are--and this bill gives a set-aside of $5 
billion for these private-school vouchers.
    So thank you so much for giving me----
    Mr. McGovern. No. Thank you.
    Ms. Sewell [continuing]. The opportunity to talk about it. 
You know and I know that these private schools----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Ms. Sewell [continuing]. Don't have to take the disabled--
--
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Ms. Sewell [continuing]. Or special-ed kids. They have very 
different standards.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. So thank you for that.
    And to everybody on the panel, thank you for your 
amendments. Thank you for waiting around. Thank you for, again, 
your passion and your commitment as you are trying to make this 
bill better. I support them all. And I am just so, so grateful 
that you are here.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Sewell, you just said something, though, that I have to 
correct, because in this bill, with the vouchers, if a student 
does have an IEP, that has to be honored if the student goes 
into a school with a scholarship.
    So you are mistaken, I have to say. For the schools, that 
is a part of that piece of legislation. So they do have to take 
students who have IEPs if they are in the public schools and 
they have IEPs and they transfer----
    Ms. Sewell. Well, I can just tell you that, in Alabama 
State--because they are going----
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    Ms. Sewell [continuing]. To get a vote. And I understand 
what you are saying, but, clearly, because schools are mostly 
controlled by the States----
    The Chairwoman. But, in this legislation, there is a 
provision on that. It may not be true in Alabama, but it is 
true in this legislation.
    Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    I would just add, however, that the way that would be 
enforced would be through the Department of Education's Office 
of Civil Rights, which has just been gutted by the Trump 
administration, so----
    Ms. Sewell. That is a very good point.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I did that work for a long time.
    Mr. Levin, I think you mentioned that the bill would raise 
energy costs for families. Is that right? Can you give me that 
figure?
    Mr. Levin. Yep, by 7 percent, about $110 a year.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, if the energy costs for the family 
are going to go up by $107 per year and their tax break is 
going to be $265 per year, we have already eliminated half of 
that. And then if they are going to have problems with their 
healthcare costs because we have cut Medicaid and we are 
eliminating the ACA credits, you begin to see how the Budget 
Office has determined that the prices for average families are 
going to go up.
    Mr. Levin. Well, this is a lousy deal. So, if you are 
making--the statistics I saw is, if you are making under 
$51,000 a year, you are going to wind up with $700 in increased 
tax burden per year, and if you make over $4.3 million, your 
taxes are going to go down by an average of $389,000.
    So the rich get richer. And that is what these folks want 
to do.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
    And, Ms. Castor, you were talking--one of your amendments 
deals with having HHS investigate the potential for Medicaid 
fraud.
    Isn't that something that inspectors general would do for 
HHS under ordinary times when we had an inspector general?
    Ms. Castor. That is correct.
    And, in fact, just today, the Senate Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs Committee issued a major report on the 
impact of Trump's firing of all of the inspectors general, the 
folks who--these are the cops on the beat that root out waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
    You are right; if we don't have the cops on the beat, if we 
don't fund them through our appropriations, that is money lost 
to the taxpayer.
    Ms. Scanlon. Right.
    And, in the past, I think the inspector general has found 
Medicaid fraud in Florida to the tune of $1-point-something-
billion with the Columbia hospital system?
    Ms. Castor. That is correct. Unfortunately, Florida is a 
magnet for a lot of the fraudsters. We have a lot of older 
neighbors, a lot of retirees that are often subjected to this. 
But, I mean, it knows no bounds, so----
    Ms. Scanlon. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Castor [continuing]. Why don't we instead--instead of, 
you know, creating this false narrative that there is a 
hardworking person with a child with a complex condition trying 
to rip off Medicaid, it is often these large-scale----
    Ms. Scanlon. Right.
    Ms. Castor [continuing]. Schemes by different insurance 
providers or managed-care providers, and that is where the 
focus should be.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, and that was the presumption that I 
wanted to push back against, this idea that you have 
individuals who are out there committing fraud against 
Medicaid, when, in fact, the big dollars that do from time to 
time get wasted, get defrauded, tend to be from large-scale 
providers. And that is the kind of thing that we do need these 
inspectors to root out.
    Thank you all for being here. Thank you for everyone who is 
still waiting in the wings. You know, we will continue the 
Rules rave, as we head into our 16th hour.
    So thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you to our colleagues for your testimony, for your 
patience, and for being here on behalf of your constituencies.
    I want to talk a bit with my colleagues from the West, with 
Ms. Titus and Ms. Lee, about what I think to be one of the most 
insidious provisions of this bill, which was this midnight 
public lands sale.
    And both of you articulated well what makes this provision 
so problematic, so repugnant, something that I actually thought 
Republican leadership would have already removed. Perhaps we 
will see that in the manager's amendment; time will tell.
    But I think, insofar as neither of your amendments are 
accepted in order and this language isn't removed from the 
bill, I think it would be violative of a core norm that has 
governed land conveyances and the consideration of land 
conveyances by this body for a long time.
    So, just to kind of unpack that, as you know, I serve as 
the ranking member on the Federal Lands Subcommittee, one of 
the most bipartisan subcommittees in the Congress. It was the 
most productive subcommittee in the last Congress. We marked up 
more bills than any other subcommittee in the House. The vast 
majority of them were bipartisan, mostly on suspension, most 
regarding land conveyances.
    Those typically are done through regular order, a 
legislative hearing. Were these land sales considered as part 
of a legislative hearing, Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. No, they were not. In fact, the 
amendment was literally unusually dropped right before it was 
heard rather than at the beginning of the markup hearing.
    Mr. Neguse. That is precisely right.
    Ms. Titus, were they considered in a markup prior to being 
included in this bill?
    Ms. Titus. No, they weren't. And, furthermore, we were not 
informed about them in advance. As you well know, any kind of 
public land decisions go through a long process. Stakeholders 
come, you have public hearings, local elected officials weigh 
in, BLM plays a role. None of that happened. This was just 
dropped all of a sudden.
    And to add insult to injury, it is in a district that Mr. 
Amodei does not represent. It is in my district. And it goes 
against all of the SNPLMA provisions that have been in place 
for years, where the money from land sales in Nevada returns to 
Nevada to be used to save Lake Tahoe, to do bicycle trails, 
energy conservation, firefighting; even some goes to education. 
None of that was considered.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah, it, as I said, violates every norm in the 
book. No legislative hearing, no legislative markup, introduced 
at the dead of night without any consultation with the 
colleagues whom actually represent the areas in question. It is 
opposed by the local counties, opposed by the congressional 
representation, opposed by the U.S. Senators who represent the 
State in question.
    And I just have to say to my colleagues--and it gives me 
no--I don't enjoy saying it--majorities come, majorities go. 
And my colleagues will have reaped what they sow insofar as 
this measure is included. And I made that case to Chairman 
Tiffany on the Public Lands Subcommittee.
    Just to give you a sense of what this looks like so that we 
just kind of understand what the future holds--I haven't had 
the privilege of visiting Mr. Langworthy's district. I hope one 
day maybe I will get an invitation. But just so he is aware, I 
would hope that he makes the case to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Morelle 
and the neighboring districts that are adjacent to his--let's 
say Chautauqua County, for example. Because if Mr. Morelle 
comes to the Public Lands Subcommittee if we are in the 
majority 18 months from now, and says, ``You know what? I would 
like to pursue a wilderness designation in Chautauqua County. I 
don't represent Chautauqua County. Nicholas Langworthy 
represents Chautauqua County, but--oh, I know the county is 
against this measure, but that is okay. I think we should 
proceed,'' there will be no legislative hearing, there will be 
no legislative markup, there will be no consideration of how 
your constituents feel. If we applied the principle that you 
are applying today, that land measure would be on the floor for 
full consideration by the body without a moment's care for your 
position on it.
    And so I am again in awe that we haven't been able to 
convince my colleagues that this is not a precedent that they 
want to establish. Again, I suppose we will see what happens on 
the floor.
    The last point I will make--Ms. Lee pointed this out. I was 
unaware when this was introduced about the water diversion 
project--I mean, this is part of the reason, I suspect, why 
they introduced it in the dead of night--in the land sale, 
because it would be disastrous for the State of Arizona. And I 
don't know how any of my colleagues from Arizona, on the 
Republican or Democratic side, are going to justify a vote 
against protecting their water sources. It just--it makes no 
sense to me how they are going to rationalize that.
    Had this been vetted in a legislative hearing, we would 
have had an opportunity to hear from the Bureau of Reclamation 
and the various water authorities and have the necessary 
sunlight to expose this. We were deprived of that opportunity.
    And now you have six basin States all--including the State 
of Colorado--the headwaters of the Colorado River, as Ms. Lee 
knows, are in my district--opposing this effort. And I hope we 
will hear--I certainly plan on spending some time on the floor 
on this issue, and I would welcome my colleagues from Arizona, 
my Republican colleagues. If Mr. Gosar is watching somewhere in 
the building, I would welcome him to the floor, because I would 
love to hear what his response would be.
    Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. And, for that matter, any colleague from 
the West who has a large percentage of federally controlled 
land in their State who--traditionally, this type of move would 
never be made, one, without any input from a Representative 
from the district in which the land is--which is mine--and/or 
any county official.
    So I know that Representative Zinke has led an effort to 
withdraw this amendment, and I hope that other Republicans join 
him.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah. I couldn't say it better. And I 
appreciated Mr. Zinke's leadership, frankly, in pushing that 
forward. I support his effort. And we will just have to see.
    But, in the interim, if folks have ideas about, you know, 
potential wilderness designations in western Virginia or 
perhaps parts of northern Minnesota or Chautauqua County in New 
York, you know, we are taking ideas, and we have got 17 months, 
I guess, to do that.
    So, anyway, I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much.
    And, you know, I think that this testimony that we have 
heard today, and all day long, really talks about that there 
are a lot of transfers going on in this bill, right? Transfers 
from working families to the wealthy. Transfers--in your 
instance, I think you wanted to talk a little bit more about 
the idea that we were transferring resources from public 
schools, and what does that then mean for the children of those 
public schools. The transfer of wealth away from the children 
who need it most, with the child tax credit, to those who need 
it the least, right? It would be my guess that--my kids are too 
old now, but--I could make do without that child tax credit, 
but somebody who is making $15,000 could really use it.
    And, Representative DelBene--and I think this education 
piece, to the both of you, goes to: What does it mean for a 
child to have the right kind of education, but also the child 
tax credit removes the stress that is in the household that has 
high poverty. And Republicans refuse to expand--to continue the 
expanded child tax credit they have.
    Could you just real quickly, maybe the two of you, give 
some quick thoughts on that impact on the children's education?
    Ms. DelBene. Well, we know, when we had the expanded child 
tax credit in place, we cut childhood poverty across the 
country almost in half in just a year. Childhood poverty costs 
us a trillion dollars a year in the United States, so not only 
is this important policy because it supports families, helps 
our kids get off to a great start, it also is fiscally 
responsible policy and actually saves us money.
    So the challenge that we face in this bill is that 17 
million kids across the country are left out because their 
parents don't make enough money to have the tax burden to get 
the full credit.
    And what we did previously with the expanded child tax 
credit is we said, we are going to make sure that the families 
who need it the most, the lowest-income families, they may not 
make enough to have a huge tax burden, we are going to make 
sure they get the full benefit.
    And what did people spend that money on? On housing, on 
food, on school supplies, you know, making sure their kids were 
doing okay. It is an incredible investment.
    But those 17 million kids across our country who are in the 
most need, they won't receive the full benefit in the way this 
bill is written. We can fix that. We have done it before.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And we need to trust families to make 
those decisions.
    Ms. DelBene. And we know it works----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. What is fascinating is that 
Republicans sort of--they want to say ``no regulations,'' but, 
boy, do they regulate families.
    I don't know if you want to have--you said you wanted to 
add something more, so that is why----
    Ms. Sewell. Yeah.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez [continuing]. I think I wanted to make 
sure we gave everybody a chance.
    Ms. Sewell. No, I just really wanted--I think this is a 
further--you know, we are further degrading public education.
    I mean, you know, education is a great equalizer. It gives 
people opportunities. It can level the playing field. And when 
you take away and siphon public dollars that should go to 
public schools and you are giving tax credits for private 
schools, I think we are sending the wrong message.
    And I can tell you that Head Start gives people a head 
start. And when you are taking money away from public education 
you are decreasing the amount of, you know, chemistry labs we 
have, better libraries that we have, books and teachers, for 
that matter.
    And I just think that it is a transfer of wealth and of 
dollars from one to another. And it is sort of like Robin Hood. 
You are taking from the least of these and giving it to the 
most of these.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    And, of course, we have--let's tax the billionaires. That 
would be the right way to do the transfer. And thank you very 
much for bringing that amendment, right? Like, if you don't 
want to benefit--if you want to make sure that there isn't the 
transfer of wealth going the wrong way, that is what your 
amendment does, and I thank you very much for it.
    And then, finally, you know, there we are on, you know, 
making sure that we are losing the battle for renewable energy. 
And thank you for championing those.
    And then, finally, the respect that we should have for due 
process for our immigrant population, and to say, let's stop 
demonizing our immigrants. Because they bring--they pick the 
food--somebody was saying, ``Well, you know, it is the farmers, 
you know, who produce the food; you cannot demonize the 
farmers,'' earlier today, but, actually, who is the one who is 
actually picking that food and, you know, helping care for our 
elders, helping care for our children, all of that?
    And I think that what you all did today on this panel was 
bring all those many aspects of this bill to light. And so I am 
very grateful that you did that.
    And, once again, we have a roomful of colleagues who are 
going to bring some other great amendments to bear here.
    And so, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
    And that concludes this panel.
    Thank you all for being here.
    And we are going to look forward to the next panel stepping 
forward as we let those get out first before we have a big 
shift.
    Starting on this end, so that we have everybody in order, 
Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Houlahan, Ms. Underwood, Mr. Suozzi, Ms. 
Rivas, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Moskowitz, and Ms. Morrison.
    I know some of you all have been here for some time. We 
have still got at least one or two more panels to go after 
this.
    So, Ms. Lofgren, I am going to recognize you to go ahead 
and get started, and hopefully everybody will settle down here 
real quick. The floor is yours for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
committee.
    There is a lot to dislike in this big, bad bill, but many 
of my colleagues have addressed some of the most pernicious 
elements--reducing healthcare for Americans, increasing costs 
for Americans, nutrition cuts for Americans.
    I want to address something else with my amendments. We 
need to grow our economy if we want to have a prosperous 
country, and key to that is to make sure that our science 
enterprise is not destroyed.
    My first three amendments deal with the Trump 
administration's threats to significantly cut indirect-cost 
funding provided to universities and other research partners by 
the National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy, the 
National Science Foundation, and other Federal agencies.
    The administration has proposed capping those costs at 15 
percent. That is ill-informed and completely arbitrary.
    These indirect costs are not unnecessary. They are the 
funds that are used to pay the electricity for labs, to feed 
the lab animals, to make sure that the research can be done. 
And they are carefully negotiated in each case with the 
grantees.
    To cap them is just to cut the science, and it is a big 
problem for America's future.
    Many of these research universities are not just in blue 
States, they are in Republican-led districts and States. And it 
is going to hurt not only science in the country but your 
districts as well as all of ours.
    You know, the Idaho National Labs posted something recently 
indicating that up to 85 percent of GDP growth in America is 
directly connected with science. And so the science reductions 
that we are seeing, that are being undertaken, are going to 
have a direct adverse impact to our economy and to our future 
prosperity.
    I have an amendment dealing with broadening participation 
in the science area. The current administration has severely 
cut science agencies' work on broadening participation. In some 
cases, they have ignored or defied explicit congressional 
direction in law. And I will add that that direction was always 
adopted on a bipartisan basis in the Science Committee.
    We have known for a long time that there are parts of the 
American population that are lagging behind in science 
participation, including people in rural communities, women. 
You know, we can't afford to write off any ZIP Code in the 
United States.
    If we don't address this disparity, we are going to lose 
our competition with China, which has more than four times the 
population of America. So, if we don't include all Americans, 
we lose to China.
    This amendment addresses the shortsighted actions by the 
Trump administration.
    Finally, I have two amendments that deal with agriculture, 
the Specialty Crop Block Grants Program and Specialty Crop 
Research Initiative.
    While the skinny farm bill has some provisions I would 
support in a vacuum, I have serious concerns that the bill does 
not do enough to ensure the competitiveness of our agricultural 
industry given the context of what the Trump administration is 
doing to the ag industry.
    As the chaos of the Trump administration and DOGE's 
senseless cuts continue across the USDA, we are already seeing 
a brain drain, as highly trained staff with extremely 
specialized expertise leave or are fired.
    At this year's joint session, I invited a Salinas 
scientist, a Ph.D.-level scientist, U.S. Air Force veteran, who 
had been fired despite receiving a recent positive performance 
review. His situation represented one of the many mindless 
firings by Trump and Musk that undermines the country's science 
and innovation prowess.
    You know, diminishing agricultural research capacity in my 
district, ``America's Salad Bowl,'' is unwise. Monterey County 
agriculture pumps more than $1.3 million into the local economy 
each hour of every day. USDA scientists, like my guest, conduct 
important research and development projects that boost American 
innovation and help keep food on our tables.
    The U.S. will no longer be the envy of the world if the 
administration keeps firing smart, capable public servants 
advancing America's best interests.
    Yet this reconciliation package pretends that these cuts 
aren't happening, and I am here to say that they are. My 
amendments would undo them and promote economic growth and 
prosperity.
    And I see my time is up, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. 
Houlahan, for her 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISSY HOULAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And I am here to speak on behalf of the close to 750,000 
members of my community as well as the military in this 
conversation here.
    This bill is simply a slap shot, an irresponsible bill, and 
in many cases it is quite hateful. In fact, just a few hours 
ago, one of my Republican colleagues described it to me as a 
``hot mess.''
    So I believe that we are at a place where we need to figure 
out if there are any sort of amendments that we can be doing 
that are commonsense and that might hopefully prevent some of 
the harmful and destructive fates from befalling the American 
people.
    So I have a few amendments that I would like to introduce, 
and each of them prevents this bill--if it moves forward, maybe 
helps to hurt fewer people less, whether they are veterans or 
students or the middle-class Americans and anyone who might be 
worried about national security. And I would argue that 
everyone should be worried about national security.
    The first of my amendments is that none of these funds will 
be available if this bill increases taxes or the cost-of-living 
expenses for those making $400,000 or less.
    I am going to say I shamefully stole this from a fellow 
Pennsylvanian who offered this exact amendment during the IRA. 
And so it feels as though what is good for the goose is good 
for the gander, and it feels like this should be a really good 
opportunity to add this amendment, and no one should disagree 
with that.
    While Republicans claim to care about lowering grocery 
prices and the cost of living, the reality is that both have 
gone up under President Trump's leadership. My community 
learned that the hard way the last time Republicans jammed 
forward their tax bill, and, in my community particularly, it 
actually raised taxes for many of our families and provided 
giveaways to many of the wealthiest and to many large 
corporations as well.
    So the next thing that I will offer to this big, beautiful 
bill is a second amendment, which is one that I actually 
offered during the Armed Services markup. And this amendment 
was offered first and named the ``Delay of Effective Date of 
This Bill Until Pete Hegseth is No Longer the Secretary of 
Defense.'' Right?
    If you have watched me over the past 6 years in Congress, 
you know that I am passionate about national security and you 
know that I have worked really hard to provide our warfighters 
with everything that this Nation can provide and our Armed 
Forces need to face the threats of today and of our future 
wars, which is why I cannot and we should not in good faith 
effectively give a blank check to the Department of Defense for 
150 billion additional dollars of investment with somebody like 
Secretary Hegseth at the helm.
    He has proven himself to be incompetent, to be reckless, to 
be willful, and, frankly, to be paranoid as well. And he cannot 
and absolutely should not be trusted with the responsibility of 
these, our most precious resources--our soldiers, our sailors, 
our airmen, our marines, and our--the Space Force--guardians--
thank you--the fun uniforms.
    So, until such time as Secretary Hegseth is no longer 
serving as our Secretary of Defense and no longer threatening 
our national security and that of this world, the authorization 
of $150 billion will not be unlocked and this bill will not be 
in effect.
    And, finally, none of these funds may be used to dismantle 
the VA or benefits, including those of Coatesville VA.
    At a time when President Trump and the administration has 
been implementing sweeping and super-chaotic structural changes 
at our Department of Veterans Affairs, we must ask ourselves 
who is indeed bearing the responsibility of this instability.
    The answer, unfortunately, is sometimes that the men and 
women who have worn the uniform of the United States, many of 
whom we will observe this Memorial Day weekend, those who have 
faced combat and endured in some cases lifelong injuries and 
sacrificed not just their time but often their peace of mind, 
their health, their families, their well-being, and their 
lives, those are the people who deserve the stability, the 
transparency, and the unwavering support, not a system in 
disarray and an administration that views them as line items in 
a budget.
    Which is why this amendment will ensure that none of the 
funds will be used to dismantle VA facilities, veterans 
services or benefits, including those at my Coatesville VA 
Medical Center.
    And, finally, none of the funds authorized under this act 
may be expended until such time as all funding that has been 
allocated amongst the American Rescue Plan's Elementary and 
Secondary School Emergency Relief, or ESSER, has been 
allocated.
    Specifically, in my community, the Reading, Pennsylvania, 
School District, $51,363,310 that were appropriated and 
allocated by this Congress were clawed back by this 
administration, forcing our STEM building, our high school STEM 
building, in one of the Nation's poorest areas to no longer be 
able to be built.
    So, until such time as those funds are released--those 
appropriately, legally, constitutionally appropriated funds are 
re-released--this bill will not be enacted.
    With that, those are the several opportunities that I think 
for improving this bill. I urge this committee to make these 
amendments in order, please. I urge this committee to take 
stock of what American people are really, actually telling us.
    And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, 
Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 
Underwood.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAUREN UNDERWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
    I join you today to speak on behalf of the millions of 
Americans who stand to lose their healthcare based on which 
amendments this committee decides to move forward with today.
    While most of the country was asleep, the Republican 
majority on this committee has been working to rush this 
legislation through the night to please Donald Trump and hand a 
massive tax cut to all those billionaires that were in the 
front row of the inauguration.
    And if that wasn't enough, you are making American families 
pay for it by kicking Americans off of healthcare coverage, 
closing nursing homes and rural hospitals, and taking no action 
to protect critical resources like the enhanced premium tax 
credits that keep families afloat.
    So I, alongside my colleague Representative Horsford, am 
here to offer our Republican colleagues an opportunity to do 
the right thing, to put American families first and lower 
healthcare costs.
    Our amendment, amendment 245, would make permanent the 
expiring enhanced premium tax credits that have already 
delivered historic savings for millions of Americans.
    This amendment is based on my Healthcare Affordability Act, 
which I first introduced in 2019 and fought so hard to get a 
short-term version signed into law in the American Rescue Plan 
and then later extended through the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Because of this legislation, more Americans than ever 
before have access to quality, affordable healthcare through 
marketplace plans. This year, we once again have record-
breaking enrollment, with more than 24 million Americans 
enrolling in coverage, 22 million of whom will receive tax 
credits to lower their out-of-pocket costs.
    Families of four who get their healthcare through the 
Affordable Care Act are saving an average of $2,400 per year on 
their annual premiums thanks to these tax credits. Four out of 
five customers can get a plan for $10 or less per month.
    Let me be clear: These tax credits benefit and are favored 
by Americans across the country on both sides of the aisle. In 
farm country, these tax credits save family farmers an average 
of $506 per month, over $6,000 a year for farmers. In the 
chair's own district--not you, Mr. Chairman, but in Chair 
Foxx's own district, this policy saved constituents an 
estimated average of $696 on their premiums in 2024.
    Across the districts of every one of my Republican 
colleagues on this Rules Committee, these tax credits delivered 
at least an estimated $468 in annual savings to constituents 
and as high as $804 in Indiana.
    It is no surprise that Donald Trump's own pollster, Mr. 
Fabrizio, found that these tax credits are popular and highly 
supported by swing and Trump voters. And they are supported by 
a broad range of providers, healthcare systems, and patient 
advocates too. Because these tax credits don't just work; they 
provide an essential lifeline for families across the country. 
And we cannot let them expire.
    This tax package is already a disaster for working 
families, and without this amendment it is catastrophic. 
Without it, healthcare costs will skyrocket and over 4 million 
people will be priced out of healthcare. That is on top of the 
8.6 million people that are already being kicked off of 
Medicaid by this tax bill.
    I urge my colleagues across the aisle to stand in 
solidarity with the American families instead of billionaires 
by supporting this amendment.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Underwood follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.111
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.112
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.113
    
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. Thank you. Gentlelady yields 
back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Suozzi, 
for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS SUOZZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Suozzi. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairman, ranking member, 
and all my colleagues. I know you have had a very long night, 
and we appreciate you taking the time to listen to our 
important concerns.
    I am going to talk to you about the State and Local Tax 
Deduction, also known as SALT. Under the current law, SALT has 
been--the SALT deduction has been capped at $10,000, and under 
the existing reconciliation bill, it has been raised to 
$30,000. We haven't seen the manager's amendment yet. We have 
talked about all the different negotiations that are going on.
    But we believe that is very inadequate, or I believe it is 
very inadequate. In fact, six of my Republican colleagues have 
come out and said it is insulting to only raise it to $30,000, 
and they said they will not vote for this bill at that level. 
So I know there is a lot of negotiations going on. But I want 
everybody to understand the basics of the State and Local Tax 
Deduction.
    Before 1913, the only time we had an income tax was during 
the Civil War. Lincoln had put it in place. It was declared 
unconstitutional. That was changed in 1913. We said we are 
going to create a Federal income tax. And the governors and the 
mayors of the different states and cities throughout the 
country said we don't want a Federal income tax, because we 
have to take care of our schools, and we have to pay our police 
officers. We have to pick up the garbage and take care of the 
roads, and we need a tax at the local level. We want the 
Federal Government to continue to raise the revenues from 
tariffs and from Customs and things like that.
    And the Federal Government said, No, don't worry about it. 
We are going to create a State and local tax deduction, so that 
you will not be taxed at the Federal level on the taxes you 
have already paid at the State and local level.
    And that was a covenant between the states and the Federal 
Government for over 100 years until 2017 when the majority 
party at the time, the same majority party as now, and the 
President put a cap on the State and local tax deduction at 
$10,000.
    Now, that really was a body blow to a lot of different 
States, not just my State of New York, but also other States 
like New Jersey and California and Connecticut and Illinois and 
Massachusetts and Maryland and Michigan and Minnesota and 
Oregon and Pennsylvania and Virginia and Hawaii.
    These States were hurt dramatically, because when we set up 
our government in the United States of America, we wanted our 
States and cities to be laboratories of democracy where they 
could experiment with what is the best way to run their 
governments, and then the Federal Government would not tax 
people on the expense that they were mandated to pay at the 
local level.
    So our taxes are higher in New York State, for example, and 
some other high-tax States, because we have decided we want to 
insure our children. We have the lowest rate of uninsured 
children in the United States of America in New York State. We 
have the lowest rate of uninsured adults. We have subways and 
mass transit. We pay our teachers and our firefighters and our 
police officers good wages and give them good benefits.
    And that experiment worked. In fact, we have been a very 
productive State, so much so that we have contributed much more 
to the Federal Government in Federal income taxes than we 
actually get back in services from the Federal Government. We 
are net donors to the Federal Government.
    In fact, most of the States hardest hit by the State and 
Local Tax Deduction cap are donors to the Federal Government, 
where most of the States not affected that have low taxes are 
net takers from the Federal Government, with the exception of 
Texas.
    So it is just patently unfair that we broke this covenant, 
this idea of a federalism, where the long arm of the Federal 
Government reached into our local municipalities and said, We 
don't like the way you are taxing your people. We don't like 
what you are doing. We don't think you should pay your 
teachers. We don't think you should pay your police officers. 
We don't think you should pay your firefighters. We don't think 
that you should insure your children. In fact, the highest rate 
of uninsured children in the country are in Florida and Texas, 
low-tax States. They chose not to do that.
    Now, right now, they are booming. And we are in trouble at 
some of our higher-tax States. People are leaving our States 
and going to the other States. You know what happens when 
people leave our States and go to the lower tax States? The 
people that are left behind, the middle class and the lower 
income people, are left holding the bag, and their taxes are 
either going to go up, or their services are going to be cut, 
and neither one of those is acceptable.
    So as a matter of basic fairness, I am asking this 
amendment be adopted by the Rules Committee that increases the 
State and Local Tax Deduction cap to $80,000. Nobody wants to 
pay the full restoration. I understand that. As a compromise, I 
am suggesting that we increase the State and Local Deduction 
cap to $80,000. And let's pay for that. Let's not add to the 
deficit, as this current bill does, which is creating some of 
the biggest deficits in the history of the United States of 
America. Let's pay for it by raising the top rate for the 
highest income earners in America from 37 back to 39.6.
    It is only fair. It is only fair that these donor States 
that take care of their residents, that do the best job that 
they can in their laboratory of democracy, are not penalized 
for doing what they see as being the right thing to do that was 
the covenant between the Federal Government and the States and 
local governments for over 100 years.
    With that, I yield back. And I thank you for your time and 
attention.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
    Now I recognize Ms. Rivas from California.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. LUZ RIVAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Mr. Chair and ranking member.
    I want to start by thanking Ranking Member Pallone for 
providing me with the opportunity to lead this important 
amendment on a subject that is quickly becoming part of our 
everyday lives: artificial intelligence, or AI.
    From health care, to housing, to banking, AI is playing a 
critical role in all areas of our lives. AI is evolving every 
day, which is why it demands swift attention and continuous 
action to keep Americans safe.
    State legislatures from across the country have enacted 
their own laws, including legislation that limits bias in the 
housing, health care, and financial sectors, as well as actions 
that protect the health and safety of users from harmful AI 
systems.
    Despite all these positive developments, there is currently 
a provision in this Republican Big Bill that would issue a 10-
year moratorium on States' ability to enforce AI laws. My 
amendment strikes this moratorium.
    This 10-year ban would remove States' ability to establish 
or enforce State laws that help keep up with the technological 
evolutions of AI as well as push back on deliberate designs 
that could harm Americans.
    Under this ban, State and local governments won't be able 
to enforce current, new, or updated regulations around AI use 
in the workplace, in procurement, guidelines, or in eliminating 
biases-even regulations that only impact their specific 
locality.
    As a former State legislator, I believe we can and should 
learn from the States, and champion solutions that protect 
Americans, especially workers and children, from harmful AI 
systems and not put unnecessary stoppages on their progress.
    Regardless of where you are on AI policy, enacting this 
moratorium is bad practice. AI has shown tremendous potential 
to improve and enhance our lives, but if we do not take 
immediate action to address the threats it poses on consumers 
as they arise today, we will not be prepared to address the 
threats that could arise over the next 10 years as a result.
    I would like to submit a letter for the record. This letter 
to Speaker Johnson was signed by over 100 organizations, such 
as UnidosUS, the National Immigration Law Center, National 
Women's Law Center, and SEIU in opposition to this provision 
that is tucked into this bill.
    In their letter to the Speaker, the organizations state 
that ``as we have seen during other periods of rapid 
technological advancement, like the Industrial Revolution, the 
creation of the automobile, protecting people from being harmed 
by new technologies, including holding companies accountable 
when they cause harm, will spur innovation and the adoption of 
new technologies.''
    The Republican moratorium on AI will block new innovation 
from occurring. AI policy touches every aspect of American 
lives now, and most certainly will over in the next 10 years.
    Thank you for considering my amendment. I urge its 
adoption, and I look forward to answering any questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Rivas follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.197
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.198
    
    Mr. Griffith. And what was the date on the letter?
    Ms. Rivas. May 19th, 2025.
    Mr. Griffith. And without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.114
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.115
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.116
    
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I now recognize Mr. Goldman of New 
York.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL GOLDMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am here to introduce two amendments, but I want to say 
just a couple things about the broader bill before I get to 
them. And most of what I am about to say is really directed at 
blatantly false statements that many of my Republican 
colleagues have said, are saying, and likely will say about 
this bill.
    First, this bill slashes Medicaid, cuts Medicaid. More than 
8 million Americans will lose their health care because of this 
bill. You can sugar coat it all you want with eligibility and 
work requirements and any waste, fraud, and abuse. But the 
reality is that that is dressing up a pig, and it is cutting 
Medicaid.
    Second, the bill increases taxes for the poorest Americans, 
and dramatically reduces taxes for the wealthiest. If you make 
less than $51,000 a year, your taxes will go up $700. If you 
make more than $4.3 million a year, which is the top 0.1 
percent of Americans, your taxes will go down by nearly 
$400,000. That is reducing taxes for the wealthy and increasing 
taxes for the poor.
    Third, this bill repeals tax credits for American energy 
production that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of jobs 
created in this country, and hundreds of billions of dollars of 
investment in American manufacturing. The vast majority of both 
of those are in red districts.
    These credits also reduce energy prices and increase our 
energy independence, two things that the America first gang 
endlessly talk about. And yet, this bill cuts all of that 
progress.
    And finally, you will hear my Republican colleagues say 
that cuts to essential government programs are needed to reduce 
an exploding deficit. That's nonsense. This bill increases the 
deficit by at least $3 trillion, so much so that Moody's became 
the last of the three major ratings agencies to downgrade U.S. 
debt.
    Now, this deficit increase will increase annual interest 
payments on our debt to 9 percent of total GDP in 10 years, 9 
percent. That is just unsustainable. And yet, it is the 
Republicans who are jamming this through.
    Now, my amendments address two separate things: One is a 
very simple amendment that I was shocked did not receive 
unanimous support in the Judiciary Committee, Amendment 258. It 
simply says that no Federal funding can be used to deport 
American citizens. Remarkably, every Republican in the 
Judiciary Committee voted against it, and I hope this committee 
does not.
    My second amendment, Amendment 135, addresses what is truly 
a cruel and cynical attempt to make America hungry again. This 
bill does not trim SNAP around the edges. It does not cut 
waste, fraud, and abuse. It cuts SNAP to its core, to the tune 
of approximately $250 billion, which may sound like an abstract 
number. But there are human lives at stake. There are children 
who will go hungry. There are seniors who have to choose 
between prescription drugs and food. There are working parents 
who rely on that few hundred dollars a month to put food on 
their table.
    My amendment would strike one of the most damaging 
provisions of this bill, a provision that would shift 75 
percent of the administrative costs onto the States, up from 
current 50 percent split.
    In my district in New York City, more than 118,000 of my 
constituents use SNAP to put food on the table. Across New York 
State, one in seven residents depend on it.
    This bill wouldn't just cut the benefits. It would starve 
the program.
    The GOP's proposed changes to SNAP would create a new 
burden on New York State of over $2.1 billion. And let's be 
real. What happens when administrative costs shoot up like 
that? The States can't backfill that amount of money. It is 
just not feasible. So what happens, of course, is benefits are 
cut. It is incredibly cynical. Because you will hear 
Republicans, and New York Republicans in particular, my 
colleagues, who have nearly as many SNAP beneficiaries as I do, 
and they will say, Oh, well, it is just putting it on the local 
officials, on the State. But make no mistake. It increases 
administrative costs, which is just cutting benefits by another 
name.
    This program averages $6 dollars per person per day. And 
the work requirements that we hear so much about would actually 
cause 300,000 New Yorkers to lose some or----
    Mr. Griffith. Gentleman's time expired----
    Mr. Goldman [continuing]. All of their SNAP benefits. That 
is what this bill is doing, and my amendment would fix that. I 
urge the committee to support it and rule it in order.
    Mr. Griffith. Gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, 
for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED MOSKOWITZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment today would prohibit the executive branch from 
using Federal funds to eliminate FEMA, transfer its 
responsibilities to another agency or reduce its staffing, or 
funding in a way that impairs its ability to fulfill its 
statutory functions unless expressly authorized by Congress. In 
fact, my amendment today just says again what is in the 
Stafford Act and what is in the Homeland Security Act, which 
was passed after Katrina.
    Trump--the President was right that FEMA needs reform. Let 
me say this again. The President was right that FEMA needs 
reform, as the chairwoman knows from her experiences in North 
Carolina after Hurricane Helene. But the Secretary of Homeland 
Security is dead wrong that FEMA should be deleted.
    First of all, the Secretary is in violation right now of 
the Stafford Act, and in violation of the Homeland Security 
Act. The Secretary has no ability to pause all grants, which 
she has done. She has no ability to transfer any of the 
appropriations or restructure FEMA, as she has done. Both of 
those are in direct violation of the Stafford Act and the 
Homeland Security Act that was passed after Katrina.
    So grants are paused. What does that mean that all grants 
are paused? That means States right now that are going into 
hurricane season don't know whether or not they are going to 
get a declaration, which this administration is holding back. 
What happens if you don't get a declaration? Just go ask the 
governor of Arkansas, Governor Huckabee, who worked for the 
President. Took her weeks to get a declaration. You can't move. 
You can't respond. You can't spend money because you don't know 
that you are going to get reimbursed. Fiscally constrained 
cities and counties don't make decisions. It is analysis 
paralysis.
    It is actually in direct contradiction with what we are 
trying to do. We are trying to speed up FEMA. We are trying to 
make it faster, right? Which why I have a bill with Byron 
Donalds to get FEMA out of Homeland Security. Homeland is 
abusing FEMA. They are using FEMA to do grants for the other 22 
agencies. That is why we got to get FEMA away from Homeland 
Security.
    They are not paying vendors. Do you know what happens when 
you don't pay vendors? They can't pay subcontractors. They are 
not going to be ready to perform in hurricane season.
    They fired 30 percent or got them to retire of the work 
force in FEMA, most of the senior people with that experience, 
you have got regional offices in FEMA now that are half empty.
    By the way. Remember that DOGE--remember the E at the end 
of DOGE? The word ``efficiency''? Nothing at FEMA has been made 
more efficient. In fact, I would tell you that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security has turned FEMA into the Newark Airport. 
Okay? It is going to fail this summer.
    And so, look. There is no doubt that FEMA needed reform. 
But what they have done at Homeland is they have taken 
something that needed help and they broke it further.
    Do you know what happens if there is no FEMA to the State 
that the Speaker represents or Steve Scalise represents? 
Louisiana goes bankrupt without FEMA when there is a hurricane 
that comes in from the Gulf of Mexico, or the Gulf of America, 
comes right into Louisiana. They are bankrupt. Alabama is 
bankrupt. Mississippi is bankrupt. You get a, you know, an F5, 
F4 tornado in Tornado Alley, those States go bankrupt without 
FEMA.
    And yet, you know, I don't see my Republican colleagues 
calling out the administration on how we are going to save FEMA 
and reform it.
    Let me say this: I think the Secretary of Homeland Security 
has exposed the President in significant ways. And I am not in 
the business of protecting the President. But I am in the 
business of protecting the American people in the country. I 
don't think the President is aware of the current condition of 
FEMA and its potential inability to perform. We may get lucky, 
and hopefully we do. Hopefully we don't have a bad hurricane 
this season. Hopefully we don't have some unforeseen disaster, 
like an earthquake that hasn't happened since the 1990s.
    Lord knows we had a one in 100-year pandemic in the first 
term of the Trump administration. Hopefully, we don't have 
anything like that because they have decimated FEMA in ways 
that we won't know until it happens. And listen, I know the 
chairwoman represents an area that didn't have the best 
experience after Helene. There is no question about that. There 
is dramatic improvement that needs to be done at FEMA.
    But I am deeply concerned what has happened at Homeland, 
and I don't think the President is aware the current condition 
that the Secretary has put him, and the men and women that work 
there, and the States that are going to go to FEMA and rely on 
them to help them in their time of need. And those resources 
are going to come slower.
    Think about it. You don't get to move your logistics. You 
don't get to move your water, your ice, your power generation, 
any of your stuff. And let me remind you, I did this for a 
living for a Republican governor. I worked for Ron DeSantis for 
2-1/2 years, took my political hat off. So I am not giving you 
partisan coverage. I am giving you the current state of affairs 
in an agency that has been absolutely destroyed.
    With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz.
    Ms. Morrison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. KELLY MORRISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
McGovern.
    My amendment today is simple. Before the House advances the 
largest Medicaid cut in program history, Congress needs to 
review how this bill will impact hospitals and Americans' 
access to services. My amendment simply says that the bill 
cannot take effect until an independent study confirms that 
these proposed Medicaid cuts will not result in hospital 
closures or reductions in service, including obstetric 
services.
    The Medicaid policies in this bill will strip health care 
coverage for millions of Americans, and put essential labor and 
delivery services on the chopping block. Our country is already 
facing a worsening maternal health crisis, and carelessly 
ripping away women's access to care without any consideration, 
and it is just plain cruel.
    We are already dead last in maternal mortality compared to 
our peer nations, and instead of putting forward a bill that 
will actually improve women's health and support moms and 
babies, my Republican colleagues have chosen to gut the program 
that covers more than 50 percent of births in many areas of 
Minnesota.
    Having cared for women and their babies for over 20 years 
as an OB-GYN, I am appalled by how callously members of this 
chamber have turned their backs on their constituents.
    In my home State of Minnesota, 1.4 million Minnesotans get 
health care coverage through Medicaid, and millions more depend 
on the hospitals and providers who have been unequivocally 
clear that the Medicaid cuts in this bill will decimate their 
ability to provide care, unequivocally clear that the cuts will 
force them to reduce services or shut down entirely.
    And the reality is if hospitals are unable to keep their 
lights on and deliver care, we will all pay the price. People 
will not be able to access care. People will have more medical 
debt, and they will be less healthy. People will suffer. People 
will die. I would encourage my Republican colleagues to believe 
the words of the hospitals that serve their constituents, the 
patients that live in their districts, and analysis after 
analysis that confirms that these cuts will cost millions of 
Americans their access to care.
    So my Republican colleagues who hold majority rule of this 
Chamber, let's be very clear here. You can stop this right now. 
You can stop the hospital closures. You can stop the cuts to 
services. You can stop 14 million Americans from losing access 
to health insurance. You can stop the worsening of the maternal 
health care crisis and rural hospital crisis. You have the 
power. You can stop this.
    More than a dozen of our Republican colleagues here in the 
House have spoken out and said they cannot support deep cuts to 
Medicaid. Other Republicans have called these massive cuts 
morally wrong. And more than a dozen State legislators from my 
home State of Minnesota wrote our Republican delegation and the 
President, making a very clear case about how this would be a 
disaster and beg them not to go through with these cuts.
    I have a copy with me here, Madam Chair, and I request 
consent for this letter to be entered into the record.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.117
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.118
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.119
    
    Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I would like to highlight just a couple of their 
points.
    The Minnesota Republican legislators wrote, and I quote, 
``Too deep of a cut is unmanageable in any instance. Massive 
Medicaid reductions could punish Minnesota for being such a 
strong leader in greater efficiencies and better outcomes. 
Drastic reductions to Medicaid funding have the potential to 
impact the 1.4 million people we serve and place incredible 
pressure on our overall State budget.'' And they closed with, 
``Please remind our good leaders in Washington that simply 
cutting the budget is not going to take away our 
responsibilities to the aged, those with disabilities, mental 
health needs, children, and the poor,'' end quote.
    So to my Republican colleagues, please hear the pleas of 
your State counterparts as you consider this bill today.
    I also have with me here a letter from Minnesota's 
nonprofit hospitals. And Madam Chair, I would request consent 
for this letter to be entered into the record.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.120
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.121
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.122
    
    Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I would like to highlight just a couple of their 
points.
    They wrote, and I quote, ``Any reduction in Federal support 
would trigger immediate consequences. Patients will lose 
access. Hospitals will be forced to reduce services and will 
face impossible choices. And communities across our State will 
feel the effects whether they are covered by Medicaid or not. 
We know these are difficult budget discussions, but cutting 
Medicaid doesn't erase the need for care. It simply shifts the 
burden to States, to hospitals, and ultimately to the very 
people the program is meant to protect,'' end quote.
    Their pleas are clear. Their threats are real. The facts 
are undeniable. So please, on behalf of all Americans, I 
implore you to do the right thing. Rule this amendment in 
order, and stop these cuts.
    I yield, Madam Chair. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Morrison follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.199
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.200
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.201
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Fischbach, do you have any questions?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Again, I want to thank all of you for your 
patience and for being here. And you remind all of us of the 
fact that the underlying bill, the reconciliation bill, is a 
lousy piece of legislation. I mean, the attacks on health care, 
attacks on food assistance, the attacks on public lands, the 
attacks on FEMA, the attacks--you know, and the indifference on 
AI, which is a very dangerous thing that we are about to do. I 
mean, basically saying we are not going to do our job in the 
Congress, but we are going to prevent States from doing 
anything to protect the citizens.
    I mean, just so many things. I mean, this bill should not 
be coming to the floor. Your amendments are all good, and we 
are going to make the case that they should be made in order 
when we get to the point of actually reporting on a rule.
    But again, I think it is so important that you stayed here 
and that you made the case as to how we could improve the bill.
    Did you have--yeah. Go ahead.
    Mr. Goldman. I was just going to add something that I know 
is near and dear to your heart, because you are such a leader 
on food insecurity, and it is such a--done such incredible 
work.
    These so-called work requirements are such a fig leaf. They 
are such a pretext when, in reality, the Census data shows that 
82 percent of households with working-age adults who did not 
live--who do not live with minor children and did not receive 
disability benefits had earnings during the year 2023.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. Yeah.
    Mr. Goldman. This is not an issue that needs to be 
addressed. It is an issue that is being created so that poor 
Americans can struggle even more.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    Again, and we had this discussion in the Agriculture 
Committee, I mean, of a single mother with a 7-year-old child, 
you know, who loses her job. And then she has 90 days to get 
another job, otherwise she loses her benefit. And the back-and-
forth in the Agriculture Committee was like, Well, you know, 7-
years-old, the child is in school.
    Do people realize what time school gets out? I mean, if 
people are working? What happens during the summer? What 
happens during vacations? I mean, again, many people are able 
to juggle all this stuff. And the majority of people who are 
able-bodied who are on SNAP actually do work. And there are 
work requirements, especially for those who are able-bodied 
adults without dependents.
    But to just be totally indifferent to what life is like for 
a single parent with a 7- or 8- or 9-year-old child and to just 
say, Oh, one glove fits all, it is just a cruel and rotten 
thing to do. And we are talking about food assistance. And a 
really, you know, meager food benefit. On average, two dollars 
per person, per meal. You know? And by the way, with the State 
cost shares, that requirement now, many States won't be able to 
meet that cost share. And so that $2 benefit will get even 
less.
    I mean, you can't buy a cup of coffee in the Capitol for 
$2. And it is like, this is where you are going to try to get 
money to offset tax cuts for billionaires? Like, who does this? 
Like, who thought this brilliant idea up? I mean, it is--it is 
just such a terrible thing to do. I mean, there were other 
things we could do to improve programs. Every program can be 
improved. But this is not it. And I appreciate your amendment. 
I appreciate all your amendments and look forward to working 
with you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Again, wanted to--we will just 
waive at this point.
    I want to thank you all for your amendments and for 
sticking around so long.
    Representative Lofgren, I really appreciated your bringing 
attention to the fact that when cuts are made to scientific 
research, medical research, it doesn't just harm that research. 
And, of course, we have heard about, you know, ovarian cancer 
trials being paused, people not being able to get treatment 
that they were hoping would impact their issues. But we then 
know there is job loss when that is--when that happens. We are 
hearing from universities in my district that students who 
thought they had internships, which would make them the 
researchers of tomorrow, are losing those internships.
    And then we are hearing from contractors and tradespeople 
that universities, in order to try to preserve some of the 
research, are diverting funding from capital projects. And then 
we have contractors losing those jobs and tradespeople being 
laid off because those things are happening.
    And Rep. Houlahan, you know, we have so many veterans in 
southeastern Pennsylvania. I think you and I, we each have 
about 27-, 28,000 veterans in our district. You have got the 
Coatesville facility in your district. The Philadelphia VA is 
adjacent to my district.
    And of course, we have just tried to expand the benefits 
available to our veterans through the PACT Act. And at the same 
time that we are trying to expand those benefits and make sure 
that people actually get the treatment that they are entitled 
to that they have earned through their service, we are seeing 
these funding cuts and the pulling back.
    So thank you for amendments bringing attention to all of 
that and everything that people have put forward. Excuse me. 
Losing my voice.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. Could I just address the science issue 
briefly? Because we have seen reductions in physics, in 
mathematics, in chemistry, in computer science. And what we 
have seen all across the United States is universities reducing 
the number of doctoral students that they are admitting because 
they cannot see how to pay for the research.
    So what is happening? Europe, Canada, and, yes, China are 
recruiting the scientists that we are losing. So we are going 
to pay a big economic price for a long time for what has 
already happened.
    So let's stop the digging and try and recover because this 
is going to hit our economy in a way--really terrible, terrible 
impact. I thank you for----
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, and you do bring up another point, which 
is that these foreign students coming to the U.S., when we are 
making them feel unwelcome, they often pay full freight.
    Ms. Lofgren. Correct.
    Ms. Scanlon. Which is really, really helpful to our 
universities. And all of a sudden, that is an income source 
for----
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, the number of F-1 student applications 
has completely crashed. So, yeah. We are losing money because 
they subsidize the American students. And then we are also 
losing, you know--almost 50 percent of the Nobel Prize winners 
who are Americans in the sciences were Americans by choice, 
Americans born someplace else. Those people are not going to be 
here in our future.
    Ms. Scanlon. So it is a talent drain and a financial drain.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thanks, Ms. Scanlon.
    Do my colleagues on my side have any questions? Okay.
    Well, thank you all you very much. Seeing no one else 
having questions, the panel is excused. Thank you very much for 
coming.
    If the next panel we could do--I hope you did this--start 
down here and move up. Ms. Ansari, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Hayes, Mr. 
Casar, Ms. Williams, Mr. Cisneros, Mr. Carson, and Mr. Takano. 
Doesn't really matter which seat you sit in. I will call you by 
the way you are on this list.
    Ms. Ansari, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. YASSAMIN ANSARI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Ms. Ansari. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 
McGovern for allowing me the opportunity to join today's 
hearing.
    First, let me start by saying that the fact that we have 
been here since the literal middle of the night at a committee 
markup that will determine the Federal Government's budget, 
something that affects every single American, is absurd. But I 
am proud of the showing of Democrats in this room, of 
colleagues who have been here for decades, alongside some 
colleagues who, like me, have been here for just a couple of 
months.
    We hail from different parts of the country, different 
backgrounds, different ideas on policy, but we stand united 
against this bill and the process by which it is moving through 
this committee.
    I urge you to support my amendment that would strike the 
text of the bill and replace it with the STOCK Act 2.0. This 
would prevent government officials and their immediate family 
members from being able to trade individual stocks. The 
original STOCK Act barred Members of Congress, the President, 
Vice President, and high-level staff from engaging in insider 
trading or otherwise using nonpublic information for their own 
benefit. It also included important updates to financial 
transparency by requiring these high-ranking government 
officials to disclose financial transactions to the public.
    It is because of this latter provision that we discovered 
earlier this month that the chairman of the committee with 
jurisdiction over oil and gas, as well as mining lease sales, 
bought up to $150,000 in stock throughout the month of March. 
Those stocks included shares of oil companies like ExxonMobil, 
Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, Sun Corp, and Canadian Natural 
Resources.
    They also included mining companies like BHP, Freeport-
McMoRan, and Rio Tinto, for whom the largest shareholder is a 
Chinese, state-owned corporation.
    These oil and mining stock trades took place while the 
chairman was writing a major portion of this very bill, the 
portion that is an unprecedented multibillion dollar giveaway 
to oil and mining companies.
    Now, so many of these CEOs are set to directly benefit from 
this partisan budget that makes Draconian cuts to the programs 
on which my constituents and my Republican colleagues' 
constituents rely on. This is bigger than any one member 
benefiting from a stock trade. It is about this legislation as 
a whole, a budget that endorses this kind of behavior, uplifts 
it, and makes it into real policy that benefits the ultra rich 
getting richer over everything else.
    Let's be clear. This so-called Big Beautiful Bill is not in 
the interest of the American people. It includes billions of 
dollars in cuts from critical programs, such as SNAP and 
Medicaid. Over 7.6 million Americans would lose their health 
insurance just from these cuts. And that doesn't include the 
millions of Americans that would lose access to health care 
when hospitals that rely on Medicaid are forced to shut down, 
all while giving trillions of dollars in handouts to mega 
corporations and the ultra wealthy.
    And now, we also know that at least one member of Congress 
could personally and directly enrich himself from these 
provisions. This is corruption, plain and simple.
    My amendment would strike the text of this bill and replace 
it with legislation that would prevent this sort of corruption 
from public officials. This is not a partisan issue, it is 
common sense. Members of Congress should not be able to use 
their positions of power for personal financial gain, nor 
should there be a perception of such.
    We should not have to rely on the self-restraint of Members 
of Congress to resist the temptation of self-dealing and 
insider trading. It just should not be allowed.
    Even Speaker Mike Johnson voiced his support for banning 
stock trading for Members of Congress last week, stating that 
Members of Congress should not, quote, ``have any appearance of 
impropriety,'' end quote.
    The oil and mining stock trade that happened while the 
chair was writing this bill to give away unprecedented sums to 
oil and mining industries most certainly has the appearance of 
impropriety. I sincerely hope that it is just an appearance. At 
a time when public trust in Congress is abysmal, we have to 
work harder to rebuild it.
    Banning stock trades by Members of Congress is the first 
step. It is the lowest hanging fruit. There is absolutely no 
reason why Republicans on this committee should oppose this 
amendment. I urge the committee to make my amendments in order. 
Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Johnson, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JULIE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you so very much, Madam 
Chairman, Ranking Member McGovern.
    You know, there is so much to talk about in this bill, and 
I have several amendments, and I want to highlight two of them. 
But before I do that, I wanted to make some general comments on 
behalf of the residents of Texas 32 and the great State of 
Texas.
    You know, our deficit is at catastrophic levels. We have 
had multiple committee hearings in this building that suggest 
we are going to be facing some very impending financial crises. 
Our Federal credit rating was just reduced. And this bill and 
the Republicans in this building are voting to add $4 trillion 
to the deficit in the most irresponsible way possible: on the 
backs of hungry children; on the backs of young mothers and 
families and the poor in this country to keep them from getting 
health care; on the backs of children and kids who want to get 
an education in cybersecurity; on the backs of safety of our 
aviation and our airports; on the backs of FEMA in States for 
disaster preparedness; on the backs of law enforcement officers 
who are being routinely terminated; on the backs of woeful 
areas across this government for lack of prudent and proper 
investment to the health and safety in the prosperity of this 
country.
    And we are being put in a dire financial straight so that 
the President of the United States can reward a few of his 
friends with extra money in their bank account that they don't 
need, that they can't spend.
    And the Republicans in this Congress have abdicated all the 
values that they have campaigned on for decades in homage to 
this one man. And it is a travesty to this government and to 
the American people that this is happening.
    Democrats have been protesting this viciously all through 
the day and the weeks preceding this to have the American 
people wake up, and say, This is harming you. This bill will 
hurt the American people.
    I have an amendment for the Affordable Care Act tax credit. 
Millions of people get their health care in this country 
because of the Affordable Care Act. Texas is one of the leading 
States of it. Our State and our health care system is going to 
be devastated. And this is a bill that is supposed to give tax 
cuts, but yet, we are removing one of the most critical tax 
cuts that the American people rely on.
    It makes absolutely no sense. How can we tout the greatest 
tax cut bill to the American people at the same time we are 
cutting one of the most important tax cuts that benefits the 
vast majority of the American people?
    And I really would like to urge this committee to restore 
the tax cuts of the Affordable Care Act. Millions and millions 
of people in the State of Texas and across this land 
desperately rely on that to get the desperate needs of health 
care. Small businesses, our new entrepreneurs, the young people 
who don't have--work for big corporations with vast amounts of 
employees to have diversity of risk. They rely on the 
Affordable Care Act. And health insurance is already one of the 
leading expenses of a family in this country, and it is 
prohibitively expensive.
    And this initiative, the Affordable Care Act and these tax 
credits, make it possible.
    The other amendment I would like to address for this 
committee is to restore funding to FEMA. I sit on the Homeland 
Security Committee. I have heard so much testimony about the 
urgent need and the critical role that FEMA plays as the 
backstop for States and American families when nature and the 
disaster strike out of the blue without ability to prepare. It 
is the safety net that is so critically relied on by so many.
    Our country will be in peril on our national security, on 
our preparedness, if we don't have FEMA to come in and put the 
pieces back together. Just today, horrible tornadoes ripped 
through Alabama. I mean, we are--no State is free from natural 
disaster.
    Texas is certainly one of the States that has had to rely 
on FEMA the most. Hurricane Harvey decimated our Gulf Coast. 
Tornadoes decimate north Texas. We are the sixth largest 
economy in the world, the State of Texas. And without FEMA, we 
will be so burdened in putting our country back together that 
the Federal Government will also be harmed.
    I appreciate the consideration for this committee, and I 
strongly encourage you to adopt my amendments and make them in 
order.
    And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Hayes, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAHANA HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
    Hungry kids don't learn. This issue has always been 
important to me. Unless and until you have come into your 
classroom on a Monday morning and seen a kid with their head 
down, knowing that they haven't had a decent meal since they 
left, you can't understand. Unless and until you find yourself 
automatically packing a second piece of fruit in your lunch 
because you expect that one of your students is going to ask 
you for it, you can't understand.
    It changes you. It does something to you. When I came to 
Congress, I knew I would work to help address food insecurity. 
But my Republican colleagues here in this bill seek to 
exacerbate it.
    Hunger is a policy choice. And today, we are considering 
legislation that makes the choice to take food away from 
people, from children. The reconciliation bill we are 
considering here today is the largest ever cut to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Approximately $313 
billion will be taken away from the most vulnerable in our 
country: hungry children, families, veterans, and seniors.
    Republicans are pushing a legislative package that guts 
SNAP, the most efficient and effective anti-poverty program in 
this Nation. The cost sharing provisions in this legislation 
are going to shift the financial burden to States, forcing the 
States to cut benefits, eligibility, or both in order to reduce 
costs. States have always been responsible for hiring staff and 
administering the benefits they receive through the Federal 
Government, and paying equal share with the Federal Government.
    Under this bill, a workforce already facing shortages would 
have more responsibility to address paperwork errors with fewer 
funds. This bill does nothing to support workforce development, 
or the administrative support that will come as a result of 
these changes.
    In my State of Connecticut, the Department of Social 
Services estimates that this would cost an additional $177 
million per year. But based on the fiscal year 2023 error 
rates, the State of New York would be forced to pay $1.8 
billion; Texas, $1.074 billion; Georgia, $82 million; and North 
Carolina, $584 million in additional costs to administer these 
programs.
    Additionally, this legislation would prevent the Secretary 
of Agriculture from reevaluating the Thrifty Food Plan, which 
is used to determine benefit eligibility amounts. This bill 
also expands work requirements for older adults up to age 65 
and for parents in households with children age 7 or older, 
which means that 4 million children between the ages of 7 and 
17 who live in households that receive SNAP would be at risk of 
losing some type of food assistance.
    While expanding these requirements, this legislation does 
nothing, once again, to fund workforce development programs, or 
increase access to childcare for these families.
    I would also note that when children lose their SNAP 
benefits, they automatically lose their CEP, which is the 
community eligibility provision that allows them to get free 
and reduced lunch at school. So not only is food being taken 
away from children at home, it is being taken away from them at 
school.
    My amendment is simple. It very prevents any cuts to SNAP 
that would reduce benefits for the 42 million Americans who 
rely on the program for food assistance. My amendment says that 
this legislation can only take effect once the USDA and all 
State agencies issue reports evaluating and certifying that any 
changes made to SNAP would not result in a reduction of 
benefits to eligible individuals or decrease in population.
    SNAP serves 16 million children, 8 million seniors, and 4 
million people with disabilities. I have heard over and over 
and over that the target is able-bodied adults without 
dependents who have the ability to work. If that is true, and 
that is the only group you are targeting, then it should be 
simple to make sure we are protecting children and families and 
seniors and those with disabilities from being cut off of these 
programs.
    I can't understand why my Republican colleagues would not 
vote for that. Based on your testimony and everything that you 
have said in regards to SNAP, these aren't the people you are 
going after anyway. So we should all work together to ensure 
that we protect them.
    I have heard Members from the other side of the aisle say 
that their intention is not to cut benefits. This amendment is 
your chance to go on the record and do just that. While I 
question the intent here and where we are going, I understand 
with fidelity the outcome and who will be affected.
    In the wealthiest Nation in the world, we have the ability 
to feed children. We don't have a drought. We don't have a 
famine. We don't have a war. We have policies that intend to 
take food out of the mouths of children.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Hayes.
    Mr. Casar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG CASAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Casar. Good afternoon.
    So in this terrible Republican budget bill, we are talking 
about saving money by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. But then 
when we actually look at the bill about who is taking a cut, 
well, of course, we are cutting taxes for billionaires. But the 
people who are taking a cut is a person with a disability who 
will lose their health care because we say, Well, you have got 
a disability, but it is not quite bad enough, or you didn't 
fill out this piece of paper. Or we are cutting the $6 a day in 
food assistance to a child, because now you are 8 years old, 
not 7 years old, so you don't need it anymore.
    You kidding me? When folks think about waste, fraud, and 
abuse, we aren't talking about these Americans. You want to see 
waste? Tens of billions of dollars get milked by Big Pharma 
every year off of the taxpayer and the Medicare Advantage 
program. We could be getting tens of billions of dollars from 
them.
    Or if you want to talk about fraud, we could be talking 
about the billionaires who hide their money in offshore 
accounts that we should be going after.
    Or if you want to talk about abuse, this bill that is 
supposed to be saving money has $25 billion in it for Trump's 
Golden Dome project that recently was reported the person most 
likely to get that money is Elon Musk. So while he is in the 
White House, playing with the President, this bill is sending 
potentially $25 billion to Elon Musk.
    When we talk about waste, fraud, and abuse, we should be 
looking at those folks with lots of power who are milking the 
taxpayers, not the biggest Medicare cut in American history or 
the biggest Medicaid cut in American history. So come on, 
y'all.
    So one of the amendments I proposed is pretty simple. Let's 
say if a Federal court finds that Elon Musk abused his power to 
be able to route money to himself, then we could save ourselves 
billions of dollars by automatically canceling out those 
billionaire tax cuts and the billions of dollars in contracts 
that Elon Musk has.
    If nobody on this panel thinks that Elon Musk hasn't been 
abusing his power, then we could just put this amendment in 
order and take it to a vote. If Elon Musk is found to have 
abused his power, we can save ourselves a whole bunch of money.
    And as if that isn't enough of the heart of the hypocrisy 
here, the Republican party that campaigned on saving people 
money, one, is talking about saving billionaires' money with 
their tax cut; and two, in this bill, they are going to jack up 
the premiums on health care for the people that rely on the 
marketplace for their health care.
    And so I will hand the mic over, yield my time to any of my 
Republican colleagues that want to address the amount of money 
that their tax-paying citizens are going to have to pay in 
increased premiums for their health care. Anybody wants to 
mention--we have the numbers, everybody here has the numbers--
how much your constituents are going to have to pay more every 
year in health care because of this bill.
    I know the numbers for my district. It is going to be a 50 
percent increase, over $400 in my district. And that is 
actually not even close to how much in many of the Republican 
districts there is going to be an increase. I would yield the 
mic.
    Mr. McGovern. I think we are 78 percent in my district.
    Mr. Casar. 78 percent in Mr. McGovern's district.
    Maybe none of the Republican members want to mention it, 
but the Republican gentleman from New York will be a 44 percent 
increase, $2,000 a year hit to his constituents in their health 
care costs. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, his 
constituents would face an increase in $770 a year in their 
health care premiums. The distinguished Republican chairwoman 
of this committee, a 60 percent increase in health care 
premiums. And that is on average.
    The distinguished Republican Congresswoman here from 
Minnesota was recently told here by the committee on the budget 
that a 60-year-old couple with a joint income of $85,000 a year 
in her district would see an 11,000-dollar a year increase in 
their costs, while we are giving tax cuts to billionaires.
    And what bothers me the most is that we want to hide it. 
Nobody wants here to talk about the fact that they are jacking 
up insurance costs on their own constituents while given a 
billionaire a tax break.
    Nobody on the Republican side pushing this bill wants to 
have an in-person town hall and look their constituents in the 
face and explain to them why they want to hand Elon Musk 
another 25 billion-dollar contract while jacking up your health 
insurance costs not just by hundreds, but by thousands of 
dollars.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Casar.
    Ms. Williams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKEMA WILLIAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, 
Ranking Member McGovern.
    Y'all, this meeting started at 1 a.m. and has been going 
through the entire night, morning, and now day. We are 
considering one of the most harmful bills to ever come before 
the House, cutting health care from 14 million Americans, 
taking food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and 
veterans.
    My Republican colleagues were hoping that my Democratic 
colleagues and I would sleep through the night, as the American 
people slept. But what is done in the dark, y'all, comes to the 
light, and I am here to shed the light.
    That is why I stayed up all night, and that is why I am 
here right now as the voice of Georgia's fighting 5th 
Congressional District. I follow in the footsteps of the late 
Congressman John Lewis, known as the conscience of the 
Congress. And if there is anything Republicans need more of 
these days, it is a conscience.
    Because who with a conscience would rip health care away 
from 14 million people in this country? Who with a conscience 
would make the largest cut in history to food benefits for 
children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities? Who 
with a conscience would add $5 trillion to the deficit with 
nothing to show for it but billionaire tax cuts?
    No one with a conscience would do any of that, but that is 
exactly what this Republican, so-called One Big Beautiful Bill 
would do.
    Congressman John Lewis would be ashamed of y'all. I know 
that I am.
    But you know what? He would be proud of his Democratic 
colleagues for making Good Trouble on behalf of the American 
people. There were 537 amendments to your so-called One Big 
Beautiful Bill. Just because Republicans aren't willing to 
change their bill to actually help the American people, that 
definitely still won't stop House Democrats from offering these 
amendments because we know that it doesn't have to be this way.
    I have 16 amendments myself. One is to invest in programs 
to increase our housing supply and lower housing costs.
    Another is to stop taxpayer funding for anti-abortion 
clinics that spread disinformation about women's health care.
    Another is to stop Trump from cutting essential Federal 
workers without at least getting a report from Congress on how 
it will harm government services.
    Another is to stop Trump from profiting off funding for 
presidential security, and an additional one is to increase 
nutrition benefits and eligibility for students.
    Another is to require reports on how the policies in this 
bill affect low-income individuals and racial inequities.
    Another is to stop January 6 insurrectionists from getting 
a settlement from the Federal Government for their crimes.
    And yet another is to ensure that Members of Congress can 
continue conducting lawful oversight in ICE facilities.
    Another one is to make maternal medical care, menstrual 
products, and broadband costs covered expenses for determining 
people's eligibility for food assistance.
    Another is to stop Elon Musk from selling the Federal 
Government AI systems while he is employed by our Federal 
Government.
    And yet another is to stop any funds in this bill from 
being used to unconstitutionally remove a United States citizen 
from this country.
    Another is to require the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau to remain independent of whoever is President, 
Democratic or Republican.
    And yet another is to keep the funding for sustainable 
aviation fuel which supports our aviation industry to be 
cleaner and more environmentally friendly.
    If my Republican colleagues really want to do right by the 
American people, they would approve all of these amendments. I 
can't fix everything in this horrible bill, even with the 16 
amendments that I am offering, but these would definitely be a 
start. And next time, maybe Republicans should open up this Big 
Beautiful Bill to some big, beautiful debate in the light of 
day. Because it doesn't matter what your ideas are if you can't 
defend them in broad daylight for the American people.
    You must be hiding something from the American people.
    The children, seniors, and veterans in my district who will 
lose health care and SNAP benefits--y'all, they are more than a 
line item in a budget. They are real people, simply trying to 
survive. So don't turn your back on them to give tax cuts to 
billionaires.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Williams.
    Mr. Cisneros, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR., A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 
McGovern, and members of the Rules Committee.
    I am deeply disappointed with how this hearing came about. 
The majority scheduled a hearing in the middle of the night to 
further their agenda without debate or scrutiny. But the timing 
of the hearing cannot hide the fact this legislation rips off 
the American people. It increases tax breaks for the wealthiest 
Americans, paid for by nearly $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, 
and $267 billion cuts to SNAP.
    I am here to offer four amendments to this flawed 
legislation to urge the committee to make them in order.
    My first amendment seeks to ensure Congress is authorizing 
the funds needed to pay our childcare workers and maintain and 
modernize the facilities where they work in the Department of 
Defense. My amendment would increase childcare fee assistance 
to $200 million, add $1.3 billion for Army, Navy, Air Force, 
Marine Corps, and Space Force child development center facility 
maintenance, and include $1 billion for childcare provider 
compensation under the Department of Defense's modernization of 
the Child Development Program Staffing Model passed in the 
fiscal year 2025 NDAA.
    I want to be clear. My amendment does not raise a top line. 
Instead, it will take from expensive and unnecessary program, 
and instead, support our servicemembers' family needs.
    Mr. Cisneros. My next amendment seeks to reassert 
congressional oversight into the activities of the Department 
of Defense. My amendment allows the Department to access the 
first $100 billion of the bill's funding. But before the 
Department can use the last $50 billion, it simply requires the 
Department to answer some elementary oversight questions about 
DOGE and the Department of Defense.
    I support better efficiency and program management at the 
Pentagon, as I know many of my colleagues do. I have been proud 
to support numerous efforts to that effect and I look forward 
to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way in the 
future. But that is not what this bill is.
    Our responsibility is to conduct oversight, and so far our 
questions to the Department have yielded insubstantial or 
nonexistent answers and the administration seems unable to 
explain the role of DOGE in the Department of Defense.
    I know the DOD is capable of giving thoughtful responses. I 
have sat in the witness seat before and have answered questions 
and I have been required to reply to congressional inquiries, 
which I gladly did because that was my responsibility. At the 
very least, we should understand what this unauthorized 
department is doing to one of the departments that we are 
supposed to be overseeing in Congress.
    My third amendment seeks to expand eligibility for the 
employer-provided childcare tax credit. This amendment would 
define small business concerns in accordance with the Small 
Business Act for the purpose of the employer-provided childcare 
tax credit. This would help small businesses attract and retain 
employees that are working parents.
    My final amendment seeks to revise the short title of the 
bill to the One Big Billionaire Bailout Act.
    Raising a child, owning a small business, having access to 
affordable and quality healthcare in this economy, it is 
becoming more difficult with the rising cost of living.
    Again, this bill, instead of helping hardworking Americans 
nationwide, gives a government handout to billionaires and the 
wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.
    The name matters because it tells the truth of what this 
fine print hides. I am happy to tell the American people who 
this bill really serves, because it is not them.
    Again, I urge you to make these amendments in order.
    Thank you. And I am happy to take any of your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Cisneros follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.123
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.124
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.125
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.126
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you Mr. Cisneros.
    Mr. Takano, I will go to you next.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Let's begin with the obvious. This bill, the so-called 
budget reconciliation package, is not even finished. Republican 
leadership is asking Members to vote on a moving target with 
textual changes and details still unclear. Even Republican 
Members don't know what is in it, but they are being told to 
rush this to the floor before the holiday weekend so they can 
hand Donald Trump a political win.
    Trump made his demand clear: Unite behind what is possibly 
the most budget-busting piece of legislation in modern U.S. 
history. And now Republicans are stuck between their talking 
point of deficit reduction and their obligation to do whatever 
Donald Trump tells them to do.
    Last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its 
score. It found that this bill would increase the deficit by 
$2.3 trillion over the next decade.
    Let me say that again, $2.3 trillion. That would trigger 
automatic cuts to Medicare and other vital programs unless 
Congress steps in.
    And who benefits? According to the CBO, the richest 10 
percent of Americans would see their incomes go up, while the 
poorest 10 percent would see theirs go down.
    So, yes, this bill deserves a name, and I would call it One 
Big Billionaire Payout. And while billionaires and corporations 
are poised to win big, the people I serve--veterans, students, 
and working families--are set to lose.
    I am offering 10 amendments to stop the worst of this 
damage.
    First, I have introduced an amendment to exempt disabled 
veterans from new Medicaid work requirements.
    Now, not all veterans are eligible to receive their 
healthcare from VA, and currently 1.6 million veterans rely on 
Medicaid. This bill would subject as many as 1 million of them 
to bureaucratic red tape just to keep their healthcare.
    Many veterans with service-connected disabilities fall 
below the disability rating that makes them eligible for VA 
care and significant barriers to employment. Punishing them for 
that is not reform, it is cruelty.
    Second, if you are going to rip away veterans' healthcare, 
the least you can do is tell them. My amendment would require 
CMS to notify veterans who are losing Medicaid coverage.
    Third, I have offered a similar amendment requiring USDA to 
notify veterans and servicemembers if they are kicked off SNAP. 
Over a million veterans rely on food assistance, and this bill, 
again, takes from those who served and gives to those who 
stockpile wealth without sacrifice.
    Fourth and fifth, I propose creating websites through HHS 
and USDA to help veterans navigate the fallout, healthcare and 
nutrition resources for those losing coverage. It is a modest 
effort to clean up the mess this bill creates.
    Sixth, I am offering an amendment to preserve nursing home 
staffing reforms. In 2024, CMS finalized a rule to address 
dangerous understaffing. This bill delays that and could cost 
lives. University of Pennsylvania research estimates 13,000 
lives would be saved annually under that rule.
    Who exactly are we protecting by delaying that? Certainly 
not the seniors living in those homes.
    My seventh amendment strikes the repeal of the 2023 
Borrower Defense Rule, a protection for student borrowers 
defrauded by predatory colleges. In just 1 year over 770,000 
students filed claims. This bill would make it nearly 
impossible for future victims to get relief.
    Eighth, I strike the repeal of the 90/10 rule fix, a 
bipartisan protection that keeps for-profit colleges from 
targeting veterans as dollar signs. Without it, GI Bill 
recipients become cash cows for worthless diploma mills and 
taxpayers foot the bill when these shady schools collapse.
    Ninth, I proposed a certify no harm amendment which would 
simply require Federal agencies to confirm that these 
provisions won't increase fraud against student veterans before 
they take effect. If Republicans are so confident this bill 
won't hurt anyone, this should be an easy ask.
    And finally, my tenth amendment includes the PROTECT 
Students Act codifying essential safeguards against deceptive 
marketing, inflated job placement claims, and outright fraud by 
for-profit colleges and loan services.
    Let me close by reminding my colleagues that this isn't 
some routine budget bill. This is reverse Robin Hood. It steals 
healthcare from veterans, it steals food from hungry families, 
it steals loan protections from students, and it steals safety 
from nursing home residents. It does all that to give 
billionaires a payday with a price tag of $2.3 trillion in new 
debt.
    This isn't about values, it is about vanity, trying to give 
a twice-impeached former President a talking point for his next 
rally.
    I urge my colleagues to support these amendments and reject 
this sham of a bill.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
    Mr. Carson, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDRE CARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

    Mr. Carson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank 
you, Ranking Member. Thank you for providing me the time to 
testify this afternoon.
    I have four amendments to this reconciliation bill. My 
amendments protect Medicaid, passenger rail, our environment, 
and would protect the middle class.
    I first want to speak on amendment 428, to conduct a 
comprehensive audit within 180 days to assess the impact of 
this bill's impact on income inequality in our country.
    The GOP claims their tax policies will benefit the middle 
class. I say prove it. Prove to the American people that the 
tax policies in this bill will help the middle class, not the 
ultrawealthy.
    Next, my amendment 168 addresses one of the most urgent, 
life-threatening issues in this bill, which is that this bill 
would slash healthcare for 14 million Americans.
    Just this afternoon an Indianapolis woman named Joan 
contacted our office. She is about to turn 65, she is disabled, 
and she receives Medicaid to survive. She told me, ``At 65 
years old I have nowhere else to go, and I don't want to lose 
my home, and I don't want to lose my healthcare.''
    Yesterday evening, I spoke on the House floor about three 
women from my district in Indy, Arica, Bethany, and Carol Ann, 
who rely on SNAP and Medicaid to survive.
    These are just three of the thousands of people who have 
reached out to us in the past few weeks. We receive messages 
from folks every day who are afraid for themselves, but they 
are also terrified for their children, other people's children, 
their family members, other people's family members.
    That is because Indianapolis is a community that cares 
about one another. We look out for one another. It is what we 
do. It is who we are. I have always been proud of my hometown.
    But I am even more proud of hearing the groundswell of 
support, especially over the last week, from those in 
Indianapolis who have overwhelmingly told me we must help our 
neighbors and we must protect Medicaid.
    I am here today to fight for the people of Indianapolis who 
deserve a government that stands with them, not billionaires.
    This past week our country has watched Members of Congress 
debate essentially who deserves to live and who deserves to die 
in our country. For 14 million Americans, healthcare and 
Medicaid cuts aren't a political discussion, they are a matter 
of life and death. Fourteen million Americans would lose 
healthcare under this current bill. That includes newborns, 
children, seniors, and postpartum mothers, the most vulnerable 
among us.
    We have also watched Republican Members of Congress deny 
that this bill will slash Medicaid, even though a nonpartisan 
analysis found that the Republican budget simply would not be 
possible without cutting Medicaid and essential healthcare. And 
yet, many of my colleagues still deny that this budget will 
drastically cut essential healthcare.
    So my message to my colleagues is prove it. You insist your 
bill will not hurt Medicaid. You insist this bill will not 
snatch healthcare out of the hands of 14 million men, women, 
and children. Prove it by simply passing my amendment.
    My amendment would ensure none of the provisions of this 
bill will take effect if there is an increase in mortality 
rates due to reduced access to healthcare services as a result 
of this bill.
    If Republicans truly believe this bill is not taking money 
away from Medicaid to give tax breaks to billionaires, then 
they should have no problem passing this amendment.
    If Republicans believe that at a minimum we should make 
sure this bill does not cause Americans to die, then they 
shouldn't have a problem passing my amendment.
    I would like to close my remarks, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member, by reminding us again of Joan, Arica, Bethany, and 
Carol Ann in the great Hoosier State. I implore you to remember 
their humanity. Fourteen million people who stand to lose their 
healthcare are relying on us to do the right thing--protect 
Medicaid, protect healthcare, protect our children.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Carson.
    Does anyone on my side wish to ask any questions?
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Griffith.
    Mr. Scott. I do not have any questions.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern. Again, I want to thank everybody here for 
being in the fight. There is too much at stake. I mean, you 
highlighted many of the concerns that have been echoed over and 
over and over again today.
    I mean, Jahana Hayes and I were on the Agriculture 
Committee when we marked up the ag section of this 
reconciliation bill and it was maddening. And not just because 
of the impact of the cuts on children, on vulnerable people, on 
senior citizens, on veterans, on people with disabilities, but 
this kind of indifference, like it is no big deal.
    And it is a big deal. It is a big deal. If you can't put 
food on the table for your kids, that is a huge deal. That is 
every parent's worst nightmare. If you are a senior citizen, 
not being able to afford your medication and your food, that is 
a big deal.
    And a lot of the issues that were raised by this panel 
point to the fact that it seems that the people who are going 
to suffer the most are the most vulnerable and the people who 
are well off and well connected and have the most are going to 
get even more.
    And so, again, I thank you for staying. Some of you have 
been here like since 1 o'clock in the morning. I have seen you 
in the hallways at 2 o'clock in the morning. And so you have 
been around. But I really do think it is important that people 
speak up.
    Mrs. Hayes.
    Mrs. Hayes. I just want to say thank you for that.
    But as many of you know, I spent my career as a classroom 
teacher, and when you are on the other side of these processes 
and you are in a building with children and not really 
understanding how these policy decisions are being made, 
everything from protecting them from gun violence to mental 
health and wraparound services to something as basic as food, 
understanding that Federal law prohibited the lunch lady from 
even giving students a sandwich at the end of the day and 
instead she had to throw it away, it is heartbreaking.
    So then to get here and be faced with the realization that 
there are people who understand what these policies do and 
still support them. These are not oversights, these are not 
loopholes, these are policy choices and intentional decisions 
that are being made.
    Right now, we are debating legislation once again. I mean, 
I saw it in the debt ceiling negotiations, in the CR, in every 
budget every year, and now on reconciliation, where we move 
from hypotheticals to reduce food benefits that directly impact 
children. And it is something that I will never understand for 
as long as I am in this body. I will also never stop fighting 
for those kids, because I understand that they deserve a 
chance.
    And in the same breath where we are talking about subsidies 
and tax cuts and corporations and tax breaks and even 
deductions, something as basic as food should just not be an 
issue.
    And the idea of--I have heard many people just keep 
throwing out waste and fraud and abuse. If that was truly the 
concern we would be supporting SNAP administrators and making 
sure that we had highly qualified staff to process these 
applications.
    If that was truly the concern, we would be investing in 
workforce development to put people back to work. Because I can 
tell you, no one wants to be poor, and $6 per person per day is 
not a come up.
    Mr. McGovern. And if we are really interested in fraud, 
waste, and abuse I don't know why we don't look at the 
Department of Defense, which can't seem to pass an audit, but 
that we are giving them----
    Mrs. Hayes. No, we have increased their budget.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, we are increasing their budget.
    But this is a fight worth having and I am glad you are all 
in the fight.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yeah. I appreciate Mr. Carson's amendment, 
which really tries to get at what the underlying principles are 
in this bill and is this tax policy really going to help 
people.
    And as we have been locked in our little room here for the 
last however long, 2 hours ago I got an article from CNBC: 
``DOW slides more than 800 points as spiking Treasury yields 
and deficit fears spur a sell-off.''
    And there are multiple articles out there now talking about 
the fact that this bill, this bill moving through with its 
deficit increases, although they are being used to justify all 
these cuts to essential services, but the fact that this is 
going to explode the deficit is causing another stock market 
dip and causing Treasury bonds--something I never thought I 
would spend a lot of time talking about--to spike. It just 
undercuts the whole argument for this bill.
    So thank you for thinking about that.
    Mr. Carson. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. I have no questions.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    And thank you very much. I mean, I think a lot of what we 
have been talking about today is what is fair, right. Of what 
is right for the American people, how we build back trust up.
    And what we are seeing in this bill is this big transfer, 
this favoritism to the wealthy that is prioritizing them over 
the hungry kids in the classroom, over the families who need 
that assistance with the healthcare premiums, the Affordable 
Care Act. Americans love the Affordable Care Act.
    And one of the ways, Representative Ansari, when you 
suggest we do the STOCK Act, you are essentially saying let's 
put trust back in the system. Is that right? I mean, what is 
the impetus for that?
    Ms. Ansari. Yeah. I mean, we know that about 87 percent of 
Americans, both Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, 
believe that Members of Congress should not be trading stocks.
    And when I discovered during the Natural Resources markup 
that the chairman of that committee for the first time in the 
10 years that he has been in Congress decided to suddenly trade 
hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of oil and gas stocks, 
I was genuinely shocked.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But it was the concept of let's put 
trust back in the system. And I see we have one of the sponsors 
who might be joining us on another one of our panels.
    But I think that that is--this concept of who is benefiting 
and how do we actually say this is what government can do and 
this is how we put trust back in the system is really playing 
throughout all of the testimony, whether it is from veterans, 
healthcare, hunger, or just let's make sure that Americans 
trust us.
    And so thank you for taking the time to make sure that 
Americans know what we are doing here, because I can tell you, 
while that is going the stock market is terrified of what they 
are doing here. Americans are watching what we are doing here 
and they are so appreciative.
    And I know we are all getting lots and lots of calls and 
texts and outreach, because they are watching, they are 
watching, and the Senators are watching. I went to go get some 
food and the Senators are watching what we are doing in Rules. 
Who knew?
    So thank you.
    Representative Takano--Ranking Member Takano?
    Mr. Takano. Could I just say, Representative Leger 
Fernandez, that we could save money if we did not repeal the 
90/10 rule, $1.6 billion. It is going to cost us to put 
veterans more at risk to be preyed upon by for-profit colleges.
    And I would say to my friend Jahana Hayes, I would like to 
put the $1.6 billion that we would save if we did not repeal 
90/10, that would protect our veterans, to put it toward 
feeding those kids in your classroom.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah. That is what this is all about, 
is who do we prioritize? Let's feed the kids.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    There being no further questions, the panel is dismissed.
    The Chairwoman. Let me announce the next panel. And if you 
all could go down to the end again.
    Mr. Ruiz, Dr. Adams, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Brown, Mr. Liccardo, 
Mr. Correa, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Menendez.
    Well, thank you all very much for being here this 
afternoon. And I will start with Mr. Ruiz.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL RUIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Ranking Member, for letting us offer amendments to this big, 
ugly bill.
    We all know that taking health insurance away from 13.7 
million people, 12.4 million U.S. citizens, is going to cause 
an increase in those that are uninsured.
    And we all know that when they get sick, their only place 
for care is going to be in the emergency department, because 
our EMTALA laws mandate that emergency care physicians like 
myself will need to take care of patients if their life, sight, 
or limbs are threatened.
    And that uncompensated care is going to increase costs and 
it is going to affect everybody, whether or not you have 
Medicaid or private insurance.
    So my amendment would require States to produce an 
assessment of the effects of the coverage losses from this 
Medicaid title on rates of uncompensated care and emergency 
department wait times for each hospital that receives a 
disproportionate share of hospital payments.
    We know that the increase in the population that goes into 
the hospitals that are uncompensated, that goes into the 
emergency department, will result in longer wait times to see a 
physician. There will be an increase in overcrowdedness in the 
hospitals. The hospitals would bear a larger burden of those 
costs.
    And hospitals will do several things to make up for that. 
One is they will increase their own costs. And two, they will 
fire healthcare providers. And three, the other thing they will 
do is they will start to eliminate the services that don't 
bring a lot of revenue into the hospital.
    And those services usually are pediatrics and they are 
labor and delivery. So children will be affected, maternity 
care, women, pregnant ladies who are also covered in Medicaid 
will be affected because those services won't exist in the 
hospital.
    And the final thing that they would do--and there is 
evidence from this--the Inland Empower Health Plan that manages 
90 percent of Medicaid patients in Riverside County and San 
Bernardino County in California recently sent me a letter 
cosigned by eight hospital CEOs saying that if there are 
significant Medicaid cuts they would be forced to close.
    So think about this. If you are having an emergency, a 
stroke, a cardiac ischemia, or a heart attack, and that 
hospital is no longer in your community, where are you going to 
go for emergency care? And this is those that are in private 
health insurance too. This is how cutting Medicaid is going to 
affect everybody.
    The second amendment, that I co-introduced with Alexandria 
Ocasio-Cortez, will go after fraud and reinvest in Medicaid 
Advantage by going after the overcoding problem that exists and 
take those moneys that are saved and reinvest in Medicare. And 
the reason why we want to invest in Medicare is to help provide 
the resources for providers to actually pay for the cost of 
care.
    You see, providers have not had their reimbursements from 
Medicare a commensurate increase with the cost of providing 
care. And therefore, since 2001 until about 2023, there has 
been a 26 percent cut in the reimbursements for providers.
    If this continues, providers are going to take less 
Medicare patients in order to make sure they are able to pay 
their bills.
    And so I know that this bill has a quasi, small, pitiful 
so-called doc fix where it is only 75 percent of the Medicare 
Economic Index or the inflation rate and then a few years after 
that 10 percent each year.
    I want to insert my piece of legislation through this 
amendment that would provide the full doc fix which would tie 
the Medicare physician reimbursement to 100 percent of the 
Medicare Economic Index. Doing so will help protect Medicare 
for providers and seniors and strengthen the program so that 
more seniors can have access to that.
    So if you are really about cutting fraud or cutting waste 
and you are really about increasing access, then you would be 
allowing this amendment to be germane and included into the 
overall big, ugly bill.
    And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Ruiz.
    Dr. Adams, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALMA S. ADAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the 
ranking member, for the opportunity to speak this evening.
    Today I am offering two amendments both rooted in things 
that I thought we all supported--helping families and helping 
students.
    But let me start by saying that absolutely there is nothing 
about this bill that is beautiful. It is actually a big, ugly 
bill and probably one of the ugliest that I have seen from this 
Chamber.
    It is ugly because it hurts people. It is ugly because it 
punishes children. It punishes students and working families. 
And it is ugly because it tries to disguise cruelty as reform.
    Now, my first amendment is about SNAP. We have heard a lot 
about that. It is the largest and it is the most successful 
food security program in the Nation. It is a lifeline for 
49,000 citizens in my district in North Carolina.
    My SNAP amendment would prevent parents and caregivers of 
children as young as 7 from losing food assistance if they 
can't afford childcare during the summer months to avoid the 
existing punitive time limited work requirement of 90 days.
    And that is important because when you think about children 
and their eating, oftentimes the only meal they get is at 
school. And when we think about the summer, this becomes a real 
critical problem. And of course children as young as 7 should 
not be losing food assistance because we won't provide SNAP for 
their parents.
    Some of my Republican colleagues believe that 7 years old 
is some magical age in which households are not able to list 
them as dependents when applying for SNAP benefits.
    So what my amendment would do would correct this so that 
households with children age 7 can be granted this protection 
rather than starting at 8 years old.
    And the goal of the amendment, of course, is to feed more 
children, to make sure that children can eat. Children should 
not go hungry any time, they shouldn't go to bed hungry, food 
is an absolute necessity.
    And, Madam Chair, to take food away from children, it is 
unconscionable. It is just downright shameful.
    And so this big, beautiful, bad, ugly bill is set to cut 
over $300 billion from SNAP. And that is a program that, as we 
have heard already, helped cut child poverty in half.
    And so it is a program that helps millions of Americans 
feed their families and a program that saves lives. I mean, the 
bottom line is it is a lifeline, it saves lives.
    And so this big, ugly bill, as you have heard, it is Robin 
Hood in reverse, plain and simple. It is poor form, it is 
terrible policy, and it is bad politics. It is taking from the 
poor and giving to the rich.
    But let me just turn briefly to my second amendment, which 
strikes the provision in this bill that would cap Federal 
student aid at the national median cost of attendance.
    This is another example of gatekeeping disguised as reform. 
The median cost of college for programs of study, that is 
traditional. But because this cap would take away financial aid 
from low-income students and students of color based upon an 
unknown calculation from our colleagues that will dictate the 
future of our students.
    It punishes students for failing and daring to dream 
bigger. It says if you want to be a doctor, if you want to be 
an engineer, if you want to be a teacher, and your program 
costs more than average, well, too bad.
    Well, that is not reform. I have spent my life in education 
and I have taught students who benefited from SNAP as well. I 
have monitored students who rely on Pell. And I have watched 
both succeed when we choose to invest in them.
    And these amendments are about those choices. Do we choose 
to support parents or do we punish them? Do we choose to lift 
students up or do we pull the ladder up behind us?
    I do want to urge my colleagues to support these amendments 
for the sake of our Americans, for the sake of our families, 
for the sake of children, for the sake of students. We need to 
feed families and we need to make education assessable by 
funding students.
    Thank you for this time.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Dr. Adams.
    Ms. Matsui, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Matsui. Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, I have 
two amendments on this rule. I would like to offer these two 
amendments.
    My first amendment is simple. It protects Medicaid 
eligibility for pregnant people, children, parents of dependent 
children, and people with disabilities.
    Republicans keep insisting that their bill won't harm 
vulnerable Americans, that it won't touch people who really 
need Medicaid. But that is simply not true. They should have--
that is not true. They said they should have no problem 
supporting--then they should have no problem supporting my 
amendment.
    These are the very groups Republicans claim they want to 
protect. But if they are serious, they should support it. But I 
doubt they will because the only way to claim $800 billion in 
savings is to keep people like Christine, who is a single mom 
in my district, and millions of others off their coverage.
    Let's take a second to think about what this means in a 
person's life, not just as a line item on a spreadsheet.
    Christine is a single mom doing everything she can to 
support her two kids. She has been interviewing for jobs but 
has struggled to land full-time work.
    In the meantime, Medicaid is how she keeps her family 
healthy. Because of Medicaid her children get regular checkups; 
her son even recently got braces. That is what Medicaid means 
to this family and not a number on a chart but a healthier 
future.
    This bill is filled with red tape and impossible 
bureaucratic hurdles. It would throw families off of Medicaid 
and rip away lifesaving care, not just from parents, but from 
children whose healthcare is tied to their parents.
    Of the more than 13 million people who will lose their care 
under this bill, 4.7 million would be because of the red tape 
requirements in this bill. That would undoubtedly include 
parents, it will undoubtedly include children, and it will 
undoubtedly include people with disabilities.
    So if Republicans are serious about protecting the people 
they claim to care about, they should support my amendment.
    And just as this bill undermines healthcare, it is also 
weakening our digital security.
    My second amendment addresses a critical threat--
cybersecurity failures that put Americans at risk. It would 
require Cabinet-level officials to receive basic cybersecurity 
training before auctioning off critical spectrum. That includes 
following rules about secure communication, rules this 
administration has routinely ignored.
    Cyber attacks like Salt Typhoon just show how vulnerable we 
are. Yet instead of strengthening our cyber defenses, the Trump 
administration is gutting them and turning a blind eye to basic 
security protocols.
    We cannot allow sensitive data, health records, or public 
safety systems to be compromised because this administration 
refuses to take cybersecurity seriously.
    So let's be clear: Both of my amendments protect American 
families; one defends their healthcare, the other defends their 
digital safety. If my Republican colleagues truly care about 
protecting families, they would vote yes on both.
    I yield the balance of my time.
    [The statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.135
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.136
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.137
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.138
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.139
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.140
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.141
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.142
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.143
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui.
    Ms. Brown, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHONTEL M. BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to 
speak on this amendment.
    My amendment would strike an especially harsh provision in 
this bill that is rooted in cruelty, not policy.
    This simple, straightforward amendment would strike the 
work requirement provision in this big, bad, ugly bill that 
lowers the age of what we call a dependent child from 18 to 7, 
from 18 years old to 7 years old.
    So I am abundantly clear, we are saying that 8-, 9-, and 
10-year-olds are no longer considered dependent children.
    Where did this come from? Why is this necessary? Since when 
is a first-grader not a dependent child?
    Preventing families with children as young as 7 from losing 
food assistance, that is what we are debating here. This isn't 
about waste, fraud, or abuse, and we all know it. It is the 
excuse, not the reason.
    So I would like to invite the Republicans on this panel to 
explain to me, to my colleagues, and to the American people how 
exactly does taking food away from struggling families with 
young children make this country safer, stronger, more secure, 
healthier, or even great again, because the Republicans on the 
Agriculture Committee couldn't answer that question. And maybe 
that is because they didn't even bother to speak up when asked.
    Well, my guess is you can't answer that question either, 
because the answer doesn't exist.
    There is no national security strategy that says that 
hungry families are a path to stability in this country.
    There is no economic model that says that kids going to bed 
with empty bellies will suddenly lead us to prosperity.
    The only reason for this provision is to put some cash in 
the bank so Republicans can turn around and hand out tax cuts 
for the wealthiest in this country.
    Right now, SNAP rules allow parents and caregivers with 
kids under the age of 18 some flexibility. If they can't meet 
the 80-hour-a-month work requirement because they are raising a 
kid, caring for family, or stuck in a job with unpredictable 
hours, they don't lose access to food.
    This bill changes that. It pulls away basic benefits from 
the moment a child turns 7--7. That is a cold, calculated cut 
that targets struggling families.
    This provision alone will make this bill reckless, but 
combined with the sweeping cuts to family services my 
Democratic colleagues have been highlighting all day and all 
night, it is not just irresponsible, it is cruel.
    This bill doesn't serve working Americans, it punishes 
them. If you don't own a yacht or fly on a private jet this 
bill makes your life harder, not easier. It makes your life 
worse, not better. And it gives you a shove down, not a hand 
up.
    This is a backwards, out-of-touch policy that ignores the 
real lives of working families. These provisions ignore the 
daily struggles parents face as they juggle low-wage jobs, 
childcare gaps, and unpredictable schedules just to keep food 
on the table. It doesn't encourage stability or self-
sufficiency, it punishes poverty. And it sends a dangerous 
message: If you are struggling, you are on your own.
    I hope you will support my amendment, and perhaps more 
importantly, I hope you find it in you to really take the 
negative impact of this entire bill into consideration and vote 
no.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you Ms. Brown.
    Mr. Liccardo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM T. LICCARDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Liccardo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 
Member, and thank you to all the members of this committee for 
your endurance over these last 17 hours.
    I urge the committee to make my amendments in order, to 
take those amendments, amendments 50, 51, and 166. But rather 
than delving into the details of those amendments, I would like 
to express a larger concern about what I call the big, bloated, 
borrowing bill. I would like to talk about what this budget and 
its borrowing does to our children.
    In March, I visited Meadows Elementary in East San Jose 
where I read a favorite book, ``The Giving Tree,'' to a group 
of fourth-graders in a high-need neighborhood in East San Jose.
    Afterward, a tall girl sitting in the front asked me what 
it is that we do in Congress to help kids like them. I talked 
to her about school lunches. I talked to her about helping her 
and her mom when they go to the doctor. And I talked to her 
about how when she has dreams to go to college we can help her 
with what we call Pell grants.
    No longer, not if this budget is approved.
    You have heard from my colleagues over the last 17 hours 
about what this proposed budget will do for our children. 
Yesterday the Urban Institute issued a report revealing that 
the reconciliation bill could cause up to 18.3 million children 
to lose their access to free school meals.
    We know many of those children will rely on that meal as 
their only and their best source of nutrition. We also know 
that children comprise 40 percent of the estimated 9.7 to 14 
million Americans who will lose their health insurance because 
of these cuts.
    A Packard Foundation report just revealed that 914,000 
children alone will lose their health insurance because of 
their parents getting knocked out as a result of the work 
requirement, or at least not being able to complete the 
laborious paperwork for that.
    I know you have heard all of this in one form or another 
from my Democratic colleagues over the last 17 hours, but I 
want to actually talk about what you are hearing from your 
Republican colleagues.
    What I am told that you have heard from some your 
colleagues--quietly in caucus meetings of course, only a few of 
them have spoken in public--is that this is the most fiscally 
irresponsible budget in U.S. history. It will add, according to 
the CBO, $479 billion to next year's deficit and it will add as 
well another $3 trillion of course to our debt over the next 10 
years, accelerating a prodigious rate of accumulating debt.
    That is not just of course their opinion or my opinion. It 
is the opinion of the market, which has told us clearly. Last 
week Moody's downgraded U.S. Treasuries for the first time in 
my lifetime based on its assessment of, quote, ``current fiscal 
proposals.''
    Tomorrow's Wall Street Journal is already online, if you 
would like to check it out. The lead story on the markets, and 
I am quoting: ``A weak auction for 20-year bonds exacerbated 
worries about rising deficits in Washington and drove sharp 
declines for stocks and bonds, sending the Dow Jones down more 
than 800 points and the 30-year Treasury bond yield to its 
highest level in 2 years.''
    This fiscal irresponsibility will bring a parade of 
horribles, to be sure, but among them will be the fact that it 
is going to cost more for Americans to invest and borrow, 
because as we continue to squeeze out private sector borrowing, 
we will see those rates rise.
    In this case, both Democratic and Republican critics of 
this bill are correct. Two things can be true. We can be 
bipartisan about this. This is a colossally awful budget.
    And we should be bipartisan about supporting our children 
as well, because our kids are neither Republican nor 
Democratic, they need all of us to get it right for them.
    So let me attempt to bring these two threads together in 
one bipartisan message. This budget will hurt our children, 
because not only are you cutting spending of our money for 
them, but you are cutting spending--you are spending their 
money for us. In other words, you are stealing our children's 
future.
    And there is one reason why you are inflicting so much pain 
and one reason only, and that is because Donald Trump has 
painted himself and all of you into a corner with a promise for 
a $5 trillion tax cut that you don't know how to pay for and 
you cannot cut enough to pay for. But the billionaires will do 
very well.
    On the other hand, history will never forgive us 
collectively, and our children shouldn't either.
    Thank you. I yield my time.
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. J. LUIS CORREA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Correa. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, the hour is late. 
You should get the Marco Polo Award, not for distance but 
rather for stamina, 17 hours.
    I do have five amendments. I am looking to be brief, but 
these amendments are very important. These deal with a very 
important American issue, which is immigration.
    The first amendment, No. 59, will deal with our men and 
women in uniform. Less than 1 percent of Americans serve in our 
Armed Forces. Imagine a situation where a soldier stationed 
overseas all of a sudden gets a phone call that his spouse has 
been arrested by ICE and deported because he or she isn't 
documented.
    That is not the way we want to treat our soldiers, our men 
and women in uniform. They make enough sacrifices. But to have 
their spouses deported is unconscionable and un-American.
    My amendment would simply say that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security may not use any funds under this subtitle to 
remove an alien who is a spouse of a member of the Armed Forces 
on Active Duty.
    This is an important issue. I hope this committee will look 
upon it as an important issue for the men and women in uniform.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, my second amendment, No. 
61, deals with immigration as well. The question is, why would 
ICE agents go to schools, elementary schools, to enforce ICE 
laws to deport individuals? Why would you want to terrorize 
children?
    My amendment simply says none of the funds made available 
by this title may be used to conduct an immigration enforcement 
action at an elementary school.
    Why in God's name would ICE show up to an elementary school 
to threaten to deport children?
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, my third amendment, No. 
64, deals with those men and women who defend our country, 
homeland security officers, at our borders, at our ports of 
entry. What we ask is you respect their collective bargaining 
rights.
    My amendment says none of the funds made available by this 
title may be used to undermine or cancel any collective 
bargaining agreements covering an employee of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
    And again here, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we have 
individuals that sometimes work 16-hour shifts because they are 
so short in terms of personnel. They deserve to be represented 
by a collective bargaining contract.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, my next amendment, No. 
230. We often say in this country all gave some and many made 
the ultimate sacrifice when we are honoring our veterans.
    Again, less than 1 percent of Americans actually serve our 
Nation. A lot of our veterans go off and fight, come back with 
invisible wounds that later on turn into PTSD and they get into 
trouble with the law.
    A lot of these veterans, green card holders, when they join 
the military are promised that they will be American citizens 
when they are honorably discharged. Such is not the case.
    Veterans that take an oath to the United States of America, 
veterans that are ready to lay it all down, make the ultimate 
sacrifice for our country, and then they are deported because 
they are found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
    Mr. Chairman, my bill simply says none of the funds made 
available by this subtitle may be used to remove from the 
United States a veteran who was honorably discharged unless an 
immigration judge has determined after weighing all equities 
that that individual should be removed.
    All what I am asking is before you deport this veteran look 
at his whole history of service to our country.
    And finally, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, my final 
amendment essentially says that no amount of money in this 
subtitle should be used or can be used to deport or remove an 
individual to a country other than the country of that 
individual's nationality or last habitual residence unless a 
removal order to that country is issued by an immigration 
judge.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman's time is up.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank the gentleman.
    I recognize Ms. Sanchez of California.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Sanchez. I want to begin by thanking the Rules 
Committee for the opportunity to offer amendments to this 
fluid, false, and, frankly, offensive bill.
    Our Tax Code should create opportunity and fairness, but 
this bill does the exact opposite. It bottoms out the middle 
class and it strangles working families. It cruelly targets 
immigrants that are lawfully present in the United States and 
have been working here for years. It targets children simply 
because of their parents' immigration status. And this isn't 
just misguided, it is cruel.
    The first provision I want to discuss is a promise to 
preserve taxpayer dollars from going towards undocumented 
immigrants.
    The Joint Committee on Taxation said on the record that 
this bill does nothing to, quote, unquote, remove taxpayer 
benefits for illegal immigrants, rendering the title of this 
section patently false and misleading. And that is why I 
submitted an amendment striking these sections.
    Undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for coverage 
under the Affordable Care Act and Medicare. What Republicans 
are actually doing is taking away health coverage from legally 
present individuals who pay taxes and work in the country 
legally. There is already a 5-year bar before a legally present 
noncitizen can purchase marketplace coverage--purchase 
marketplace coverage, they are not given coverage.
    The reality is that immigrants are actually subsidizing 
these premium tax credits and other Federal programs like 
Medicare for U.S.-born people. They are paying more into the 
system than they are actually utilizing in health coverage due 
to their higher uninsured rate and lower health utilization 
rate. And this bill just worsens that disparity.
    If we don't strike these sections, we are only going to see 
more uncompensated care, more preventable deaths, and more 
contagious disease, and increases in everyone's healthcare 
premiums, as Dr. Ruiz said earlier.
    These are legally present asylum seekers, refugees, 
humanitarian parolees, temporary protected status holders, and 
Dreamers, recipients who have been in the country for decades 
and who will no longer have healthcare coverage under this 
bill.
    In California alone, temporary protected status holders 
contribute $235 million in Federal taxes and $170 million in 
State and local taxes. In Florida, temporary protected status 
holders contribute $198 million in Federal taxes and $113 
million in State and local taxes.
    And if my Republican colleagues are so concerned about 
government handouts, I want to point to them the newly 
established expedited resettlement pathway for South Africans, 
because that immigration pathway grants them access up to 12 
months of health insurance if they don't qualify for Medicaid. 
Talk about a handout.
    And if Republicans are going to prohibit legally present 
individuals who have been contributing to our economy for years 
and even decades from purchasing marketplace coverage, buying 
it with their own money, out of their own pocket, and you guys 
are going to prohibit that. The hypocrisy of the Republicans 
never fails to surprise me.
    My second amendment addresses the denial of the child tax 
credit for U.S. citizen children if one parent does not have a 
Social Security number.
    The child tax credit was created to help children, 
providing essential support for food, clothing, shelter, and 
childcare. It has been one of the most effective tools in 
reducing child poverty in the United States. But this bill will 
strip that support away from 2 million U.S. citizen children, 
simply because one of their parents isn't a citizen.
    This provision disproportionately harms Hispanic children, 
many in my district who already face higher poverty rates. 
Nearly one in four Hispanic children lives in poverty, and that 
is three times the rate of White children.
    Why are we denying these children a shot at a better life 
to give tax credits to billionaires who don't need it?
    This provision is cruel and unconstitutional. Punishing 
U.S. children for their parents' immigration status violates 
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
    My amendment would fix this by ensuring that those 2 
million children still receive the benefits of the child tax 
credit they deserve and that their parents have paid into.
    Republicans love to say promises made, promises kept. Well, 
this does nothing to lower healthcare costs.
    A 65-year-old mother and grandmother from Santa Fe Springs 
in my district is a survivor of triple-negative breast cancer. 
Medicaid helped her cover every surgery, every hospital stay, 
every medication. She told me that she could have died without 
Medicaid coverage. And to add insult to injury, this bill 
literally gives a tax cut of $255,000 for the top 0.1 percent.
    That is unconscionable, and I urge the committee to adopt 
my amendments.
    And I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.144
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.145
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.146
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.147
    
    Mr. Griffith. Gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 
Menendez.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 
McGovern, and members of the Rules Committee, for the 
opportunity to testify about my important amendments to a 
Republican bill that would harm far too many Americans. I am 
offering two amendments today. The first is number 201, and the 
second is number 306. Amendment number 201, which strikes 
section 44201 from this bill. Section 44201 would make 
permanent the Trump administration's de facto ACA repeal that 
would make healthcare more expensive and less accessible for so 
many of our constituents.
    Since the ACA's passage in 2010, Republicans have attempted 
over 70 times to repeal or weaken the bill, including efforts 
to weaken commonsense protections against discrimination of 
those with pre-existing conditions, like asthma or diabetes. 
And now we are seeing yet another attempt by Republicans to 
weaken the ACA and create barriers to care for hard-working 
individuals and their families.
    On March 10th, the Trump administration issued the so-
called marketplace integrity and affordability proposed rule. 
Ironically, this rule would make healthcare less affordable and 
less accessible by raising premiums, cutting financial 
assistance, and creating new bureaucratic paperwork 
requirements. If this rule takes effect, hardworking Americans 
across the country will face significant premium hikes, nearly 
$3 billion over the next several years and greater barriers 
when they try to enroll on November 1st.
    But it is not just premiums that go up. Out-of-pocket costs 
will rise by 15 percent with higher deductibles, higher co-
pays, and more people delaying or skipping care simply because 
of cost. On top of that, the rule lowers coverage standards, 
letting insurers offer weaker plans that cover less care, 
meaning even with flat premiums, patients pay more out of 
pocket.
    So this is not just my opinion. An internal analysis from 
the first Trump administration warned that these changes will 
cause coverage losses, premium spikes, and significant market 
disruption. The administration has also admitted that under 
this rule, 2 million individuals will lose healthcare coverage 
in 2026. This rule is a direct attack on the people that the 
ACA was designed to protect. It targets working families, low-
income individuals, and people with chronic conditions. This 
rule isn't about integrity. It is about exclusion. So no, we 
shouldn't codify this harmful rule into law. We should stop it. 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
    The second amendment I would like to discuss today would 
strike the section of this bill that repeals and rescinds grant 
funding for reducing air pollution at schools, and I have to 
repeat this fact. My second amendment would strike the section 
of this bill, this Republican bill, that repeals and rescinds 
grant funding for reducing air pollution at schools. At 
schools. We have an administration that claims to be promoting 
an agenda that will make our nation and families healthier.
    As a father and a legislator, there is nothing more 
important to me than protecting our Nation's children, but the 
bill we are marking up today does the opposite. When parents 
send their kids to school, the last thing that they should 
worry about is the air in their children's classrooms.
    We know that indoor air poses both serious health risks to 
children and air pollution can affect educational outcomes. 
According to data from Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, whose funding the Trump administration is proposed 
cutting in half, in a classroom of 30 children, three are 
likely to have asthma. One study found a decline in children's 
test scores for every increase in particulate matter in their 
school's air, and air quality at schools tends to be worse 
indoors than it is outside.
    So what did Democrats do? We created tools to address this 
challenge. The IRA authorized a grant program that provides 
essential funding and technical assistance to improve air 
quality of schools. It seems straightforward to me, even at 
this hour, why we need this program. Yet Republicans voted 
against authorizing it 3 years ago, and every Republican on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee voted against my amendment in our 
markup last week.
    Meanwhile, they are cutting Medicaid for nearly 14 million 
people, as I mentioned earlier, dismantling critical agencies 
that are charged with protecting public health. So I would like 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to explain to me 
and the American people how does this bill make our children 
healthier? How, in cutting these programs, will our children 
breathe cleaner air? How does making children sick support 
American families? This issue should be common sense. It should 
be bipartisan. It should be easy to vote yes on my amendment 
that preserves this vital program. I appreciate you, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. Gentleman yields back.
    Questions? Sorry. Getting ahead of myself. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Eating a Swedish fish.
    Mr. Griffith. I did that on purpose.
    Mr. Menendez. It is going to cost more with tariffs to have 
the Swedish fish.
    Mr. McGovern. I just want to say to everybody thank you for 
being here. Thank you for your patience. I support all your 
amendments. I am proud of all of you for coming to this 
committee and presenting the amendments you did, because I 
think they represent our values. And as I said at the beginning 
of this hearing, the underlying bill doesn't represent my 
values, doesn't represent our values, and so whatever we can do 
to help advance your amendments we will do, but thank you very 
much. I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. Gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes. I echo the ranking member's remarks, and 
I wanted to particularly thank Representative Sanchez for 
bringing forward that amendment that is just so despicable in 
clawing back benefits from children based on who their parents 
are. It is un-American. That is all I can say.
    Ms. Sanchez. It also violates the Constitution, but that 
doesn't seem to bother certain members.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, I appreciate the amendment.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. Gentlelady yields back.
    Now recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much. You know, I 
noted, Representative Correa, that you kind of said something 
that we are all hearing. We keep hearing from Republicans that 
they don't like this bill, they whisper to it, they complain 
about it. They are so terrified of Trump that they are not 
having the courage to actually vote no. But we will see. We 
will see.
    But, you know, with regards to the amendments proposed with 
regards to immigration, I just wanted to seek unanimous consent 
to enter into the record an article in Defense One, and Defense 
One, as you know, is a highly regarded military publication 
titled, ``Immigrants Show Greater Willingness to Join the 
Military, Study Shows.''
    Mr. Griffith. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.148
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.149
    
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And another article I think that goes 
to Representative Sanchez's points, there is lots of these 
different articles, but really, the point was made by you. It 
has been made in some of the earlier titles, but we haven't 
talked enough about it, and so that is why I wanted to--I know 
we are trying to move on, but I wanted to take some time to 
acknowledge that this idea that immigrants are the reason you 
have to cut Medicaid for everybody because they are somehow 
gaming the system when they do not receive any Federal dollars, 
and indeed, the article that I would seek unanimous consent to, 
it is just one of many that center on budget and policy 
priorities, immigrants contribute greatly to the Social 
Security trust fund solvency which demonstrates--Mr. Chairman, 
I seek unanimous consent.
    Mr. Griffith. What was the date? I am sorry.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I am sorry?
    Mr. Griffith. The date on the article.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. The date of the article, April 23, 
2025.
    Mr. Griffith. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And thank you for helping 
clarify that, because I think it is really important that these 
are recent articles, because they are showing that immigrants 
contributions are key, and this one shows that if it weren't 
for immigrants who pay taxes, but often don't receive any of 
the benefits, our Social Security would be in deeper trouble 
than it already is. And you look at that across the board over 
and over, and so I am going to introduce these articles, and I 
know we want to move forward because we have all these 
wonderful members who are coming here to tell us all the other 
new things. This is the great thing about these hearings is we 
are hearing all of these unique factors that you all are 
bringing to the fact that we are ignoring our cybersecurity, he 
got rid of--Trump got rid of--right? You are laughing, because 
I didn't even have to say it, right? Because it is shameful 
that we have made ourselves more at risk because of what he has 
done in terms of opening up our vulnerabilities to Russia.
    That is one of your concerns, correct, Representative 
Matsui? Thank you for much for raising those. I didn't know if 
you wanted to do anything else that quickly on either of those.
    Ms. Sanchez. If I could just respond, it is the biggest lie 
in the world that immigrants take more from the system than 
they pay in. Immigrants pay into the system. They work hard. 
They pay taxes. They are not even eligible for those benefits, 
and yet, other Americans are told the reason why there is 
waste, fraud, and abuse is because of immigrants. It is 
patently false. It is lies and it is meant to divide our 
country, and so the amendments that I am introducing are trying 
to strike those provisions that treat immigrants unfairly, 
immigrants who pay into the system and are not eligible for the 
benefits.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And in this article from Defense One, 
it is interesting the articles you start reading once you get 
to Congress. Like, who knew I would start reading military 
articles? But, you know, that U.S. are more willing to fight 
for their country. And what they are fighting, for as it goes 
in to discuss, is the ideals of the country, the ideals of the 
Constitution, and that is something that I think we need to 
remember that we are dealing with a tax bill in cutting 
essential benefits, but they are wrapping it around elements 
that are undermining the ideals of this country as a place 
where we create opportunity for everybody, whether you are 
native born from West Virginia or you are an immigrant or 
married.
    I would only suggest that, and maybe I could discuss it 
with you later, the idea that it should be any family who is 
not just the spouse, but also the children who are married into 
the military, but with that, you wanted to say something?
    Mr. Menendez. I just want to just join my colleague 
Congresswoman Matsui to your point about cybersecurity. I mean, 
this is--when I was on Homeland Security on the Cybersecurity 
Subcommittee, this was something that had bipartisan support, 
and this is something that we should all be in agreement on. We 
are watching an administration dismantle CISA and our 
cybersecurity workforce at a time that we need to be growing 
it, and instead of having a strong Federal response to all the 
attacks that we are seeing, both in both private and public 
sector to our critical infrastructure, we are saying that the 
States and municipalities have to handle it when they don't 
have the resources to?
    And so, I appreciate Congresswoman Matsui's leadership on 
this issue and her amendment, because it is something that 
should have bipartisan support, because it has historically had 
bipartisan support because it is an issue of national security. 
And the fact that we can't agree on this amendment that 
everyone in the administration, especially when you are 
enabling people from DOGE to have access to some of the most 
sensitive personal data of all Americans, right, from red and 
blue States across the country, whether it is HUD or the VA or 
the IRS, we should have some level of cybersecurity awareness 
and training for those individuals. So I thank the 
Congresswoman for her leadership on this issue and should be 
something that should have bipartisan support, and I thank you 
for raising it as well.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, and once again, 
we aren't hearing any Republicans complain about any of the 
kind of transgressions that would have normally had an outcry, 
a bipartisan outcry, but with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There are legitimate differences of opinion on different 
issues. Many of my friends are Democrats. I travel with them 
overseas. We have different ideas about how to solve the same 
problem. So they are legitimate questions, differences about 
how we would handle the issues.
    But I can tell you as someone who is in the rooms where 
there are no telephones where we are dealing with the 
cybersecurity-related issues, there is no breakdown on the 
cybersecurity right now. There is just not. So we can have our 
debates and our difference of opinion, but I can tell you this, 
the administration is committed on cybersecurity, just as I 
believe the previous administration was committed on 
cybersecurity, and I just--it is just a--we have differences of 
agreements on other things, but that is the one that I have 
listened to that I think--that accusation is just--as someone 
who is in the room, I very much think that is a false 
accusation.
    Ms. Matsui. Can I comment on that?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time. I 
am not interested in debate.
    Mr. Griffith. Gentleman has yielded back, and I understand 
we can do this, but I am looking at possibly two more panels 
before we finish, so happy for you all to have a conversation 
and discussion or disagreement, but this panel is concluded. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would note 
that our Democrat expert did have a response.
    Mr. Griffith. Note--the response will be noted. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Hopefully we will hear more from her 
later.
    Mr. Griffith. What we have been trying to do is when I 
start calling off the names from the next panel, it will be 
starting on this end with chair number one, Mr. Khanna, Ms. 
McClellan, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Frost, Ms. Brownley, Mr. 
Magaziner, Mr. Garamendi, and Ms. Elfreth.
    I know it is still a little busy, but if we can and go 
ahead and get started. Mr. Khanna of California, are you ready?
    Mr. Khanna. I am.
    Mr. Griffith. Recognized for five minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. RO KHANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a commonsense 
bipartisan amendment. No American child under the age of 18 
should lose their healthcare because of this bill. As you know, 
42 percent of Americans--America's children rely on Medicaid. 
The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said no one 
is going to lose their healthcare, no kids are going to lose 
their healthcare.
    President Trump keeps saying, It is all about waste, fraud, 
and abuse. We are just going after waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Representative Crenshaw says, No kids are going to lose their 
health insurance. And a number of Republicans wrote in a letter 
to the Speaker that they should make sure no kids lose their 
health insurance.
    But the reality is, independent estimates are that 800,000 
kids in this country are going to lose their healthcare. I 
think we can all agree that any child born in America should 
have healthcare. So if the Republicans agree that kids 
shouldn't lose healthcare, why not just have a simple amendment 
in this bill saying we guarantee that no kid is going to lose 
healthcare?
    Now, you ask why is it that kids are going to lose 
healthcare? Why the estimates of 800,000? The reality is that 
the work requirements were tried in Arkansas and what they saw 
is when parents were kicked off healthcare because of 
bureaucratic reasons, the kids lost the healthcare, too. It is 
not theoretical. Thousands of kids in Arkansas lost their 
healthcare. And this to me seems like the easiest thing, 
easiest way that we can answer this question. Just guarantee to 
the American public that not a single American kid is going to 
lose healthcare with this bill. And that would answer the 
question, would make good on all of the promises. It would make 
good on the promise that Trump is saying it is only waste, 
fraud, and abuse. He certainly does not want to deprive 
American kids born here of healthcare.
    Let me end with this point. I was in Allentown. There was a 
sixth grader. She stood up and she said her name was Sophia. I 
won't say her last name, but her name was Sophia, and she said 
I am scared. I am scared. Can you assure me that I won't be 
afraid? And she said she is afraid because her grandmother is 
on Medicare, and she said she is afraid because she has a 
single mother is raising her and she was concerned about her 
own healthcare.
    I want this amendment to pass so I can tell Sophia, she 
doesn't have to be afraid about losing her own healthcare and 
kids like Sophia should not be afraid of losing their 
healthcare across this country.
    Mr. Griffith. Gentleman yields back? Gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Khanna. Yes.
    Mr. Griffith. Now recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, 
Ms. McClellan.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFER MCCLELLAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
McGovern for allowing further amendments to this bill. My 
amendment would ensure that the proceeds of any spectrum 
licensing allocation or auction won't line the pockets of the 
President, a special government official, any other government 
official, or their families. It would also ensure that the FCC 
does not collude with the President or any other government 
official or their family to influence the outcomes of their 
personal legal battles. But spoiler alert, this amendment is 
probably not going to pass.
    So I want to take the rest of my time to talk about this 
big bad billionaire bonus that benefits the wealthiest 10 
percent of Americans at the expense of the poorest 10 percent. 
It shifts costs to States that are already struggling to fill 
massive holes that they are seeing from the Trump 
administration's funding freezes. They are trying to take on 
the burden of more responsibility shifted to them, whether from 
the Department of Education or these new work requirements or 
now to pay for nutrition benefits for the first time ever. 
States are going to be left in the untenable position of having 
to raise their own taxes or gutting even more services as a 
result. This bill does nothing to address the underlying costs 
of healthcare, childcare, groceries, energy bills, or anything 
else.
    And why are we rushing through this bill to the point where 
the bulk of it is being discussed in the middle of the night 
while everybody else is sleeping? What is the rush? Are the 
wealthiest few in that big of a hurry to get richer? Is there a 
flash sale on yachts that I don't know about?
    We have had these markups in the middle of the night that 
include provisions that Republicans didn't even know about, 
like the Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee who 
were caught off guard by the Medicaid provisions imposing co-
pays of up to $35 on an individual who earns up to $300 a week. 
They didn't know that if somebody was kicked off of Medicaid 
because they couldn't meet burdensome work paper requirements 
to prove that they are working, like the 18,000 Arkansas 
individuals who were kicked off when they couldn't meet work 
requirements, even though they were working. These folks that 
get kicked off wouldn't be eligible for subsidies to purchase 
marketplace plans that they otherwise couldn't afford, and that 
came as a surprise to my colleagues in the E&C committee in the 
middle of the night.
    And somewhere between the ENC marathon markup and here, a 
provision was added that would cut the Federal match for 
Medicaid in States that dare to provide healthcare to lawfully 
present immigrants. That means that Virginia that covers 
lawfully present pregnant women and children, could face a cut 
in the Federal match that would trigger an unwinding of 
Medicaid expansion that cost--would cost hundreds of thousands 
of Virginians their health insurance, put our providers, 
especially our rural hospitals, at risk of closing their doors.
    Now I heard there will be at least one manager's amendment 
that might fix that, but who knows? Who knows what will happen 
once the Freedom Caucus--I think they have already returned 
from the White House, but who knows what they have demanded, 
and what they have gotten. And they want to kick even more 
people off of their health insurance.
    But what else is buried in this bill? What is going to be 
buried in the manager's amendment? What is going to be buried 
in the bill that we see for the first time on the floor that we 
won't have time to take back to stakeholders or the American 
people? And will there be--will this be another one of those 
moments where we rush through a big, massive bill and then hope 
that the Senate saves the House from its worst impulse? Plain 
and simple, I ask again, what is the rush? What is the rush of 
a bill that will harm children? That will say to a family now 
you--even though you legally cannot leave your child at home 
when they are 7, 8, 9, 10, we are going to assume that you can 
go to work once they reach 7, even though I can tell you when 
my son was 7, if left at home to take care of himself, he 
probably would have burned the house down.
    Have we thought through the unintended consequences of some 
of the provisions that are buried in this bill surprising even 
Republicans that don't like it? I hope we take our time, we do 
this right, because, you know, if we mess it up, the harm is 
not going to be to us. It is going to be to the most vulnerable 
that we represent. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. Gentlelady yields back.
    Now recognize Mr. Courtney of Connecticut for five minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
McGovern and all the members of the panel. I have a simple 
straightforward amendment focused on the Air Force One program, 
which falls under the jurisdiction of the Seapower and 
Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services on 
which I serve as rank ranking member. This amendment would 
prohibit funds made available by this act from being used for 
the purpose of modifying an aircraft acquired from a foreign 
source for use as executive airlift aircraft or for 
transferring such aircraft to a nongovernmental entity, such as 
a museum.
    This provision is in response to the President's sudden 
decision to accept a Boeing 747 from Qatar to serve as a so-
called bridge replacement for the current Air Force One 
aircraft. The White House has portrayed this idea as a free Air 
Force One plane. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can 
say this with complete certainty, because in 2018 during the 
first Trump administration, Congress authorized the purchase of 
two Boeing 747 aircrafts that Boeing had originally built as 
commercial passenger planes for an airline that went bankrupt. 
The cost of upgrades and retrofitting for these two planes to 
replace the Air Force One fleet totaled $3.9 billion.
    The work included stripping the plane's interior down to 
the studs, hardening the plane's defenses, installing encrypted 
communications technology, and building out space for what is 
essentially a flying command and control center, not just for 
our nation's military and intelligence agency, but for the 
entire Federal Government.
    Earlier this month, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force, Darlene Costello, testified before our subcommittee that 
Boeing has a workable plan for the Air Force to deliver these 
two planes by 2027. It is important to note that the final cost 
at this point has already exceeded $3.9 billion to the tune of 
millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars of cost 
overruns.
    A few hours ago, the White House confirmed that the 
President has unilaterally accepted a third plane. We have all 
seen the pictures of this aircraft that is not even close to 
being ready to fly as Air Force One, and clearly, it is going 
to require much of the same time and expense to be stripped 
down and upgraded as the two jets already under contract with 
the Air Force, which are on track for delivery during the 
President's current term. This scheme was not free and the new 
scheme is not going to be free either. It is going to cost the 
taxpayers a lot of money.
    The relevance to this reconciliation package is that the 
structure of Title II--covering the Armed Services provisions--
provides little to no controls on how funds are used across 
programs.
    Again, during the markup, we had a lot of back and forth 
with committee staff about the fact that the Office of 
Management and Budget is going to be basically free to spend 
that $150 billion with little or no controls or restraint, and 
we know that this budget director from the first Trump 
administration was brazenly reprogramming money with no 
congressional authorization over and over again.
    Madam Chair, there are a host of other reasons for Congress 
to approve this amendment, particularly the constitutional 
prohibition in Article I, section 9, clause 8, that bars any 
official from accepting gifts or emoluments from another 
government without approval of Congress.
    Obviously, Congress has not even come close to approving 
this gift. That prohibition as well as the significant cost of 
retrofitting a third Air Force One screams out for Congress to 
exercise its Constitutional duty and put the brakes on this 
scheme. My amendment will do that and I respectfully ask my 
colleagues to make it in order.
    And Madam Chair, I have an article from Forbes magazine, 
hardly a Democratic media outlet, titled, ``Why the Qataris are 
Happy to Dump Their 747 on Trump,'' dated May 15th.
    [The statement of Mr. Courtney follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.150
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.151
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.152
    
    The Chairwoman. Without objection, it will be yielded part 
of the record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.153
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.154
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.155
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.156
    
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Frost, you are next. Okay. I am just 
going by the list given to me, so if you want to go again, you 
are fine.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. SARAH ELFRETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

    Ms. Elfreth. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
McGovern, and members of the committee, thank you for spending 
nearly 20 hours at this hard work. I greatly appreciate it. I 
am sure everybody on this panel does discussing many of the 
very concerning cuts in policy implications of this bill, 
staring down policies that will result in as many as 14 million 
people losing their health insurance and food assistance, the 
elimination of IRA provisions aimed at lowering energy costs, 
adding trillions of dollars to the deficit, which we only just 
found out a few hours ago from CBO which will trigger $500 
billion in Medicare cuts all to pay for tax breaks for the 
wealthiest Americans and corporations.
    I am here to request the committee accept the following two 
amendments aimed at protecting our national security, amendment 
102 and 108. First, amendment 102 is a commonsense provision 
recommended by the DOD itself to protect our national security 
and ensure military readiness when considering coastal leases 
for sale. The bill before us proposes a fire sale on public 
lands and waters to the lowest bidders for the purpose of more 
drilling and yet offers no guarantee that any of those 
resources will benefit Americans or lower energy costs.
    On the House Natural Resources Committee, we often talk 
about national security and how our ability to produce our own 
energy allows us not to rely on foreign adversaries, but 
selling off or coastal waters, surrounding our military 
installations directly contradicts these efforts and instead 
endangers our national security by prohibiting the military's 
ability to train and navigate freely.
    And here's how I know this. Because in 2015 the DOD 
analyzed every offshore drilling block in the roles and 
activities critical for military readiness and national 
security, and they determined that what, if any level of 
drilling activity, can be done without impeding their critical 
work.
    My amendment would require the Federal Government to 
implement the findings of this DOD report when selling offshore 
drilling leases for coastal waters. Due to the sensitive 
training and work of our installations, all of these blocks on 
the East and West Coast were classified by DOD as requiring 
either a total prohibition or very specific conditions for 
leasing.
    But even if everything on this drilling--these drilling 
sites were to go exactly as planned, the mere presence of these 
rigs would cause immediate threats to our military readiness 
and national security, and that is just not a risk we should be 
willing to take. I implore this committee to address the very 
real threat by supporting this amendment.
    My second amendment before you, amendment 180, as was just 
discussed by my colleague, we understand that the bill provides 
extra $150 billion to the DOD, and frankly, I don't trust the 
Secretary with $150, let alone $150 billion, but my second 
amendment, preservation of historical items, is very simple. It 
prohibits the DOD from spending any of these funds until a 
panel of experts reviews all artifacts and documents flagged 
for destruction on censorship.
    Earlier this year, the DOD, under the direction of 
Secretary Hegseth, began removing books, images, and stories of 
historical events, and heroes from our military academies. The 
Department removed these items as part of a crusade against 
what they consider promoting, quote, diversity--``divisive 
concepts.'' Yet protecting the history and accurately telling 
the stories of our nation is critical to our national security. 
It is concerning that under Secretary Hegseth's guidance, the 
DOD has removed images and stories often by mistake. We all 
read the headlines of articles and images highlighting the 
accomplishments of the Navajo code talkers who fought in the 
Pacific Island campaign that were removed. Pictures of the 
Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the Atomic bomb in Japan, 
were removed because of the word gay.
    At the U.S. Naval Academy in my own district, we have seen 
nearly 400 books from their libraries removed that explored 
themes of gender, race, and diversity. Maya Angelou's, ``I know 
Why the Caged Bird Sings,'' was removed, yet Hitler's ``Mein 
Kampf'' and Mussolini's, ``The Doctrine of Fascism'' remain. We 
are spending precious time, energy, and resources on erasing 
the history of our great Nation instead of preparing for the 
next conflict or taking seriously the handling of sensitive 
national security information.
    Military that looks like our country and receives an 
education that teaches the accurate history of this Nation is 
critical to our ability to influence strong Democratic 
principles abroad. If our servicemembers don't learn from 
history, they are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. I 
urge support for both these amendments and yield back the 
balance of my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Elfreth.
    Mr. Frost, you are recognized for five minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXWELL FROST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Frost. Thank you so much for the opportunity to 
testify. I got here at 1:00 a.m. When I pulled up, I was 
surprised to see a crowd of about 150, maybe 175 people right 
outside the Capitol steps protesting what--this bill and 
protesting cuts to Medicaid, protesting cuts to food 
assistance, and I started walking around and speaking with 
people and I found folks who were here from all across the 
Nation of all different ages, all different ethnicities, races, 
religions. I met Democrats, I met Republicans, I met 
independents, I met people who aren't registered to vote.
    And the word I heard from people the most, especially--you 
know, it started to rain. We stayed out there talking to 
people. The word I heard the most was betrayal, and people 
feel--felt betrayed, and a lot of these folks had already 
planned this trip to D.C. for a long time. They didn't even 
know that this vote would go on, but when they found out that 
the Republican majority would be hosting a key hearing on this 
budget, which the budget shows the morals of a nation and the 
character of a nation, and they heard it was happening at 1:00 
a.m. in the middle of the night, these people, in the middle of 
their vacation, their advocacy trips on other things, and all 
this, decided to come out in the rain with their families to 
say we don't want to be betrayed. We want our healthcare. We 
want the nutritional assistance. We want a budget that reflects 
the values of this country, and we don't want a bill that will 
facilitate the single largest transfer of wealth from the 
working poor and the working class to the ultra wealthy in the 
history of your nation.
    It is dark and twisted that many Republican politicians 
want to take away healthcare, make food more expensive, 
restrict a child tax credit, all to enrich billionaires and 
mega corporations. If this bill passes, kids will go hungry. If 
this bill passes, people will die. And I heard this directly 
from people that were out there protesting, talking about the 
impacts that these cuts--cuts to Medicaid would have on their 
lives and their children.
    I also know that bill is unpopular because I have been 
traveling this country going to Republican districts and 
speaking with constituents who have a Republican representative 
who refuses to host a town hall. I was actually in Michigan 
because--in Representative John James' district, and one of his 
constituents shared, quote, my daughter is a young woman who 
was born with cerebral palsy, mild cognitive impairments, and 
autism. She depends on Medicaid services for her health, 
safety, and well-being. She is unable to work or take care of 
herself. Without Medicaid, she is totally at risk. Cutting 
Medicaid to give tax cuts to wealthy billionaires is not only 
cruel and unethical, but it puts vulnerable people like my 
daughter at risk of severe mental and physical health problems.
    I am in this hearing to offer support for Democratic 
amendments that would reverse the damage of this horrible bill 
that is a scam, and I personally have two amendments that I 
would like you to consider. One of them, the first prevents the 
committee on oversight and government reform portion of this 
bill from taking effect if Donald Trump violates a Supreme 
Court order. The rule of law is fundamental to any functioning 
country, and the only thing that can guarantee people's safety 
and security. Without the rule of law, there is chaos, 
corruption, anarchy. And the President loves to talk about the 
rule of law, but then he goes on to completely ignore and defy 
Supreme Court orders that are telling him to do stuff.
    If any working person at home were to ignore a judge, what 
would happen to them? No politician is above the law, including 
Donald Trump. Our democracy and our rights are hanging 
literally by a thread in part because Trump has lost over and 
over again in court, because his illegal acts are prohibited by 
Federal judges and by law, and these have been decisions coming 
from Federal judges appointed by both Democrats and 
Republicans.
    My other amendment overturns a portion of the bill that 
eliminates attacks on silencers that has existed since 1934. 
Republicans want to make it cheaper and easier for the next 
mass shooter to carry out their plans and kill innocent people. 
Silencers make it harder for law enforcement to quickly and 
effectively respond to active shooter situations since it makes 
it more difficult to recognize the sound of gunfire and locate 
the source of the gunshots.
    This bill is a giveaway to billionaire donors and 
apparently also wants to continue to enrich gun manufacturers 
who want to make even more money and profit even more off of 
the death of our children and our people. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Frost.
    Mr. Magaziner.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. SETH MAGAZINER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here tonight to 
speak on two amendments I will be offering on the Republican 
billionaire tax giveaway bill. As written, this bill is the 
single biggest transfer of wealth from working people to the 
ultra rich in the history of our country. People are struggling 
to make ends meet. High costs are impacting everybody. The cost 
of food, the cost of medicine, the cost of rent.
    The people I speak to in Rhode Island every day feel like 
they are working harder and harder, but they cannot afford to 
keep up, and recently, the Trump administration made it even 
worse with these reckless tariffs that are making everything 
even more expensive.
    But you know who is not struggling? The billionaires. The 
people at the very top are doing quite well for themselves. Yet 
this Republican tax bill will make it even worse. Under this 
plan, and listen to this, this is from the non-partisan CBO. 
Under this bill, people who make more than $5 million a year 
will get an extra $100,000 plus on their income every year.
    But a middle class household, if you make--your family 
makes $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 a year, you will see, on 
average, $45 a year. So we're giving millionaires over $100,000 
a year more money. The middle class gets $45 on average. How is 
that fair?
    And if you are a family that is trying to work your way 
into the middle class, you are making $30,000, $40,000, 
according to the CBO, you will lose more than $1,000 a year 
once the cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are factored in. So this 
Republican tax bill is literally taking thousands of dollars 
per family from working people and transferring it to the super 
rich. My first amendment will reverse this.
    Under my amendment, families who earn less than $500,000 a 
year, the majority of Americans, most Americans, will get a tax 
break. We would lower your tax bracket 2 percent. If you're at 
22 percent, we make it 20. If you are at 12 percent, we make it 
10. And we would pay for it by adopting Donald Trump's 
suggestion to put a new tax bracket for people making more than 
$2.5 million a year at the 39.6 percent tax level. This is a 
matter of basic fairness. Let's ask the people making millions 
of dollars a year to pay their fair share so that the middle 
class can get a tax break.
    And I find it very interesting that my Republican 
colleagues can't summon the courage to stand up to Donald Trump 
on almost anything. When Donald Trump says Oh, no, I really won 
the 2020 election, we should overturn the election results, 
over 100 of our Republican colleagues said yes, sir, we will 
try to overturn the election for you. When he enacted these 
massive tariffs, which are a huge tax on the middle class, our 
Republican colleagues were either silent or submissive. When he 
cozies up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and throws our 
allies under the bus, crickets from our Republican colleagues. 
But when he suggested Hey, let's increase taxes on the 
millionaires to help pay for this bill, well, that was too much 
for our Republican colleagues. That was the first time that 
they said, Oh no, Mr. President, you have gone too far. Really? 
So look, I am going to agree with the President on this one. 
Let's put that tax bracket, that higher tax bracket on people 
making more than $2.5 million a year, and instead, give real 
tax relief to the middle class.
    My second amendment addresses another unfairness in this 
bill. Understand this. This bill is an across-the-board cut to 
SNAP benefits, to food aid. Our Republican colleagues like to 
say it is just waste and fraud or it is just going after people 
who are bilking the system. False. There is a 5 percent cut 
across the board for every State, regardless of error rate. My 
second amendment would eliminate that across the board 5 
percent cut for every State and pay for that by eliminating the 
provision that gives an exemption on inheritances over--up to 
$30 million on the inheritance tax.
    How about instead of cutting food for hungry families, for 
working people, we say to the children of millionaires, you 
know what? You don't need a tax exemption up to $30 million of 
your inheritance. Let's go back to the $5 million exemption 
that existed before 2016. We will let those children of 
millionaires still get the $5 million tax free inheritance that 
they used to get, but not 30. Instead, we are going to feed 
hungry families by canceling these SNAP cuts. I urge adoption 
of these amendments to make this a favor bill, and I yield 
back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair. You have heard hours 
and hours of amendments, all of which, in one way or another, 
would improve a terrible piece of legislation. It has been said 
by others way back when I was in the California legislature, if 
it is a bad piece of legislation, don't amend it. Just kill it. 
This bill deserves to be killed.
    You are operating under the direction of President Trump, 
and in that process, you are conducting the biggest theft in 
U.S. history. This budget reconciliation bill is the largest 
transfer of wealth from the country's most vulnerable people to 
its richest people at a time when Trump's tariffs are already 
causing prices to rise.
    House Republicans are making the lives of millions of 
Americans even more difficult by passing a bill that rips 
healthcare, rips healthcare from nearly 14 million Americans 
who rely on Medicaid, including over 300,000 in my own 
district, and I dare say in each and every one of your 
districts, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, the 
numbers are similar.
    This bill, and therefore you, are stealing food from the 
tables at the schools. Over 18 million children will not have 
school lunch programs and other food available to them in their 
schools. Why? So that you can finance $150 billion for the 
Pentagon's new slush fund. Mr. Courtney already has given you 
the details on how that would work because of the way in which 
you are structuring the use of that $150 billion. We know that 
the Pentagon is already wasting money on very dangerous 
projects. Why are they allowed? Why are they using the Pentagon 
to deport aliens, the deportation flights? The Sentinel 
intercontinental ballistic missile, $150 billion minimum and 
another $20 billion for a new nuclear bomb to be used there. 
Don't need it for 15 to 20 years. The Minuteman 3 can serve 
that purpose.
    How about another boondoggle? A Golden Dome. Hello? Does 
anybody know anything about missile defense systems? You want 
to talk about the $30 billion we have already spent on the 
missile defense system that doesn't work? It was canceled 2 
years ago and so we are going to start anew. Now we will have a 
Golden Dome. Oh, boy.
    Now, this bill does not pay for itself. Where are the 
deficit hawks? They used to be across this entire room. All of 
you used to be deficit hawks. Somewhere between $3.5 trillion 
to $5 trillion will be added to the national debt as a result 
of this legislation. Hello, deficit hawks, where did you go? 
What happened to you? You frightened of Trump? Is that it?
    Franklin D. Roosevelt once said the test of our progress is 
not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have 
much. It is whether we provide enough for those who have too 
little. This piece of legislation goes exactly the other 
direction. It adds to the wealth of those who have much and it 
literally and actually takes away from those who have little.
    The Congressional Budget Office yesterday confirmed that 
the bill will raise the incomes, will increase the wealth, the 
incomes for the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans while 
simultaneously cutting the incomes for the poorest 10 percent. 
What in the world are you doing? Why would you do such a thing? 
Why would you increase the wealth of those who already have 
much while simultaneously taking away from those who have too 
little? How do you do it? You gut Medicare.
    You have heard from my colleagues. The SNAP program, used 
to call it food stamps. That is real food and there are already 
real regulations on what those SNAP programs can be used for. 
Head start. It goes on and on, and it is a disgrace. It is a 
disgrace.
    And let's recognize what it is you are doing. The facts--
people are struggling, already struggling. You pass this 
legislation, and the struggle will be worse for those who are 
in the bottom of our economic system. The fact that so many 
Republicans have voted actively to harm your own constituents 
just to curry the favor of Donald Trump, it is shameful. There 
is no other way to describe it. How could you possibly face 
yourself when you look in the mirror and recognize what you are 
actually doing to Americans? Millions of Americans. It is a 
disgrace.
    The Democrats are doing everything we can to stop this 
disgraceful piece of legislation. I am proud to stand with my 
Democratic colleagues. I am proud that they are taking their 
time and your time, and I do have amendments. But I won't have 
the time. They are in the record.
    The Chairwoman. You were long past your time, John. Julia. 
I let you get by with a little too much.
    Ms. Brownley.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JULIA BROWNLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
McGovern. Before addressing my amendment, I wanted to really 
echo all of the arguments made by my colleagues in strong 
opposition to this big bad billionaire bill. This bill serves 
as a Trojan horse to jam through hundreds of billions of 
dollars in Medicaid cuts that will devastate 265,000 Ventura 
County residents in my district, and 14 million Californians 
who depend on Medicaid to access their healthcare. These cuts 
will harm children, disabled adults, low-income seniors, and 
they will result in hospital closures across our country. And 
there are many other egregious sections of this bill that will 
have devastating, devastating impacts to the American people 
for many, many years.
    My amendment today would redirect $1 billion from this bill 
to fund climate monitoring, weather forecasting, and disaster 
preparedness programs at NOAA. I would challenge my Republican 
colleagues to find constituents in their districts who want to 
lose access to accurate weather monitoring, particularly as we 
head into the busiest time for severe storm predictions like 
tornadoes and hurricanes. Just this past weekend, deadly 
tornadoes tore through States from Kansas to Kentucky, the same 
weekend when reports came out that for the first time in the 
past 50 years, local, national weather service offices would no 
longer have the capacity to monitor weather around the clock in 
parts of the country due to reckless DOGE cuts. I have got a 
map right here that shows the places in the United States that 
no longer have access to 24/7 weather monitoring.
    This is not some partisan talking point. It is a matter of 
life and death. Programs like the National Weather Service are 
what we promise to the American people in exchange for their 
hard-earned dollars, not tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent, 
while the President tanks our economy to help his billionaire 
friends scam the system and profit off the American public. The 
mindless destruction of America's critical government programs 
only makes our country weaker, it makes it less safe, and less 
prosperous. It is just plain irresponsible, and it cannot 
stand.
    I am offering this amendment as a necessary course 
correction to invest back into communities and to our public 
safety. The forecasts NOAA produces are critical across almost 
all sectors of America's economy, from safe air travel, 
managing our water supplies, supporting the outdoor recreation 
industry, to seasonal forecasts that help farmers decide when 
to plant and when to harvest their crops. And perhaps most 
importantly, NOAA uses these forecasts to issue all the 
tornado, hurricane, flood, and extreme wildfire condition 
warnings during extreme weather events, extreme weather events 
that are only going to get worse. The growers in my district 
certainly know this. They are the ones on the front line 
responding to the climate impacts that cause shifting 
production seasons, the reduction of available water, and 
creates more intense and frequent natural disasters.
    The Republicans proposals will exasperate the climate 
crisis while taking away funding for vulnerable communities to 
prepare for natural disasters. In the face of this Trump tax 
scam that threatens our clean air, safe water, public health, 
and economic prosperity, I am proposing we instead invest in 
programs that will keep our communities safer and ready to 
respond to extreme weather.
    With that, Madam Chair, I urge this committee to adopt my 
amendment, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much. I thank our witnesses 
for being here, our panel for being here. Does anyone on our 
side of the aisle wish to ask a question?
    Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern. Again, I just thank this panel. I appreciate 
you being here, and I know some of you were here at 1:00 in the 
morning. I remember seeing you. And I just want to, again, say 
what I have said to previous panels, thanks for sticking it 
out. I think it matters. I think people are paying attention. I 
think it is important that we are fighting back, especially 
against a bill that we find so egregious, and so I just--we 
will support the amendments. We will have your back. And I 
wanted to say thank you.
    Madam Chair, before I yield back, I don't know whether you 
have any updates on schedule. I have been trying to read news 
reports as to whether or not Republicans have come to an 
agreement on a manager's amendment, and I don't know if you 
have it and when we might be--what you anticipate the schedule 
of the evening to be.
    The Chairwoman. I believe we do have an agreement on the 
manager's amendment, but I am not exactly sure the schedule, 
because I have not been able to--I came in--we are trading 
places. I will give you an update.
    Mr. McGovern. Is your expectation that Rules will reconvene 
tonight?
    The Chairwoman. Yes.
    Mr. McGovern. And if that is the case, is it your 
expectation that a bill will be on the floor tonight?
    The Chairwoman. Yes.
    Mr. McGovern. Okay. We started at 1:00 in the morning. We 
will finish at 2:00 in the morning, but okay. All right. I 
thank the gentlelady and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes, thank you.
    The Chairwoman. I did more than wave this time.
    Ms. Scanlon. I got it at this point.
    Mr. Courtney, I appreciate your amendment with respect to 
this Qatari royal family plane that the President is trying to 
accept. In the Judiciary Committee, we have focused on the fact 
that it is a pretty clear violation of the foreign emoluments 
clause, but I appreciate the fact that you are bringing up that 
it is actually a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Can you just 
talk about that for a minute?
    Mr. Courtney. Sure. So there probably is no worse way to 
build an Air Force One than to take a plane that has already 
been fitted out and then have to strip it down and then just 
sort of create all of the special characteristics of Air Force 
One. We know this because that is what we have done with the 
two planes that are, you know, in process.
    By the way, it looks like they will be delivered while 
President Trump is still President, so there is no need for a 
bridge plane. He is going to get his planes in 2027. So yeah, 
just building a third Air Force One is a complete waste of 
money.
    Ms. Scanlon. Right. It seems offensive to our armed forces 
who are responsible for maintaining the plane. Obviously, it 
has all of the indicia of something unseemly. And then, of 
course, there is the national security concerns as well, so I 
appreciate your raising the wastefulness and the abuse of the 
taxpayer dollars there.
    Rep McClellan, I know you were testifying about your bill, 
and I was wondering if there were implications with respect to 
burden on the State?
    Ms. McClellan. Oh, yes. So, you know, I spent--I was the 
State appropriator. I was in the State legislature when we 
expanded Medicaid, and, you know, States can't print money and 
they have to have a balanced budget, and this bill shifts a lot 
of costs to the State for nutrition programs, for some Medicaid 
spending, but you have got to look at that in a broader 
context.
    So first, let me talk about the work requirements. States 
have had the ability to impose work requirements for seven 
years. Only two have done it. One I already talked about. 
Georgia spent more money on the administrative costs than it 
did on the costs of healthcare. And as a matter of fact, 
ProPublica and Current did an analysis that showed that three 
quarters of the nearly $87 million they spent on the program 
went to consultants. That is why States haven't done it, 
because the administrative cost to set it up and run it is 
high.
    But now you have EPA grants that have been categorical EPA 
grants that are being cut, so the States have to worry about 
how are we going to deal with clean air and clean water. Take a 
State like Virginia that has the second highest number of 
Federal workers. Analysis has already shown our employment rate 
has gone up. Our GDP is expected to slow. We are seeing the 
economic impacts of what the administration has already done, 
so they are now worried--Virginia doesn't have a surplus, it is 
not going to have a surplus because now we are going to have 
all these other costs coming down from the Federal Government.
    Oh, by the way, this bill handcuffs the State's ability to 
increase the provider tax, and while you are doing all of that, 
you are handcuffing the State's ability to regulate in any way 
AI, which is a whole other conversation, but I just wanted to 
throw that in there. The party that says let's just give 
everything back to the States is giving the States a massive 
hole in their budget and handcuffing their ability to fill it, 
and they are going to do one of two things: They are either 
going to raise their taxes or they are going to significantly 
cut not just Medicaid services, but education, environmental 
protection, transportation, infrastructure, and--public safety. 
This is--this bill and the actions of the Trump administration 
already are blowing massive holes in State budgets that 
somebody's got to pay, and it is going to be through increased 
State and local taxes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for that. I am hearing similar 
concerns from our Pennsylvania State legislatures, especially 
as there is money that has been appropriated and contracts that 
have been awarded and suddenly they have been canceled by DOGE 
or the White House or Office of Management and Budget or 
whoever it is that is impounding money illegally. So people 
already have projects underway, and all of a sudden, the rug is 
being pulled out from under them. And then we are seeing these 
additional issues where, all of a sudden, there is going to be 
this huge cost shift that is a real bait and switch or kicking 
the can down the road, whatever, but----
    Ms. Brownley. I think it is a giant sucking sound.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you, and thank you all 
for being here and bearing with us tonight. Okay.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Sorry. A lot of paperwork over here, Madam 
Chair. It has been a long day. I have no questions. Thank you 
all for your testimony and your amendments, and, of course, I 
support the amendments.
    I just want to follow up on a point that the ranking member 
mentioned: We have been here now for 19 hours, I guess, close 
to 24 hours straight, started at 1 a.m., and as the ranking 
member said, it sounds like we may very well end at 1 a.m. or 2 
a.m. with a vote in the dead of night on the floor on a 1,000 
page bill that would have traumatic negative consequences for 
the American people.
    But I don't know that I could say it any better than one of 
your colleagues, Madam Chair, and that is Representative 
Massie, who posted on social media just a little while ago, I 
will quote, ``Major provisions of the big, beautiful bill are 
still being negotiated and written. Yet we are being told we 
will all vote on it today. Shouldn't we take more than a few 
hours to read a bill this big and this consequential?''
    Now, what is interesting is that a commentator responded to 
that tweet and said, ``Wasn't that a promise, too, that you all 
would get 48 hours to read new bills before voting?'' And Mr. 
Massie's response, ``Yes, it is in our rules that we will have 
72 hours to read every bill. Yet it has been circumvented this 
week by a manager's amendment, which substantially changes the 
bill but should only contain technical clarifications, and a 
rule, called same-day rule, has also been suspended,'' which, 
of course, we know was done yesterday.
    Here is the point: We have seen this movie before. We, I 
suppose, will wait here with bated breath for the manger's 
amendment to be submitted to this committee. I suspect that 
that manager's amendment is not going to have technical 
corrections and changes to the rule print but, instead, will be 
fundamental changes to this bill. And we, the House Democrats, 
and ultimately the American public, will be compelled to reckon 
with and try to discern what those changes are and the impact 
the changes will have on our constituents in the dead of night.
    And so I would encourage the majority to reconsider--and I 
would hope--we weren't able to convince the Speaker to hold 
this hearing at a regular hour, the way that all the other 
markups work. We failed in that effort. Perhaps we would be 
more successful in persuading the Speaker to put the bill on 
the floor in the morning so that the American people can 
actually have a chance to listen to the debate that unfolds on 
the House floor.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    And, once again, I think we heard from this panel a range 
of ideas that only through showing up and testifying and 
actually speaking--we had very little Republican participation 
because, you know, as we noticed this morning, they don't even 
want to read out loud their own bill. They are so ashamed of 
what is in the bill that they refuse to read out loud their 
bill.
    But what you all have done is come to us with provisions so 
that we cannot have the kind of corruption from Qatar that we 
are seeing, so that we can protect States' rights and States' 
budgets and some kind of respect for the relationship they have 
and the obligation the Federal Government has.
    And, oh, my God, the silencer thing, thank you so very much 
for bringing that up today. And, yes, there are ways of 
addressing the deficit and actually protecting the middle class 
that we could get to, but they don't really want to get to 
because, as you had pointed out, it is all about the wealthy. 
Everything they do is about the wealthy. There is all kinds of 
other stuff. And do they have their heads in the sand or what? 
Like not in the sand. They are like ignoring the danger around 
us for money. Right. So they are--the risks that they are 
imposing on the American people is just astounding.
    And, you know, we came in at night. I don't know if there 
was a moon, or there wasn't a moon, and then there was a sun or 
maybe not a sun, and now there is maybe not a moon and not a 
moon, but what it is, is definitely, definitely, even the 
Republicans are in the dark because, as we can see from these 
streets, they haven't seen any final language. They think this 
is in there. They think that is not in there. And I heard that 
maybe they all want to go to some meeting, and they all have to 
leave to go do something better than stand up for their 
constituents. So that is why we are rushing this because they 
all have Memorial Day plans. Really. It is disgusting what they 
are doing.
    With that, I yield back. And thank you for coming.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    I thank the panel for being here. We have, I believe, one 
more panel, and so I will tell you, you are excused.
    If I could ask you all to do the same thing the last panel 
did. We have seven, I believe, not counting Mr. McGovern, or--
he is going to stay here. So if you will go down, Mr. Bynum--
Ms. Bynum. Excuse me. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Pou, Mr. Landsman, Mr. 
Beyer, Mr. Bishop. Somewhere in that order.
    It is okay. It is okay. Before our people would bunch up, 
up here, and folks couldn't get down that way, and so we were 
just trying to get people balanced out just a little bit. Okay.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. JANELLE S. BYNUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Ms. Bynum. Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking Member and members 
of the committee, I want to start off by saying just how 
laughable it is to be calling this bill beautiful. And I would 
like to replace that word with ``trash.'' It is a trash bill, 
and here is why: It is a bill that threatens $300 billion in 
cuts to food assistance. It is a bill that puts healthcare 
further and further out of reach for nearly 14 million people. 
It is a bill that will make it so that families have to choose 
between putting food on the table or filling a prescription. It 
is a bill that does nothing to lower costs or address the 
housing crisis.
    Madam Chair, I came here today to try and make this trash 
bill just a little bit better, to try and protect my 
constituents from its harmful cuts. But I have little faith 
that the authors of this trash care enough about the American 
people to do it, especially since this committee tried to do it 
in the middle of the night. And, as my Democratic colleagues 
have shown us today, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
    You see, this isn't the first time I have tried to make 
this bill better, and it wouldn't be the first time that my 
Republican colleagues chose to put billionaires over their 
constituents and mine. I first introduced these amendments in 
the House Financial Services Committee, and they were voted 
down by my Republican colleagues.
    My amendments are aimed at protecting Americans and making 
life more affordable. And you would think members on the 
Financial Services Committee would be down for that. You would 
think all members would be down for that, Madam Chair.
    So now I ask my Republican colleagues on this committee, 
are you, are you willing to protect our students and our 
families? Are you willing to make healthcare more affordable 
and more accessible? Are you willing to lower costs for your 
constituents? And, if so, I look forward to you supporting my 
amendments.
    Instead of cutting food assistance for students and 
families, I am trying to make sure that, when they take out 
loans, they will be protected from predatory lending and unfair 
practices. Instead of ripping away access to healthcare, I am 
trying to lower healthcare costs by capping out-of-pocket 
costs. Instead of taking seniors and taking food off of their 
tables, I am supporting an effort from my colleague, 
Congressman Jonathan Jackson, to strike the section of the bill 
that would expand work requirements for seniors on SNAP.
    And, instead of increasing costs on those struggling the 
most in an effort to make the rich richer, I am fighting to 
lower costs for my constituents and all Americans.
    Madam Chair, I brought the data. Let me tell you what the 
numbers look like. In your district, 201,000 people will lose 
healthcare because of this bill. That is 27 percent of your 
constituents. In Fischbach's district, it is over 165,000. Rep. 
Norman, 148,000 people will lose healthcare in his district. 
Rep. Roy, 56,000 people use SNAP to feed their families. And, 
in Rep. Houchin's, it is 54,000. Over 83,000 kids get 
healthcare through Medicaid in Rep. Langworthy's district. And 
Rep. Scott, it is 124,000 kids. And Rep. Jack's, it is 88,000 
kids. And, in Rep Griffith's, it is nearly 107,000.
    I know where my priorities are. It is with my constituents. 
And I will be voting against this trash bill because I stand 
with America's children and America's families.
    Madam Chair, I respectfully urge you to do the same and get 
your colleagues focused on serving the American people. I yield 
back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Bynum.
    Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR., A 
      REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking 
Member.
    I know that meteorologically speaking we are in springtime, 
but legislatively speaking, a dark ice-cold winter has 
descended upon America. The biting cold winds of MAGA are 
frozen hearts that shut off warmth and sustenance for the 
needy, the working poor, and the poor while they consort with 
the billionaires and millionaires, who frolic in their warm 
mansions and on their luxury yachts in warm seas, never 
satisfied with the luxuries they enjoy for ease and comfort.
    The cold winds howl as MAGA rams through the House what 
Trump has commended to be named the big, beautiful bill. It is 
the big, ugly GOP tax scam, which rips away healthcare from 14 
million Americans, takes food away from 3 million people every 
month, and drives up the cost of everyday essentials with its 
tariffs, which is a tax paid by those same folks who are losing 
their healthcare and food stamps, all to hand massive tax 
breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk.
    With this bill, billionaires win, and working families 
lose. And, as House MAGA Republicans move to snatch food and 
healthcare from those in need just to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthy, billionaire Donald Trump today accepted an obscenely 
expensive emolument, a $400 million luxury jet paid for by 
corrupt Middle Eastern Sheikhs.
    Madam Chair, my first amendment would strike section 70302 
and restore Federal courts' ability when necessary to hold 
government officials in contempt in cases where they violate a 
person's constitutional rights.
    We all know the reason Republicans added this section. 
Federal judges have issued over 150 court orders that block or 
pause the Trump administration's lawless and unconstitutional 
actions. Trump keeps losing in court. So Republicans want to 
rig the system so that Trump can ignore judges' orders against 
him.
    Without my amendment, this bill prohibits a court from 
enforcing the orders that it issues, turning courts into paper 
tigers. This bill says that, unless you hand over a lot of 
money when Donald Trump and his administration violate your 
rights, they can just keep on violating them. It is one more 
way Republicans and the Trump administration want to trample on 
the rights of ordinary people who are not wealthy and do not--
and do so with impunity.
    This country is built on the rule of law. The judicial 
branch is essential to ensuring that the violation of one's 
constitutional rights can be vindicated by the courts. That is 
why we need my amendments, so that any time Trump or a future 
President violates the law, Americans can go to court and stop 
it before any more harm is done because this country is about 
we the people, not about Donald Trump, the king.
    And I also offer a second amendment which would allow funds 
to be used to provide lawyers for unaccompanied immigrant 
children. Picture this, a 2-year-old sucking her thumb while 
clutching a teddy bear standing in front of the immigration 
judge sitting high and looking down from the bench while a 
seasoned lawyer working for the government argues that the 
unaccompanied child should be sent back to El Salvador, where 
the dictator holds her parents in a hellhole prison for being 
politically incorrect. This amendment just makes sense. It 
would allow legal representation for unaccompanied children.
    We do not allow children to represent themselves in any 
other legal proceedings, and immigration courts should be no 
different. In these cases, the government is represented by a 
lawyer. So how can we expect kids without lawyers to assess 
their own eligibility for humanitarian relief, prepare their 
own cases, and advocate for themselves during adversarial 
hearings?
    Do we expect that toddler sucking her thumb and clutching 
her worn and tattered teddy bear to represent herself? Really. 
There have been longstanding bipartisan support efforts to 
provide counsel to unaccompanied children because Congress has 
realized for years that legal representation is essential to 
ensure that children have meaningful access to asylum and other 
protections.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, and Mr. Ranking member, I 
yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Johnson of Georgia follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.157
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.158
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.159
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.160
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.161
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1207A.162
    
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    Ms. Pou, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NELLIE POU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Ms. Pou. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 
McGovern. I want to thank all my colleagues who have spoken 
over the past 19 hours providing amendments to improve this 
big, bad, ugly bill.
    I come before you today to discuss my deep concerns with 
the legislation the committee is considering today, and the 
amendments I have offered tried to improve it.
    This bill is heavily skewed to give huge tax breaks to the 
wealthiest one-tenth of the 1 percent of Americans. Any tax 
cuts that Congress provide should favor the middle class and 
all other hardworking Americans, and this bill does not do that 
at all.
    This bill will cause New Jersey families to go hungry, 
around 83,000 people in my district, the Ninth District, 
including children, working parents, seniors, and veterans buy 
food with SNAP. The SNAP cuts here will mean thousands of our 
neighbors won't be able to feed their families.
    The price tag in this bill is enormous, costing taxpayers 
$4 trillion. But, instead of lowering costs and supporting 
families, it will make their day-to-day lives harder.
    This legislation includes massive cuts to Medicaid, which 
covers more than 1.7 million New Jerseyans, including over one-
third of all children in the State. This bill could lead to one 
in five New Jerseyans on Medicaid losing their coverage. This 
means losing checkups, treatments for chronic diseases like 
diabetes, access to lifesaving medication. Cuts to Medicaid 
will hit particularly hard mothers and families in our poorest 
communities.
    That is why I have offered an amendment to require States 
to provide 12 months of continuous healthcare coverage for 
pregnant and postpartum women who qualify for Medicaid and 
CHIP.
    My State, New Jersey, already provides this coverage. Two 
out of three maternal deaths in America happens in the days 
following childbirth. Healthcare at this time means the 
difference between life and death.
    My amendment, No. 84, builds on the work of my colleagues, 
including Representative Robin Kelly and the Black Maternal 
Health Caucus. I am grateful for their leadership. This is a 
commonsense provision. If you support women and working 
families, there is no reason to oppose this.
    I have offered five additional amendments to this 
legislation that will make, first, make air traffic safer and 
more reliable by preventing mass layoffs at FAA and NTSB, 
reduce flooding by increasing funding for clean water grants, 
ensure transportation improvements continue progressing by 
preventing funding cuts, improve public safety by making sure 
that FEMA grants continue without delays and unnecessary red 
tape, and, finally, provide funding for transit and other 
infrastructure improvements to prepare for the World Cup in my 
district next year.
    Madam Chairwoman, I encourage the entire committee to rule 
these amendments in order. Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Landsman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG LANDSMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, 
all of you. This is a terrible bill. It is so terrible that I 
have amendments that will attempt to protect children's 
hospitals, rural hospitals and Americans with cancer. That is 
how bad the bill is, that all three need protection.
    The bill, as you all know, would gut Medicaid by anywhere 
between $700- to $900 billion. That is 9 million Americans who 
will lose their health insurance. On top of that, another $360 
billion in Affordable Care subsidies, that is another 5 million 
Americans who will lose their healthcare. Anywhere between 
$230- to $300 billion in food assistance, millions and millions 
of Americans, mostly children, will lose food. And it adds 
trillions to our deficit, all to pay for tax cuts that 
overwhelmingly support the wealthiest people in this country 
and big corporations.
    When you rip healthcare away from millions of Americans, it 
means that some people will die. Kill the bill--not Americans.
    My first amendment prohibits Medicaid provider taxes from 
being capped in any State where those caps would harm a 
children's hospital. I have in my district the second-best 
children's hospital in the country. I don't want it to be 
negatively affected at all; 50 percent of its revenue comes 
from Medicaid. If this bill passes, it will demonstrably harm 
our children's hospital and the children and families they 
serve.
    The second amendment prohibits Medicaid provider taxes from 
being capped in States where rural hospitals will be negatively 
affected. I have in my district hospitals that serve rural 
communities. They will be decimated.
    And my third amendment inserts that in no case may a 
dedication, cost sharing or similar charge be imposed under the 
State plan with respect to cancer care services. As you know, 
there is a new fee for low-income families. When they get 
treatment, they have to pay more money. This says, if it is 
cancer treatment, they shouldn't have to pay.
    The fact that these amendments are being put forward 
suggests that this is a terrible bill, and there is a better 
way. We all want and will support tax relief for working 
people, middle-class families, farmers, small businesses. All 
of that can be paid for by simply adjusting just a little bit 
the TAX CODE for the wealthiest in this country and big 
corporations.
    A minimum billionaire tax alone, call it the Elon tax, 
would generate over $500 billion. Adjusting the corporate tax 
rate just a little bit, $1.3 trillion, you can do all of the 
tax relief for everyone that needs it without touching anyone's 
healthcare, messing with food or touching the deficit, and we 
get a bipartisan agreement on waste, fraud and abuse, the 
border, and this thing gets 350 votes.
    On the other hand, if you all move forward with this bill, 
as Senator Hawley said, it will be devastating to people; it 
will hurt people; some will die; and it is political suicide. 
Kill the bill. That I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Landsman.
    Mr. Beyer, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONALD S. BEYER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Mr. Beyer. Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, all the 
committee members, first of all, thank you for being here 19 
hours and 20 minutes already. It is incredibly generous of you 
to do that.
    Madam Chair, I am testifying on four energy amendments, 
which really are classically Republican amendments, that I 
think any of my friends, Republican colleagues on Ways and 
Means, could be introducing because this bill is not just 
catastrophic for the future livability of the planet, but it is 
catastrophic for energy dominance, for economic growth, and for 
the stated Republican energy agenda.
    This bill is much worse on energy than I thought it was 
going to be because it doesn't recognize the energy realities 
on the ground. So this is not a serious bill.
    My first amendment is to protect the consumer energy tax 
credits. These are the tax credits that 3 million American 
families took advantage of in 2023. And every homeowner knows 
the cost to replace an HVAC or the water heater or the windows, 
and these are the very credits that make these home 
improvements affordable.
    While many Americans have struggling with the cost of 
living, I think one of the big reasons why Donald Trump won in 
November, this bill actually steals away the very credits that 
make the things more affordable, all for tax cuts for 
billionaires who won't even notice the change to their balance 
sheets.
    My second amendment restores the energy investment tax 
credit and the production tax credits, the EITC and PTC. It is 
confusing to me because these have been long held tax credits 
that were passed in a bipartisan way. Republicans have always 
supported them. They weren't part of the IRA. They existed long 
before the IRA. And it doesn't make any sense they are being 
attacked.
    The average American resident or consumer is going to see 
their electricity bill by way more than $100 next year, and 
then the business communities a lot higher increases, all the 
small businesses.
    Not only did these tax credits help keep the energy prices 
low, but they also increase the capacity of the energy grid. So 
they estimate that, between now and 2035, our energy capacity 
will shrink the potential by as much as 72 percent.
    I co-chair the bipartisan AI Caucus with Mike McCaul, Jay 
Obernolte, and eliminating the EITC and the PTC is going to be 
the biggest threat to AI growth. We all know, in all the AI 
meetings we have right now, that the big thing that holds it 
back right now is the energy needed to drive all those data 
centers. But it is just basic math. The energy capacity is not 
going to be there unless we have the EITC and the PTC. All the 
other things, the renewables, the bringing LNG online--that is 
not going to do it in time.
    My third amendment prevents the nuclear hydrogen and 
domestic manufacturing tax credits from being eliminated. These 
are Republican priorities. I knew the Ways and Means markup was 
unserious when I saw these provisions in the bill.
    Why are Republicans trying to kill nuclear fission? I 
thought we were trying to bring SMRs back. Why are they trying 
to kill the very promising fusion industry?
    Again, we have a huge bipartisan Fusion Caucus, led by 
Chuck Fleischmann and Jay Obernolte, and this will kill that.
    And then hydrogen, hydrogen is a critical part of the oil 
and gas industry.
    And then, finally, why do Republicans want to kill domestic 
manufacturing? I know this is what President Trump says he 
wants, to bring the manufacturing jobs back. But between 
tariffs and this reconciliation bill, 50,000 energy jobs have 
already been lost or delayed or canceled, and $56 billion of 
energy investments have been stalled or canceled.
    At the end of 2024, we had annual investments in American 
factories at nearly $150 billion, but when we try to kill these 
energy jobs and this manufacturing, why do we do this when the 
President says this is his priority? And, by the way, most of 
these are in Republican Congressional Districts. They are 
helping the people who voted for Donald Trump. It doesn't make 
any sense.
    Instead, these tax cuts are going to kill hundreds of 
thousands of good-paying jobs. They are going to send U.S. 
manufacturing overseas by eliminating the landscape that made 
domestic investment attractive.
    And, not to mention, the 45X tax credit, which is the bill 
that kills--that has been so supportive of the mining industry. 
And, again, I can't understand why my Republican friends are 
attacking the mining industry.
    Finally, my last amendment is to protect traditional 
Republican priorities that my friends on Ways and Means 
couldn't do behind the scenes, but I know that they were 
offering it. The first was to restore the transferability 
provisions. That was a Republican-led priority.
    The second is changing place and service to the beginning 
of construction. Again, very business friendly; Republicans 
tried to do it.
    And the third was to use an existing Republican proposal to 
amend the FEOC to make it more workable.
    All told, this bill is a disaster for energy dominance, 
which I understand the President says is his priority. The GOP 
is ripping away these energy credits from American families and 
stifling economic growth while blowing a $5 trillion hole in 
the budget, all to give tax cuts for billionaires.
    It hurts most American families, especially those who voted 
for Donald Trump. And I encourage the Rules Committee to make 
these four amendments in order, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
    Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE 
             IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 
McGovern, members of the committee. This is not a big, 
beautiful bill. It is a big, fat, ugly bill. It has wrinkles, 
warts, festering sores and scars. And, while Republicans are 
trying to put make-up and lipstick on this ugly creature to 
enhance its appearance, it is still ugly. And I am here this 
evening to try and remove just a couple of warts with two 
amendments.
    The first is an amendment that addresses food insecurity 
experienced by most families by removing the barriers they face 
in applying for SNAP benefits. According to the most recent 
estimates by the Department of Defense, 28 percent, or nearly 
one in three of U.S. military families face food insecurity. 
Junior enlisted military families of color struggle to put food 
on the table.
    This phenomenon even affects double military families, 
young couples just starting out where both spouses are 
enlisted. Experts believe that many families suffer in silence 
due to the stigma surrounding hunger and receiving nutrition 
benefits. Meanwhile, food pantries and food banks operate on or 
near every single military base in the United States. Military 
spouse unemployment is seven times the national average as 
well. Frequent moves associated with the military lifestyle and 
the lack of affordable childcare also strain household finances 
for low-ranking, low-paid military families.
    My amendment would address food insecurity among Active 
Duty servicemembers by excluding the basic allowances for 
housing from SNAP income eligibility. These men and women of 
Armed Forces cannot use the basic allowance for housing to feed 
themselves or their families. It can only be used for housing. 
It makes no sense that we are including the BAH as proof that 
junior servicemembers make too much. They were making minimum 
wage before this latest NDAA raised that pay.
    Even with the recent pay increase, our troops are using 
that increase for the exorbitant cost of childcare, not for 
food. It is a tragedy that men of our Nation's military can't 
afford to put food on the table and face serious barriers to 
assistance. Those who fight for our freedom should not have to 
fight for food.
    My second amendment will right a wrong that the Republican 
leadership in the House of Representatives has been dragging 
its feet to correct. This amendment would simply insert the 
language of Senate bill 1077, which allows the District of 
Columbia to keep its budget intact rather than impounding local 
revenue that was collected by the city to fund its police 
officers, firefighters, teachers, medical services, and all the 
essential services the city provides for its residents and 
visitors.
    As you all know, the measure passed the Senate unanimously 
by voice vote, but House Republicans have refused to consider 
it, despite President Trump strongly supporting the measure. I 
am not suggesting that my colleagues should support it simply 
because President Trump does, but I say this to point out the 
overwhelming support this provision enjoys.
    It is time to stop playing politics with the citizens of 
our Nation's Capital. This is the seat of our Federal 
Government, housing our three co-equal branches--the Congress, 
executive branch, and the judiciary--and it should be given the 
equal dignity and respect that any other political jurisdiction 
in our country enjoys.
    It is their local tax dollars, and they should be allowed 
to use them as Congress has authorized in the D.C. Home Rule 
Act.
    Remove this wart, remove these two warts, and pass a bill 
that takes care of the American people. I urge the adoption of 
these two amendments to remove these two warts on an ugly, ugly 
bill. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    So over 100 members have testified today on this bill, and 
I will be 101. And we have testified, we have come to the Rules 
Committee to testify, not to hear our voices but because we all 
profoundly disagree with this bill.
    And, Madam Chair, my amendment would restore NIH grant 
funding that has been already appropriated, including funding 
that has already been awarded. This is not some hypothetical 
issue. This is real. Over 1,000 NIH scientists have been fired. 
Billions and billions of dollars' worth of research has been 
canceled. This is NIH research into cancer, Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, all cut off. Canceled by this administration. 
Canceled by DOGE.
    And there are active medical research projects, including 
clinical trials, that cannot stop without people dying. And 
that is what we are talking about here. There are people out 
there who have no treatment options if NIH funding abruptly 
stops. Nothing. This is life or death for those people. 
Literally life or death. I mean, what are they supposed to do?
    Trump's cuts to NIH mean cures and breakthroughs are 
already slipping further and further out of our reach. These 
scientists can't just stop research and pick it back up in a 
few years like nothing happened. This sets us back decades and 
decades.
    I talked to researchers in my district who have already 
said that they are considering leaving the country because of 
how unpredictable funding might be going forward. And, if they 
can't even be sure that they are--that the grant that they have 
been awarded will be fulfilled, then why would they try to keep 
pursuing those research opportunities in the United States?
    I have been around Congress a long time, and I could tell 
you that, no matter who is in the majority, who the President 
is, supporting medical research has always been a bipartisan 
effort because diseases like cancer don't care about political 
affiliation. NIH is not just some line item. I mean, there are 
real people behind the work that they do, and there are people 
whose lives are prolonged and saved because of the work that 
they do.
    This is personal to me. Five years ago, my daughter Molly 
was diagnosed with a rare cancer, and there was no surefire 
treatment, but she was accepted into an NIH clinical trial, and 
she received excellent care. As all of you know, a few weeks 
ago, she passed away due to complications from her cancer at 
the age of 23. And we are so devastated by her loss, but we are 
so grateful that we got to spend more time with her because of 
the NIH clinical trial that she was in, a clinical trial made 
possible because, for decades, Congress has provided funding to 
the NIH in a bipartisan way.
    And how can anyone justify firing NIH doctors and 
scientists? How can they look our family and other families in 
the eye and justify these cynical cruel NIH cuts? I mean, this 
is about our priorities as a Nation, and this Congress is 
cutting taxes for billionaires. This Republican Congress is 
cutting taxes for billionaires at the same time this President 
is gutting NIH. And this Congress, this Republican Congress is 
cutting healthcare. And I just find that totally wrong.
    So approving this amendment won't fix this disaster of a 
bill, but it will at the very least address Trump's cuts to 
lifesaving medical research that I find unconscionable and 
immoral. And, for the countless other people out there, the 
moms and dads and kids who rely on clinical trials for the hope 
of just one more month, just one more day, this amendment one 
day could save their life, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
    I yield back my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Anybody over here 
have anything?
    No? Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. I just want to, once again, thank all of our 
colleagues for coming in, for bearing with us, for helping us 
approach the 24-hour mark, and thank you for your testimony.
    And, Mr. Johnson, I think I am a cosponsor with you on your 
amendment. Sorry. I think I am a cosponsor with you on your 
amendment with respect to the Judiciary Committee amendments 
that you offered, so thank you for bringing them forward again. 
I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you 
everybody for presenting your amendments.
    Thank you, Ranking Member. You know, it is really hard to 
have the courage to ask your colleagues to do not only what is 
right but things that arise that are so personal and raise the 
vulnerabilities that we all know.
    And today we felt the need for this amendment, and we have 
all felt it in our lives. And the Republicans have felt it in 
theirs. And they know this is right to support something like 
this. Thank you, Ranking Member. And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Well, I am going to make a couple of comments. First, Mr. 
McGovern, I--one of my first jobs was working in Chapel Hill in 
the pathology department where I learned where the clotting 
factor for hemophilia was found, and much of the money for that 
research came from the NIH, along with foundations. And so I am 
very, very supportive of funding for the NIH and the work that 
it does. And I know that it does lifesaving things. And I am 
very glad that the work there extended Molly's time with you. I 
think that is very important.
    However, I am concerned about what has been said about this 
bill and what it is going to do, the extreme comments that have 
been made about it and how I believe that it is scaring people 
out there in the country unnecessarily.
    The words I have heard, particularly today, are ``cut,'' 
``rip,'' ``gut,'' ``kill,'' ``cruel,'' ``stealing food,'' 
``losing coverage,'' ``jam through,'' ``biggest transfer of 
wealth from vulnerable to wealthy people,'' ``irresponsible.'' 
That is not the way we ought to be talking about this bill.
    And I want to remind you of some words that were used in 
2017 by our colleagues, and I think it is important, words used 
about the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, then House Minority Leader 
Nancy Pelosi infamously predicted Armageddon for America. 
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers described pro-
growth forecast as tooth fairies and predicted a long 
recession. He was joined by discredited New York Times 
columnist Paul Krugman, who guaranteed a global recession with 
no end in sight. They were wrong. Instead, we got one of the 
greatest economic expansions in history.
    In the 2 years immediately after the passage of the TCJA, 
wages increased 4.9 percent, the fastest 2-year growth in real 
wages in 20 years.
    The Washington Post gave Speaker Pelosi two Pinocchios for 
falsely claiming that 86 million middle-class families will see 
a tax increase. I can go on and on about the comments that were 
made then that did not come true.
    I really wish we could have been a little more temperate 
about this because even people in my district that I know very 
well were scared very much about this bill, and I don't think 
the bill is going to be--do the dire things that we have heard.
    So I think there has been a concentrated effort to mislead 
people about what is happening here, and I am going to ask my 
colleagues to work with us. I believe this bill will pass in a 
fashion close to what it is now. But we will continue to work 
on it, and we will continue to work together throughout this 
entire session to make sure that, if there are things that have 
gone wrong in here, that we make sure we don't have the 
cataclysms and the Armageddon that has been described here, 
which really, really trouble me because they help divide our 
country more and more. And we don't need that. We don't need to 
divide ourselves, and we don't need to divide the country any 
more than it already is.
    So, with that, I yield back my time.
    Anyone else seeking to testify on H.R.1.
    Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our 
meeting. And our panel is relieved. The chair--committee stands 
in recess until 8:50 p.m.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairwoman. The committee will reconvene. My colleagues 
have now seen the manager's amendment that will be self-
executing in this rule. You have all received a copy of the 
amendment. The amendment makes a number of technical and 
conforming changes to clarify references and cure Byrd 
fatalities.
    Additionally, the amendment makes a few substantive 
changes, including adjusting the implementation date for 
Medicaid work requirements, providing additional funding to 
States for border security actions they have taken, striking 
the Oversight Committee requirements that Federal pensions take 
an average of an employee's highest 5 earning years, striking 
the sale of public lands in Nevada and Utah, caps the SALT 
deduction at $40,000 per household for incomes up to $500,000. 
The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman 
from Indiana, Mrs. Houchin.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R.1, the one Big 
Beautiful Bill Act a closed rule. The rule waives all points of 
order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of a text 
of Rules Committee Print 119-3, modified by the amendment 
printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as 
adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
    The rule waives all points of order against provisions in 
the bill, as amended. The rule provides 2 hours of general 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Budget, or their 
respective designees, and the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, or their respective 
designees.
    The rule provides one motion to recommit.
    Finally, the rule provides that clause 5(b) of rule XXI 
shall not apply to the bill or amendments thereto.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mrs. Houchin. We now 
go to motion.
    Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule.
    Mr. McGovern. Yes, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. So, again, we spent 20 hours debating this 
bill, and many of the 500 amendments submitted to it as well. 
We began at 1 a.m. We have been fully transparent about our 
views. Over 100 Democrats testified before this committee 
expressing our profound opposition to this bill, and our deep 
disappointment in the process.
    On the other hand, Republicans went off and debated with 
themselves in some secret back room. Now we are back here in 
the dead of night, and they want the only amendment--they want 
the only amendment to move forward to be the one that they 
wrote in secret. It is a 40-page manager's amendment. I have no 
idea what the implications are of the changes that are being 
made. We are not going to get a CBO score on the changes before 
we vote. And, again, the manager's amendment isn't some boring 
compilation of technical fixes. It makes huge changes to key 
portions of the bill. And how in the world are Members supposed 
to understand what they are about to vote on. I mean, are you 
going to explain every provision of this?
    Our old colleague, Mr. Massie, understands it. I mean, Mr. 
Neguse quoted him earlier. He said, ``Shouldn't we take more 
than a few hours to read a bill this big and this 
consequential,'' end quote. You know, Congress Massie is right. 
We have had only minutes to review this amendment before voting 
on it without even a comparative print. We don't even have a 
comparative print to show what is changing.
    CBO spent days and days carefully putting together data 
about what the previous version of this bill would do. I know 
it didn't show what you were hoping it would show, but it seems 
vital for us to get updated data on a bill that is set to rob 
the middle class in order to pay off the rich.
    So there is no pressing deadline here. That is what is so 
puzzling to us. I mean, just your own made-up deadline to pass 
this bill before Memorial Day. We could do this bill tomorrow 
or the next day. We could do it when we come back from Memorial 
Day.
    So, you know, we should recess and give everyone the time 
needed to understand these changes. This is a big deal. This is 
consequential. And we are moving forward with major changes, 
and we are just supposed to take, you know, your word for it 
that it is no big deal.
    So you know what? I move that we adjourn because we have to 
take the time to be able to--to be able to do this.
    Mr. Griffith. Point of order. Motion to adjourn has been 
made. It is not debatable. No comments after that can be 
allowed, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Say that again.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman made a motion to adjourn, and 
then wanted to explain it. But you can't debate a motion to 
adjourn. So, once the motion is made, all discussion ends.
    The Chairwoman. I understand.
    Mr. McGovern. Stop the debate, everyone, when you can. I 
get it.
    Mr. Griffith. That is the rule going back to Parliament.
    Mr. McGovern. I get it. Yep. I get it.
    The Chairman. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those oppose, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. Can I ask for a roll call, or am I going to 
be silenced on that?
    The Chairwoman. You may ask for a roll call.
    Mr. McGovern. I will ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Roy.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin.
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four ayes, seven nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not--the motion to adjourn 
is not agreed to.
    Is there further discussion or amendment.
    Mr. McGovern. Yes.
    Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment to the rule. I move 
the committee make in order amendment No. 378, offered by 
myself, which requires NIH to restore all awarded unspent but 
obligated, appropriated NIH grant funding.
    The Chairwoman. You have heard the motion from the ranking 
member. Is there further discussion?
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. The gentleman asks for a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Roy.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin.
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four ayes, seven nays.
    The Chairwoman. The noes have it. The amendment is not 
agreed to. Are there--is there further discussion on the----
    Mr. McGovern. Yes. I have an amendment to the rule, Madam 
Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern, you are . . .
    Mr. McGovern. I move the committee strike the final 
sentence of the rule, which states that clause 5(b) of rule 
XXI, the House rule requiring a supermajority vote to increase 
income taxes does not apply to this bill.
    We have just spent hours and hours showing that this tax 
scam will mostly benefit the ultra wealthy while it will hurt 
the lowest earners. We have presented unbiased nonpartisan 
analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation, from the 
Congressional Budget Office, and from outside experts, and here 
is one final piece of proof: Republicans have to rig the rules 
to move their bill forward, even though it increases taxes for 
many families.
    I will try to explain--I will explain in plain English, the 
House rules require a supermajority vote, three-fifths, for any 
bill that increases income taxes. And guess what? Republicans 
are turning that rule off for this bill. You are turning it 
off--not as part of a standard waiver of all points of order, 
but specifically and intentionally.
    And why do they have to do that? Because they know that 
this bill will increase taxes on those families who are 
struggling the most to put food on the table. And they want to 
rig the rules so they can pass it with a party line vote, 
anyway, despite the House rule against it.
    This bill is a Republican scam, and the American people 
aren't going to fall for it. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on my 
amendment to ensure that we follow the House rules, and I yield 
back.
    The Chairwoman. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion? Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to be 
heard on the amendment.
    I support the gentleman's amendment, and I think it begs a 
larger question with reference to the manager's amendment that 
we are considering. We have had a very fulsome discussion over 
the course of the last 20 hours on the bill that was before 
this committee. We now have, I believe, a 40-some odd page 
manager's amendment that has been submitted. Here it is. Just 
got it. And I know my colleagues seemed very willing to explain 
the various provisions of the underlying bill, and so I wonder 
if, if any of them would be willing to help explain to me the 
changes in the manager's amendment. If Mr. Scott or Mr. Norman 
could perhaps give us some clarity about what this manager's 
amendment attempts to do to the underlying bill. I mean, we 
just got it. So, you know, we are going to be asked to vote on 
it. I assume you all--and maybe who we need to have come in to 
explain it is Mr. Roy. I mean, Mr. Roy has not been in this 
hearing, I think, for the vast majority of it, the last 20 
hours that we have been sitting here. I assume he is 
negotiating this.
    Mr. Norman. He is working.
    Mr. Neguse. So I assume he explained to you what he now 
asking you all to vote for. Can someone explain to us what this 
manager's amendment attempts to do?
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Yes.
    The Chairwoman. I gave you the summary. There has been a 
lot of discussion about it being a 1,000-page bill. But we all 
know, all of those components were out there for a long time.
    And so I want to--look at a 40-page bill. We all know that 
that is not 40 pages. Eight--you know, not a large amount.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    The Chairwoman. So much of it is technical. Mr. McGovern 
said there is not a lot that is technical. I would--I have 
given you what are the major substantive changes in the bill. 
We are happy to give you a copy of that. But----
    Mr. Neguse. Is that a summary document that you have? Yeah, 
if you could provide that to us, that would be helpful.
    The Chairwoman. Sure.
    Mr. Neguse. I guess I am just trying to get a sense of--and 
maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle already 
know--where did this bill end up on SALT? Where did it end up 
with the IRA phase-outs? All of the variety of issues that have 
been, you know, debated the last couple of days--I just think 
it is unfortunate that Members would have to, you know, find 
out from online, on Twitter.
    Mr. McGovern. Would the gentleman----
    The Chairwoman. I can read this to you.
    Mr. McGovern. I am just trying to understand, what does it 
mean, you know, to strike ``MAGA'' and insert ``Trump''? Like, 
what is that about? In the manager's amendment.
    Mr. Griffith. I can answer that question, Madam Chair.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, I mean, this is why you don't, you 
know, hand something like this to people and then rush into a 
markup.
    But what is--anyways, if people can explain some of this 
stuff, that would be helpful.
    Mr. Neguse. Who was it that said they could explain the----
    Mr. McGovern. Mr. Griffith.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. If the chairwoman wants me to.
    Mr. Neguse. I am happy to yield a moment from my time----
    The Chairwoman. I am happy to recognize you, Mr. Griffith.
    Mr. Griffith. Yeah. So----
    Mr. Neguse. It was my time, but I don't----
    Mr. Griffith. All that language was in the original bill. 
And they were creating this new trust that you would--for a 
child born in, I think, a 4- or 5-year period--I don't remember 
now if it was a 4-year period or a 5-year period--you could set 
up a trust. There were all kinds of rules about the 
qualifications of the trustee. It had to be a bank, et cetera, 
et cetera.
    And the name of the trust originally was going to be the 
``MAGA Trust'' that you set up for the child, and the 
government was going to put in, I believe, if I remember 
correctly, it was $1,000 for each child where the family set 
this up, and they were going to call them ``MAGA Trusts.''
    Mr. McGovern. And why the name change?
    Mr. Griffith. The wisdom was to change that to the ``Trump 
Trusts.''
    Ms. Scanlon. Oh, hell no.
    Mr. Neguse. You are going to name these accounts----
    Mr. McGovern. Why?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So the Cory Booker idea--this was Cory 
Booker's idea. It is his ``Baby Bond.''
    Ms. Scanlon. But----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Now, he was willing to call it 
``Baby,'' but Trump----
    The Chairwoman. Can we just have one person at a time, 
please?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Sorry about that.
    Mr. Neguse. No, you are right.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I am sorry.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Griffith, for that explanation. 
It is nice to have that clarity.
    And I suspect those who might be watching online can now 
understand that--so, to put a finer point on it, the ``MAGA 
Baby Bonds'' are now going to be named the ``Trump Baby 
Bonds.'' That is what Republicans have spent the better part of 
the last 24 hours negotiating at the White House. Apparently 
the President got his way, and these new savings accounts will 
be named in his honor.
    It is--for all the talk of my colleagues, you know, not 
treating him like a king, it sure seems like you are attempting 
to do so. I have never heard of--you all would be screaming 
bloody murder if we named savings accounts after Barack Obama, 
the new trust accounts for your children and your 
grandchildren, ``Obama Accounts.''
    The Chairwoman. Well, I do think----
    Mr. Neguse. I would love to see the reaction.
    But, anyway, I will--I am happy to yield back the balance 
of my time, and others want to be heard on the amendment. So 
thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yeah, just with respect to that, instead of 
the ``MAGA Trust'' or the ``Trump Trust,'' why don't we call it 
the ``Trump Diaper Savings''? It could be ``TDS.'' Because I 
think the only way you end up with a stupid name like this is 
if you have TDS. So let's call it the ``Trump Diaper Savings.''
    The Chairwoman. Well, you would need to offer an amendment 
to do that, I believe, Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Oh, I don't think it is worth anyone's time. 
It is not going anywhere.
    Mr. McGovern. Do we have a pending amendment?
    The Chairwoman. No, we--I believe----
    Mr. Neguse. We are on his amendment.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And I would like to speak to 
his amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Yes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, I mean, I think the reason we are 
talking about the amendment is that Republicans are going to 
raise taxes.
    Right, Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern made an amendment to take out 
the last line----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And the reason that that needs 
to be taken out is because the requirement, if I am correct----
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I am going to read this. They are 
taking out consideration of retroactive tax rate increase. ``It 
shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, et 
cetera, carrying a retroactive Federal income tax rate 
increase.''
    The only reason you need to get rid of that section is 
because you are having a tax rate buried somewhere in here. So 
there is a tax rate increase. That is what you are doing.
    Mr. McGovern. Yes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So not only are you--I mean, you need 
to think about that. And the problem is, you don't know what is 
in this, but this is snuck in here. And your Republican 
colleagues should know that.
    So, Representative McGovern, I mean----
    Mr. McGovern. So they are making it easier to raise taxes 
on struggling families.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Exactly.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. I mean, that is what this is. So that 
is what we are voting on. Otherwise, why would you waive it, 
why would you have to waive it?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah.
    The Chairwoman. I believe the explanation is that it is 
very precautionary because of the name----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh.
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. Of the trust.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh, it is precautionary.
    The Chairwoman. Because of the name of the trust.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So the trust is a tax increase?
    Mr. McGovern. We are talking----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, clearly, there is some kind of tax 
increase in this bill.
    Mr. McGovern. No, but we are talking about two different 
things right now.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. No, no, no.
    Mr. McGovern. You are talking about the ``MAGA Trump'' 
thing. I am going back to--we have a pending amendment.
    The Chairwoman. That is what we are--and that is what we 
are talking about, why do we have that line in there.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, you have to approve a tax 
increase--you are approving a tax increase because you are 
increasing somebody's taxes for the ``Trump Baby Bonds''? I 
mean, this is getting even more confusing. That doesn't--your 
explanations----
    Mr. Norman. Madam Chairman?
    The Chairwoman. Excuse me. There is a better explanation, 
and that is: Because we are not--because we are continuing the 
tax cuts that were in the TCJA, it is being done as a 
cautionary measure----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But----
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. To make sure that there is 
nothing seen in here that----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But, Madam Chair----
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. Implicates a tax increase.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yeah. But, Madam Chair, if you are 
describing those----
    Mr. Norman. Madam Chair?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez [continuing]. As tax cuts, you would 
not need an authorization for a tax rate increase. This is 
about increasing your taxes. So you are authorizing the 
increase of taxes without the required vote in the rules.
    The Chairwoman. I think we have been very clear that we do 
not intend to increase taxes in this bill.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. Madam Chair, I am pretty sure that, you know, 
we have been sitting up here----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I haven't waived my time----
    Mr. Norman. Excuse me. We have been sitting up here for 
however many hours, 20 hours. We are not going to----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Norman----
    Mr. Norman. There is nothing that would convince----
    The Chairwoman. Hold on, Mr. Norman.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Norman----
    Mr. Norman [continuing]. Either one----
    The Chairwoman. Would you yield to Mr. Norman?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. He hasn't asked me yet.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Norman. There is nothing that----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. He still hasn't asked me.
    I mean, Mr. Norman--right? If you had asked me, I would 
probably yield to you, but I have the time, so----
    Mr. Norman. Would you yield?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I would, Mr. Norman. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you.
    I don't think there is any question that whatever we say to 
explain anything is going to make my good friends from the 
other side of the aisle vote for anything that we have put 
forward. So what I would ask is we call for the question, and 
let's move through this.
    Thank you for yielding. And that is my request.
    I yield back, Ms.----
    Mr. McGovern. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I would of course yield, Mr.----
    Mr. McGovern. Again, the House rules require a 
supermajority vote, three-fifths, for any bill that increases 
income taxes. And you are turning that rule off for this bill, 
not as a part of a standard waiver of all points of order, but 
specifically and intentionally.
    And the only reason why you would do that is because you 
know that this bill will increase taxes on those families who 
are struggling the most to put food on the table.
    And so that is this amendment. I think we ought to have a 
vote on it. And, again, none of the explanations have cleared 
anything up. So I think we ought to have a vote on it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right.
    And, just to be clear, what you are voting on is that you 
want to keep a provision that allows you to increase taxes 
without the required three-fifths vote.
    You all decided you didn't want to raise taxes willynilly, 
but that is what the amendment is. And I am supportive of the 
amendment, because we shouldn't be raising taxes on people who 
don't even know what they are doing. But this bill does raise 
taxes.
    Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    And I believe that we will be proven right again, as we 
were in 2017. So I have no problems voting against Mr. 
McGovern's amendment, because, once this bill is all out there 
and it is passed, there will be no tax increases in it. And our 
friends can continue to speculate, but they won't be there.
    Mr. McGovern. But just in case, you are going to waive this 
rule. So I would like a vote on it.
    The Chairwoman. Yes, sir. Okay.
    Mr. Scott, do you wish to say something? Or can we vote on 
Mr. McGovern's motion?
    Mr. Scott. Oh, I move--what is his motion?
    The Chairwoman. Okay. Mr. McGovern has moved to take out 
the last line in the rule, which says, clause 5(B) of rule XXI 
shall not apply to the bill or amendment thereto.
    Mr. McGovern. Absolutely. You got it right. Absolutely.
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    So, all in favor of Mr. McGovern's motion, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I would ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. And Mr. McGovern asks for a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach.
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have another amendment to the 
rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 233, 
offered by Democratic Leader Jeffries, which strikes all 
provisions that would cause millions of Americans to lose 
healthcare and food assistance.
    Leader Jeffries testified passionately before this 
committee about the devastating effect that this bill would 
have on American families. And out of respect for his position 
as the leader of the Democratic Caucus and for the millions of 
Americans who will be hurt by this bill, Republicans should 
allow Leader Jeffries to offer his amendment on the floor for 
an up-or-down vote.
    And I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield 
back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Is there any further discussion on Mr. McGovern's amendment 
for including Mr. Jeffries' amendment?
    Hearing none, the question is on the motion from Mr. 
McGovern.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 245, 
offered by Representative Underwood, which makes the enhanced 
premium tax credits that lower the cost of health insurance 
plans offered on the ACA marketplace permanent.
    This amendment is simple. It will prevent millions of 
working Americans from losing their healthcare coverage and 
keep healthcare costs from skyrocketing.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Is there any further discussion on Mr. McGovern's 
amendment?
    Hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a----
    The Chairwoman. The noes have it. The amendment is not 
agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern asks for a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern [continuing]. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 267, 
offered by Representative DelBene, which makes the child tax 
credit fully refundable and increases the credit amount from 
$2,000 per child to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children 
ages 1 through 6, and $3,600 for children ages 6 through 17.
    The Democrats passed a historic change to the child tax 
credit in 2021, cutting child poverty in half.
    Under the Republican bill today, families making $400,000 a 
year get the full child tax credit but lower-income families 
may get nothing or just a fraction of that due to how the 
Republicans structure the credit.
    The official, nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation 
estimated that, next year, if the Republican bill were to pass, 
17 million children who are American citizens would be blocked 
from getting the full value of the child tax credit.
    So I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Is there any further discussion on the 
amendment?
    Hearing none, I call for the vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Is there further discussion or amendment?
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern [continuing]. Amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 250, 
offered by Representative Doggett, which reduces the cost of 
the bill by about half by ensuring only the 98 percent of 
taxpayers earning $400,000 or less each year receive a tax 
break and the 2 percent of taxpayers earning over $400,000 do 
not receive any new tax breaks.
    Madam Chair, if Republicans want to put their money where 
their mouth is and provide tax relief for working families, not 
the millionaires and billionaires, they should support this 
amendment.
    This amendment would allow taxpayers earning $400,000 or 
less to receive the tax relief under the Republican proposal 
but block the 2 percent of earners in America from receiving 
another tax break.
    This alone would save American taxpayers trillions of 
dollars. But I fear Republicans are too beholden to their 
wealthy donor class to go for it.
    But, nonetheless, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this.
    The Chairwoman. Is there any further discussion on the 
amendment?
    Hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. The noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, so we got the manager's 
amendment, what, about a half an hour ago, and we are still 
trying to, you know, comb through it to see, you know, what the 
changes are and what the impacts are going to be, but there 
seems to be tens of billions of additional healthcare cuts in 
this manager's amendment.
    So you are rushing it in the dark of night, and it will 
kick people off their healthcare, and I find that not only 
concerning, quite frankly, I find it disgusting, again, all to 
give tax breaks to billionaires.
    So I have another amendment to the rule. I move the 
committee make in order amendment No. 40, offered by 
Representative Chu, which ensures that no one earning more than 
$10 million per year receives a tax cut.
    Republicans just voted down a motion to protect tax relief 
for families making under $400,000 a year. This new amendment 
would ensure that those making over $10 million per year would 
not get a tax cut.
    So, under this bill, people making over a million dollars a 
year would get, on average, an $82,000 tax cut compared to 
those making less than $50,000, who will get less than $1 per 
day.
    So, if the Republicans want to spend hundreds of millions 
of dollars on tax giveaways to those making over $10 million a 
year, I think we will just wait and see.
    So I urge a ``yes'' vote on this.
    The Chairwoman. Is there any further discussion on the 
amendment?
    I will just point out that, Mr. McGovern, in a similar 
situation--we have a 40-page manager's amendment. The Democrats 
dumped on us a 309-page manager's amendment, and we voted on it 
immediately.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. I don't think it had anything to do 
with tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but----
    The Chairwoman. Well, it was a 309-page manager's 
amendment.
    Any further discussion?
    Okay.
    All those in favor of Mr. McGovern's amendment, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The noes have it. The amendment is not 
agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 283, 
offered by Representative Gomez, which establishes a 39.6-
percent tax bracket for income over a million dollars.
    So, okay. So, for those following along at home, 
Republicans have just voted down our amendment to limit tax 
cuts to those making under $400,000 per year, and they blocked 
another amendment to ensure people making over $10 million a 
year won't get a tax cut.
    So let's see how far they will take this. This amendment 
would block Republicans from giving another tax cut to 
Americans making over a billion dollars per year in income. 
That is ``billion'' with a ``B.''
    Republicans are kicking millions of Americans off their 
healthcare and SNAP benefits in order to finance tax cuts that 
will help billionaires.
    So I am giving Republicans one last chance to redeem 
themselves by voting in favor of this amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Any further discussion?
    But I will point out, Mr. McGovern, this is the only--you 
are the only one who is pushing for a tax increase----
    Mr. McGovern. On millionaires? Yeah.
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. In this piece of legislation.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    The Chairwoman. We will be voting ``no,'' you will be 
voting ``yes'' on a tax increase.
    So the----
    Mr. McGovern. I didn't--is Trump in favor of giving 
billionaires a tax cut? Yeah, I don't know.
    Mr. Neguse. I would like to be heard.
    The Chairwoman. The motion----
    Mr. McGovern. He wanted to be heard, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. I am sorry, Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Just with respect to the ranking member's amendment, it is 
certainly something I support, but, again, just to clarify--and 
we had this discussion previously--the ranking member proposed 
an amendment that would have deleted the exemption to the 
three-fifths rule that you all defeated.
    So, if you did not intend to increase income taxes, then 
you would not have needed to include a waiver of that rule.
    The House rules are very clear that any income-tax increase 
requires three-fifths support of the full House. So, if you 
want to increase income taxes, you have to get three-fifths of 
the House to support it.
    You all decided that you did not want that rule to apply to 
this bill. And the only reason why you would do so is because 
you know that your bill does, in fact, increase income taxes. 
Otherwise, there would be no point in seeking that waiver.
    So, yes, Mr. McGovern's amendment seeks to increase taxes 
on billionaires. And that is very different than the middle-
income tax increases that you all have or at least are 
concerned about being embedded within your bill, given the 
pursuit of the exemption to that rule that you pursued.
    Mr. McGovern. And----
    Mr. Neguse. Mr. McGovern, I am happy to yield to you.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, and I would just say, as we pointed out 
multiple times, the CBO letter that we all received showing how 
this bill would impact the bottom 10 percent and the top 10 
percent. As you can see here, the top 10 percent do really 
well; the bottom 10 percent actually get hurt under this bill.
    So, maybe if you voted for this, we could take some of that 
money and help the bottom 10 percent so they don't get screwed 
like they are getting in this letter here.
    So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah.
    And I would just simply conclude by saying, you know, we 
didn't have enough time to go through the historical record, 
but I actually do think that that vote you all took a few 
minutes ago was unprecedented. I don't know that Mr. Norman has 
ever voted to waive the income-tax three-fifths vote 
requirement in this House. I mean, I don't--and I certainly 
know Mr. Roy has not done that, which I suspect is why he is 
not here right now, because he didn't want to be on record on 
that particular vote, and I understand why.
    But, in any event, I digress. I will yield back.
    The Chairwoman. You all digress a lot. And you are 
supposing something; we are voting on--we are voting on facts.
    Mr. McGovern. Okay.
    The Chairwoman. So----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair. Madam Chair. I would like 
to be heard on the amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez, are you seeking 
recognition?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to be 
heard on Mr.----
    The Chairwoman. You are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much.
    I think the really key thing is--one is, you just voted to 
allow you to increase taxes with a simple majority. And, unlike 
what you are doing, Mr. McGovern is being very clear--Mr. Gomez 
is being very clear about who he thinks should pay a teeny bit 
more in taxes, and that is the ultra-wealthy.
    So it is a very clear vote. I mean, if you want to argue--
because we have heard Republicans argue that this does not 
benefit the wealthy more than others--well, this is a way to 
actually allow it to go to a vote. It is very clear, very 
transparent. I have a similar amendment.
    And I am going to yield some time to my ranking member.
    Mr. McGovern. No. Again, we are looking at this print. I 
mean, I----
    The Chairwoman. Does Ms. Leger Fernandez----
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, she yielded me----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I just yielded some time to my ranking 
member, yes. Thank you.
    Mr. McGovern. I mean, at the bottom of page 16, the 
manager's amendment strikes 10 pages from your bill that was 
the REINS Act.
    And if I remember correctly, Mr. Norman, as I recall, you 
said that that was the most important bill to curtail Federal 
regulations. That is your quote. And I don't know whether you 
know this or not, but the REINS Act was stricken from the bill.
    The Chairwoman. We are aware of that, because of the ``Byrd 
Bath'' issue. It has been not completely stricken but redone 
to----
    Mr. McGovern. It has. I can't----
    The Chairwoman. It has been redone in order to survive a 
``Byrd Bath.''
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But----
    The Chairwoman. So we are aware of that. That is one of the 
technical changes in the 40 pages.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. Well, I--well, whatever.
    Anyway, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I support your amendment.
    And if anybody else wanted to speak, I would yield them 
time, but, seeing none, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. On Mr. McGovern's amendment to raise taxes, 
all those in favor, say aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. On the billionaires.
    Mr. McGovern. On billionaires.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Billionaires. Billionaires.
    Mr. McGovern. And not on----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. The billionaires tax.
    Mr. McGovern [continuing]. Not on poor people.
    The Chairwoman. All those opposed, vote no.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 29, 
offered by Ranking Member Craig, which strikes harmful 
provisions that would slash $300 billion in food assistance for 
children, seniors, and veterans.
    Madam Chair, as I said earlier, this bill is a disaster. It 
is a disaster for the 16 million children, 8 million seniors, 4 
million people with disabilities, and over 1 million veterans 
who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.
    This bill that you have here will cut the modest food 
benefits of about $2 per meal for millions of people in this 
country who need a little extra help to get by.
    The SNAP cuts contained in this bill also threaten access 
to school meals, because if kids get kicked off of SNAP, they 
are no longer directly certified to receive school meals.
    SNAP supports the people who matter the most to us--our 
moms and dads, our kids and grandparents. Cutting benefits 
means families will go hungry, farmers will suffer, and 
healthcare costs will go up.
    Support this amendment if you want to protect nutrition 
assistance for regular people. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
    The Chairwoman. You have heard the motion from Mr. 
McGovern.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the 
rule--oh, can I get a recorded vote, please?
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 32, 
offered by Representative Hayes, which prevents any cuts to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from taking effect 
until certification that these provisions will not result in a 
reduction of benefits.
    Madam Chair, throughout the course of this debate and in 
the Agriculture Committee, Republicans insisted that they 
aren't taking benefits away from people who need them. 
Agriculture Committee Chairman Thompson said over and over 
again there wouldn't be cuts to benefits. And yet we are 
considering a bill that would cut SNAP benefits by $300 
billion.
    This isn't about integrity or any other nonsense that the 
Republican spin machine is trying to sell to people back home. 
This bill will take food away from kids, working families, and 
people with disabilities, full stop. There is no way to achieve 
the kind of cuts Republicans are making without cutting 
benefits for those populations of people.
    And if you really do believe that this bill doesn't cut 
benefits, then this amendment should be a no-brainer.
    Protect SNAP for the millions of Americans who rely on 
modest food benefits to feed their families by voting ``yes''' 
on this amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Is there further discussion?
    I say only that integrity means a lot to Republicans, and 
integrity of programs is key to us. And that is what we are 
doing in this legislation, is we are going to do everything we 
can to get integrity in programs to save the programs.
    All those in favor of Mr. McGovern's amendment, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 33, 
offered by Representative Brown, which prevents families with 
children as young as 7 years of age from losing food 
assistance.
    Madam Chair, families with kids who are under 7 face 
barriers for childcare. Many in rural areas may face 
transportation issues and a lack of jobs, which makes finding 
employment tough. Cutting parents with kids as young as 7 off 
of food assistance decimates the entire family's food budget. 
It means the whole family will have less money for food.
    So, if you want to protect kids from losing access to 
nutritious food, please vote ``yes'' on this amendment. If you 
think it is more important to give billionaires another tax 
break at the expense of hungry kids, then you can vote ``no.''
    The Chairwoman. Further----
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. Discussion on Mr. McGovern's 
amendment?
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, I just want to point out----
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott [continuing]. That this is in the provisions 
dealing with the Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents of the 
law. And I want to just make sure that everybody knows that you 
don't have to meet all of the requirements; you can meet any of 
the requirements and you receive the exemption--any of the 
requirements and you receive the exemption.
    The age 7 has absolutely nothing to do with the child. It 
has to do with an automatic waiver for the adults in the 
household. That is it. Anything else that they tell you is just 
simply not true.
    Mr. McGovern. No. With due respect, we heard that from the 
chairman, and he is wrong. And you are wrong as well. So, I 
mean, that somehow that lowering the age to 7 doesn't----
    Mr. Scott. ``A person is not''--I can read it from the--``A 
person is not subject to the ABAWD work requirement if they are 
any of the following: younger than age 18, or age 63 or 
older''--the ``63 or older'' is the change.
    Exempt from the general work requirement rules: pregnant, 
experiencing physical or mental barriers to work, experiencing 
homelessness, a veteran age 24 or younger, in the foster care 
when you turn age 18, living with someone under the age of 7 in 
their SNAP household.
    You can meet any of those----
    Mr. McGovern. You are taking----
    Mr. Scott [continuing]. And you are exempt. That is it.
    Mr. McGovern. You are taking food away from the----
    Mr. Scott. I yield.
    Mr. McGovern. You are taking food away from the parent, 
and, therefore, you are taking food away from the family.
    I mean, I don't understand why this is so hard to get your 
mind around. The bottom line is, you are decreasing the amount 
of food assistance going to a family who has a 7-year-old 
child.
    Mr. Scott. With all due respect, Mr. McGovern, all you have 
to meet is one of these to get the automatic waiver. And if you 
don't get the automatic waiver, you can still apply for the 
other waiver.
    With that, I yield.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
    You have heard the motion from Mr. McGovern.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call vote on that.
    The Chairwoman. All right.
    Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 25, 
offered by Representative McClain Delaney, which prevents 
sections 1001 through 100012 from taking effect until 
certification that these provisions will not result in a 
decrease in benefits for households with children under the age 
of 18.
    And if Mr. Scott is so confident that there are all these 
waivers, then this should be something he should vote for.
    This bill cuts the food budgets of families with kids in 
two ways. First, it imposes new time limits on SNAP for parents 
with kids over the age of 7. Second, it shifts the cost of 
benefits over to the States, who simply do not have the 
hundreds of millions of dollars--in some of the cases, up to a 
billion dollars--laying around to pay for the benefits. So, if 
States can't meet their cost-share, then they will have no 
choice but to reduce the benefit for the people who receive 
SNAP in their States.
    So, again, this should be an easy amendment for Republicans 
to vote for, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
    The Chairwoman. Any further discussion on the amendment? If 
not, hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 184, 
offered by Ranking Member Scott and myself, which prohibits the 
bill from going into effect unless cuts to Medicaid and SNAP 
would not result in fewer families being eligible for free 
school meals.
    Madam Chair, a new report by the Urban Institute warned 
that up to 18.3 million kids could lose access to free school 
meals because of this awful bill.
    For many kids, free school meals provide them with the most 
nutritious food that they are able to access on any given day. 
Because of the way SNAP interacts with school meals in many 
States, children who lose SNAP benefits also lose direct 
eligibility for free and reduced meals at school.
    When we last considered the budget, members on this 
committee insisted that Republicans were not going to cut 
school meals. And yet we have a report right here telling us 
that millions of kids may lose access because of the changes 
the Republicans are making to nutritional assistance.
    So vote ``yes'' on this amendment if you want to protect 
school meals for kids.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Is there any further discussion?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I think this really goes to what do we expect of our 
children when they go to school? And we know that there is 
study after study that says that children who are hungry cannot 
learn as well.
    When we invest in our children, we are investing in our 
future, and to deprive schoolchildren of school meals is simply 
not consistent with what I think we should be as a Nation.
    And so I am thankful for the ranking member for his 
amendment that really prioritizes the need to make sure that we 
have healthy schoolchildren. And I urge a ``yes''' vote on his 
amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    You have heard the motion.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 68, 
offered by Representative Vasquez, which inserts the text of 
the Affordable Insulin Now Act from the 118th Congress, which 
was H.R. 1488, which limits cost-sharing for insulin under 
private health insurance for a month's supply of selected 
insulin products at $35, or 25 percent of a plan's negotiated 
price, after any price concessions, whichever is less.
    The Chairwoman. You have heard the amendment by Mr. 
McGovern. Is there any further discussion?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair, the $35 a month insulin 
cap was so important, especially in Native American communities 
with a high diabetes rate, especially in Latino communities 
which also have a high diabetes rate.
    We actually have something similar in New Mexico, and it 
really did make a difference. It helped people to make sure 
they took their insulin and didn't ration it. Because you need 
to take that insulin, and when it gets too expensive, people 
can't afford it.
    So this was, I think, a wonderful thing that the Democrats 
did in the 118th, but it is something that we should all want, 
because diabetes is running rampant in all of our communities, 
especially rural communities.
    So I support Mr. McGovern's amendment and urge a ``yes''' 
vote.
    The Chairwoman. All those in favor of Mr. McGovern's 
amendment, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 42, 
offered by Representative Chu, which strikes the provisions in 
the bill that increase costs, increase red tape, and make it 
harder for people to get coverage, and cause coverage loss on 
the ACA Marketplace.
    The Chairwoman. You have heard the amendment by Mr. 
McGovern. Further discussion?
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 242, 
offered by Representative Gomez, which extends eligibility for 
the ACA Premium Tax Credit to include children and pregnant 
women, including those losing Medicaid coverage.
    This amendment is simple. It ensures that children and 
pregnant women are not harmed by the Republican attack on 
health insurance coverage. It will prevent millions of children 
and pregnant women from losing their healthcare coverage and 
mitigate Republicans' deliberate healthcare cost increases.
    The Chairwoman. Is there any further discussion to Mr. 
McGovern's amendment?
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 215, 
offered by Representative Rivas, which strikes the provision 
creating a moratorium on States or political subdivisions from 
enforcing any law or regulation limiting, restricting, or 
regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial 
intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered 
into interstate commerce.
    Madam Chair, this amendment would strike the awful 
provision in this bill that makes sure that AI companies 
continue to operate lawlessly.
    As it is currently written, the Republican budget 
reconciliation package will place a 10-year moratorium on 
State-level AI regulation. This is wrong, and it must be 
removed.
    I hear from my constituents every single day that they are 
worried about AI. They are worried about how it will affect 
their jobs, their families, their government, their healthcare, 
and their children. People are scared and excited about what AI 
will do to the world around them.
    Now, Republicans slipped a provision in this bill that says 
to all States, red or blue, your legislation on AI doesn't 
count. Throw it in the trash.
    This is sneaky, and it is authoritarian. This is a bad 
faith effort to leave AI unregulated under the guise of 
dispelling regulatory burdens.
    I mean, truth be told, this body ought to legislate on this 
topic, but no one has had the guts to do it.
    So the States have stepped up, and they have taken this 
matter into their hands. And your going in and basically 
telling States that what they have done doesn't matter I think 
is terrible.
    So I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Is there further discussion on Mr. 
McGovern's amendment?
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Scott. I agree, Congress needs to legislate on this, 
but it is not possible to do it at the State level. So I am 
opposed to this.
    The Chairwoman. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
    The vote is on Mr. McGovern's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    Mr. McGovern. Roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 202, 
offered by Representative Ocasio-Cortez, which Subtitle A of 
Title IV shall not go into effect until the Inspector General 
of the Department of Energy certifies that the implementation 
of sections 41002 and 41004 of this subtitle will not result in 
increased risks of corruption or ``pay to play'' politics that 
would adversely impact the integrity of the permitting 
processes of the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
    Madam Chair, these unbelievable provisions essentially mean 
that you can give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission $10 
million and they automatically have to approve your pipeline; 
or that you can give DOE a million dollars and they 
automatically find that your LNG exports are in the public 
interest and can move forward.
    And guess what? Every State and local government no longer 
has a say. They have to approve your pipeline if you pay $10 
million.
    This is a ``pay to play'' permitting bribery scheme, plain 
and simple, and it is becoming all too commonplace in this 
administration.
    And so I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Further discussion?
    All those in favor of Mr. McGovern's amendment, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further discussion or amendment?
    Ms. Scanlon. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. I have an amendment to the rule.
    I move the committee make in order amendment No. 374, 
offered by Representative Mike Thompson, which would strike 
section 112029, which eliminates the $200 tax on silencers, 
which has been in place since 1934.
    Before we proceed to discuss this, could I ask, are any of 
our colleagues, are you aware of any changes that might have 
been made in the manager's amendment to this provision 
regarding silencers?
    Mr. Scott. Yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. You are? Okay. So you understand that the 
manager's amendment, which we just got less than an hour ago, 
removes silencers from the requirements of the National 
Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and which since that 
time has required that silencers be subject to a background 
check and be registered and, up until the time of the 
underlying bill, also had a $200 registration fee.
    But all of a sudden--we started this hearing by noting that 
nobody calls a hearing for 1 o'clock in the morning unless they 
are trying to hide something. So now we are 21 hours later. We 
have seen the sun come up--or a little cloudy. We have seen the 
sun go down.
    So now here we are again, in the dark of night, and all of 
a sudden there is a magical amendment in the manager's 
amendment that is going to put more dangerous firearm equipment 
out on the streets.
    So here we are. You are sneaking this provision in that not 
only gets rid of the firearm registration fee for a silencer 
but also removes the requirement that they have to be 
registered at all.
    You know, over 400 silencers were found on or traced to 
violent crime scenes in 2023 alone. So in addition to removing 
silencers from the definition in the National Firearms Act, 
there is no discussion of why such a policy change would 
happen.
    Mr. Scott. Ma'am, if you would yield for just a second.
    Ms. Scanlon. Also, the removal of the excise tax here is 
going to cost American taxpayers $1.5 billion. So it is a 
brazen attempt to make it easier to commit violent crimes.
    So I think this is sneaky. I think it is a radical policy 
change with no explanation for why this longstanding Federal 
policy should be overturned in the middle of the night.
    I would urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
    I would yield to Mr. McGovern.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. It is actually not a silencer. It is a 
suppressor. It doesn't----
    Ms. Scanlon. I am sorry. It is still my time.
    If we look at the manager's amendment, it says that the 
section is amended by striking any silencer. The whole National 
Firearms Act----
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Then I apologize. I won't argue with you.
    Ms. Scanlon. And you can look up the National Firearms Act. 
I am sorry. It is still my time, and I am yielding to Mr. 
McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I would just say I support----
    Mr. Scott. Never mind, then. I thought you wanted to engage 
in a debate. I am opposed to it.
    Ms. Scanlon. I had yielded to him first.
    Mr. McGovern. Of course you are.
    I mean, I support the gentlelady's amendment because, quite 
frankly, what is in this reconciliation bill? It does more to 
support assassins than it does American families.
    Well, you know what? Talk to law enforcement. Talk to 
people who have been victims of gun violence. I know you think 
it is funny, but I don't.
    With that, I yield back to the gentlelady.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
    The Chairwoman. Any further discussion?
    Ms. Scanlon. I will yield back.
    Mr. Neguse. I would like to be recognized, Madam Chair, on 
the amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I guess--and I am happy to engage in a debate with my 
colleague. I always enjoy debating with Mr. Scott.
    The confusion I have about this particular provision--
obviously, for all of the reasons that Ms. Scanlon and Ranking 
Member McGovern stated--I think this is a dangerous, deeply 
problematic provision that you all have put into this piece of 
legislation.
    The question I have is, this was not in the bill that we 
were marking up. So whose vote was bought with this provision 
that silencers will no longer need to be registered with the 
ATF or subject to background checks? Purchasers, that is to 
say.
    Like, who was--what Member was on the fence about this bill 
and then went to Republican leadership and said, ``I know you 
are eliminating the tax on silencers, but if you can just 
eliminate all regulation of silencers, I will vote for this 
bill''?
    Mr. Scott. It did not eliminate all regulations of 
silencers.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    Mr. Scott. It is still subject--no, it doesn't.
    Mr. Neguse. No, no, no, no.
    Mr. Scott. You don't know anything about this one, brother.
    Mr. Neguse. I haven't yielded to you yet, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I have 10 of them.
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Neguse. I haven't yielded to you yet, Mr. Scott.
    The Chairwoman. Wait. Wait.
    Mr. Neguse has the time.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    This provision very clearly states that you no longer have 
to register silencers with the ATF. Is that wrong? Is that 
incorrect?
    Mr. Scott. That does not mean that you will go through--
will not go through a background check.
    Mr. Neguse. I understand.
    Mr. Scott. It will be sold the same way a rifle is.
    Mr. Neguse. That is not the question I asked, Mr. Scott. I 
asked----
    Mr. Scott. Don't yell at me. I gave you an answer. You 
don't like it. It is over with.
    Mr. Neguse. This provision very clearly states----
    The Chairwoman. Let Mr. Neguse ask a question and answer 
it, please, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Neguse. The National----
    Mr. Scott. I am done.
    Mr. Neguse. The National Firearms Act, for 100 years, since 
the days of Al Capone, who was the impetus behind the National 
Firearms Act in the first instance, has required registration 
for those purchasing silencers.
    That was the case up until 45 minutes ago when Republicans 
negotiated the elimination of that registration requirement. 
Fairly straightforward.
    I don't really know who in the Republican caucus was 
adamant that this provision was the key to unlocking their 
support.
    The Chairwoman. And I don't believe anyone here--excuse me 
for interrupting--but I don't think anybody here knows that 
either, Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Got it. Well, that is helpful. Thank you, Madam 
Chair. That was a helpful answer. And we might find out on the 
floor during debate.
    I mean, hopefully--I guess what I will say--and I will 
close here, because I know many of our colleagues are watching 
as they are waiting to get to the floor for the debate--that 
perhaps whoever it was that made this request of Speaker 
Johnson and said, ``I need this provision so that I can vote 
for this bill,'' that they might come to the floor and help 
explain to the American public why that was.
    Ranking Member?
    Mr. McGovern. Maybe we can just follow the money. And----
    Mr. Neguse. That is another way to do it too.
    I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    The Chairwoman. There is a motion on the floor from Ms. 
Scanlon.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Scanlon. I ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon requests a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the 
committee make in order amendment No. 27 offered by 
Representative Johnson which strikes bill text that would 
prevent the courts from enforcing a contempt citation against 
the government for failure to comply with an injunction or a 
temporary restraining order.
    As we discussed previously when some of our colleagues were 
here, certainly Representative Johnson, this is a critical part 
of separation of powers that the courts be able to effectuate 
their decisions. So I urge a yes vote.
    The Chairwoman. Any further discussion?
    All those in favor of the motion by Ms, Scanlon, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair----
    Ms. Scanlon. I ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the 
committee make in order amendment No. 150 offered by myself, 
which prohibits funds from Title VII, Subtitle A immigration 
matters from being used to implement or defend executive order 
14160 entitled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American 
Citizenship.
    President Trump has executed a blatantly unconstitutional 
executive order which purports to revoke the 14th Amendment's 
guarantee of birthright citizenship, a right that reflects the 
foundational American value that we don't define our nationhood 
by bloodlines or parentage, but by our shared democratic 
values. And therefore, no funds under this bill should be used 
to enforce it.
    In the U.S., birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 
citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution. It was ratified in 1868. The clause's very first 
sentence in the 14th Amendment provides that all persons born 
or naturalized in the United States and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of 
the State where they reside.
    On January 20 of this year, President Trump issued a 
prospective executive order declaring that for certain persons 
born in the United States, neither the 14 Amendment nor the 
Federal statute incorporating similar language, conferred U.S. 
citizenship. Specifically, this executive order sought to 
exclude from U.S. citizenship two categories of persons whose 
fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Those 
whose mothers were unlawfully present in the United States on 
their date of birth and those whose mothers were lawfully 
present in the country at the time of birth, but only on a 
temporary basis, such as a mother present in the U.S. on a 
student, work or tourist visa. A really tortured definition and 
description of who he intended this executive order to impact.
    Every court which has looked at this executive order has 
found it to be unconstitutional and unenforceable. The 
executive order has been enjoined by four different judges 
appointed by Presidents Reagan, Bush, Obama and Biden. Two 
circuits have agreed to keep the executive order enjoined and 
now implementation is pending before the Supreme Court.
    You know, right-wing extremists have repeatedly failed to 
convince the public or Congress to end birthright citizenship 
through legal means, so now they are trying to cheer on from 
the sidelines, as the President tries to change the 
Constitution without the American people's consent.
    So I would offer this amendment. It is straight up 
preventing the use of taxpayer funds from force and 
unconstitutional executive order. And I would yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Is there any further discussion on the 
amendment by Ms. Scanlon?
    Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Scanlon. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon asks for a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach.
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four ayes, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the 
committee make in order amendment No. 238 offered by minority 
whip Clark, which strikes the section that defunds Planned 
Parenthood, and would reduce access to lifesaving cancer 
screenings and reproductive healthcare. This bill includes a 
provision that it directly blocks Medicaid patients from 
receiving care at Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest 
provider of reproductive health services. Of course, we all 
know that Medicaid is already not allowed to cover abortions. 
So this provision is a clear attack on women and their 
healthcare writ large.
    I urge a yes vote on my amendment. And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you. You have heard the amendment 
offered by Ms. Scanlon.
    Is there any further discussion?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Yes, Ms. Leger Fernandez you are 
recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much.
    I just want to point out that one of the concerns that the 
Democrats have is that throughout this bill, there is a 
constant attack on women's healthcare. I will be offering an 
amendment later about the Manager's amendment, but, you know, 
to not fund the place where women get healthcare, cancer 
screenings, pap smears, mammograms, basic care that women need 
and Planned Parenthood is often the only place they can get it, 
especially in rural areas. I would urge you to think about the 
women in your districts and their need for healthcare and 
prioritize that. And for that reason I support this amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    You have heard the amendment from Ms. Scanlon.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Scanlon. I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon has requested a recorded vote. 
The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have an amendment to the rule. I 
move the committee make in order amendment No. 411, offered by 
myself, which strikes section 42106 which repeals and rescinds 
funds to address air pollution in schools.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Is there any further discussion on the 
amendment?
    Hearing none, the vote is on the motion by Ms. Scanlon.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Scanlon. I ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon requests a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. 
I move the committee make in order amendment No. 71 offered by 
Representative Raskin which prevents Title VII from taking 
effect until the Attorney General certifies that any grant 
administered by the Office of Justice Programs with the 
Department of Justice that was terminated after January 20, 
2025, has been reinstated.
    Last month, President Trump's Department of Justice 
abruptly cut hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding 
that had previously been awarded to support law enforcement, 
crime prevention and public safety program across the country, 
despite broad bipartisan support for these grant programs 
administered by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs and President Trump's repeated promises to the 
American people that he would prioritize public safety, support 
victims of crime and address the opioid crisis. His own 
Department of Justice abruptly informed more than 300 OJP 
grantees that there were, quote, ``no longer effectuated the 
program goals or agency priorities and does not align with this 
administration's priorities,'' end quote.
    Organizations in at least 37 States across the country lost 
funding, red States and blue States, and urban, suburban, and 
rural areas, and the work of those organizations which benefits 
jurisdictions all across our country would help ensure that all 
citizens have access to effective system of safety and justice, 
regardless of where they live.
    The terminated grants totaling an estimated $500 million 
provided Federal support for violence reduction, policing and 
prosecution, victim services, juvenile justice and child 
protection, substance use and mental health treatment, 
corrections and reentry, justice system enhancements, research 
and evaluation, and other State and local-level public safety 
functions.
    During the House Judiciary Committee's consideration of the 
reconciliation bill on April 30, Ranking Member Raskin and 
committee Democrats tried to restore that funding. Our 
Republican colleagues rejected it, but cutting funding for 
these vital programs threatens public safety, harms victims and 
survivors of violent crime, and hinders crime prevention 
efforts.
    So I urge a yes vote on the amendment. And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. You have heard the motion by Ms. Scanlon.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Scanlon. I ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon requests a roll call. The clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have an amendment to the rule. I 
move the committee make in order amendment No. 35, offered by 
Representative Jayapal which prevents, prohibits the use of 
funds in subtitle A of Title VII from being used by Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement to detain or deport U.S. citizens.
    The amendment is straightforward, it should be 
uncontroversial. It would ensure that none of the funds in this 
bill are used to detain U.S. citizens for immigration and 
enforcement.
    Reports of U.S. citizens being wrongfully arrested and 
detained started coming out just days after this administration 
was sworn in. Some citizens have been detained for merely 
speaking Spanish. Others were held for days, despite 
consistently telling the Department of Homeland Security that 
they were citizens.
    ICE detention of U.S. citizens because of reckless and 
lawless immigration enforcement is both unconstitutional and 
dangerous. Even ICE acknowledges that it has no authority to 
arrest and detain U.S. citizens. Their internal guidance says 
as a matter of law, ICE cannot assert its civil immigration 
enforcement authority to arrest or detain a U.S. citizen. 
Nevertheless, we have seen detentions of U.S. citizens occur. 
We have heard about deportation of children U.S. citizens. So 
Congress has a duty to act. We have to ensure the government 
funding, taxpayer dollars doesn't support illegal or 
unconstitutional actions. Therefore, I offer this amendment and 
urge a yes vote.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Scanlon. I ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Scanlon requests a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the vote.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. Clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, seven nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Neguse, you are recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I have one amendment that I had planned to introduce. The 
necessity for that amendment has been obviated, but I wonder if 
I might be recognized for a minute just to explain why and then 
I will hand it off to Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    I had intended to offer an amendment with respect to the 
provision in, two provisions within the bill that would have 
overturned resource management plans in Colorado, and secondly, 
the land conveyance issue that we had discussed at great length 
earlier today. Both of those provisions were removed from the 
underlying bill. And so I want to thank Representative Zinke 
who was very adamant in building a coalition necessary to make 
the case about removing those provisions.
    I also want to thank Representative Lee, Representative 
Horsford and Representative Titus, each of whom were also, as 
you know, Madam Chair, from their testimony today, very engaged 
in making the case that this is not a precedent that the 
committee should adopt. I am happy to thank Mr. Langworthy as 
well. I don't know if my Chautauqua reference is perhaps played 
a role in that. But----
    Mr. Langworthy. It put it right over the top.
    Mr. Neguse. I am sure that put it right over the top, in 
any event. So I am glad that that provision is no longer in 
this larger bill, and so I will not pursue the amendment.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I want to offer my first amendment, where I move the 
committee to add a south executed second degree amendment to 
the manager's amendment, striking the assertion of a new 
section 44202, which is on page 14 of your manager's amendment, 
because this would result in at least 300,000 people losing 
healthcare coverage. And, more importantly, this is the 
Republicans' attempt to have a national abortion ban. This is 
their attempt to have a national abortion ban because it would 
eliminate abortion coverage for marketplace plans or prohibit 
cost-sharing reduction for plans that maintain abortion 
coverage. So what you are basically doing is saying, if anybody 
is getting their health coverage through the marketplace, you 
are putting a disincentive on there so they will not be able to 
provide abortions. It is a very sneaky amendment in the 
manager's amendment. But I think we all need to call it out. 
And so that is why it is the first amendment I am bringing 
because that is, in effect, what it does. And I think that we 
heard today from Rep. Clark about the difficulty of getting 
reproductive healthcare. And this is extraordinary in what it 
would do.
    And I shared my own personal story, which, given the kind 
of healthcare I was undergoing, could have resulted in what 
might have been considered an abortion, despite the fact that I 
was just trying to save my life. So these are the kinds of 
unintended consequences, but this is a very intentional 
consequence of what is in this bill. And so I urge that 
Americans understand what is happening here and that women 
understand what is happening there in this bill. And, at the 
last minute, what, we got it, you know, a couple of hours ago, 
and they are going to vote on it in a few hours--they have 
promised us.
    I yield back
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    You have heard the motion by Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All Those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Roll call vote, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a recorded 
vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, seven nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I have an amendment to the rule. I 
move the committee make in order amendment No. 47, which is 
offered by Representative Sykes. Representative Sykes appeared 
before us and made an impassioned claim as to why we needed to 
protect Medicaid. And we have heard those on the dais say, 
``But this is not really cutting Medicaid.'' Well, this 
amendment is your chance to actually vote consistent with some 
of those statements.
    So, Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote so that we can 
actually have a debate on the floor on Representative Sykes' 
amendment.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. You have heard the motion by Ms. Leger 
Fernandez.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All Those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Roll call vote, please.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a roll call 
vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Any further amendments?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to 
the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment No. 485, 
offered by Representative Beyer, which strikes the elimination 
of the electricity investment protection tax credits in order 
to keep electricity prices low. This reconciliation bill 
amounts to a full repeal of clean energy tax credits Democrats 
established through Inflation Reduction Act. But the thing is 
this is a way of lowering costs for American families.
    According to the Department of Energy, in just the last 10 
years, costs have declined significantly for many technologies, 
including distributed solar down 26 percent, land-based rent 
down 41 percent, utility scale solar down 73 percent. What 
other kind of energy is going down in these kinds of degrees? 
So the Inflation Reduction Act, the renewable energy, the clean 
energy that Americans want, it is also saving Americans money. 
In fact, in New Mexico, where, as you know, I have explained we 
also are a fossil-fuel-producing State, we are developing clean 
energy power plants, manufacturing facilities. We are creating 
jobs. We are lowering costs. People want us to keep doing this. 
But Republicans want to go back in time. You know, I feel like 
we are in the 19th century, and Republicans are arguing that 
gas lamps are better than electric light bulbs.
    And gesundheit and God bless, Madam Chair. So, when 
Republicans talk about energy dominance, why are they giving up 
on the energy of the future if we want to be truly energy 
dominant and compete in what is expected to be, listen to this, 
a $2 trillion global clean energy market?
    If you do not keep these credits in existence, you are 
basically saying, ``China, take it all. You lead the world.'' 
Well, I don't think we should do that. We have the resources 
here. Let's vote in favor of the amendment or at least let our 
Members decide whether they should keep it.
    With that, Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote and yield 
back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    You have heard the motion for Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes. The noes have it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Recorded vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a recorded 
vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I have an amendment to the rule. I 
move the committee make in order amendment No. 483, offered by 
myself, which protects State budgets and education and 
healthcare funding from reductions and oil and gas revenues.
    So, basically, what we did in the House Natural Resources 
is we reduced oil and gas royalty rates. Now the problem is 
that oil-and-gas-producing States share in the Federal royalty 
rates. So, for those States who have Federal lands, they are 
going to be receiving less royalties. And let's look at how 
this happened. Act one, Trump promised to scrap climate laws 
and to do what oil and gas wanted if U.S. oil bosses donated $1 
billion to the Trump campaign. Act number two, Trump starts 
living up to that promise. He takes aim at city and State 
climate laws in an executive order. And now, act number three, 
cuts to oil and gas royalty rates in the budget reconciliation. 
And they are going to reduce the money flowing to States.
    And, you know, my colleague across the aisle pointed out 
that New Mexico does receive oil and gas, but what this would 
do and our land commissioner, whose job it is to try to make 
sure we get as much money off of those oil and gas leases, 
wrote a letter, and House Natural Resources pointing out that 
this would be almost a 400--almost a half-trillion dollar hit 
to our State because of what we will be doing here.
    So, on behalf of my State, of Colorado, of North Dakota, of 
all of those other States that have oil and gas producing, I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. You have heard the amendment from Ms. Leger 
Fernandez.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The noes 
have it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. A recorded vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a recorded 
vote. The clerk will call the control.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman Mr. 
Norman no. Mr. Roy Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin no. Mr. 
Langworthy Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott Mr. Scott no. Mr. 
Griffith Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack Mr. Jack no. Mr. McGovern 
Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse Mr. 
Neguse aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam 
Chair Madam Chair no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Madam Chair, I would offer as my last 
one amendment, there are so many issues that we heard about 
today that deserve to have a vote on the floor. The amendments, 
there used to be a time when I remember we would show up, and 
there would be votes. You would have to make decisions. But 
what happens in Rules now is there is never any amendments; 
they are all closed rules. But this one I think is really key, 
and I am going to offer it as my last amendment because this 
actually goes to the fact that, when we look at that chart that 
shows that working families, low-income families are going to--
they are going to basically get a tax hike, in essence; they 
are going to lose out under this bill. But we could change 
that. We could change that if we struck section 11004, the 
extension of the increased child tax credit, and replaced it 
with H.R. 2763, the American family Act. And what this would do 
is this would put the full child tax credit fully refundable in 
the bill. If we care about lifting children out of poverty, 
making sure that families get to decide. And, not only that, 
making sure that those who earn less get the full child tax 
credit so that it is not just the wealthy who are getting the 
full child tax credit, it makes a lot of sense.
    And, you know, this is one of those things where you guys 
just put ``Trump'' on the baby bonds; we should have put 
``Biden'' on the child tax cut that we passed, right? That is 
the thing is we just believe in making a difference for people, 
not plastering names all over the place. It was good law when 
we had it, when the Democrats passed it, and it existed with 
Biden. We should bring it back.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Before I yield back, though.
    Mr. McGovern. I have one more amendment.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Oh, you are going to do an amendment? 
Okay.
    In that case, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Oh, a question on your amendment, yes. You made an 
amendment.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I have an amendment to the rule. I 
move the committee make in order----
    The Chairwoman. All right. Thank you. Yes, okay.
    All those in----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you for catching that.
    The Chairwoman. All those in favor of Ms. Leger Fernandez' 
amendment, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. Do you want a roll call?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Roll call vote.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez' requests a roll call. 
The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern, you are recognized.
    Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I just have another amendment to 
the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment No. 2, 
offered by Representative Gillen, which strikes the limitation 
on the State and local tax deduction.
    But, before we vote on this last amendment, I just want to 
recap some of what just happened here tonight. So Republicans 
on this committee voted against raising taxes on billionaires, 
voted against following a House rule that requires a three-
fifths vote to raise income taxes, you know, just in case this 
great beautiful bill of theirs raises taxes on regular working 
people, which I think we all believe it does. But they have 
insulated themselves by voting--by basically waiving the three-
fifths requirement. And Republicans voted against protecting 
Medicaid benefits. They voted against protecting SNAP benefits 
for children. And so I guess more children will have to go 
hungry. And they voted against an amendment to restore NIH 
funding for critical cancer research and other important 
medical research. And I think this is all shameful. So these 
votes basically show us where your priorities and your values 
are. And, as I said at 1 o'clock in the morning, when you vote 
for this, you own it.
    And so, with that, Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my 
amendment and urge you to call the question.
    The Chairwoman. Okay. You have heard the motion by Mr. 
McGovern.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, no.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, no.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, no.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, no.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, no.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, aye.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. No.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, no.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairwoman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the 
motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion 
is agreed to.
    Mr. McGovern. I ask for a roll call.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach?
    Mrs. Fischbach. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Fischbach, aye.
    Mr. Norman?
    Mr. Norman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Norman, aye.
    Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin?
    Mrs. Houchin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Houchin, aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy, aye.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith, aye.
    Mr. Jack?
    Mr. Jack. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jack, aye.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Hell no.
    The Clerk. Mr. McGovern, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neguse, no.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I think I will go with a hell no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez, no.
    Madam Chair?
    The Chairwoman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, aye.
    The Chairwoman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Eight yeas, four nays.
    The Chairwoman. The ayes have it. The motion to report is 
agreed to. Accordingly, the gentlewoman from Indiana, Mrs. 
Houchin will be managing this rule for the majority.
    Mr. McGovern. I will for the minority.
    Can I ask just one question? What is the schedule?
    The Chairwoman. We will be going to the floor right now.
    Mr. McGovern. Are we doing just the rule tonight, or are we 
doing the rule and the bill tonight?
    The Chairwoman. I am not clear, but I believe there is a 
chance we will do the bill tonight.
    Mr. McGovern. All right.
    The Chairwoman. Okay.
    Mr. Griffith. Aren't you glad we started at 1 o'clock?
    The Chairwoman. Usually about 20 minutes.
    Without objection, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]   
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]