    [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]