congressional_record: CREC-2025-06-04-pt1-PgH2431-3
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-2025-06-04-pt1-PgH2431-3 | 2025-06-04 | 119 | 1 | PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2483, SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2931, SAVE SBA FROM SANCTUARY CITIES ACT OF 2025... | HOUSE | HOUSE | ALLOTHER | H2431 | H2439 | [{"name": "Michelle Fischbach", "role": "speaking"}, {"name": "James P. McGovern", "role": "speaking"}, {"name": "Brad Finstad", "role": "speaking"}, {"name": "Johnny Olszewski, Jr.", "role": "speaking"}, {"name": "Emilia Strong Sykes", "role": "speaking"}, {"name": "Pete Stauber", "role": "speaking"}, {"name": "Sydney Kamlager-Dove", "role": "speaking"}, {"name": "Melanie A. Stansbury", "role": "speaking"}] | [{"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "1"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HRES", "number": "458"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HRES", "number": "458"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HRES", "number": "458"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2483"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2483"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2753"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2931"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2931"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2966"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2966"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2987"}, {"congress": "119", "type": "HR", "number": "2987"}] | 171 Cong. Rec. H2431 | Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 4, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 4, 2025)] [House] [Pages H2431-H2439] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2483, SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2931, SAVE SBA FROM SANCTUARY CITIES ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2966, AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURS FIRST ACT OF 2025; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2987, CAPPING EXCESSIVE AWARDING OF SBLC ENTRANTS ACT OF 2025 Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 458 Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2483) to reauthorize certain programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-4 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2931) to direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to relocate certain offices of the Small Business Administration in sanctuary jurisdictions, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Small Business now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2966) to require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to require an applicant for certain loans of the Administration to provide certain citizenship status documentation, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Small Business now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the [[Page H2432]] bill (H.R. 2987) to amend the Small Business Act to require a limit on the number of small business lending companies, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Small Business now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 1 hour. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are here today to debate the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act; H.R. 2966, the American Entrepreneurs First Act; H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, which will be considered under a closed rule; and H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act to be considered under a structured rule. One hour of debate each for H.R. 2931, H.R. 2966, and H.R. 2987 shall be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Small Business Committee, or their designees. One hour of debate will also be provided for H.R. 2483 and shall be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, or their designees. The rule provides a motion to recommit for all four bills. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are here to deliver on the Trump administration's agenda and solidify his executive actions with commonsense legislation. With Congresswoman Van Duyne's American Entrepreneurs First Act, my colleagues are going to help codify the work that the Small Business Administration is doing to ensure that businesses receiving Federal benefits are 100 percent owned by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and businesses that employ illegal immigrants are ineligible for these funds. This is part of our ongoing effort to stop subsidizing previous open-border policies. It makes sense that only law-abiding American citizens should have access to programs that American taxpayer dollars go towards. SBA offices are being located out of sanctuary cities and into places that do not limit their cooperation with Federal agencies that are charged with immigration enforcement. The SBA Administrator announced that the agency would be relocating offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City, and Seattle, and moving them to less costly and more accessible locations to better serve the mission and comply with Federal immigration law. With Congressman Finstad's bill, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act, Republicans are supporting this plan with legislation, giving the SBA 120 days to deliver on this commitment and relocate those offices. Sanctuary cities need to be held accountable and need to see the consequences of their disregard for Federal law. With Mr. Bresnahan's CEASE Act, it is strengthening SBA's programs by limiting the number of nonprofit small business lending companies licensed by the SBA to 16. This will allow the agency to provide the necessary oversight to ensure that they are effectively serving the small businesses that Congress intended. Finally, my colleagues are here to debate the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act. I thank Mr. Guthrie for introducing this important legislation. This bill reauthorizes the 2018 legislation President Trump signed into law and strengthens it. I am glad to say that across the country we are seeing a decline in overdose deaths. Of course, the work is not over. My colleagues are making sure we are investing in overdose prevention and equipping communities to counter substance abuse disorders. The Energy and Commerce Committee has taken a hard look at what worked best from the 2018 law and built off its success by continuing to provide resources for prevention, education, treatment, recovery, workforce, and law enforcement to help patients struggling with substance use disorder. It ensures first responders are able to administer lifesaving drugs, ensures HHS cannot require States to use one specific vendor over another, clarifies that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration's State and Tribal Opioid Response Grants can be used for test strips, and requires that Administration to identify and address serious mental illness. This bill is part of President Trump's and the Congressional Republicans' promise to stop the flow of fentanyl by securing our borders and then combat the crisis caused by these drugs in our communities. President Trump has done his part to secure our border, and Republicans will supply him with more resources to do so in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Through the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act, we will combat the existing opioid crisis in our communities. I am proud to stand in support of these bills. I look forward to this debate, and I hope my colleagues can stay focused on the topic in front of us today as we discuss these proposals that are important to American families and taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last time Members were here, House Republicans rammed through their latest GOP tax scam, a bill that would rip healthcare away from over 15 million Americans by slashing Medicaid and, let's be honest, likely Medicare. I am sorry the gentlewoman doesn't think that that is in the interest of the American people, but my colleagues on the Democratic side do. My colleagues think when Republicans are taking away people's healthcare in this country, it is a big deal. This bill, this tax scam bill, would literally take food out of the mouths of kids, and take nutritious food from senior citizens and veterans. For what? To give massive tax breaks to billionaires and to add trillions of dollars to our national debt. Mr. Speaker, their ugly, big bill is a disgrace, and it does not serve working people. It serves the GOP's donors. It is a scam, a handout to the rich, paid for by nickel-and-diming moms and dads who are just trying to get by. Even Elon Musk, one of Donald Trump's top advisers, called the Republican bill a ``disgusting abomination.'' Let me repeat that, a disgusting abomination. He said: ``Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong.'' Now, let that sink in. Let that sink in. Elon Musk, the man who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Donald Trump and other Republicans, is now saying Members should be ashamed of themselves for voting for this disgusting bill. Remember when Republicans were falling all over themselves calling Elon a genius and he could do no wrong? I have got to be honest, Mr. Speaker, it gives me whiplash. I think I need a neck brace to deal with all of these contrary quotations coming in. The icing on the cake, Mr. Speaker, is the number of Republicans who are now publicly claiming buyers' remorse for voting for this bill. This is a tweet from one of my Republican colleagues from Georgia. People are going to love this. She says: ``Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278 to 279 of the OBBB that strips States of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. [[Page H2433]] ``I am adamantly opposed to this, and it is a violation of State rights, and I would have voted no if I had known this was in there.'' This needs to be stripped out of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this takes my breath away. All my colleague from Georgia needed to do was to read the bill. I know that is a tough thing to ask Members of Congress to do, but read the damn bill. If she wasn't going to do that, if she was like our President, who doesn't like to read and only gets his information from the TV, she could have tuned in to the Rules Committee meeting where for 20 hours, beginning at 1:00 a.m., the Rules Committee debated not only this bill but even this policy that she was concerned about. In fact, I offered an amendment to strike the awful AI provisions from this bill. There was a debate on it, and every single one of her Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee, every single one of them voted against it. Get this: According to this article in The New York Times titled: ``After Muscling Their Bill Through the House, Some Republicans Have Regrets,'' our colleague from Georgia wasn't the only Republican who didn't read the bill before voting to pass it. Another one of our conservative colleagues from Nebraska admitted he did not know the bill makes it harder for the courts to hold the Trump administration officials in contempt for defying a court order. Get this: He claims he would have voted against the bill had he known it was in the bill. I can't make this stuff up. Another conservative Republican colleague from Pennsylvania tweeted: ``Elon Musk is right to call out House leadership. I wish I had a nickel for every time the House Freedom Caucus sounded the alarm and nobody listened, only to find out the hard way that we were right all along.'' Right all along? From what he just said, I would have thought that he voted against the bill or that the entire Freedom Caucus voted against the bill. {time} 1230 Yet, he voted for it, and so did the Freedom Caucus. I think every Republican but one voted for the bill. Mr. Speaker, here is the deal: Republicans are really good about making statements and speeches, but that is about it. Yet, where is their backbone? If my Republican colleagues believe some of the stuff is bad, why didn't the majority vote against the bill? One by one, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle caved. The budget hawks wanted a bill that wouldn't add to the debt. This bill adds trillions to the debt, and Republicans caved. Moderates said they wouldn't vote for a bill that slashes Medicaid and threw people off of healthcare, which this bill did, and guess what? They folded. They folded. Where I am from, in Massachusetts, that is what we call a cheap date. Republicans from across the ideological spectrum caved and got nothing. The majority listened to Donald Trump and closed their eyes and just voted for it without reading it, without a CBO analysis. Whatever Trump wants, Trump gets. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing for this institution, and it is embarrassing for our country. It is making a mockery of this House of Representatives. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. I thought all of us ran for Congress, regardless of party, to try to help people. What Republicans did a little over a week ago was about not only hurting people but screwing them over. That is sad. Then, look at today. Some of the bills at one time were bipartisan. H.R. 2483 reauthorizes funding for programs that help communities fight the opioid crisis. It is something I support and something I voted for in the past. Mr. Speaker, over 20,000 lives have been lost in my home State of Massachusetts alone to this crisis over the past decade. Yet, in Massachusetts, we actually saw a 33 percent drop in fatal overdoses for the first time last year, showing that public investments that we all voted for, public investments in treatment and in prevention, are actually starting to make a real difference. Mr. Speaker, I am horrified, and I am outraged that Trump is actively dismantling our ability to respond to the opioid crisis moving forward. The administration recently sent over more details about Trump's ``skinny'' budget, which proposes very large cuts to health programs that American families rely on. These include eliminating programs of regional and national significance at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, otherwise known as SAMHSA, which encompassed nearly all programs aimed at substance use and mental health, including the ones in the bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take Republicans seriously when the majority is actively dismantling the very programs and the very agencies that this bill is trying to reauthorize. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were serious about this crisis, my Republican colleagues would stop undermining the solutions. I guess maybe the rationale for Republicans bringing this bill to the floor is to have some cover as Trump basically undoes all of the programs that are authorized under this bill. Yet, what a cynical thing to do, and it is going to cost lives. This isn't a game we are playing. At this point, this really shouldn't be about pleasing the guy in the Oval Office. This should be about serving our constituents and supporting what is already working and showing some promise. Then, Republicans claim the other three bills in this rule support small businesses. Yet, there is no surprise. They do the exact opposite. DOGE already shuttered an SBA office in my district in Massachusetts, forcing a lot of rural small business owners to have to drive hours to get to the office in Boston. Now, under this bill, if Republicans force the closure of the Boston office out of political spite, which Republicans seem to be really good at, it will leave small businesses in Massachusetts with nowhere to turn. Yet, it is not just Massachusetts, but it is a whole bunch of other States that will fall under these cuts. It will also have disastrous, long-term consequences for the rural entrepreneurs and working-class families in my home State who rely on the SBA to navigate Federal assistance and recover from economic setbacks, like the increased costs they are facing because of Trump's reckless trade war. Mr. Speaker, while we are having this debate and Trump is having tantrums day in and day out and tariffs this and tariffs that, do you know who is paying the price? It is small businesses. Do you know what is happening in this country? People are beginning to get laid off. Again, there is silence. There is silence from the other side. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Trump's tariff chaos does, in fact, punish small businesses the most. Unlike the mega-donors who bankroll Republican campaigns, small business owners can't hedge against the kind of volatility that we see playing out in the economy right now. Every time Trump throws another tantrum on trade, Republicans are tossing small businesses into a tailspin with no warning, no help, and, frankly, no concern. Maybe that is the point. Republicans don't care about new small business entrepreneurs or those people struggling with opioid addiction. If the majority did, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would uplift successful programs and agencies like SBA or SAMHSA, not gut them. Unless you are a mega-donor or a loyal MAGA mouthpiece, you do not matter to this Republican majority. What is happening here isn't just irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, it is immoral, and it is a damned disgrace. I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am just a little confused. My colleague mentioned ``whiplash,'' and I am feeling a little whiplash over here because Democrats liked Elon Musk. Then, the minority hated Elon Musk. Now, my Democratic colleagues like him again? I am just a bit confused and ask that maybe someone can clear that up for me because it goes back and forth, and I feel like there is lots of whiplash going on. Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. FISCHBACH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't like Elon Musk. [[Page H2434]] Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it sure does feel like Democrats are going back and forth on him, and there is lots of whiplash going on, so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to make it clear because now Democrats are quoting him on the floor. What is embarrassing really, truly, is that the Democrats adhere to their talking points and repeat them and repeat them, and this is a perfect example of where Democrats are spreading misinformation. The minority wants the public to believe that Republicans are cutting Medicaid, and we are not. We are making sure it goes to those people who need it and that we use every taxpayer dollar wisely. That means we are making sure that American tax dollars go to American citizens. That means strengthening the system so care can get to those who need it most and that we weed out waste, fraud, and abuse. Individuals who are suffering from substance addiction, like those we are working to help with the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act, are not subject to the work requirements in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Mr. Speaker, 11 Democrats voted for the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act coming out of committee. I think that we need to make sure that we are sticking to the facts instead of Democratic talking points. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Finstad). Mr. FINSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Minnesota for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025. Over the past 4 years, the Biden administration's open-border policies have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour into our country. Making matters worse, Democratic politicians in cities across our country have enacted sanctuary city policies that have further encouraged waves of illegal immigrants to come into our communities, circumventing Federal law and raising serious public safety concerns. Last November, the American people overwhelmingly elected President Trump with a clear mandate to secure the border and restore public safety in our communities. Since taking office, President Trump has delivered on this promise. Despite the incredible efforts by this administration to secure our border and remove criminal aliens from our country, Democratic mayors have doubled down on their failed sanctuary city policies that harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement. In my home State of Minnesota, the local SBA office is based in the city of Minneapolis, and it is responsible for serving all 87 counties throughout Minnesota. For years, Minneapolis has passed several sanctuary city policies while at one point attempting to defund its own police department, further jeopardizing public safety. My legislation, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, would require the Small Business Administration to relocate its offices out of sanctuary city jurisdictions to better ensure that resources benefit American small businesses in rural communities without being entangled in local policies that promote lawlessness. Our small business owners and those who rely on the SBA for loans, disaster relief, and support deserve access to these services in a safe, secure environment. This bill would codify two of President Trump's executive orders: Protect SBA employees, and safeguard the entrepreneurs who fuel our economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the idea that quoting somebody means that you like them is kind of absurd. I quote Trump a lot, and I could assure the Speaker that he is not anywhere on my top two-millionth list of people who I like. In any event, earlier today, Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I point out that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office put out new estimates on the Republicans' tax scam, which shows that this bill is even worse than we thought, if that is even possible. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the new CBO cost estimate into the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. SUMMARY--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 1, THE ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT, AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON MAY 22, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2025-2029 2025-2034 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ INCREASES OR DECREASES (-) IN DIRECT SPENDING OUTLAYS, REVENUES, AND DEFICITS Title I. Committee on Agriculture: Estimated Outlays............... 453 -12,597 -16,168 -30,026 -30,058 -29,094 -28,121 -30,535 -30,874 -31,065 -88,396 -238,085 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Effect on the Deficit....... 453 -12,597 -16,168 -30,026 -30,058 -29,094 -28,121 -30,535 -30,874 -31,065 -88,396 -238,085 Title II. Committee on Armed Services: Estimated Outlays............... 1,957 40,299 42,019 23,548 16,779 9,367 4,878 2,889 1,514 742 124,602 143,992 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Effect on the Deficit....... 1,957 40,299 42,019 23,548 16,779 9,367 4,878 2,889 1,514 742 124,602 143,992 Title III. Committee on Education and Workforce: Estimated Outlays............... -197,940 -14,271 -12,706 -12,649 -15,714 -18,455 -19,118 -19,236 -19,422 -19,591 -253,280 -349,102 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Effect on the Deficit....... -197,940 -14,271 -12,706 -12,649 -15,714 -18,455 -19,118 -19,236 -19,422 -19,591 -253,280 -349,102 Title IV. Committee on Energy and Commerce: Estimated Outlays............... -1,145 -28,487 -66,042 -95,483 -111,573 -128,936 -146,869 -153,462 -149,810 -145,436 -302,730 -1,027,243 Estimated Revenues.............. -26 -231 4,045 6,441 8,640 9,942 12,025 13,220 4,120 171 18,869 58,347 Net Effect on the Deficit....... -1,119 -28,256 -70,087 -101,924 -120,213 -138,878 -158,894 -166,682 -153,930 -145,607 -321,599 -1,085,590 On-Budget Deficit............... -1,126 -28,509 -70,701 -102,952 -121,294 -139,990 -160,050 -167,908 -155,221 -146,962 -324,582 -1,094,713 Off-Budget Deficit.............. 7 253 614 1,028 1,081 1,112 1,156 1,226 1,291 1,355 2,983 9,123 Title V. Committee on Financial Services: Estimated Outlays............... -16 -352 -800 -926 -948 -973 -1,013 -1,090 -1,160 -1,200 -3,042 -8,478 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 -473 -724 -720 -752 1,081 -410 -427 -443 -455 -2,669 -3,323 Net Effect on the Deficit....... -16 121 -76 -206 -196 -2,054 -603 -663 -717 -745 -373 -5,155 Title VI. Committee on Homeland Security: Estimated Outlays............... * 2,488 9,218 14,008 13,995 13,623 11,145 7,984 4,556 2,130 39,709 79,147 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Effect on the Deficit....... * 2,488 9,218 14,008 13,995 13,623 11,145 7,984 4,556 2,130 39,709 79,147 Title VII. Committee on the Judiciary: Estimated Outlays............... * 6,426 10,277 15,080 18,795 13,657 8,207 2,625 -530 -1,122 50,578 -73,415 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 2,394 5,916 6,193 6,990 8,004 8,397 8,635 8,872 9,008 21,493 -64,409 Net Effect on the Deficit....... * 4,032 4,361 8,887 11,805 5,653 -190 -6,010 -9,402 -10,130 29,085 9,006 Title VIII. Committee on Natural Resources: Estimated Outlays............... -122 -321 -499 -1,269 -1,300 -1,930 -2,129 -2,480 -3,227 -3,866 -3,511 -17,143 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 65 130 130 135 140 140 145 150 150 460 1,185 Net Effect on the Deficit....... -122 -386 -629 -1,399 -1,435 -2,070 -2,269 -2,625 -3,377 -4,016 -3,971 -18,328 [[Page H2435]] Title IX. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Estimated Outlays............... 0 40 -6 -223 -597 -965 -1,296 -1,545 -1,742 -1,899 -786 -8,233 Estimated Revenues.............. 8 64 160 258 359 459 563 668 775 887 849 4,201 Net Effect on the Deficit....... -8 -24 -166 -481 -956 -1,424 -1,859 -2,213 -2,517 -2,786 -1,635 -12,434 On-Budget Deficit............... -8 -21 -169 -481 -956 -1,424 -1,859 -2,213 -2,517 -2,786 -1,635 -12,434 Off-Budget Deficit.............. 0 -3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Title X. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Estimated Outlays............... -612 536 1,642 3,809 5,060 4,388 3,924 3,674 3,354 1,974 10,435 27,749 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 423 1,742 3,405 5,230 7,064 8,815 10,660 12,556 14,414 10,800 64,309 Net Effect on the Deficit....... -612 113 -100 404 -170 -2,676 -4,891 -6,986 -9,202 -12,440 -365 -36,560 Title XI. Committee on Ways and Means: Estimated Outlays............... 593 7,650 12,927 7,581 1,153 -6,785 -6,720 -7,764 -9,089 -10,152 29,907 -10,602 Estimated Revenues.............. -89,234 -483,642 -557,949 -551,520 -470,310 -298,373 -241,385 -294,641 -375,516 -402,413 -2,152,662 -3,764,990 Net Effect on the Deficit....... 89,827 491,292 570,876 559,101 471,463 291,588 234,665 286,877 366,427 392,261 2,182,569 3,754,388 On-Budget Deficit............... 89,827 491,109 570,448 558,409 470,578 290,616 233,629 285,781 365,267 391,030 2,180,377 3,746,702 Off-Budget Deficit.............. 0 183 428 692 885 972 1,036 1,096 1,160 1,231 2,192 7,686 Interactions Among Titles: Estimated Outlays............... 0 1,649 4,736 7,614 9,544 11,355 13,111 15,981 10,063 6,925 23,543 80,978 Estimated Revenues.............. 0 -75 -4,968 -9,106 -12,208 -14,505 -16,998 -18,782 -10,253 -7,077 -26,357 -93,972 Net Effect on the Deficit....... 0 1,724 9,704 16,720 21,752 25,860 30,109 37,763 20,316 14,002 49,900 174,950 Total Changes: Estimated Outlays............... -196,832 -3,060 -15,402 -68,936 -94,864 -134,748 -164,001 -182,959 -196,367 -202,560 -372,971 -1,253,605 Estimated Revenues.............. -89,525 -481,475 -551,648 -544,919 -461,916 -286,188 -228,853 -280,522 -359,739 -385,315 -2,129,217 -3,669,834 Net Effect on the Deficit....... -107,580 484,535 536,246 475,983 367,052 151,440 -64,852 -97,563 163,372 182,755 1,756,246 2,416,229 On-Budget Deficit............... -107,587 484,102 535,201 474,263 365,086 149,356 62,660 95,241 160,921 180,169 1,751,071 2,399,420 Off-Budget Deficit.............. 7 433 1,045 1,720 1,966 2,084 2,192 2,322 2,451 2,586 5,175 16,809 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. *=between zero and $500,000. Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. In keeping with reconciliation instructions from the House Committee on the Budget, this estimate reflects CBO's January 2025 baseline projections updated to reflect enacted legislation and administrative and judicial actions. It includes budgetary effects through fiscal year 2034. This estimate incorporates interactions among provisions within each title. (Budgetary effects of interactions among titles are shown on the "Interactions Among Titles" tab.) Because of the magnitude of its estimated budgetary effects, H.R. 1 is considered major legislation as defined in House Rule XIII(8). That rule requires cost estimates, to the extent practicable, to account for the budgetary implications of certain bills' macroeconomic effects. CBO has not yet completed an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of H.R. 1 or their additional budgetary effects. The revenues and outlays of the Social Security trust funds and the net cash flow of the Postal Service are classified as off-budget. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, stipulates that revenue estimates provided by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) will be the official estimates for all tax legislation considered by the Congress. As such, CBO incorporates those estimates into its cost estimates of the effects of legislation. The estimates for the revenue provisions of some sections of the legislation were provided by JCT. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase by 10.9 million the number of people without health insurance in 2034. That total includes an estimated 1.4 million people without verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status who would no longer be covered in state-only funded programs in 2034. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would lower gross benchmark premiums, on average, in marketplace plans established by the Affordable Care Act by an estimated 12.2 percent in 2034. (That is, the premiums for the plans used to determine premium tax credits, but before those credits are accounted for.) Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the document shows that the Republican bill, the bill that the gentlewoman supported, will blow a massive hole in our deficit, costing taxpayers close to $3 trillion over the next decade. Here is what is particularly galling: The Republicans' bill would also kick more than 15 million people off of their healthcare through devastating cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, including the millions of Americans who will lose coverage on the exchanges once Republicans let the premium tax credits expire. This isn't me saying it. This is the CBO saying it, that the majority's bill is going to throw millions and millions of our fellow citizens off of their healthcare. Republicans are doing it and are going forward with it like it is no big deal. At the same time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are giving a tax break to billionaires. Why, again, are Republicans adding trillions to our debt and kicking millions off of their healthcare? Again, it is to hand out $3.7 trillion in tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit billionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations. It pains me to say that I agree with Elon Musk on some of his criticisms here, but the Republican tax scam really is a disgusting abomination. Mr. Speaker, I urge people who watch this debate not to take my word for it and not to take the gentlewoman's word for it but to actually google CBO. Look up what the facts are. The facts, quite frankly, are damning. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025, which would block the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off of these lifesaving programs. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans jammed through their multitrillion-dollar budget scam by a one-vote margin--a one-vote margin--and now we are learning that some Republicans didn't even know what was in the bill, which is inexcusable. Yet, that is what they are claiming publicly. Let me remind my colleagues: Republicans are giving more tax breaks for billionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations, while lower income Americans are made worse off through the largest cuts to healthcare and food assistance in our Nation's history. This is the biggest cut to our nutrition programs in the history of our country. Again, Elon Musk called this bill a disgusting abomination, but it is not too late. Republicans can still correct their grave injustice and vote to protect healthcare and SNAP for millions of Americans by voting to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Olszewski). Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts for the time and for offering this bill, which is simple. It would block any budget reconciliation language in the House or Senate that reduces Medicaid or SNAP benefits. In other words, it would block any legislation that would unnecessarily increase human suffering and that would harm fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, this is day No. 152 of the 119th Congress, and American families have seen no relief. Instead, this Republican majority is poised to make things worse through the reconciliation process. In pushing $300 billion in cuts to food support, congressional Republicans will make groceries even more expensive for the 42 million families already struggling to put food on the table every day. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of these households include a child, a senior, a disabled person, or a veteran. Let that sink in. SNAP provides $6 a day in food assistance to hungry Americans. It is a small amount, but it is enough, Mr. Speaker, to lift millions of Americans out of poverty and to create a foundation of health and well- being. Just $6 a [[Page H2436]] day can create a pathway to opportunity. {time} 1245 Republicans want to take food away from hungry people, not to balance the budget. We know the bill actually increases the deficit by nearly $3 trillion, and they are not doing it to better serve our veterans. The bill actually reduces funding for our vets, too. Republicans are doing this to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest of individuals and big corporations. If that is not enough, the House Republican bill slashes nearly every bit of Medicaid funding needed, $1 trillion, taking away healthcare from 14 million Americans, including children, mothers, seniors, and low-income families. Many will die. While a Senate colleague correctly pointed out this week that, yes, death is inevitable, we should not actively work to expedite it. I would hope and pray that we can all agree on that point. We are public servants. We are called to lead with compassion, to feed the hungry, and to care for the sick. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Mr. Speaker, there isn't a single Member of Congress who doesn't represent families who rely on SNAP or Medicaid to make ends meet. It is simple. These cuts will lead to suffering, and we must stop them. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring this important legislation to the floor. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about what we are talking about. The notion that my colleagues are really considering voting against the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act is baffling to me. Really, I think it all shows that they hate President Trump so much that they are willing to vote against legislation that would help communities combat opioid abuse. They want to stick to their anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points and avoid talking about the bills that are in front of us. I would like them to try taking that message, the message that they refuse to provide resources to their communities to combat opioid abuse, back to their constituents. This bill brings resources to our constituents to combat opioid abuse. That is what we are talking about. It is that simple. They can hate the President, or they don't have to, but don't let these people facing substance addiction and our communities suffer for their talking points. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentlewoman by saying that I don't know how Democrats are going to vote. I think some will vote for the bill, and some will vote against the bill. What people are really upset about is the fact that we are bringing a bill to reauthorize programs that, as we speak, Donald Trump is cutting. My friends on the other side of the aisle are saying not a damn thing. This is what the American people hate about Congress, when Members of Congress get up and say one thing and then do another thing. He is trying to eliminate SAMHSA. He is firing people as we speak. I mean, every State is being negatively impacted by this. I supported these programs and this reauthorization in the past. I support the underlying programs, but I am furious that as we are having this debate, making believe to the American people that somehow we are on their side and that we are fighting substance use disorder, fighting addiction and the opioid crisis, and that we are really serious about this, while we are having this debate, the President of the United States and this administration are gutting these very programs, and my friends are saying not a damn thing. Maybe the gentlewoman supports what the President is doing. Maybe she supports gutting these programs, but I don't. I don't, and if you truly support what these bills are authorizing, you would be screaming as loud as we are. This is bad for our constituents. This is bad for our country. We have made progress in my home State of Massachusetts in reducing the number of opioid-related deaths. We can point directly to some of these programs that have made a real difference, but as we are speaking right now, these things are being undermined. That is what has us so upset. I mean, let's make no mistake about it. We, in a bipartisan way, moved these programs forward in the past. That is because we believed it was all real, that it wasn't fake, wasn't show business. What is happening here is not real. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes). The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair. Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to talk about an issue that touches every community in this country, mental health. More than one in five adults in the United States lives with a mental illness. These are our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and family members. For many of us, the issue is deeply personal. Whether one lives in a big city or a small town, almost everyone has a person in their life who is struggling. Chances are that they know someone who has struggled or that they could be struggling themselves. In Ohio, we have seen just how urgent this crisis has become. We have only about half of the mental health behavioral workforce that we need to meet the demand. In fact, there is just one psychiatrist for every 6,000 Ohioans. That is not just a workforce problem. That is a public health emergency. The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act would authorize hundreds of millions of dollars and much-needed Federal funding to address this crisis. It also includes my bipartisan legislation, the Mental Health Improvement Act, which provides tens of millions of dollars annually to expand our behavioral health workforce, helping to train, recruit, and retain mental health professionals across the country. It is a commonsense solution that will bring resources directly to communities like mine and yours, Mr. Speaker, helping to address addiction, reduce suicide, and ensure more Americans get the care they need when they need it. It is important that this program and others that are included in this bill actually reach the communities that desperately need the assistance. That is why I urge my colleagues to not only pass this bipartisan legislation but also to continue to advocate for its implementation. Just a few weeks ago, I visited a federally qualified health center in my district. It is called the I Promise Health Quarters, which is supported by the LeBron James Family Foundation. In a meeting with the behavioral health services there, they said they don't have enough people to work for the need that is in our community. This bill would be able to help it. While we have worked with and come up with a serious solution to this crisis, the administration has proposed cuts and fired hundreds of workers at agencies that are supposed to implement these very programs. This is unacceptable, undermining the Medicaid program and getting people kicked off. I can't even support this really great underlying bill because of the funding mechanisms. This is unacceptable, and this is why we must show the American people that we have put partisanship aside and put people first. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio. Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, we can deliver meaningful results. We need to put programs in place that will help our citizens, save lives, and keep our communities safe. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues on the other side have been using the same anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points for months and months, and I understand that they don't like what the House Republicans are doing and don't like what the [[Page H2437]] President is doing, but the American people do. Poll after poll is showing that an increasing number of people now believe this country is heading in the right direction. A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that this is the first time in 20 years that the majority of respondents have felt that way. Go ahead and vote against these things that will increase work to stop the opioid crisis, curb wasteful spending of the American taxpayer dollar, and address illegal immigration, but know that it will be a vote against the will of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), another colleague of mine. Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, this is an important topic. As a former police officer in Duluth, Minnesota, one of the worst calls an officer can get is an overdose. When they go there, the individual is deceased. They make sure that it was an overdose, that nothing else took the life of that individual. Then, they have to formulate a plan on how they are going to notify mom or dad or the next of kin. That is the most gut-wrenching thing a law enforcement officer can do. It is like rock slag. It is very hard to do that, to knock on that door. They are about to give a loved one the worst news ever. The officer knocks on a door, and a loved one opens the door and sees a police officer in full uniform. They know something is up, and then, the officer has to tell them, has to be straight up with them, that their son or daughter or their loved one died. The first question is how. Mr. So-and-so, Mrs. So-and-so, we believe it was a drug overdose. The toxicology test will confirm, but we believe it was a drug overdose. Then, all holy you-know-what breaks out in the house, from crying tears to frustration at the individual who delivered the worst news in their lifetime. They never forget that police officer, what he or she looked like, the demeanor he or she had, what they smelled like, what time of day it was, how hard the knock was, how many times you rang the doorbell. Mr. Speaker, it is tough. This is a very good bill to stop drug overdoses. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for the record, again, what we are objecting to is the fact that all the programs that are contained in this bill that are being authorized are being gutted by this administration, and my friends are saying nothing about it. That is the ultimate kind of cynical maneuver. I mean, this administration is cutting money for first responder training, cutting money for pregnant and postpartum women, cutting programs to help prevent children from going down the road to addiction, cutting programs to track opioids, and cutting comprehensive opioid care centers. They are proposing that they be totally eliminated. I mean, we are having this debate while, as we speak, they are gutting these programs, and my friends are saying nothing, like, ``No, everything is great.'' Give me a break. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove). Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding to me. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the divisive, destructive bills that it brings to the floor, especially H.R. 2931, the so-called Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act, because, in reality, this bill doesn't save anything. It continues to eviscerate small businesses in order to benefit the greediest, biggest corporations and their CEOs, who don't even need the Small Business Administration. Do you know who does? Small businesses that just want customers, employees, and the chance that SBA affords them to attain success. This bill actually punishes small businesses and immigrant communities to score cheap political points, forcing the SBA to close or relocate offices in cities like Los Angeles, my home, simply because we refuse to bend a knee to the President and to MAGA Republicans' anti-immigrant agenda, which is about retaliation, not good governance. Immigrants start businesses, and do you know what? They hire other immigrants. Do you know who benefits? Everyone because they are paying taxes, hiring our neighbors, delivering a service, and growing our economy. L.A. is home to over 244,000 businesses. Is the goal for this administration to shut all those businesses down, the red businesses, blue businesses, and independent businesses, because there is a problem with L.A. and because the administration doesn't like immigrants? They are businesses like Dulan's, a family-owned business in my district that has been open for 30 years. After the L.A. urban fires, they fed victims. They need and deserve SBA, as do the millions of small businesses like them. This bill gives them the finger on top of the chaos of the TACO taxes. I am urging a ``no'' vote on the rule and the cruel, unnecessary legislation that it brings forward. This is an alternate reality, this floor, when I am hearing from Republican colleagues who are not talking at all about the millions of Americans who are going to be harmed by these destructive bills. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1300 Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman doesn't want me to talk about Elon or what Elon said, but we are going to talk about it anyway. Mr. Speaker, as Elon Musk said: Trump's one big, beautiful GOP tax scam is a ``disgusting abomination.'' Let me break it down for you and for the American people. Here are 10 of the most egregious abominations in this bill. One, the GOP tax scam is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest in our country. We are talking about investment and hedge fund managers paying a lower tax rate than regular income earners like schoolteachers or firefighters. It would cut taxes for the top 5 percent of taxpayers while reducing critical resources for the poorest households, setting off what would be the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history. Two, Trump's bill guts Medicaid and likely Medicare, too. If this bill is signed into law, we will expect to see widespread hospital closures, and 15 million individuals, including sick children, seniors, and the disabled could lose their healthcare coverage. Three, it raises costs for people on individual health insurance plans. Republicans' under-the-radar tweaks to the Affordable Care Act could increase health insurance premiums by hundreds of dollars and force tens of thousands of people out of the marketplace. Four, this bill attacks food stamps. Millions will lose access to their SNAP benefits, taking food off the plates of hungry families, seniors, and veterans. Five, it terminates the IRS Direct File program, a successful, free tax filing service that helped over 140,000 people file their taxes in 2024. Six, it increases fees on asylum seekers and dumps billions into Trump's mass deportation efforts. Seven, get this: The Republicans' bill is great for Big Oil and Gas. It turns over millions of acres of public lands to big corporate drillers and would allow them to pay to get their projects rubber- stamped without any input from the public. Eight, it guts green energy subsidies, including investments in renewable energy projects that are already underway. Nine, it blocks State AI regulations in a giveaway to Big Tech, completely trampling over State legislatures. Ten, it scraps nearly a century-long tax on gun silencers. Who does that? Who does that? It is truly horrendous. We have a gun violence epidemic, and the Republicans want to make it easier for dangerous people to access deadly gun attachments. Mr. Speaker, clearly this tax scam bill is no good, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will clarify some things. My colleague continues to talk about the tax bill, which is not actually in front of us right now. We are talking about different things. I do feel [[Page H2438]] the need to address that in that tax bill that he is talking about, in the reconciliation bill that he trashes and says that it is tax breaks for billionaires. I will just use my district as an example. In my district, in the Seventh District of Minnesota, the reconciliation bill that he opposes would prevent a 25 percent tax hike for most people in my district where the average income is $70,000, not billionaires, $70,000. It also increases the standard deduction. It increases the child tax credit. It helps small businesses through the 199A deduction. This is a solid tax bill. We looked at what we can do to help the average citizen in the country, and we made sure that it was a solid tax bill. I just wanted to make sure that we are correcting some of the talking points that the Democrats are using because this does provide tax breaks for the middle income. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about people in the gentlewoman's district in Minnesota. I point this out because I am learning that a lot of Republicans didn't read what was in the bill, so let me just provide some information for her. Under this bill, 5,800 people would lose coverage under the Affordable Care Act in her district alone; 15,367 in her district alone would lose Medicaid coverage; 21,167 people in her district alone would lose their health insurance outright. I mean, really? Is that what representation is all about? Please. That is what is in this bill that most of you never read. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury). Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I find it laughable that for the last several decades, the GOP has branded themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and economic development when they are trying to pass a bill right now that would blow a hole through the deficit, $37 trillion over 30 years, while they are trying to gut the infrastructure that helps small businesses survive. They have attacked the Small Business Administration. They have a bill on the floor this week that would take SBA out of our communities. They slashed the New Mexico Minority Business Development Agency. We are talking about millions of dollars in lost revenue. They paused Job Corps and are going to cut it in communities across the country. They have gutted funding for NGOs and paused funding on the IRA. They are trying to directly attack our small businesses. Now, when I think about the impacts of these cuts, I cannot do so without thinking of John Garcia, who has been the director of SBA for the last 8 years. He is a Vietnam veteran who has dedicated 40 years of his life to ensuring that our communities and our veterans have the resources they need to thrive, and yet DOGE didn't care. Elon Musk didn't care because he is one of those Federal employees, who just a few months ago was planning to do an expansive economic development plan across the State of New Mexico when he received the fork-in-the- road letter. These are real people's lives, and you all are standing around here clowning us, pretending like you actually care about the American people and the economy and the deficit, and it is just a lie. You are running a scam on the American people. You are running a scam on yourselves, and you are hurting real people. Mr. Speaker, I stand against this rule and the bill that it would advance. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stauber). Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I always have to take the opportunity to correct things. What we are doing in the reconciliation bill--because this bill in front of us is not what they are talking about because they have digressed into Democrat anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points, but I do have to make a few things clear. In the reconciliation bill for Medicaid, we have for able-bodied individuals without dependents, there is a work requirement. That work requirement could also be schooling or it can be community engagement. We will be removing illegal immigrants who should not be on Medicaid. We also are looking at that waste, fraud, and abuse. The people that will be removed should not have been on Medicaid in the first place. They shouldn't have been on the rolls. We are not removing people that need Medicaid because those people who need it will be getting it. It is that work requirement, the illegal immigrants, and those who should not have been on it in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlewoman that, according to CBO, undocumented immigrants are not receiving Federal funds for Medicaid. My colleagues should read CBO. Don't listen to your Republican talking points. Actually read the stuff that we pay people to provide to us with the information to make sure we have the facts. Mr. Speaker, these bills are not stand-alone ideas. They are part of a larger Republican playbook, one that protects the powerful and punishes the rest. It is more tax breaks for billionaires, more crumbs for working people, more favors for Wall Street, more struggles for Main Street, more cruelty towards the vulnerable, more indifference to anyone who isn't writing a campaign check. We have never seen pay-to-play as much as we have seen in this Congress and in this administration. This isn't governing. It is greed. It is corruption and cruelty masquerading as policy. The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this dark vision. The idea that you could take healthcare away from people is unconscionable and that you will do so with a straight face is unconscionable. This big, ugly bill is a disgrace. Today, you are attacking small businesses and you are attacking programs that help combat drug abuse addiction in this country. Vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will take an unorthodox step and associate myself with the remarks of one of my Democrat colleagues from New Mexico in the Rules Committee last night. What is astonishing is that my Democrat colleague finally admitted what we have been telling the American people for weeks. As I mentioned, we are talking about the illegal immigrants in light of the CBO score that 1.4 million illegal immigrants are, indeed, on the rolls of State healthcare systems. Now, our colleague tried to take us down a rabbit hole, and she ended up twisting herself in knots to find the terminology to aid her in the talking points. The latest argument, apparently, to hide the fact that illegal immigrants are accessing Medicaid is that they are only accessing State health systems, not the Medicaid program. I will point out in a news flash that Medicaid is a State administered program that supports State health systems. Mr. Speaker, don't take it from me. Let me quote the Congressional Research Service: ``Medicaid is a joint Federal-State program . . . The Federal Government requires States to cover certain mandatory populations and services,'' but ``allows States to cover other optional populations and services.'' Due to this flexibility, there is substantial State variation in ``factors such as Medicaid eligibility, covered benefits, and provider payment rates.'' In addition, several waivers and demonstration authorities and statutes ``allow States to operate their Medicaid programs outside of [certain] Federal rules.'' Now, even Democrats are admitting that Medicaid dollars are being used to benefit illegal immigrants and that is what we are trying to stop, the draining of this program of funds that are intended to help American citizens in need. Mr. Speaker, as expected, my colleagues are unable to focus on the task [[Page H2439]] at hand. Instead, they want to continue their fear-mongering and falsehoods about what is in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. For the record, again: It does not cut Medicaid for any U.S. citizen who needs it. It does strengthen the system and makes sure it benefits the people who really need it. We need to be responsible to the taxpayers, and we are going after waste, fraud, and abuse. I will say it, again: Anyone who needs Medicaid will have it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has the only time remaining. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as expected, my colleagues deviated completely from the task at hand today, and instead, like I said earlier, they wanted to continue these attacks on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As I have mentioned repeatedly, Medicaid is not cut for those who need it. We are ensuring that American taxpayer dollars are going to help American businesses. The American Entrepreneurs First Act does not prevent people with temporary visas or other legal immigrant statuses from holding jobs at American businesses or from owning their own small businesses. It just says that if you want support from American tax dollars, you need to be an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Mr. Speaker, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act further supports that mission, a mission that the majority of Americans support, to end pro-illegal immigration policies by showing these cities that the SBA is serious and is going to move its offices if sanctuary cities do not start following Federal law. {time} 1315 Mr. Speaker, we are here to further the great work that is being done by our communities to put a stop to the terrible overdose and substance abuse issues in this country through the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act. I do not believe that there is a person in this Chamber who does not see this as one of the most serious issues facing our Nation today. I support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 458 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules or their rspective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2753. Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. ____________________ |