[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.

____________________