We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
23 public bills, H.R. 3504- 3526; and 5 resolutions, H. Res. 430-434, were introduced.
Pages H2197-98
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H.R. 1, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14 (H. Rept. 119-106).
Page H2197
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Miller-Meeks to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2149
Recess
The House recessed at 11:22 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H2157
Committee Elections
The House agreed to H. Res. 430, electing Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.
Page H2158
Recess
The House recessed at 1:09 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Page H2166
Suspension: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure. Consideration began Monday, May 19th. Accelerating Networking, Cyberinfrastructure, and Hardware for Oceanic Research Act: H.R. 1223, to require a plan to improve the cybersecurity and telecommunications of the U.S. Academic Research Fleet, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 412 yeas to 11 nays, Roll No. 136.
Page H2168
Recess
The House recessed at 3:39 p.m. and reconvened at 5 p.m.
Page H2177
Suspension: Proceedings Postponed
The House debated the following measure under suspension of the rules. Further proceedings were postponed. No Wrong Door for Veterans Act: H.R. 1969, amended, to amend and reauthorize the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Pages H2175-77
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act: The House passed S.J. Res. 13, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act, by a yea-and-nay vote of 220 yeas to 207 nays, Roll No. 137.
Pages H2159-66, H2168-75, H2177-78
H. Res. 426, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 13) and (S.J. Res. 31) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 210 ayes to 208 noes, Roll No. 135, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 207 nays, Roll No. 134.
Pages H2159-66, H2166-68
Quorum Calls: Votes
Three yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2166-67, H2167-68, H2168 and H2177-78. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 155 of 201 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mike Lyczak.
Mike grew up in the Little Village community in Chicago. Like many of us, his politics were shaped by firsthand experience--fighting discrimination, Chicago machine politics and rule, and standing up for working people.
Mike wasn't just a political strategist. He was a founding architect of multiethnic, multiracial coalitions and solidarity in Chicago. He helped build the 22nd Ward Independent Political Organization, pouring his energy into electing Rudy Lozano and Harold Washington and into building a movement that could outlast any one campaign.
Mike's love for history and model-making reflected his meticulous mind. His wit brightened every room. He was a beloved husband to the late Caroline Downs and a devoted father to Benjamin Lyczak.
Mike will be deeply missed, but his legacy of courage and solidarity will live on in all of us.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against the Republican budget, a cynical plan that gives tax breaks to billionaires while ripping away healthcare and food from working families like those I represent.
This Republican tax scam would kick nearly 14 million Americans off their healthcare, leaving them without coverage.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, a mother working nights and caring for her family by day told us that she doesn't know how they will survive if Medicaid is cut.
Her child relies on it for epilepsy medication. Without it, there is no safety net. It is just fear and uncertainty. This budget slashes Medicaid and SNAP, taking food from children, from seniors, from veterans, and people with disabilities. Even Republican Senators called it morally wrong.
In my district alone, 278,000 people rely on these programs. Republicans want to take that away. We can't allow them to continue to loot this country dry. America was not built for billionaires to hoard wealth while kids go hungry. Tax them fairly and fully now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Trump administration's double tax on remittances. This is part of a broader war on working-class immigrants that punishes those who contribute the most to our national economy.
When immigrants send money home, they are not just helping loved ones. They are keeping entire communities afloat in countries like Mexico, Nigeria, and the Philippines.
By cutting off vital support to families abroad, this tax deepens poverty. It weakens stability. It drives more people to migrate out of desperation. Instead of asking the ultrawealthy to pay what they owe, they are shifting the burden to the people who can least afford it.
Undocumented immigrants alone pay $580 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes to our country, more than some of the ultrarich who claim patriotism but hide under their wealth and abuse the system.
It is a double standard that undermines our economy and our values. This isn't just bad policy. It is an unjust double tax on the very people who power our economy and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I take the floor of the people's House in memory of the late Danny Ryan, or ``Budzo'' to those who were lucky enough to have known him.
Danny Ryan passed away earlier this month. His absence, like his presence, has left a profound impact on all the people and communities he touched throughout his nearly 82 years of life.
Danny Ryan was born in the Savin Hill section of Dorchester in the city of Boston, Massachusetts, and remained devoted to the community throughout his life.
He was involved in Dorchester youth sports. Danny volunteered in youth soccer before it was popular, and coached Little League. He was a huge supporter of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Dorchester. He coached girls' basketball.
Danny performed a thousand other acts of kindness, often with his special needs family members Michael or Rocco in tow, the kinds of things that would turn a cluster of three-deckers with people speaking seven different languages into a single community.
Danny's official title was court officer for the Boston Municipal Court. For over 30 years, Budzo's job was to stand in court at the judge's elbow, ostensibly as security. In reality, he was a witness as every sad, sorry, or sinister episode on the court's calendar that day proceeded to judgment.
That experience put Danny in a position to see humanity at its worst moments day after day and arraignment after arraignment: Abject poverty, broken families, homelessness, domestic violence, gang violence, much of it was fueled by a desperate lack of opportunity and a numbing level of substance abuse. It was enough to make anyone lose hope.
While the court may have rendered judgment, Danny Ryan did not. It appeared to have the opposite effect on Danny. It seemed to open his heart. Many believed that it was through that experience that Danny found his true purpose in life. He figured it out. He often recited the fact that 90 percent of the cases that came before the court and 90 percent of the sentenced individuals had underlying substance abuse issues that were really at the root of their offensive behavior.
He had this idea that if he could just get at the source of that substance abuse disorder and fix that problem, the other stuff either went away or became more manageable.
Danny didn't just preach sobriety. He lived by example. Danny was sober for over 51 years, and he was extremely proud and grateful to be part of the wider recovery community.
For over 15 years, Danny was on the board of directors for the Gavin Foundation, a hugely successful substance abuse treatment program. He played a big role in helping the Gavin Foundation expand and diversify their services into different populations across the city and to the city of Quincy.
During AA meetings, Danny was always the first to welcome new members and offer them help and guidance on their journey. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Danny Ryan helped keep families together and saved hundreds of lives. He became transformed into someone whose purpose and passion in life was for helping others.
No matter what their situation, he treated everyone with dignity and respect. If someone needed help, meeting them or going halfway was never enough. He made it his business to go out of his way to assist those in need.
Danny was a proud graduate of Boston College High School and a recipient of their Paul J. Hunter Man for Others Award. It is given to people who demonstrate high moral character and a strong sense of service to others. That was Danny. In fact, one of his favorite mottoes to live by was: Try to help three people a day.
Danny and his wife, Dorothy, have four beautiful daughters: Melissa, Shannon, Danielle, and Kasey. He was a proud husband, father, grandfather, and was blessed with eight grandchildren.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I pray that Danny Ryan's life and his work might serve as an example to us all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete outrage, not just in opposition, to this Republican budget bill. Behind the talking points, behind the smug press conferences, very deep in the fine print, it is all there.
Mr. Speaker, 13.7 million Americans will lose their healthcare, and millions of families will see their food assistance taken away. That is not my opinion. Those are the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.
Republicans tell you: Don't worry. No one is losing coverage. We are not cutting SNAP.
Understand they are lying to you, and they know it. This bill is so shameful that they are moving forward at 1 a.m. in the morning, tonight, in the dead of night.
Why? They are doing that because they hope we are asleep. They don't want us paying attention. They don't want us to know what they are, in fact, truly doing. They hope we are not watching, and they hope no one notices until it is too late.
Texans are paying attention, and I am here to sound the alarm on this outrageous bill. In Texas, over 5 million people depend on Medicaid. They are children with disabilities, working moms, and aging parents in nursing homes. These cuts will lead to fewer doctors, longer wait times, and hospitals closing. Yes, people will die because they can't get the care that they need.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about Stephanie, a mom from Richardson, Texas. Her son was born with spina bifida. His entire life depends on the care they get through an emergency Medicaid waiver. This is his equipment, his treatment, and his survival. Republicans in this Chamber will take that care away from Stephanie's 11-year-old son.
For what? Why are we doing this? Why are we causing so much pain across so many families in this country who depend on support for basic needs?
It is so that Trump and his friends can have a huge tax cut.
The other thing that is deeply concerning is we have an incredibly large deficit, and all the Republicans peacock around, parading about how atrocious the deficit is. This bill is going to add $4 trillion to the deficit. It is not conservative. It is not principally, financially prudent, responsible legislation. It is outrageous and borderline criminal against the people of this country.
Let's talk about food assistance. Mr. Speaker, one in seven Texans rely on SNAP at a time when Trump's tariffs have made groceries more expensive than ever. Republicans want to take food off the tables of families who are just trying to get by.
This isn't about fiscal responsibility. It is about cruelty. It is about choosing hedge fund managers and people like Elon Musk over hungry kids.
Budgets are moral documents, and this one being put up by House Republicans is morally bankrupt. I will not vote for a bill that abandons families like Stephanie's and lets kids go hungry or that sells out our most vulnerable neighbors just to pay for another tax break for those who definitely do not need one.
Mr. Speaker, if you are a Member of this body who claims to care about life, liberty, or your own constituents, you should not vote for it either. If you show me your budget, I will show you your values.
Republicans have made their values crystal clear. They value a handful of wealthy people in this country over the millions of hardworking families who depend on the United States Government.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an educator, a force for justice, an unapologetic champion of our Chicago communities, and my friend, Stacy Davis Gates.
Stacy is a high school social studies teacher, a South Sider, a wife, and a mother. For many, she is best known as president of the Chicago Teachers Union and executive vice president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers.
Stacy's leadership has called us to bargain for our collective good and to think about how organized labor can win bold campaigns that build the schools, the communities, and the city that our children deserve.
In 2019, she helped lead a 15-day strike and negotiated a historic contract that ensured a nurse and a social worker in every Chicago public school. She secured sanctuary protections for immigrant families and supported students and families experiencing homelessness.
Putting Chicago's children at the center of everything she does, she has worked to build a collective of community, and she has elected to create opportunities for our communities, at times confronting corporate and charter interests head-on. She always puts our children at the center of what she does.
On behalf of the Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my sincere honor to commend Stacy Davis Gates for her dedication to educational equity in our city, in our State, and in our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friends and constituents, Madeline Talbott and Keith Kelleher, for a lifetime of labor organizing, community solidarity, and deep love.
Madeline Talbott spent 37 years building ACORN and Action Now with thousands of dues-paying members, helping to found the Fight for $15 in Chicago: a campaign that grew nationally and eventually brought $15 an hour to over 22 million workers across the country.
Keith Kelleher founded ULU Local 880 and eventually became president of SEIU Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas and international vice president of SEIU. He built the largest union local in Chicago and Illinois, from only 7 dues-paying members in 1983 to over 90,000 home care, childcare, and healthcare members today.
Madeline and Keith have been partners in love and organizing since 1979. They have left a lasting mark on community, labor, and political organizing. They have trained hundreds of people to ensure the movement continues. They have raised an incredible family, including their two daughters, Aileen and Ryan, who continue their organizing legacy.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my privilege to commend Madeline Talbott and Keith Kelleher for their exceptional contributions as organizers, and their exceptional commitment to our fight for justice.
Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate them.
Congratulating Victor Gomez, Illinois State Teacher of the Year
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent from Wheaton, Victor Gomez, for his achievement as one of 2025 Illinois State Teachers of the Year.
An educator in East Leyden High School, Victor Gomez is a passionate teacher, who for 6 years has transformed the lives of his students.
Through his commitment to bilingual education, he has created more welcoming and culturally competent classrooms where students are challenged and inspired to pursue their goals.
Mr. Gomez is also a mentor to aspiring bilingual educators. In partnership with Elmhurst University and the Noyce PRIDE STEM Teacher Scholars program, he empowers educators from diverse backgrounds to bring their wisdom, their voice, and their experience into the profession.
As a fluently bilingual Latina daughter of immigrants, I know the importance of having teachers and mentors who looked and sounded like me.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my privilege to commend Victor for nurturing equity in our classrooms, encouraging leadership in our communities, and building educators who reflect the diversity of our multiracial and multicultural democracy.
I congratulate Victor again on winning Illinois State Teacher of the Year. ``Congratulations''; ``felicidades.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a resolution honoring one of the most uncompromising voices for freedom in American history, abolitionist John Brown, on the occasion of the 225th anniversary of his birth.
Born on May 9 in the year 1800 in Connecticut, John Brown was a man who did not simply believe in the cause of abolition. He lived for it. He fought for it. Ultimately, he died for it.
From 1844 to 1854, John Brown and his family lived in Akron, Ohio, where he partnered in business with Colonel Simon Perkins, the son of the city's founder. In fact, the house that John Brown lived in was on the same street where I grew up. It was just a few hundred yards away. It was a constant and present reminder in my life to fight for what is right.
John Brown was so much more than a businessman. He was a freedom fighter. His home in Akron became a stop on the Underground Railroad where he harbored enslaved people who had escaped and sought safety and a new life in a more enlightened part of the world.
Later, in Springfield, Massachusetts, Brown used his wool warehouse as another station on the Underground Railroad. He offered dignity, protection, and skills to those who escaped slavery and freed men, including how to farm and sustain themselves in a new life free from bondage.
He used his wool business as a means to travel, to connect, and to advance the cause of abolition across State lines.
However, when Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which made it a Federal crime to aid a runaway slave and compelled even free States to enforce slavery, Brown took a very bold step.
He organized the League of Gileadites, encouraging African Americans to train in arms to defend their freedom against re-enslavement. He made clear: Freedom was not a privilege. It was a right worth defending.
In 1855, Brown and his sons traveled to Kansas, a territory torn by violent conflict over whether it would enter the Union as a free or a slave State. There he joined anti-slavery forces in what came to be known as Bleeding Kansas. He believed that slavery could not be voted away or reasoned away, it had to be confronted.
In October of 1859, John Brown led one of the most daring and polarizing actions in American history.
At Harpers Ferry, Virginia, he led a raid on the United States arsenal, intending to initiate a slave revolt. Although the raid ultimately failed and Brown was captured, tried, and executed, he succeeded in forcing a divided nation to confront the moral crisis of slavery.
Mr. Speaker, John Brown's methods remain the subject of debate, but the righteousness of his cause is not. He understood what so many were unwilling to admit, that slavery was a profound evil, this country's original sin, and that waiting for gradual change meant accepting the continued suffering of millions.
The House of Representatives now has the opportunity to formally recognize his legacy. This resolution honors and commemorates the 225th anniversary of John Brown's birth and recognizes the generational impact that John Brown had on the abolitionist movement and his enduring contributions to ending slavery in the United States of America. John Brown's life reminds us that moral courage often requires action, uncomfortable, unpopular, and even dangerous action. His legacy belongs not only to our past but to our ongoing struggling for justice today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, tonight in the middle of the night and in darkness, away from the view of the American people, hidden in some committee room in the Capitol, the Rules Committee will meet. They are scheduled to meet at 1 a.m. in the morning when Americans are sleeping and when families are resting awaiting the next day.
They are scheduled to meet to discuss at length Medicaid cuts. More than one-half of the residents in the district that I have the privilege to represent, the 13th Congressional District, encompassed by Harlem, east Harlem, Washington Heights, Inwood, and the northwest Bronx, more than
Mr. Speaker, this discussion that will be held in the middle of the night when most Americans will not be tuned in is a life-and-death discussion about cuts to perhaps the most important Federal program that impacts the daily health and life of people across the country, the Medicaid program.
Again, over 3 million New York City residents are also enrolled in the New York State Medicaid Pharmacy program, the so-called OTC program, the Over-the-Counter program, which allows coverage of prescription drugs and certain over-the-counter medication and goods, including food. So this is a life-and-death discussion that our Republican colleagues are having in the middle of the night after promising the American people that Medicaid will be safe from deep cuts.
Republicans have spent time and will spend time delivering a bill that will devastate--again, Mr. Speaker, will devastate Medicaid enrollment rates. This, again, will happen in the middle of the night. They are scheduled to meet at 1 a.m. in the morning.
Mr. Speaker, 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare, and safety net hospitals will be in danger of closing. Yes, even senior homes, nursing homes, will be facing severe cuts and potential closing, and people could die. This is a life-and-death discussion, Mr. Speaker. All of this is to pay for severe tax cuts for the very wealthy.
The bill will require harsh work requirements for Medicaid recipients. It will force people who are ill or sick to go to work to receive the benefits that the program offers that will terminate coverage for millions of low-income Americans including seniors, children, and veterans.
Republicans also have introduced a $300-million cut to the SNAP program, yes, on food stamps, which would impact 300,000 people in my district, many of them children and seniors who rely on the benefit to eat.
Mr. Speaker, 35 percent of them are children.
This will be the largest cut to the Food Stamp Program in our Nation's history. In the middle of the night, Republicans will cut Medicaid and will cut food stamps when people are not watching. This is nothing more than a GOP tax scam that gives billions of dollars in tax breaks to millionaires and gives nothing back to working-class families but empty stomachs and Medicaid debt to the working class.
Mr. Speaker, the billionaire wins and families lose with this bill. Let's fight back.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ANCHOR Act, a bipartisan bill to protect American maritime research and strengthen our national security.
The University of Delaware's research vessel, the Hugh R. Sharp, is a floating lab used by scientists and students to study everything from our ocean health to fisheries and coastal storms.
All of this is happening right off of the coast of Delaware. Right now, these vessels are often running on outdated technology, and that makes them sitting ducks for cyberattacks from hackers and foreign adversaries.
That is why I am proud to cosponsor the ANCHOR Act, which directs the National Science Foundation to develop a plan to upgrade cybersecurity and communications across the U.S. academic research fleet, including the Sharp. This is because a secure country relies on secure labs, even the ones at sea.
Protecting the Sharp and our entire academic research fleet helps Delaware track sea level rise and protect our coastal communities. This is a big deal for the lowest lying State in the Nation.
That is why I have also submitted a $1.5 million funding request to make sure the Sharp gets the upgrades that it needs.
The ANCHOR Act passed out of committee with bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to vote to get it over the finish line.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I joined veterans, families, and care providers to celebrate 75 years of service at the Wilmington VA Medical Center, a facility that provided 338,000 appointments last year alone. That is visits to a primary care doctor, a dentist, and drug and alcohol counseling. Every single one of those visits is fulfilling a sacred promise that the government has made to show up for those who have sacrificed for all of us.
As we head into Memorial Day weekend, we must recognize the responsibility that we have as elected officials, not just on Monday but every day of the year, to honor those who have given their last full measure of devotion by fulfilling our commitment to all of those who have served our country.
Our country has long recognized the value of service by promising our veterans that no matter who sits in the Oval Office or behind this dais, they will be cared for and protected.
However, today, that promise is in jeopardy. Nearly 6,000 veterans have already been summarily fired by the Trump administration, and now they are pushing a plan to lay off 80,000 of the very workers who process benefits and facilitate lifesaving care through the VA. Moreover, if that weren't enough, as I speak, congressional Republicans are continuing to advance a budget that would slash support for veterans, even further undermining healthcare, housing assistance, and food support.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: We don't support veterans by handing them a folded flag with one hand and cutting their lifelines with the other. More than 1.6 million veterans rely on Medicaid for their health coverage.
If House Republicans succeed in their slash-and-burn proposal, it will mean real harm for veterans and their families. My constituents are warning me, and they are right, that cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and VA services will fall hardest on disabled and aging veterans, especially in rural areas and communities of color.
House Republicans have chosen to unilaterally pursue a budget that puts tax cuts for billionaires ahead of care for the people who wore the uniform. That is not just bad budgeting, it is a betrayal of our promise.
Delaware's veterans and veterans across this country don't need slogans. They need support. They need stable housing. They need accessible healthcare. They need us to keep our promise to them. Veterans who fought for our country should not be forced to fight for the coverage and assistance that they earned long ago.
I didn't come to Congress to sanction cruelty. I came to keep our word, to ensure that the veterans I met at the Wilmington VA and the tens of thousands more across Delaware are treated not as political props but as patriots deserving dignity.
This Memorial Day, I urge my colleagues to follow the famous charge of President Lincoln. Any Nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure. No mission is more important or righteous.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shine light on a critical subject that impacts each one of us, as well as the ones we love: mental health.
Established by Congress in 1949, May was designated as Mental Health Awareness Month to increase awareness of the importance of mental health and wellness.
Mental health is about more than just illness. It is about well- being, resilience, and the ability to cope with various challenges we experience day to day. These challenges don't discriminate. They impact people of every age, background, and community. Many suffer in silence out of fear of being judged or misunderstood.
For many years, this topic was highly stigmatized, but this is, fortunately, changing. This month, I am honored to bring attention to it. Mental Health Awareness Month is part of that
In our great Buckeye State, we are grateful to have multiple resources available to help Ohioans in times of need. The Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction provides resources and readily available services with their Ohio CareLine available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to offer emotional support. By simply dialing 988, anyone in our Nation can access the national mental health hotline, which offers free and confidential support from trained counselors around the clock.
I thank our local mental health providers, support workers, and first responders for the critical work they do to intervene in times of need. Without their timely response and attentive care, our region could not be the healthy and supportive place it is today.
I recognize our local police officers, who are often the first ones on the scene of an emergency and the first wave of assistance for someone experiencing a mental health emergency. They are heroes, lifesavers, and an irreplaceable cornerstone in our communities who help Ohioans live their lives to the fullest.
With agriculture being the backbone of southern Ohio, our region is home to countless farmers, ranchers, and producers who work hard to secure our Nation's food supply and put food on our families' tables. They work long hours out in the fields, often on their own, trying to turn a crop and a profit in a challenging farming economy.
Being isolated from the resources that are available in more urban areas, farmers and farming families are facing a significant mental health challenge. With 96 percent of farms in Ohio's Second Congressional District being family farms, this demonstrates how close to home this issue hits my district.
With the devastatingly high rate of mental health challenges and substance abuse issues across our country, where a person lives shouldn't dictate their ability to access critical healthcare services.
Tragically, Ohio's Second Congressional District has the highest rate of unintentional drug overdoses in our entire State, which is often linked to mental health challenges. That is why I was proud to introduce the Rural Wellness Act in March of this year, which will reauthorize the prioritization of grants for telemedicine projects addressing behavioral and mental health, including substance abuse. These grants are part of the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Development's Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program. It will make mental health care services more accessible to those who need them.
Congress should pass this bill to deliver critical care to farmers and rural families who so desperately need it. However, in order to access telehealthcare services, Congress must also prioritize broadband expansion for our Nation's rural areas.
Rural families desperately need telehealthcare services. These are only accessible if families have internet access. Large swaths of my district lack access to high-speed internet, which means rural families are isolated from critical healthcare options, as well as business and education opportunities that could support families and alleviate some of the stress that providers are feeling.
Congress must tackle this problem holistically. In this case, getting broadband to our rural families could make the difference between life and death. All in all, expanded broadband access would lead to significant mental health benefits in our rural communities.
As we recognize Mental Health Awareness Month, may each of us take a moment to prioritize wellness and reach out to those around us who might need a helping hand.
I thank each friend, family member, teacher, community leader, or public servant who has lent their support to someone experiencing mental health challenges for their service. It is because of people like them that communities are safer, healthier, and more supportive places to live.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the more than 28,000 farms that engage in agritourism across the country, 1,500 of which are in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Agritourism, for those who don't know, is exactly what it sounds like. We are bringing tourists to farms or agricultural venues and offering experiences related to farming, rural life, and food.
From wineries like Stone Tower in Leesburg, farm breweries like Wheatland Spring in Waterford, you-picks like Great Country Farms in Bluemont, and llama and alpaca farms like Double 8 Alpaca & Llama Ranch in Purcellville, agritourism offers growing opportunities for farms to diversify their revenues, connect with our communities, and become more resilient.
Agritourism isn't just a trend or fad. It is an economic imperative for many farmers.
In Virginia alone, agriculture is our number one industry, but the majority of farmers are not full-time farmers. They need ways to pay for taxes and maintenance of their land, and agritourism has helped families across Virginia do just that.
This isn't just happening in Virginia. Agritourism is now a billion- dollar industry across the country, and it keeps growing. It is revitalizing local, rural, and small-town workforces. The tourist dollars are also expanding hotels, restaurants, and businesses nearby.
These farms also offer unique educational and recreational opportunities for children and families and help connect the public to our food systems. That is what I love about agritourism. It is a win- win for everyone. Farmers get to share their work and support their farm, and visitors learn about where their food comes from, who grows the flowers they send on Mother's Day, and so much more.
This year, my family picked tulips from Burnside Farms in Nokesville. We ate strawberries at the Strawberry Festival this past weekend at Wegmeyer Farms in Lincoln. We visited Cox Farms for their delicious cider donuts.
For many farmers, there is a lot of uncertainty about Federal resources available to them and where they should go to ask questions about agritourism. Since agritourism is a form of nontraditional farming, the Federal Government simply hasn't done much to help the industry, which is why I am proud to work with Congressman Newhouse to introduce the bipartisan AGRITOURISM Act, which will ignite the industry and provide a one-stop shop of resources like grants, loans, and technical assistance for farmers who want to participate in agritourism.
These resources will attract private investment not only in agritourism but also support tourism and hospitality industries in rural areas, which will keep our farms and rural communities strong, resilient, and thriving.
I also plan to relaunch the bipartisan Agritourism Caucus with Congressman David Rouzer to highlight the progress of this industry and how we can continue to promote it. This was first championed by my predecessor, Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sign on to this bill and join the caucus when we relaunch it so that we can champion agritourism for farmers and rural communities across America.
Mr. Speaker, Moody's, a credit rating firm, downgraded America's credit rating this past weekend. What does this mean? It is like when your credit score goes down. It will make it more expensive for a country to borrow money, and the interest rate on our $36 trillion debt will go up.
How much do we spend on interest right now? In 2024, we paid $892 billion in interest payments. That is 13 percent of our budget. That is more money than we spent on law enforcement, education, science, and transportation combined.
Now, it is going to get worse because this one big, beautiful bill coming up is going to explode the deficit so we can give tax cuts to billionaires and the largest corporations while also slashing Medicaid, food assistance, and
There is no fiscal responsibility in this bill, and this bill will add $5 trillion to the Federal debt.
This credit downgrade should be a warning to reverse course. Instead, we seem to be heading straight for fiscal disaster, and we need to stand up to this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the winners of our 2025 Fourth Congressional District speech competition for the great State of Missouri. This is our second year to do this. It is a great competition.
Our next winner is Lucas Tate, who is a junior at Odessa High School. Lucas wrote: ``Freedom is a word that rings loud in the hearts of many Americans. We all know what freedom is. We all know what the absence of freedom feels like, but what does it mean to stand up for your freedom? Standing up for your freedom is not always loud, not always quiet. Standing up for your freedom is swimming against the school, looking for those who may follow. It is a war cry against the face of tyranny and injustice. It is a tough battle, one that we as Americans must be proud to face every day because, simply, it is American.''
Our next winner is Tanner Gill, who is in ninth grade at Raymore- Peculiar High School. Tanner wrote: ``Standing for freedom means protecting the rights and values that make America strong. In our country, this means making sure that people have justice, fairness, and the ability to speak freely. Everyone can help by being active in their community and standing up for what is right. Around the world, the U.S. supports freedom by helping people who live under unfair governments by promoting democracy. As a leader, America has a responsibility to set an example and defend human rights. Standing for freedom isn't just about words. It is about action. By respecting our history and working to protect freedom, we help make the world a better place.''
Our next winner is Riley Olendorff, who is a junior at Glasgow High School. Riley wrote: ``Standing for freedom is having courage, integrity, and speaking out against injustice. Freedom includes protecting the rights of others, even when it may be hard and challenging. We have to be able to defend our rights for ourselves and others when there is risk of being taken away. Freedom is not just about personal choices, advocating for fairness, and presenting different opinions now and for future generations. Past history has presented sacrifices from leaders and soldiers who defend our nations. True freedom grows when people are willing to stand up for themselves and others. As an American, I am fortunate enough to live in a free country, and I stand for what freedom means.''
I thank everyone who participated in this year's congressional speech competition, and I congratulate our winners.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Missouri's Fourth Congressional District May Small Business of the Month, Alewel's Country Meats.
What better month to highlight this amazing small business than National Beef Month?
What began as a small downtown grocery store in 1932, Alewel's has grown into a fixture of Warrensburg's local community.
This federally inspected meat processing and retail facility developed old German recipes to create quality fresh meats and homemade specialty products.
Randy Alewel, the third-generation CEO of Alewel's Country Meats, has expanded the facility four times now.
Today, we congratulate Alewel's Meats and thank them for their contributions to Missouri and the Fourth Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our May Veteran of the Month, Mr. Rick Fullerton of Independence, Missouri. He is a World War II vet and lives at the Missouri Veterans Home in Warrensburg in our district.
Mr. Fullerton attended Smith-Cotton High School in Sedalia and graduated in 1945. That September, he began his service in the U.S. Army Air Corps. He served as an accountant in Mobile, Alabama, and he is so proud of the fact that he was instrumental in making sure our servicemen got paid for their sacrifices.
Mr. Fullerton created a wonderful family with his wife, Betty, and 2 children, 4 stepchildren, 13 grandchildren, and 8 great-grandchildren.
I am proud to honor Mr. Fullerton on the floor today, and I thank him for his service to our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of National EMS Week, I rise today to thank the great men and women of the emergency medical services.
As the former CFO and State fire marshal for the State of Florida, I saw these men and women firsthand in action during major events, such as during the aftermath of Hurricanes Michael, Ian, Idalia, Helene, and Milton, and, of course, the tragic building collapse of Champlain Towers in Surfside.
The mental and physical fortitude that these heroes display daily is inspiring. It is a testament to who they are as individuals.
The theme for National EMS Week is ``We Care for Everyone.''
God chooses special angels among us to serve, to heal, and to care for those who are sick or injured.
They rush into danger at a moment's notice without hesitation, giving hope to those who need it the most.
These heroes work 24/7 365 days a year, missing holidays, birthdays, and other special occasions to ensure our communities are safe.
On behalf of a grateful nation and myself, I thank EMS workers. I thank these Americans in the EMS field for all that they do.
As long as I have a voice in Washington, D.C., I will always support our EMS professionals and every first responder working to serve our local communities, the State of Florida, and our great country.
Mr. Speaker, I end on a solemn note as we honor the life of Honorable Circuit Judge Tom Remington, who passed away on May 7, 2025, in Pensacola, Florida.
Tom dedicated over 60 years of his life serving our Nation and our State, first as an artillery and infantry officer in Vietnam, where he earned the Combat Infantryman Badge, two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars with Valor, and the Silver Star. His service was featured on the History Channel and in books like ``Hill 875'' and ``Dak To.''
After his military service, Tom graduated from Florida State University College of Law, joined the Florida bar in 1971, and gained courtroom experience as both a public defender and as assistant State's attorney.
In 1995, he became a partner in the renowned law firm of Smith, Anchors, and Remington, serving as general counsel to longtime Okaloosa County Sheriff Larry Gilbert.
Tom was appointed to the circuit court by Governor Lawton Chiles and served over 20 years in Okaloosa and Walton Counties. He held numerous leadership roles, including chief judge and officer in various legal organizations. Known for his humble and principled approach to justice, Tom was deeply respected and affectionately called ``T.R.''
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of northwest Florida, my wife, Katie, and I offer condolences to his wife, Dinah; the Smith Remington firm; and children, Scott, Mary, and Sara.
I urge all in Florida's District One to join us in honoring Judge Remington's remarkable commitment to service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kadyn Kulzer from Paynesville on being awarded the State FFA Degree, the FFA's highest honor.
Kadyn has been a member of the Paynesville FFA since seventh grade and has been a great chapter officer for the past 2 years. She has demonstrated years of commitment to the FFA chapter in Paynesville.
Kadyn plans to attend college to earn a degree in exercise science and eventually pursue a career as a chiropractor. I am sure she will excel in her career, just as she has excelled in the FFA.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Kadyn on her hard work and dedication to the FFA and the community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dorothy Vandendriessche of Marshall, Minnesota, on receiving the Minnesota Woman of the Year Award at the Catholic Women's convention. This award recognizes significant and outstanding contributions made by a councilwoman in areas of service to the church, the Council of Catholic Women, her parish, and the community. This honor is given to women who serve as an inspiration to others.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Dorothy on this outstanding achievement and for her contributions to her community and her church.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mason Miller of Ada, Minnesota, on signing a free-agent contract with the Detroit Lions.
Mason started in all 16 games of the NDSU Bison season last year and was named a first team All-American. Mason played an important role propelling the Bison to their tenth FCS National Championship.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mason on this incredible accomplishment and wish him well as he begins the next chapter of his life.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I am here to address the situation of California's wasteful spending. A new bit of information has come out that the interim segment of high-speed rail is going to be built between a town called Merced down to another one near Bakersfield called Shafter. This segment would end in an almond orchard out there in the middle of nowhere. The price for that segment has gone up to about $38.5 billion, just for this segment, which is going to be in a low-population area comparatively when the whole concept of California High-Speed Rail was one that would go from San Francisco to L.A., the population centers.
The original cost, I will remind you too, when it was placed on the ballot in front of the voters, was that it would be $33 billion to build the entire system from San Francisco to L.A., not just that 150- mile segment between Merced and Shafter.
Who is being shafted in this deal? Those being shafted, of course, are the taxpayers, as always, since in their quest to not let this go, to not let it die, they are going to continue to seek more and more money for this project.
Now, in the 17 years since this was passed and placed on the ballot in front of the voters--and it won by a very narrow margin, 2 or 3 percent--it was to have an initial $9 billion bond of State money to go towards the $33 billion, and then the rest would be raised from the private sector, that price is today seen as $128 billion. In those 17 years, they have only managed to raise $17 billion or so towards the project, in 17 years. Since the project is about $110 billion or so short, where are they going to get $110 billion more when it took 17 years to raise $17 billion? Where is that going to come from?
California has a scheme called the cap-and-trade tax that taxes the privilege of making carbon dioxide if you are a manufacturer or some other large entity that produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct of your industry. Let me remind you, carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
All of these things are being done to cut carbon, including this whole rail project itself, which is supposed to be a big carbon saver, yet they are chasing a goal that is incredibly small and incredibly out of touch.
Here we are. They are going to come to Washington asking for more and more money. So far two Democrat Presidents have given the project about $3.5 billion on one occasion each. They are going to fall far short of raising $110 billion more since cap-and-trade, as I mentioned, in California only brings in about a billion per year on taxation on CO2. If they manage to get a couple $3.5 billion segments from the U.S. Government, it is a long ways from getting done.
We should be solving other issues in California instead of building this dream rail system running through the middle of communities, having to take so much land by eminent domain, messing up farmland, messing up the middle of the cities that it is going through, having to take out a high school in one case, and a rendering plant in another case. These are all things that are making it actually worse for people, just so they can have the idea of, oh, we have to be like China and have a high-speed rail system.
It isn't working out in California. It won't work out. The price is horrendous. The tickets themselves for people to be able to ride the train are going to be a lot more expensive than what they are trying to tell us they will be, especially when you have low-cost airline tickets like Southwest and others going back and forth pretty often.
Why don't we solve other problems, like California's water issues, the water supply? For that kind of money, you could build 26 new dams that would hold who knows how many acre-feet, how many millions of acre-feet. Let's just try and build two or three dams that will hold 3, 4, 5, 6 million acre-feet and solve California's water problems, solve California's continued transfer of agricultural water to fish supplies. We could actually get something useful done.
People that use the roads and the highways and freeways would probably like to see some of the potholes fixed, for example, that always get worn into the right lane of a freeway. Maybe we could get some of those fixed. Maybe we could add lanes here and there where there is more dense traffic with a fraction of that money.
No one is going to ride this thing for the cost and for the time it takes to still get back and forth between San Francisco and L.A., and they don't have a car at the other end. You might as well take the airplane and save money and get there even faster.
Mr. Speaker, of all the things we could be investing in, whether it is water supply or managing our forests better so we don't have to burn them down every year and suffer with air quality that we have--each year there is a million-acre fire, including the Dixie Fire in my district about 4 years ago that hit this town. The smoke plume hit this town because we don't manage the forest.
There are so many other things we could be doing besides high-speed rail.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Empire High School's softball team for winning the 3A State Title.
The Ravens scored a run in the bottom of the eighth inning to defeat Yuma Catholic 1-0, earning their second straight State title and the fourth title in the last 10 years.
This victory caps off an amazing season for the Ravens who finished with an incredible record of 28 wins and only 1 loss.
I congratulate Coach Shannon Woolridge, the players, and everyone who played a part in this special season. They have made their school and community incredibly proud.
The Ravens should enjoy this victory they earned. Congratulations to the Ravens.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Salpointe's women's tennis team for winning the Division II State Championship game.
In a thrilling set of matches, Salpointe defeated Canyon del Oro by a score of 5-2.
This is the first State championship since 2011 for Coach Theresa Sperduto. I know it must have meant a lot to be crowned as a champion once again.
Congratulations to all of the coaches, players, family members, and everyone who played a part in this special season. They have made their school and community incredibly proud. Go Lancers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Catalina Foothills Falcons boys' tennis team for winning the Division II State Championship game.
In a thrilling set of matches, the Falcons beat the number two ranked Notre Dame in a decisive manner by a score of 5-0.
This victory earned Coach Ben Loeb a remarkable milestone, 20 high school State championships. This State championship marked the Falcons' 10th title in 11 years. Now, that is impressive.
I congratulate and thank Coach Loeb, the players, and everyone who played a part in this special season. They made their school and community extremely proud.
I say to the Falcons, enjoy this victory. You earned it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Pusch Ridge Christian Academy Lions' women's tennis team for winning the Division III State championship game.
From starting this season with a loss in Nogales, this remarkable team overcame adversity and roared back to be crowned champions.
I congratulate Coach Andy Fetsis, all the players, and everybody who played a part in this special season. They should know that they have made their school and their community incredibly proud.
I say to the Lions, enjoy this victory. You earned it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Buena High School Colts relay team on a remarkable achievement, winning the All- State Title in the 4 by 400 relay race.
After securing the Division II last year, they faced off against top schools from across the State and came out victorious and took the top honor, adding yet another trophy to their cabinet. What a remarkable achievement.
I congratulate and thank Coach Thomas; the relay squad, Ricardo Brooks, Armani Ramirez-Sperle, Vijay Carrier, and Jayden Thomas; and everyone who played a part in this remarkable season. They have made their school and the Sierra Vista community incredibly proud.
Congratulations to the Colts. May they enjoy this State championship. They earned it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May as Wildfire Awareness Month.
For many States and regions around the Nation, our forests play a critical role in supporting communities and the rural economy. Our Nation's forests provide us with homegrown timber, essential for wood products, such as lumber, flooring, furniture, pulp and paper, biomass, and so much more.
The U.S. forest products industry employs more than 925,000 Americans, generating a payroll of nearly $80 billion nationwide.
Harvest on national forestland is also critical for supporting rural school districts through county payments derived from timber sales.
Our forests also provide countless recreational opportunities, such as camping, hiking, fishing, and many other activities available in the great outdoors.
However, many of our Federal forestlands remain unhealthy and continue to be at risk of catastrophic wildfire due to severe overgrowth and decades of mismanagement. Consequently, the United States has continued to see some of the largest and most intense wildfires in history over the past few decades.
During that time, these incredibly destructive wildfires have led to significant property loss; recovery costs; and, in some cases, the loss of human life.
I visited some of the afflicted areas, including Paradise, California, where the devastating Camp fire occurred in 2018. It is our responsibility as elected officials to do everything that we can to make sure that tragedies like this do not occur again.
Wildfires are truly an urgent crisis that must be immediately addressed, and Congress must do more to better support the Forest Service, our firefighters, and rural communities in forested areas.
Between 2013 and 2022, we saw an average of 61,000 wildfires annually with an average of 7.2 million acres impacted each year.
So far this year, we have seen more than 25,000 wildfire incidents with more than 1 million acres burned before fire season ever began.
The wildfires we witnessed in Los Angeles this year were just the latest reminder of the devastation that can occur when we don't proactively manage our forests and do everything possible to prevent them from breaking out in the first place.
Make no mistake that the wildfire crisis is just that, a crisis that must urgently be addressed. The good news is that, with the right management, we can do so much more to improve the health of our forests and combat the wildfire and forest health crisis head-on.
This means using all of the tools in the toolbox. That includes mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and cross-boundary authorities. That also includes expanded use of good neighbor agreements, stewardship contracts, and other innovative agreements to maximize management possibilities through partnerships between stakeholders, private forest owners, Tribes, and local, State, and Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the forestry title that passed out of the Agriculture Committee last year which was crafted to expand those tools and authorities and encourage the Forest Service to do more productive management. Such reforms will enable the agency to improve forest health, reduce the threat of wildfire, increase the pace and scale of restoration, and ultimately protect communities, property, and lives.
Many of these concepts can be found in the Fix Our Forests Act, which was passed on a bipartisan basis this past January.
Additionally, I applaud the recent actions by the Trump administration to dramatically scale up the management across the National Forest System.
Encouraging this ramp-up will enable the Forest Service to better manage, support local counties and economies through increased sustainable harvest levels, address invasive species and forest health, and ultimately reduce the severity and instances of wildfires.
During this Wildfire Awareness Month, it is important that Members understand the great challenges that our Nation has with wildfire and that there are many steps that the Federal Government can take to proactively mitigate it.
Perhaps most importantly, we must also recognize the dedication and sacrifices of our wildland firefighters to act when disaster strikes and keep communities safe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank our firefighters, first responders, and all who are working to confront this crisis as we recognize Wildfire Awareness Month.
Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to mark Memorial Day, a time to honor those who gave their lives in defense of our country, I rise today to recognize the enduring service and sacrifice of the Washington Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 161st Infantry Regiment.
For nearly 90 years, this unit has called the city of Spokane home. Once stationed downtown, it now stands watch near the banks of the Spokane
The 161st Infantry carries a storied legacy. They fought with honor in the Philippine Insurrection, stood guard along the southern border during the Pancho Villa raids, and served in France during World War I. These citizen soldiers served with distinction across the Pacific in World War II, and deployed multiple times as part of the 81st Brigade Combat Team during the global war on terrorism. Their battle streamers reflect the best of American valor and commitment.
Yet, just as importantly, they have answered the call at home, mobilizing in the face of wildfires; floods; snowstorms, and most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. When Washingtonians needed their help, the Guard was there.
These are our neighbors, our coworkers, and our sons and daughters. For generations, they have trained and deployed from Spokane, not just for war but for peace, safety, and recovery.
On this Memorial Day, we thank them. We remember those who laid down their lives in uniform, and we honor the Spokane Readiness Center as a pillar of strength in both our Nation's defense and our local community.
May their legacy never be forgotten, and may our gratitude be as enduring as their service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Heroes Homestead, a grassroots nonprofit founded by marine veteran Andrew Holstine and his wife, Danielle.
My family and I recently participated in their annual 5K walk in Spokane. This wasn't only a walk; it was a community coming together to honor service, support healing, and walk alongside veteran families who have borne the burden of war long after coming home.
Andrew served in the Marines and survived a tragic Osprey crash in 2000 that claimed the lives of 19 fellow marines, including his best friends. The invisible wounds he carried didn't just affect him, but they impacted his whole family. After years of struggle, the Holstines left everything behind to create something new: a place for veterans and their families to heal together.
Heroes Homestead was born from that journey. The 5K and the community fair was part of a growing movement to restore purpose, connection, and joy to those who have served and those who stood by those who have served.
They have a national vision: healing centers near every U.S. military hub.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Holstines and all who participated in the 5K. This is what serving veterans looks like.
Mr. Speaker, history indicates President Donald Trump would have prevented the invasion of Ukraine by war criminal Putin as part of the Putin scheme to resurrect the failed Soviet Union by annexing Belarus, occupying Moldova, invading Georgia and then Ukraine, supported by the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian terrorists.
In his first term, Trump deterred mass murder by providing Javelin missiles to Ukraine, troops to Poland, and stopping Nord Stream 2 funding of the Putin war machine.
America has correctly provided $185 billion to stop the mass murder by Putin. Funds have been monitored by 29 inspectors general with a Trump executive order resulting this week in a report of the most accountable aid ever for the people of Ukraine.
The vast majority of defense spending of Ukraine has been in the United States. With Trump encouragement, Europe has provided $199 billion for Ukraine to successfully defend itself. As a percent of GDP, 19 European countries exceed the American GDP spent on Ukraine.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing that Putin lies, insulting Trump with massive drone attacks Saturday and Sunday before the Monday phone call with Putin as Putin continues murdering civilians of Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 200th anniversary of the birth of Antoinette Brown Blackwell, a trailblazer born in my district in Henrietta, New York, and the first woman ordained as a mainstream Protestant minister in the United States.
Antoinette dedicated her life to justice, equality and faith. She captivated audiences as a lecturer on women's rights and temperance and preached wherever she was welcome. In 1850, she proudly stood at the first National Women's Rights Convention.
Committed to voting rights, she lobbied President Theodore Roosevelt for suffrage and remained a steadfast advocate for women. At age 95, she cast her very first vote, proof her decades of advocacy helped transform our Nation.
She was a minister, a reformer, a writer, and, above all, a woman of
Let us honor her on her 200th birthday and follow in her footsteps as we fight to protect every American's right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I have news for insomniacs. Republicans have scheduled a Rules Committee meeting on their one big, beautiful bill at 1 o'clock in the morning.
This is the bill that will cause millions of Americans to lose their healthcare and nutrition assistance in order the pay for tax breaks for billionaires. Who does that?
Why are they meeting at 1 o'clock in the morning? It turns out their big, beautiful bill is really a big, ugly bill.
Republicans don't want you, the American people, to know what they are doing. Tune in tonight at 1 a.m. Call your Congressperson and tell them to vote ``no'' on this garbage. Watch as Democrats fight like hell to protect you, the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Military Appreciation Month.
This month, we pause to honor the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, past and present, who have worn the uniform of the United States of America.
Our military has stood for freedom throughout our history in times of peace and peril. They do not ask for recognition. They do not serve for applause. They serve because they believe in something bigger than themselves. They serve out of duty, honor, and love of country.
This month is to remember our POWs and MIAs, to support our Gold Star families, to stand with our veterans, and to thank those currently serving.
Mr. Speaker, we stand by our veterans, and we reaffirm our duty to provide our servicemembers with the support they have earned, both in uniform and after.
May God protect our servicemembers and their families this month and every month. We honor and thank them. We will never forget their service and their sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mayor Tyrone Echols of Venice, Illinois, and to congratulate him on his retirement after more than 40 years in office.
As a graduate of Madison High School and Southern Illinois University, Mayor Echols is a true son of downstate Illinois. He has dedicated his career to serving our community.
Before he was elected mayor, Mayor Echols worked as a city alderman, a union steward for the International Union of Operating Engineers, and a legislative aide to the State Representative Jim McPike. He also proudly led as president of the Illinois chapter of the National Conference of Black Mayors.
As mayor, he prioritized bringing new business opportunities to Venice and making sure that his door was always open to constituents.
His dedication to public service is truly an inspiration, and I am honored to call him my friend.
I thank Mayor Echols for all he has done for our community and congratulate him on his retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 12th time to call on the Trump administration to restore funding for lifesaving food aid for malnourished children across the globe.
Edesia Nutrition in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, manufactures this nutritional paste which has saved millions of lives. When the Trump administration began, funding for this program went away. There are kids literally starving around the world, while thousands of boxes of this lifesaving food aid sit in a warehouse in Rhode Island.
When we abandon our commitment to helping solve malnutrition around the world, we are not just hurting those children who are hungry. We are hurting our own credibility as a country. Our adversaries like China are happy to step into the void we have left to make those countries beholden to them.
Make no mistake. China's help doesn't come for free. It comes with a price. This is not just about doing the right thing for these starving children around the world. It is about maintaining America's position of leadership globally.
Restore the funding. Restore the food aid. I will speak every day until this is done.
Mr. Speaker, there was standing room only at Wilson Community College in Wilson, North Carolina. It was so touching. Residents and family came from far and near in support of the Fitch family in renaming the Wilson Post Office in commemoration of Mr. Milton F. Fitch, Sr.
Mr. Fitch was not just one of the first African-American mail carriers. He was an eastern North Carolina icon and a great American.
He served our country honorably in World War II, returning home to raise his family and make a difference in his community. Indeed, he did exactly that.
He and his wife, Cora, embedded a legacy of service into their children, Jerry, Toby, Patricia, Christine, and Ernestine.
We are grateful to the U.S. Postal Service for working with us, the North Carolina delegation, and all of the communities who came out in support.
Eastern North Carolina and America are better because of Milton F. Fitch, Sr. His name, now etched in the Wilson community, will inspire all who enter the post office to realize the endless possibilities that await us in eastern North Carolina.
Providing for Consideration of S.J. RES. 13, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 426 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 13 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees. It provides for one motion to commit.
Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee in order to expeditiously enact President Trump's agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.
The rule before us presents an important opportunity for Congress to continue its work to reverse the last-minute attempts at regulatory overreach by the former Biden-Harris administration.
The rule includes consideration of S.J. 13, to provide for congressional disapproval of a Biden-era Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulation titled ``Business Combinations Under the Bank Merger Act.''
In September of 2024, the OCC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, revised their approach to evaluating bank merger applications. The updated rule restricts a bank's ability to scale, manage risk effectively, and broaden product offerings, ultimately discouraging mergers altogether.
By dismantling a longstanding standard, and eliminating automatic approval for certain applications, the Biden administration's actions risk stifling competition and innovation in the financial sector. These changes will delay strategic decisionmaking among financial institutions and limit access to innovative financial services for everyday Americans.
For small- and mid-sized banks in particular, the rule imposes additional red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that hinder their ability to merge and compete with larger financial institutions. Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim, the Biden administration's rule strengthens the dominance of the largest market players while undermining smaller, community-focused institutions, limiting consumer choice and consumer access.
We should strive for a regulatory environment that is streamlined, balanced, and rooted in practical oversight, one that protects consumers without obstructing innovation and competition. What we don't need are more Biden-era regulations that distort the market and smother opportunity with overreach.
S.J. Res. 13 will ensure that future bank regulators cannot repeat this ill-conceived rulemaking, and that financial institutions can continue to make strategic, innovative decisions that will ultimately benefit American consumers.
Also, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31, providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Biden EPA relating to review of final rule classification of major sources as area sources under the Clean Air Act.
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lays out stringent compliance standards for facilities emitting over 10 tons of a single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons of an aggregate. Facilities below those thresholds are classified as area sources and subject to more flexible requirements.
In 2020, under President Trump, the EPA adopted a more rational approach allowing facilities that significantly reduced their emissions to be reclassified as area sources. This commonsense change rewarded emissions improvements and reduced unnecessary regulatory burdens on American manufacturers and energy producers.
To no one's surprise, the Biden administration reversed course by reimposing the outdated and rigid ``once in, always in'' policy. This framework permanently locks facilities into strict major-source status, even if they make substantial efforts to reduce harmful emissions. That is not only unfair, it discourages environmental progress.
Whom did the Biden administration hurt?
They hurt the chemical manufacturing sector, which includes thousands of mid-sized companies representing hundreds of thousands of jobs. These companies have invested millions in cleaner technologies and equipment upgrades. Under this Biden-era EPA rule, their investments will not be rewarded with a lighter regulatory touch. In fact, despite upgrades
Moreover, there is the pulp and paper industry, a critical employer in States like Georgia, Wisconsin, and Maine. Mills that switch to cleaner fuels or have implemented advanced scrubber systems will receive no regulatory relief under the Biden-era EPA's ``once in, always in'' rule. In a sector that already faces stiff foreign competition and very narrow margins, the Biden administration heaped further unnecessary burdens onto this industry, jeopardizing the jobs of thousands of American workers in the process.
Additionally, there is the independent and smaller scale refiner that often lack the scale of larger competitors but serve critical regional fuel markets. They may have made substantial environmental progress in reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions, but the Biden-era ``once in, always in'' rule locks them into compliance regimes that do not reflect their improved emissions profile.
Finally, let's not forget our small and rural manufacturing facilities in communities across this country, including in my own district in New York's southern tier. These facilities include metal fabricators and food processors, many of whom have taken proactive steps to cut emissions in very good faith. Under the Biden-era EPA ``once in, always in'' rule, these improvements to reduce hazardous emissions do not matter. They will still be treated with the same costly and burdensome regulatory regime. Simply put, the Biden EPA and its ``once in, always in'' rule not only disincentivizes innovation and cleaner operations, but it also threatens plant closures and kills jobs.
Mr. Speaker, you would have to be more concerned with appeasing environmental extremists than protecting American workers to support this punitive and counterproductive regulatory framework.
Through S.J. Res. 31, House Republicans stand up for the American workers and job creators. The CRA, ensures regulatory fairness and restores real incentives for emissions reduction. Without this CRA, even the most environmentally responsible facilities are punished, trapped under heavyhanded rules that do not reflect their cleaner operation.
Upon returning to office, President Trump and House Republicans focused on restoring commonsense governance: prioritizing American jobs, economic strength, and practical solutions. S.J. Res. 31, like other measures undoing ill-advised Biden-era policies, represents a decisive step in the right direction.
Let's get back to smart, forward-thinking policies that actually serve the American people, not far left activists and D.C. bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today for a rule on two measures, two lousy measures doubling down on the Republicans' agenda to help big banks and big polluters.
S.J. Res. 13 is a gift-wrapped giveaway to Wall Street, plain and simple. It would make it easier for big banks to get even bigger, hurting small businesses and communities in the process.
S.J. Res. 31 is even worse, a blatant handout to big polluters, putting corporate profits ahead of our constituents' health and safety.
This isn't new, Mr. Speaker. That has been the Republican playbook all Congress long: Help the polluters. Help the banks. Help Wall Street, and help the CEOs. They want to help everyone except the working people who actually need it.
Mr. Speaker, you may ask: Why?
I would say: Follow the money. Look at the donations.
One of the things we need to get serious about in this Congress and hopefully when Democrats take control of the House after the next election, this will be a priority, and that is campaign finance reform.
All this excessive money from big industries, from big banks, from corporations, and from people like Elon Musk pollute this Chamber in a way where the needs and the wants of regular people get put to the side.
It is disgraceful, if we are being honest here, Mr. Speaker. As bad as these two bills are--and I can't emphasize enough that they are really bad--they are just the warm-up act. In fact, this is filler. We weren't even supposed to be dealing with these bills. We were supposed to be dealing with the budget reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, because of the disarray within the Republican Conference, all of a sudden, these bills appeared.
That is because in just over 13 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House Rules Committee will meet starting at 1 o'clock in the morning to debate a bill that steals from the American people so they can help out the billionaire donors who write them big checks.
Now, let me ask: If this bill is so great, so big, and so beautiful as Donald Trump says it is, then why the hell are we debating it in the middle of the night?
Why not debate it in broad daylight where the American people can tune in and hear what it is really about?
We all know the answer.
I encourage the American people to pay attention to what is happening very, very, very early in the morning here in the United States Capitol. Watch what happens in the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock in the morning.
To all the insomniacs out there: Tune in at 1 o'clock in the morning and watch what unfolds in that committee. Republicans do not want you to pay attention to their tax scam.
Hell, Trump doesn't even want Republicans to pay attention to what is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, he told you guys to close your eyes and vote for this garbage.
Republicans were ordered not to say a word in committee, just fall in line and rubber-stamp it.
Now listen to this: Now they are sneaking a change into the rules buried in the fine print of this rule to give themselves same-day authority to bring the bill to the floor with a moment's notice. This bill is over 1,000 pages long.
They want to ram it through the Rules Committee, potentially changing it, and we know that there are changes coming, and then vote on it just hours later. It is a bill that adds trillions to the deficit and kicks millions of people off their healthcare.
Republicans once bragged about requiring 72 hours to review legislation.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember that?
Now Republicans are ready to toss that promise in the trash to serve Trump's demands.
If my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus vote for this rule, then they will have reached a new height of hypocrisy. It is unbelievable to me that they cry and whine about passing bills without the time to read them, and then they come down here and support ramming a bill through committee in the middle of the night and bringing it straight to the floor.
It is unbelievable and hypocritical.
Let's be real, Mr. Speaker. This budget reconciliation bill is a disaster. It is unpopular, and it is indefensible. This is all about massive and huge tax breaks to billionaires paid for by stealing from working Americans. That is not hyperbole. That is just the truth. It rips away Medicaid from parents and grandparents. It slashes food assistance for children. The biggest cut in food assistance in history is contained in this bill. It drains resources from the moms and dads all to fund giveaways for those at the very, very top.
Any backroom deals made in the next few hours to twist arms and to buy votes will only make this terrible bill even worse.
This is not what democracy looks like. This is what corruption looks like. Shame on every single person who votes to advance that awful process by torching any semblance of a fair process.
A vote for this rule is a vote to allow Republican leadership to jam this bill through the House without enough time to even read it. There is zero transparency and zero respect for this institution or the Members here. Just close your eyes and vote for it. That is what Trump told Republicans to do: Close your eyes and vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this rushed, reckless process. They deserve leaders who work for them, not for the billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the budget reconciliation bill is the work of 11 committees that have gone through full markup, that went through the full bipartisan process.
I sat through 27 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I know full well that I had a front seat to the longest markup, just as my colleague did with his service on the Agriculture Committee.
That is not what we are here debating. Despite what some of my colleagues across the aisle are saying, the CRA that we are discussing right now is addressing standards for major and area sources that will actually promote cleaner and more environmentally conscious operations among manufacturers, refiners, and energy producers.
The rule implemented by the Biden administration reflects a flawed approach, one that eliminates incentives for voluntary emission reductions and imposes excessive regulatory burdens without delivering clear environmental benefits.
Under this policy, facilities that successfully reduce their actual or potential hazardous air pollutant emissions below the major source threshold are still prohibited from reclassifying as area sources. This means that even after substantial improvements, these facilities remain subject to the strictest and costliest regulatory framework forever, indefinitely.
This not only increases operational costs but also removes a key incentive for companies to invest in cleaner technologies and practices, something we should all be encouraging.
For example, take a chemical plant that emits hazardous air pollutants like benzene or formaldehyde. Under the Biden-era rule, if they invest millions in cutting-edge emissions control systems that reduce their pollution below the regulatory threshold, they get no relief from the major source permitting burdens.
The Biden-era rule entangles them in permanent red tape, discouraging innovation and undermining progress.
Under the Trump-era rules that S.J. Res. 31 would pave the way for, companies would have a financial incentive to invest in pollution control since doing so would actually reduce their compliance costs and regulatory delays. The result is cleaner air, a cleaner environment.
The reality is that most of these companies and the people who run them live in the very communities affected by emissions. They have every reason to care about cleaner air and healthier environments.
What they need is smart, flexible policy, not arbitrary and capricious restrictions that stifle growth and reduce competitiveness. S.J. Res. 31 would restore a proven framework that recognizes and rewards emissions reduction. It allows regulatory classifications to reflect a facility's current environmental impact, not a legacy status based on past emissions.
This flexibility fosters continuous improvement and aligns environmental goals with economic incentives. This is not about weakening protections. It is the contrary, actually. It is about applying regulation in a way that actually works, delivering clean air, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the strength of America's industry.
Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense path forward to a cleaner, more sustainable future, one that supports jobs, growth, and the environment.
This should be a no-brainer for my colleagues who claim to be the champions of effective environmental policy. Let's not be fooled by their rhetoric. The reality is that many on the other side of the aisle are beholden to a vocal and uncompromising wing of the environmental lobby, groups that would rather see American workers laid off, manufacturing plants shut down, and entire communities economically gutted than support balanced, commonsense regulatory reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things. First of all, I want to correct the record. The gentleman said that this budget reconciliation bill reflects a full, fair, and open process in all the committees of jurisdiction. I hate to tell him, but I am on the Agriculture Committee, and the chairman actually cut off debate when there were dozens of amendments still yet to be offered. That is not a full, open, and fair process. Maybe by Republican standards it is, but by most people's standards, it isn't.
The gentleman is on the Rules Committee. We are debating the rule, so I have a question for my Rules Committee colleague. This rule contains a fast-track process for the Republican tax scam, this so-called budget reconciliation bill. We all know that deals are being made behind closed doors, changes are still being negotiated--big changes, we are told. I would like to know if the majority will commit to ensuring a Congressional Budget Office score is available on the final bill before it moves forward.
We need to know the impact on our constituents, not only how much it will cost, but how many people will lose their healthcare and how quickly they will lose their healthcare.
Those are legitimate questions that, quite frankly, Democrats not only want to know but Republicans should want to know, as well.
Can I get the gentleman to kind of give us some assurances that we know the impact? Will he commit to ensuring a Congressional Budget Office score is available on the final bill before it moves forward?
I am happy to yield to him.
I guess we are not going to get an answer.
I mean, I guess we all know why they don't want the nonpartisan, expert analysis to be made available before a vote on this bill. This vote is a monstrosity. This vote is going to throw at least 14 million people off their healthcare. This is going to constitute the largest cut in food assistance in history. People are going to see their nutrition benefits reduced, which will impact children, senior citizens, veterans, and those with disabilities.
It is relevant to what we are talking about here today because in this rule you provide the authority to immediately bring the budget reconciliation bill to the floor without giving people any time to debate the bill, to be able to analyze the bill, for CBO to do their work on this, or for us to even know what the impact is going to be on our constituents from something this big.
By the way, I hear Republicans say that they have this deadline. There is no deadline. There is nothing magic about having to pass this bill by tomorrow or the next day.
You could do this right. You could actually have a Rules Committee hearing in markup in the light of day. You could do it when you come back after the Memorial Day recess.
People should ask the question: Why are they rushing so quickly? Why are they doing everything they can to jam this through before people have a chance to understand the full impacts of this bill?
The reason why is that they don't want the American people to know what they are doing. They are ashamed of what is in this bill--again, throwing people off healthcare, throwing people off food assistance. Why? It is to give a tax cut to billionaires. Give me a break.
We are here to help lift up people in this country, to be there for people who are struggling. Instead, this Republican Congress is about enriching those who are well-off and well-connected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of dramatic words from my friend and colleague across the aisle about the reconciliation process. Let's take a moment to remind them of what they did when they were in the majority.
During the 117th Congress, when a Democratic-led House considered the last reconciliation bill, also known as the Build Back Better Act, the process was a little messy, to say the least. The gentleman talks about CBO scores, and it is certainly something that we are working very hard on.
Mr. McGovern, in a meeting on November 4, 2021, was reading the manager's amendment to be self-executed. His response to not having a CBO score was:
Regardless if we do have a JTC score or a CBO score or what that score says, I don't think any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will vote for this bill at the end of the day.
People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones here.
In fact, this process on their side of the aisle was so messy that two separate rules had to be passed out of the Rules Committee, each one self-executing a new manager's amendment as negotiations were ongoing and changes continued to be made. It was constantly a shifting landscape and, frankly, chaos at times.
I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts won't let facts get in the way of a good story. He pounds the table over the use of same-day authority. The reality is that the first rule for Build Back Better extended what is essentially a martial law procedural lockdown of the House floor, granting broad, same-day authority that allowed the majority to jam through changes without proper scrutiny.
Let's not forget the second rule for that bill was brought to the floor and voted on the very same day. It was reported from the Rules Committee, exactly the kind of tactic our colleagues are now clutching their pearls while opposing.
The fact is that governing is hard. The process is rarely a smooth one, but the American people elected President Trump, a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and a Republican majority in the United States Senate, and gave us unified government with a clear expectation for Congress to deliver on this agenda.
The Rules Committee will continue to use the tools at its disposal to facilitate the passage of historic legislation, just as our colleagues did when they were in charge.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really confused after listening to the gentleman from New York complain about same-day authority. In this bill, the Republicans put in same-day authority to be able to jam this tax scam through.
The gentleman didn't answer my question. I guess he is basically saying that, no, the Republicans will not commit to a CBO score for people to be able to know what, in fact, the bill will do and the impacts the bill will have.
I mean, this bill is so awful that I can't imagine any Democrat voting for it, but it is so awful that I would like to think some Republicans who have a conscience wouldn't vote for it either.
I would like to think it would matter to Republicans that 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare. What if that number went up to 20 million or 30 million? Is there any number that will be so high that maybe some Republicans might pause and say, wait a minute, maybe we should not go down this road? I mean, this is crazy.
By the way, the difference in legislation that we are talking about, the Build Back Better bill, I remind the gentleman, was about helping people. This bill is about screwing people. There is a difference here.
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, which would block the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off these lifesaving programs.
While we vote on two measures that would give even more power to big banks and large industrial polluters, Republicans are trying to jam their multitrillion-dollar budget scam down our throats in the dead of night by holding a hearing at 1 o'clock in the morning in the Rules Committee, hoping the American people won't notice.
Shame on my Republican colleagues.
The American people are noticing, and they are pissed off that working families are going to have to foot the bill for massive tax cuts for multimillionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations.
Republicans claim they don't want to cut critical benefits for working people. I have heard many of you do press conferences and sign on to letters. Now, here is the chance to prove it by voting for my amendment to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act.
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?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to discuss our proposal.
Late Sunday night, the House Budget Committee, on which I serve as ranking member, passed out, with only Republican votes, a draconian tax bill that cuts almost 14 million Americans off their healthcare and ensures a few million more lose their food assistance.
You might ask yourself why. The reason is, in order to help pay for tax cuts for billionaires.
Interestingly, we were originally supposed to pass this on Friday, but on Friday, around lunchtime, enough hard-line conservative members on the Budget Committee withheld their votes and voted ``no,'' not because they objected to 14 million Americans losing their healthcare, not because they objected to millions more losing their food assistance, but because they looked at those numbers and said: Well, that is a good start.
We want those numbers to go up. We want even more people to lose their healthcare and more people to lose their food assistance.
The vote went down Friday. We come back Sunday night, and suddenly the vote is called again. I raised the question as a parliamentary inquiry. I simply asked: What has changed? What deals have been made? The American people deserve to know. We, as Members, on both sides of the aisle, deserve to know before casting our votes.
I was assured that nothing had changed. There were no agreements made.
Then the very next Republican speaker, who is one of those hard-line conservatives, gave the game away and said he was flipping his vote because of the agreements that were made. Backroom deals deny the American people the transparency that they deserve.
One of the things we keep hearing on the other side of the aisle is that we need to get this done, otherwise taxes will go up on the American people. Apparently, the President said that today while he was here in this building. It is completely false.
Just this past week, Democrats introduced an amendment that would ensure the extension of the tax cuts for every American making under a billion dollars. Every Democrat voted yes. Every Republican voted no. This really is about the tax cuts for billionaires.
Now, the President has also said: he would ``love and cherish Medicaid.''
My Republican friends, all of those included who have said that they would protect Medicaid, they have an opportunity to prove it. Right now at the well of the House Chamber is a discharge petition that would force a vote on my legislation, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act. It would stop permanently these outrageous cuts from happening. It would preserve healthcare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, it would ensure these cuts do not happen. Right now we have 211 signatures, all from Democrats. We just need a few Republican Members to sign that discharge petition, and we will be able to love and cherish Medicaid as well as SNAP. That is all it would take, just a few Republican Members to save healthcare for millions and millions of Americans and save food assistance for millions more.
I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, the difference in priorities between this side of the aisle and the other side. It is the Members on this side of the aisle that are fighting to save healthcare for the American people, and it is our friends on the other side of the aisle who are fighting for the billionaire class.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they love to cherry-pick the facts when it comes to the timing of committee proceedings, especially in reference to the Rules Committee's upcoming meeting. They bemoan the late start and the timing of tonight's meeting. Yet, they actively ensured one committee markup after another for the legislation before us tonight, they ran hours and hours, if not days on end.
Why did those markups run as long as they did? They ran that long because Democrats engaged in the legislative process, which is their right.
The same principle applies to the Rules Committee. On this committee we have a long tradition of meeting late into the evening to complete our work. This isn't new, and it is not unique to our current majority. It is simply how the legislative process operates when the House has its full agenda.
We need only look at the Committee's operations under Democratic control to see a long history of meetings in the dark of night. Under Democratic control of the Rules Committee, we have seen things like House Resolution 587, which the report was filed at 3:46 a.m. House Resolution 481, the report was filed at 2:09 a.m. House Resolution 597, the report was filed at 3:43 a.m. House Resolution 903, the report was filed at 2:25 a.m. For House Resolution 445 in the 116th Congress, the Committee adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
Late-night sessions are not partisan anomalies and unique to the Democrats. These are precedents that Democrats themselves have maintained for years.
Let's be clear, this is the way the Rules Committee has operated when necessary, regardless of which party holds the gavel. It is about getting the work done. In fact, tonight we may not be reporting in the dark of night at all but rather as the new day has begun. I expect Mr. McGovern to take full advantage of our unlimited debate rules in the Rules Committee to make sure that that happens, and I see my second sunrise in a couple of weeks here.
I invite my colleagues to set aside the theatrics and focus on the work at hand, and I encourage my colleagues on the other side to prove me wrong.
Once again, my colleagues across the aisle are doing what they do best. They spread misinformation, and they try to sow fear into the hearts of the most vulnerable in this country about Republicans' work through the budget reconciliation process.
Let's set the record straight. President Trump and House Republicans are working to strengthen and secure and sustain Medicaid.
Democrats, through their reckless spending and unwillingness to enact commonsense guardrails themselves, have worked to undermine this critical program. We are laser-focused on protecting the absolute most vulnerable among us, Americans with disabilities, pregnant women, children, and our beloved seniors, by putting in place commonsense guardrails to ensure that those truly in need always get the care that they deserve. That means making sure that precious Medicaid resources go to the living, breathing Americans who actually need the care, not bureaucratic bloat, fraud, or people that have come into this country illegally and have been put on this system.
We are also ensuring Medicaid's long-term sustainability by rolling past costly Biden-era regulations that are driving up the program's price tag by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Let's be clear, Medicaid should always serve American citizens first and foremost, and that is why reinforcing citizenship verification, another commonsense step that the American people believe in, not only protects the program but saves the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
Yes, we are, reintroducing Clinton-era work requirements. One of the most popular things Bill Clinton achieved in his Presidency, and he worked with Congress to get it done, was bringing commonsense work requirements to social welfare programs.
It would only apply to able-bodied adults without dependents. It is something that we should all be able to agree on. If you can work, you should work. It is a step that was once broadly bipartisan, but today, our Democratic colleagues would rather let Medicaid spiral into insolvency with no solution in sight than support a basic principle that if you are able to work, you should.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard noise from across the aisle, words like ``cruel'' and ``harsh,'' and all the hyperbole you could expect to be thrown around to score political points from their base. Let me be clear. Those labels belong not to those fighting for reform but to those who would refuse commonsense changes today and instead allow this critical safety net program to become fiscally unsustainable, leaving behind the very people that depend on it every single day.
If we want Medicaid to be there in its entirety for the next generation, for those that truly need us, who we need to be working for every day, we must act now. House Republicans are committed to doing just that.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, can the gentleman name for me one meeting that the Rules Committee had, when Democrats were in control, where the hearing portion began at 1 o'clock in the morning?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, I thought he was intimating that that was the case. I don't know of a single meeting where we began taking testimony--we may have reported out Rules late at night, but not taking testimony.
Mr. Speaker, and, secondly, let me just say, with all due respect, I don't view it as theatrics to stand up for people's healthcare and food assistance. I feel that that is my job.
If Republicans think that somehow people are not going to be adversely impacted, read the CBO score on the current draft of the bill. Again, it is going to get worse.
On the current draft of the bill we are told because of the changes in this bill and because of the inaction by Republicans, CBO estimates right now 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare. That is not me. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Republicans rely on that. Democrats rely on that. By saying somehow that people aren't going to be adversely impacted by the cuts in nutrition, I don't think you understand the nutrition title if that is what you believe.
Under this bill, if a mother of a 7-year-old loses her job, for whatever reason, she has 3 months to find a new job. Otherwise, she loses her food assistance.
You have lowered the age of when work requirements are mandatory, and it is a cruel thing to do because this is about children. I don't know, but if you are a single parent and you have got a 7-year-old--by the way, some schools end the day at 2 or 2:30. How do you pay for childcare? How do you try to make ends meet? What about the summer vacation when school is not in session?
My Republican friends are so in the pockets of billionaires and the well-off and the well-connected, I don't think they know what real life is like for so many people in this country, how difficult it is.
When we talk about programs like SNAP, I have a news flash for you. The majority of people on SNAP who are able to work, work. They earn so little they still qualify for the benefit.
By the way, the benefit is on average of about $2 per person per meal. You can't buy a cup of coffee in the United States Capitol Complex for $2.
Then what my friends don't talk about is how this is shifting some of the cost burdens on to States. All of a sudden States are going to be required to come up with hundreds of millions and, in some cases, billions of dollars in order to prevent people from losing their food assistance.
Who does that? Who does that, all while giving tax breaks to billionaires?
It just makes no sense to me. All we are asking for--and I think some Republicans may agree with me on this--is before you bring the bill to the floor--and I appreciate the gentleman saying that there will be a CBO score by the time it gets through the Senate--don't House Members deserve to know what the hell they are voting on before they vote on it?
We ought to insist that we all go into this with our eyes wide open, so that we know, in fact, what the impact is going to be on our constituents. I don't think that is a radical thing to demand or to ask for. Yet, my Republican friends seem to think that that is unrealistic.
This bill is going to need major changes for me to even take another look at it and show the priorities don't represent my values. We don't share the same values. It is clear when I look at this bill.
The bottom line is the process right now and what is relevant to this rule that we are debating right now. My friends on the other side put in same-day rule authority to expedite this so people won't even have adequate time to find out how it impacts their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we had to go and do a little research, but in the 110th Congress on August 1, 2007, when considering House Resolution 3162, the Democrats did indeed convene a Rules Committee meeting at 1 a.m., and they gaveled out at 3:07 a.m.
They have done exactly the same thing that we have all heard about, the ranting and raving and the waving of arms here today. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, rules for thee and not for me is typically the way this works.
We will do the work of the Rules Committee. We will continue to pass this legislation and deliver real relief for working families in this country. We have listened to a lot of rhetoric about millionaires and billionaires. It sounds like Bernie Sanders is in the Chamber, but really this is about the working people of this country.
If we do nothing and the tax cuts expire in this country, it will be a $4.5 trillion tax increase on the American people. It will cut the child tax credit in half. It will cut the standard deduction in half that puts real money into the pockets of working families. In my district, it is about $1,700 a month that the current Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers. We deliver even more in this reconciliation package.
That might not sound like a lot to some of the people on the other side of the aisle. For my constituents, that is a couple of mortgage payments. That means real relief for working families in western New York.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight. I have to go back and look 20 years ago? Yet, I can say this: Democrats never ever did anything like Republicans are doing here today, never. I don't even remember, and maybe the gentleman could enlighten us what the bill was.
Yet, on a major budget reconciliation bill, the majority is jamming this through? It is going to add to the deficit. It is going to throw people off of food assistance. It is going to throw people off of healthcare assistance.
That is not me saying that. That is the Congressional Budget Office saying it. Nothing like this has ever been done. Nothing like this has ever been done, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing it with a straight face as if it is no big deal. It is as if who cares if people lose their food assistance.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about that if we don't do something, taxes will be increased. The reason why taxes are going to be increased is because when my friends passed this tax bill when Trump was last in office, the majority made all the tax cuts for middle-class families temporary. They all expired. Mr. Speaker, do you know what Republicans didn't make temporary? The tax breaks for corporations; those are permanent. Those are permanent, and that says it all there. That is the difference between the two parties, it is that I think we have different priorities. We have a different set of values.
Mr. Speaker, I am really deeply concerned about those who will go without food, and I am deeply concerned about those who will go without healthcare. Those are my priorities. I am sorry it makes the gentleman and the Republicans uncomfortable, but that is where I am coming from.
I don't give a damn about whether Elon Musk gets another tax break or not. Maybe my friends do because he poured so much money into the last campaign. Again, that is why we need campaign finance reform. We need to get this place to focus in on what regular people are concerned about and not what billionaires and corporations are concerned about.
Mr. Speaker, before Republicans try to cut Medicaid and SNAP benefits in the dead of night, I should also point out that the majority is giving gifts to big polluters in broad daylight.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter signed by nearly 100 public health and environmental organizations laying out the extreme risks of increased incidence of cancer and birth defects if S.J. Res. 31 is enacted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
I. THE ENACTMENT OF S.J. RES. 31 WOULD JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC HEALTH
ii. the cra is an inappropriate tool for repealing the 2024 rule.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Republicans have betrayed the middle class of this country time after time after time. We are seeing that today with the CRA measures that uplift big banks and big polluters at the expense of our health, safety, and economic security.
Does anybody think that big banks need more help, that we want big banks to get even bigger, and we want big banks to swallow up community banks? I don't know. On what planet is that a good idea? It is a good idea only in the Republican-controlled Congress here.
We will see during the rest of this week Republicans' priorities all twisted as my Republican colleagues jam through Trump's one big, awful tax scam.
The Speaker has ordered Republicans on the Committee on Rules to meet at 1 o'clock in the morning. That is the middle of the night. Again, here is what puzzles me: We were supposed to meet at noon yesterday, and we are instead meeting at 1 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Speaker, we know there are going to be changes. Republicans could have taken testimony and hearings from all the committees and waited to report out the rule until whenever final deals were made with their Members. Yet, Republicans are deliberately choosing to meet at 1 o'clock in the morning on something this consequential.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman thinks it is a good idea. The gentleman says that I will use my time and try to take every moment I can to make my points. I can say to the gentleman: You bet your life I will be. I am going to be fighting like hell for the people of this country. I am not going to sit back, and I can say this for the other Democratic Members and others who will come to this mike: We are not going to sit back and watch our constituents get screwed over. We are just not going to do that.
Republicans can do it at 1 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the morning. We are going to be there, and we are going to stay there. We are going to offer our amendments, and we are going to make our points. I would urge my colleagues to be prepared to be there for a very, very long time.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman can give us some assurance that, unlike in the Agriculture Committee where the chairman cut off debate and cut off amendments even though there were many amendments that were pending, we won't see the same thing happen in the Committee on Rules.
Clearly, our debate on this bill is something Republicans don't want the American people to see. I invite every single American--it doesn't matter if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or someone who doesn't follow politics--to tune in to the Committee on Rules. It will be up on our website. I will be live-streaming on YouTube. It will be on C-SPAN. Hell, maybe even cable will carry us live.
I urge Americans to watch it and judge for themselves what this bill means for them and their families and their communities. They will see how Republicans are gutting regular order to jam this thing through. They will probably see them walk in with a huge amendment at the last minute. It will be one that could dramatically change the bill, including accelerating the timeline for kicking millions of people off of their health insurance. As soon as next year, people could start losing coverage. That is what we are being told might be coming down the way.
If the rule that we are talking about right now passes, my Republican colleagues will be able to rush that newly changed bill to the floor just hours later, giving Members and the American public zero time to read it or to review it.
Make no mistake: A vote for today's rule is a vote to give the Republican leadership a blank check to fast-track Trump's one big, ugly bill through this House.
Mr. Speaker, here is what really gets me: Members of the House Freedom
Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of this House to vote ``no'' on the PQ, ``hell no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying legislation, and to send a strong message that we reject this Republican obsession with screwing over the middle class to give tax breaks to billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to protect Americans from the heavy hand of Biden-era regulations. The slew of midnight rules forced on the American people by the last administration pose a direct harm to our Nation's economy, and it has threatened jobs.
The pieces of legislation before us today under this rule are not filler. They are quite the opposite. The resolutions passed by the Senate and here before the House are lawmaking exercises. Democrats' dismissal of these CRAs speak volumes as to their lack of care and compassion for the serious ramifications that the regulatory agenda has had on the economy, on consumer choice, and on the environment.
My Democratic colleagues certainly wouldn't want to focus our time today on these CRAs because they are part and parcel to dismantling the regulatory agenda that they wed themselves to for 4 long years under President Biden.
What was the result of their commitment in the Biden-era regulatory agenda: $450 billion in new regulatory costs on the economy. That may just be numbers on paper for a D.C. bureaucrat, but the amounts of jobs lost, manufacturing shuttered, and communities decimated for folks outside the beltway is what it is really all about.
The CRAs before us will allow Congress and the Trump administration to continue its important work of reversing harmful regulations and unleashing the promise of the American economy. I strongly support the rule before us today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 426 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Providing for Consideration of S.J. RES. 13, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 426) providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 31) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act''; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 207, not voting 11, as follows:
Messrs. CONAWAY, MORELLE, and CISNEROS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GARBARINO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accelerating Networking, Cyberinfrastructure, and Hardware for Oceanic Research Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 1223) to require a plan to improve the cybersecurity and telecommunications of the U.S. Academic Research Fleet, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent and missed three votes on the House Floor during the 1:30 p.m. series today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 134, NAY on Roll Call No. 135, and YEA on Roll Call No. 136.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury Relating to the Review of Applications Under The...
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 426, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution of disapproval that would nullify the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's final rule that makes it more difficult for banks to merge and merge in a healthy way. That is why I introduced the House companion, H.J. Res. 92.
Today, we have the opportunity to prevent future administrations from issuing arbitrary rules on mergers and acquisitions that lack robust cost-benefit analysis and would make it significantly harder for financial institutions to grow and compete.
Banks in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky and throughout the country are facing challenges in managing the high costs of complex regulations. Furthermore, customers now demand advanced technological features, such as mobile and online banking, which require substantial capital investments.
Mergers often present the only viable path for these institutions to keep up with these regulatory and technological costs and continue serving their local communities.
They also play a vital role in ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial system. By enabling stronger, well-managed institutions to acquire weaker ones, especially those struggling due to local economic conditions, we can prevent bank failures and the panic that they cause.
Instead of making it harder for banks to merge, we should be eliminating outside obstacles to mergers, enhancing competition and innovation, and ensuring that Americans, especially those in rural and underserved communities, retain access to physical branches with employees who understand their local economies.
That is why I introduced H.R. 1900, the Bank Failure Prevention Act, which includes a shot clock to ensure timely decisions on merger applications.
Mr. Speaker, I come from Kentucky. It is a basketball-crazed Commonwealth, and we care about the shot clock. Congress should care about the shot clock on merger applications, as well.
My bill would restore fairness and predictability, preventing delays and giving banks the stability they need to focus on serving their customers and growing their businesses.
The Bank Failure Prevention Act will help community banks and regional banks thrive in today's competitive environment, providing for a shot clock on the review of those merger applications and providing better outcomes for consumers.
I look forward to marking up this important legislation in the House Financial Services Committee this week.
The OCC's merger rule under the Biden administration would have taken us in the exact opposite direction. It would have upended decades of precedent by shifting the burden onto banks to prove their merger should be approved rather than requiring the OCC to demonstrate how the merger conflicts with statutory factors.
This would be fundamentally unfair, increasing confusion for banks seeking to merge and massively increasing the delay on the pendency and review of these applications without any kind of deadline on the review.
Additionally, the rule would have abandoned expedited review for mergers for small, well-capitalized banks. Before the Biden-era regulation, there was an opportunity for expedited review of healthy mergers when there were small and well-capitalized institutions involved. Unfortunately, because of the Biden regulation, this resulted in a much more protracted process.
Expedited reviews are essential to avoid prolonged, costly merger review processes that hinder banks from maintaining their employee base or investing in technology. Instead, long-drawn-out application processes create an environment of uncertainty due to regulatory delays, even when the proposed transaction is relatively simple.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, consumers are the ones who are hurt most when their banks are caught in limbo and forced to devote resources to navigate the merger process instead of enhancing their own products and services.
The Democratic-led OCC rule was driven more by a progressive ideology against mergers in all sectors of all kinds in the economy rather than sound, rational policymaking. In fact, the Biden-Harris OCC did not even coordinate with the other banking regulators, such as the Federal Reserve Board, before issuing this final rule.
Creating different merger rules for banks with different charters would add significant ambiguity for both banks and their customers.
Thankfully, the current OCC under President Trump has recently indicated they will abandon this flawed rule. However, without this Congressional Review Act resolution, there is nothing to prevent a future administration from reintroducing this damaging rule that would prevent healthy, beneficial mergers from occurring. Community and regional banks, as well as their customers, should not have to fear that the rules will change dramatically in a few years.
Mr. Speaker, I can already anticipate the argument from my good friend from California. I know what she is going to say here in just a few minutes. She is going to say: Look at the Republicans. They are supporting mergers of big, bad banks, and that hurts Americans.
To the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Allowing healthy mergers to prevent bank failures allows for healthy financial institutions to compete with the big Wall Street banks. If you want more competition for big Wall Street banks, you should support this resolution of disapproval because you are going to create stronger competitors to the big Wall Street banks.
Opposing this resolution, like the gentlewoman and ranking member of our committee is about ready to do, is defending the regulatory moat that protects big banks from real competition.
The Democrats' opposition here is defending big banks without competition, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support healthy competition to prevent bank failures and to disapprove of this unwise regulation from the Biden administration.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and prevent the regulatory whipsaw that has proven so detrimental for banking institutions and the American people who rely on them. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) referred to me because the big banks hate me. They love him. They support him. They don't support me. Let's see whose side he is on.
As a matter of fact, he is here talking about not being in support of big bank mergers because he is trying so hard to get more community banks. We need more community banks, but he is a long way from getting what he is talking about.
The fact is, we really do need them because of the big bank mergers. One of the things he could do to increase having community banks that relate to the neighborhoods and relate to the people in the communities is to stop allowing these big mergers to take place.
I rise to express my opposition to S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would rescind a rule the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has put forth to improve their bank merger application review procedures.
Consumer groups, experts, and I have long rung the alarm bell as the Federal Government rubberstamped bank mergers for decades to the detriment of competition. The result has been a growing number of banking deserts where communities lack even one bank branch.
Let's see what happens after a merger.
Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to listen to me. I want him to know what happens after the big bank mergers. They close branches. They close down branches all throughout the communities. They lay off the workers. They need less workers, and so they start laying them off. They raise interest rates and fees on their customers.
We lose relationship banking, community involvement, and a personal touch from your neighborhood bank. When these big bank mergers come in, you don't have tellers anymore. As a matter of fact, when they close down the branches, you try to get them on the telephone.
Have you tried to talk with a bank manager on the telephone with these menus that they have? They run you around from so-called extension to extension to extension. You lose all of these relationships.
In fact, while thousands of bank mergers were approved in the last few decades, the last bank merger application that regulators denied was denied in 2003, 22 years ago.
Meanwhile, community banks have disappeared as the number of banks declined from more than 18,000 in 1990 to fewer than 5,000 today. Meanwhile, the biggest banks have grown much bigger through mergers and, not surprisingly, are charging customers more for banking products and services.
For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that the largest banks charged between $400 and $500 every year in additional interest and other fees for their average credit cardholders, compared to smaller community banks and credit unions.
In fact, that negative consumer impact is one of the many reasons I and more than 90 percent of public commenters urged regulators to oppose a recent Capital One and Discover merger--I think the gentleman supported that--which created the largest credit card issuer.
The Trump administration approved it anyway, and I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) did what Trump wanted him to do.
We already have enough megabanks with too much corporate power. In the mid-1990s, the 20 largest banks held 15 percent of all bank assets. Today, they hold more than 65 percent of all bank assets. The four largest megabanks hold more assets than the next 75 largest banks combined.
These megabanks are too big to manage. Take Wells Fargo, for example. They grew larger through mergers and then repeatedly violated the law and harmed millions of consumers. It got so bad that the Fed, under former Chair Janet Yellen's leadership, imposed an asset cap that remains in place to this day.
That is not easily done. Mr. Speaker, you don't hear Treasury doing that, placing asset caps, but they did that because of the way that Wells Fargo bank had just mismanaged and disregarded its customers.
To curb these rubberstamped mergers, former President Biden issued an executive order to encourage the Department of Justice and the banking agencies, including the OCC, to strengthen their merger reviews--get more information and find out what they intended to do and how they were going to provide more services.
That is what President Biden tried to get done with the OCC, to get more information. Don't just rubberstamp them. Let them merge, and do all the things that I have just alluded to.
After going through a public notice and comment process, the OCC, which oversees most large banks, including the four largest commercial banks in the country, published a final rule last year that made several commonsense improvements to its merger review procedures.
First, it eliminated a fast-track procedure where even the largest bank mergers could receive automatic approval of their mergers 15 days after their public notice comment period closed.
Second, the OCC required merger applicants to file the standard merger application to ensure they had enough information to weed out harmful mergers.
Third, the rule provided guidance, something industry often asks for. Specifically, the OCC provided guidance on how they would consider statutory factors when reviewing an application, making the process more transparent.
Rolling back these reforms is dangerous, especially at a time when DOGE is firing staff at the OCC and the other bank agencies, making it harder for them to carefully review these mergers.
I guess Elon Musk didn't stop with all of the other agencies that they were undermining and firing and laying off. They decided that they would fire staff at the OCC and the other bank agencies, making it harder for them to carefully review these mergers.
What Elon Musk was doing is consistent with what he has been doing and I guess what Trump wants him to do. They want less services. They want to make sure that they are supporting the biggest banks with these mergers, the biggest banks that are going to close down the community relationships that we have with community banks.
Moreover, I do not know why Republicans rushed this bad resolution to the floor, bypassing a committee markup. That would have been prudent. As I would point out, this resolution is actually a giant waste of time, as it would rescind a rule that was already rescinded by the OCC.
You heard me right. President Trump's Acting Comptroller of the Currency rescinded this very rule last week when it issued an interim final rule that took effect on May 15.
I am not surprised that my Republican colleagues weren't paying attention to this development, or maybe they were. Maybe they think that it was something that Trump had said to Elon Musk: Go get it done, an executive order. Maybe they felt that this was one of those executive orders that would get ruled out by the courts when we absolutely oppose him.
This resolution is only moving because Republicans needed to waste time while they hammer out how best to give $5 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires. They needed more time to figure out if tens of millions of Americans would lose Medicaid, whether millions of children would lose access to food stamps, and just how many consumer watchdogs they would fire at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It doesn't matter that the United States bond ratings were downgraded, that foreign investors are dumping U.S. investments, or that small businesses are struggling to keep their lights on.
No, Republicans are instead rescinding a rule that Trump already rescinded. I tried to give them credit for why he might be doing this, but what they have done is they have just disregarded that it has already been done. They came over to waste some time, just to make sure that that executive order perhaps won't work.
Much later tonight, when the rest of America is sleeping, Republicans are going to figure out just how many Americans they can squeeze to pay off their billionaire overlords.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad resolution being considered under the worst circumstances. I don't know why we are wasting time on this floor. I urge Members to reject this wasteful, harmful, anticompetition resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield some time to my good friend from Florida, I will take the opportunity to respond to a few of the points that my friend from California made that maybe she is misunderstanding what the law actually says.
When I refer to the law, I am referring to the Congressional Review Act, which is the statute that we are invoking here to invalidate this Biden-era regulation.
The gentlewoman from California says that: This is a waste of time. The Trump OCC has rescinded the rule. We don't need to do this. I would remind the gentlewoman from California the reason why we need to do this. The reason why we are invoking the provisions
We obviously know that there are bad regulators from the prior administration that prevented healthy mergers that would have prevented bank failures. There is no guarantee that we are not going to have an equally bad regulator in the future. That is why we have to take out this insurance policy against bad regulators in the future.
That is what the CRA is. It sends a clear message about balanced regulations that foster competition and innovation without excessive bureaucracy, and it safeguards against unchecked regulatory actions, ensuring that future rules undergo careful oversight.
Now I will address this assertion that bank merger applications are just rubber-stamped by regulators. If there is any evidence that that is not true, it is proof from the prior administration. Not only was there not a rubberstamp, there was so much scrutiny that they never happened. They languished. There was no shot clock. There was no review. They just sat there and languished.
Do you know what happened as a result? Banks withered on the vine waiting for a decision because of regulatory paralysis from the previous administration. There was hardly a rubberstamp. There was never a decision.
Frankly, all we are asking for is a decision one way or another, Mr. Speaker, yes or no, green light, red light. Don't just sit there in purgatory forever and not make a doggone decision. That is the problem we are trying to fix.
With respect to the gentlewoman's concern about closed branches, we are concerned about the lack of branches. We are concerned about banking deserts. That is exactly why Republicans introduced a resolution to allow for more de novo charters. We want more banks, not less. We want more competition, not less. We want those new banks to form in those underserved communities, urban, rural, suburban, wherever they are. We need more.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentlewoman, the ranking member, is: Why did she vote against that? If she is so concerned about no branches, not enough branches, banking deserts, why is she voting against making it easier for new banks to form in those places where there are no financial services?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), who is a great leader on our committee and who will offer his wisdom on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of Congressman Barr's good legislation.
Let me remind those listening about this idea that the tax issue is so important. Let's be clear here. The current rate on the highest earners in the United States is 37 percent. If our resolution passes, it will stay at 37 percent. There is no big tax break for the rich, as they claim over and over. It is 37/37. Let's be very clear on that message.
Second, who is getting the big tax cuts in this resolution? It is seniors, Social Security, people who earn tips, and people who work overtime. Those are the hardworking Americans who have supported the President and want to push this resolution forward so that we all enjoy economic success.
Getting to this issue today, I think it is so important, and Congressman Barr has put it perfectly. This is consumer protection. This is fair competition because the prior administration's OCC rule burdened businesses with excessive red tape, particularly targeting small banks and limited beneficial mergers.
Reversing this rule allows for essential mergers that drive innovation, lower operational costs, and benefit consumers. Remember, this rule was issued without coordinating with any other Federal agency.
This is why the smart decision Republicans are making today will codify and make a strong decision because we finally have true competition against the big boys that people say they are fighting against.
This is a commonsense issue, and I am proud to support Congressman Barr on this as a Member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as to our Democratic colleagues' concern that this legislation and allowing for healthy mergers to happen in the banking sector would somehow diminish financial services or that customer service would somehow be lost, it is actually the opposite.
When you have healthy mergers among, especially, community banks or a small regional bank acquiring a community bank, that allows them to add scale. That allows them to invest in the very technology that provides the customers with better services, with better, more innovative financial services and products.
Far from losing customer service, this is a way for smaller institutions, regional banks, to come together into combinations, invest in more technology, to lower costs, to help those customers to increase access to financial services in ways that they can better compete with the megabanks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When I talk about rubber-stamping, oftentimes people don't really know what we are talking about. What I am saying is that we need to have better review. The OCC needs to be able to do everything possible to ensure that they know what these big banks are going to do and whether or not they are going to close down branches, whether or not they are going to lay off people, whether or not people are only going to be able to go to their telephone, to the internet, and somehow try to get someone to talk to.
Let me tell you what the definition of rubber-stamping is. In 2023, the OCC approved--you won't believe this--22 of 23 mergers within 60 days. That is 95 percent done in 2 months. Now, that is what you call rubber-stamping. That is what you call the big businesses, big banks being able to do whatever they want to do. All they have to do is get individuals like my friend on the opposite side of the aisle to stand up and support them with what they want to do.
Again, I will remind you that when these big mergers take place, they lay off people, and they close down branch banking. That is why we have what we call deserts that exist in communities; deserts because there is no branch banking. The big boys don't really care about branch banking. They are big, and they are doing exactly what I have indicated by making more money by laying off more people, having less services, and charging larger interest rates. I am not on the side of big banks. I am on the side of the people.
Let me continue. The Republicans may claim this resolution also prevents the OCC from updating its merger review procedures in the future. Why would they want to do that with just one banking agency? Perhaps they forgot that we have two other Federal banking agencies, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Not only will this resolution freeze the OCC's review procedures in time and arguably prevent them from even providing guidance to applicants on how their review procedures work, but it allows other Federal bank regulators, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, to update their procedures.
This would likely lead to regulatory arbitrage, where banks seek to merge with banks within a charter where the primary regulator has the weakest review standards.
In fact, we saw this kind of arbitrage in the lead-up to the 2008 global financial crisis when the weakest banks would seek to get a charter from the weakest regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, OTS, until their banks failed and Congress shut down the agency in 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will address a couple of the arguments that were just made.
I think I heard the ranking member say that what we are trying to do is let them do whatever they want to do. That is actually not at all the case. The merger review process is a very involved process. There is quite a bit of
The problem we have seen, especially in the previous administration, is not necessarily that they disapproved a merger. They just didn't make a decision. If it is in the interest of financial stability to reject a bank merger, then that very well could be a legitimate regulatory decision, but make the decision. That is what we are saying here: Make the decision.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman is concerned about layoffs and employees of banks losing their jobs, the surest way that you will have massive layoffs and workers losing their jobs is for a bank merger application to be presented to the agencies and have literally no decision because guess where the acquisition target employees are going to go. They are going to go away. They are not going to stay with the bank.
What we are saying is: Give the merger applicant a decision one way or the other. That is the best way you can have worker retention in the banking sector.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 13 to overturn a Biden-era rule that threatens competition, undermines community banks, and diminishes consumer choice.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency introduced unnecessary impediments to prevent healthy bank mergers with limited justification. Community banks are the cornerstone of local communities, and often mergers present an opportunity to allow them to better keep up with costly compliance and technology costs.
Unlike the Member from California, I represent a rural area in North Carolina. I have seen firsthand what happens to banks that are not allowed to grow; frankly, because of a lot of the overregulation that they have had to deal with, particularly these last 4 years in the Biden administration.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen the opposite. I have seen the fact that North Carolina continues to grow, that thousands and thousands of people are leaving from States like California where they are overregulated and overtaxed. They are voting with their feet and coming to States that are much, much more business friendly and much more consumer friendly. That is the kind of policies that we need to be adopting in Washington.
This resolution is going to ensure that future administrations cannot create complicated review processes that lock out competition, provide unnecessary delay, and keep things in limbo for unknown periods of time.
In the true spirit of competition, this resolution cuts burdensome red tape and allows banks to get back to what they do best: serving customers and serving communities. This is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, comments were made earlier on the other side about the big, beautiful bill that we are going to be passing hopefully this week. This is another step to move this economy forward, to finally unshackle American energy, to finally move forward and reduce taxes, and to let that American spirit continue to grow.
These are the kinds of things that we need to be doing. These are the kinds of things that we are doing, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his excellent comments. I think another important point that needs to be made in the context of this resolution of disapproval of the Biden-era OCC rule is what is actually happening in the marketplace.
I think the arguments made on the other side of the aisle assume an antiquated market where the only competition that exists are banks, competing with banks. That is not the case anymore. We are living in 2025. In 2025, the advent of all kinds of nonbank financial services has to be taken into account when you look at the merger landscape in banking.
We have fintechs. We have nonbanks. There are credit unions. There is farm credit. There are all kinds of payment systems, movement to stablecoins and the blockchain. Financial services look a whole lot different than it did even 25 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, when you are doing an analysis of the propriety of a bank merger, you can't just look at whether or not this leads to some level of consolidation in the banking sector. You have to look at it in terms of competition across the financial services landscape.
In order to achieve the scale, to provide the same level of services, to provide the same level of technological convenience, and to provide the same level of underwriting and access to capital that consumers are being accustomed to now in this very competitive landscape, healthy mergers are needed for banks to compete with all of the financial technology that is happening in the economic landscape.
That is not being taken into consideration by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we tend to come to the floor when we are producing legislation, and we talk about a lot of ways that bills have to go through different kinds of discussions, different kinds of meetings, et cetera. Oftentimes, the people don't really understand what we are saying when we talk about things like mergers, and we talk about the OCC and we talk about review and all of that.
Let me just try and talk about it in ways that people understand.
First of all, I have said and I stand by the fact that with these big bank mergers, they close down branch banking. They close down the banks in the communities. Why do they do that? They do that because they want to save money. Yet, what happens when they close down the bank?
Mr. Speaker, in many communities and in my own community, when banks were closed down, all you had was the ATM. You didn't have anybody you could talk to. When people go to the bank and they only have the ATM, what do you do when you want to talk about an automobile loan? What do you do when you want to talk about a mortgage? Who do you talk to? Who answers questions about the credit cards and about things that show up on the credit card that you don't know about? Who do you talk to?
Mr. Speaker, I don't know who you talk to. You sure can't ask the ATM about that. The ATM cannot give you the kinds of services that branches give you. The reason branches were there in the first place are when you have these big bank mergers that close down the branch bankers.
Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate on an earlier point that I made. We have seen how the largest banks have grown too big to manage through these bank mergers and then repeatedly broke the law and harmed their customers.
For example, a few years ago, when I chaired the Committee on Financial Services, we investigated Wells Fargo after they were found to have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the law.
The bank illegally repossessed servicemembers' cars. They failed to submit a credible living will. They overcharged small business retailers for credit card services. They flunked their Community Reinvestment Act exam. They discriminated against people of color who were seeking mortgage loans.
To top it off, they pressured their employees to cross-sell their products, which led to the creation of millions of fake accounts without customers' permission so that staff could reach unrealistic sales goals.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle would want to challenge me on that because that is why we fined them when we discovered what they had done.
Can the Speaker imagine a huge bank like Wells Fargo, too big to manage, having all of this unlawful activity and leading to the creation of millions of fake accounts without customers' permission so that staff could reach these unrealistic sales goals? This is unbelievable, but this is what happened. My colleagues on the other
As a matter of fact, it was after all of this revelation about these unlawful activities that we were able to at least help get rid of some board members and the CEO. They all had to go.
Yet, this is what happens when you allow big, big banks to keep merging. They are too big to manage, and they give up on customer service that branch banking is all about. I bring that to the Speaker's attention so that I could make my colleagues on the other side of the aisle remember what happened with Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo was originally founded in 1852, and it grew, in part, through several bank mergers, including a 1998 merger with Northwest and an acquisition of Wachovia during the 2008 financial crisis. Wells Fargo became one of the biggest banks and the tenth largest public company in the world based on sales, profits, assets, and market value.
Yet, in our investigation, we learned that a senior official at Northwest had an aggressive cross-selling and product sales strategy, and he brought that approach to Wells Fargo. This strategy was adopted and spread throughout the business, including to former Wachovia branches and retail bank operations that Wells Fargo acquired.
Wells Fargo's CEO, John Stumpf, was fully aware that Wells Fargo's focus on this cross-selling combined with aggressive sales goals and associated incentive compensation plans could encourage employees' gaming and create compliance problems.
The bank was fined again and again until, in 2018, I pushed the bank regulators to use their full toolkit to hold a repeat offender like Wells Fargo accountable. The Federal Reserve, under former Chair Janet Yellen's leadership that I mentioned earlier about putting a cap on assets, used one of the tools regulators rarely use--and I repeat: Rarely is this used--to impose an asset cap on the bank until the bank cleaned up its act.
What it said basically was: You can't keep doing this and making money. You can't keep doing this and profiting off of the backs of your customers. You can't keep doing this and getting richer and richer, and so she put an asset cap on the bank until the bank cleaned up its act. That cap remains in place 7 years later.
Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will think of our constituents, including the servicemembers, the seniors, the students, the veterans, and our neighbors that Wells Fargo harmed when deciding if we could make bank mergers easier. If my colleagues do, they will vote ``no'' on this harmful resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague from California just reminds me to make the point that economies of scale are not inherently bad. Economies of scale and big, large financial institutions serve our economy. Community banks serve our economy. Midsize banks serve our economy. Regional banks serve our economy. Super-regional banks serve our economy, and big banks serve our economy. They serve different parts of the economy.
At the larger end, the globally and systemically important financial institutions make markets. They are part of why we have the deepest, most liquid, and most competitive capital markets on planet Earth. This is not a bad thing. This is a good thing.
Those large institutions are capable of serving large, multinational corporations that make the United States a destination for capital flows in our country. They are a magnet for foreign direct investment. They help us with countering terrorism. They give us a global visibility that we wouldn't have if we didn't have large globally important financial institutions that were forward positioned in other continents that allowed us visibility into financial flows and helped our law enforcement and our intelligence agencies find bad actors.
That is a good thing. That is not a bad thing. It is important, though, that we preserve the dynamism and the diversity of our banking sector. That is why we also want large regional banks, regional banks, midsize banks, and, yes, community banks and microbanks. We want it all. It is the diversity and heterogeneity of the banking sector that makes our system the best in the world.
That is why we want healthy mergers. We want de novo charters to backfill, but we want healthy mergers so that we have a constantly dynamic and healthy banking system.
Now, the gentlewoman cites this one particular case of fraud in one large bank, and she is right. It was a bad case, and it was properly punished by the regulators. She cites to a case of cross-selling and overly aggressive marketing and a sales goals program and compliance problems. It is true. There were, but it is not because there are healthy mergers in this country that that happened. That is not why that happened. That could have happened in a regional bank. That could have happened even in a smaller bank. It happened to happen in a larger bank, but guess what?
There are a lot of other large banks in this country where they didn't have those problems. When there are problems, that is why we have regulators and bank examiners. They fix those problems to make sure that they never happen again. You know what can help prevent those problems from happening even more than regulators, even more than central planning from Washington? Mr. Speaker, it is competition and choice.
That particular institution that the gentlewoman is talking about, maybe they didn't have enough competition. Maybe they didn't have enough competition, Mr. Speaker, because we had regulators that prevented healthy mergers to enter into their market space and actually compete and take customers who are unsatisfied with that cross-selling.
The whole point here is that we want a dynamic marketplace so that we can create competition. That is the best form of consumer protection, not a regulator, not an examiner, not regulatory inaction, or regulatory indecision. That is not consumer protection, but healthy mergers that allow for greater competition of the big banks. That is the way to protect consumers.
I will make one other point before I reserve, as well. When we say that large banks are not inherently bad, what we mean by that is that when you allow for a merger, let's say, of two regional banks, and you allow that scale, that economies of scale to take place, and where there are investments in technology, not only do you give the customers of that larger institution, that successor merged institution with greater resources to provide lower cost services, more technological advancements, but, yes, you allow them to invest in what? They invest in consumer protection.
You allow them to make sure that people in their organization are not making mistakes with cross-selling, making sure that they are using the latest technology to ensure that everybody is getting the right deal and the best deal and the most financial inclusion possible given that particular customer's circumstances.
Far from promoting problems, this resolution will actually help solve the problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we consider whether we should make the approval of bank mergers easier, I have another example of how mergers have led to major problems.
In 2020, the Federal Reserve and the OCC fined Citigroup $400 million over serious ongoing deficiencies relating to its risk management systems.
Now, this is very, very important. Every bank must have risk management but when they get too huge not only do they not have the proper risk management, it doesn't work very well. It was a longstanding issue that Citi had after they went through a series of mergers in the 1990s.
When the 2020 fine of $400 million was imposed, there was an article in The Wall Street Journal that explained how mergers harm the bank. They wrote: ``Regulators have long fretted that the hodgepodge of systems, a legacy of a string of deals in the 1990s that turned Citigroup into a financial powerhouse, could make the bank vulnerable to
They were too big to manage.
``A recent high-profile error--Citigroup's accidental $900 million payment to creditors of cosmetics company Revlon, Inc.--gave credence to their concerns.''
That is right. The bank lacked sufficient controls because of its past mergers--too big to manage--and accidentally paid $900 million to Revlon, which quickly went into litigation.
The bank did not correct their problems. Regulators fined them again last year, but earlier this year, we learned that Citibank made another big payment error. The bank--I love this one--intended to pay a customer $280 but someone accidentally added way too many zeros to the transaction. For 90 minutes before an employee caught the mistake, one lucky customer had $81 trillion credited to their account. Unfortunately, for that customer, the bank corrected their error and far too often these kinds of mismanagement mistakes actually lead to harm for consumers.
In fact, since 2000, Citigroup has paid over--listen to this--$27 billion in fines, settlements, and consumer remediation, including 42 actions related to consumer protection violations. This includes discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants, overcharging other credit card holders, and mortgage servicing violations that could have helped homeowners avoid failure.
Again, this is the logical conclusion if we have faster mergers. We will have fewer and fewer banks that are bigger and bigger and, indeed, too big to manage.
Let me just say: When I said how much they had been fined just a moment ago, Citigroup, one could think how could they be fined that much money? How can they afford it? Where do you think they got that money from? Where do you think that money came from? Why do you think that doesn't matter to the big banks? It is just a matter of doing business.
Do you know where that money comes from? It comes from the customers. That is why we have to make sure that the customers are serviced properly, that when a big merger wants to have support from the government, that they will have been vetted in such a way that OCC understands very well: How are you going to service these customers? Are you going to close down these branch bankers? How are you going to help somebody that is looking for a mortgage? What are you going to do to the person that can't talk to the ATM because they are trying to get a car loan?
These are legitimate questions. These are legitimate answers that need to be given.
I will say this: The money does not fall out of the sky that allows them to pay millions and millions of dollars in fines. It comes from charging the customers, increasing interest rates, laying off employees so you have less employees to pay, and the services get worse and worse and worse.
The customers are the victims of these big mergers who do not want to be reviewed properly and who you support in not wanting to be reviewed properly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of where a merger that was recently approved certainly doesn't hurt consumers but helps consumers and creates more competition.
The gentlewoman cites the approval of the Capital One-Discover merger. Do you know what that merger did? It created a third option, in addition to MasterCard and Visa, for consumers to access in terms of a payment network. That is not diminishing competition. That is creating more competition. It is more competition for Visa and more competition for MasterCard. Ask Visa and MasterCard. They will tell you.
This is a very formidable competitor to MasterCard and Visa now that there is an approved merger between Capital One, a substantial credit card business, a substantial payment business, and Discover with their substantial network. You create a third option for consumers. That is procompetition, not anticompetition.
I will make another point. This is not just about big banks. It is about small community banks. We are scrutinizing today the Biden OCC's regulation.
What did that regulation do, Mr. Speaker? It eliminated expedited procedures for approval of what? It eliminated expedited procedures for approval of community bank mergers, small noncomplex mergers that would allow those community banks to serve those small communities better. That regulation eliminated that.
Here is what the trade association of the smallest banks in America says about that Biden regulation. Here is what the small banks say about that regulation.
``ICBA strongly opposes the elimination of the expedited review and streamlined applications. . . . not every transaction is complex. For example, in instances where two community banks within the same market attempt to merge, and the merger does not pose significant financial stability, consumer protection, competition or safety, and soundness concerns, the OCC should treat the transaction as noncomplex and permit for review under streamlined procedures.''
It makes sense to me that we would have streamlined, expedited procedures so that we can make sure community banks can continue to compete. This is not about big banks. It is about small banks and the survival of small banks under the avalanche of red tape that came at them after Dodd-Frank, after the avalanche of competition from nonbanks and credit unions and fintechs and blockchain companies. We want these small banks to survive, to continue to serve their communities. This is the way they do it.
Finally, I will make a point that hasn't really been discussed here today in this debate; that is, we should remember the lessons of Silicon Valley Bank. There was a very, very significant panic because of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and there was a run on that bank.
We don't want that to happen again. We don't want a panic. We don't want a run. We want to prevent bank failures, and the way to prevent bank failures is to allow strong banks to acquire weak banks. We want to make sure that a failing bank can be saved by a white knight. Delaying approvals of healthy mergers is very dangerous for financial stability.
We need this legislation so that we never have a bad regulation that would prevent regulators from allowing expedited approval of mergers that help save the system.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am just sitting here being absolutely shocked by some of my own words when I take a look at the fines that we have charged both Citi and Wells Fargo. I see that each of them have paid $27 billion in fines, but they are still in business. Do you know why? It is because they make so much money. This is just the cost of doing business. We break the law. They are going to fine us, but we can afford it. We will go on doing what we do. This is what happened with the big, big banks that you allow to merge without understanding what they are all about and what is their commitment to the consumers.
As a matter of fact, they can afford to pay $57 billion in fines, money that they have collected from their customers. They only see this as the cost of doing business, and they keep on doing business, keep on getting fined. What are we talking about?
Listen, I am not opposed to credible mergers. Democrats just want mergers that result in a bank that will follow the law and serve the community. We want to make sure that they have the systems in place and the management to follow the law. Why? Because the consumer is on the hook and the taxpayer is on the hook; that is why.
Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that I have not talked to anybody recently who was happy with their bank. They have problems getting services because the banks keep cutting back on employees and trying to push everybody to the ATM.
We can do better than this. We can understand when the mergers want to take place, who these entities are that want to merge, how huge this is going to make this bank, and what they are going to do about branch banking.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, former Federal Reserve Governor and now-Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who talked about the procompetition benefits of healthy mergers, said: ``Reducing the efficiency of bank M&A can be a deterrent to healthy bank transactions. It can reduce the effectiveness of M&A activity that preserves the presence of community banks in underserved areas, prevent institutions from pursuing prudent growth strategies, and actually undermine competition by preventing firms from growing to a larger scale, effectively creating a `protected class' of larger institutions.''
Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing that was called when the ranking member was the chair. She called in all the CEOs of the biggest banks in the country. In this particular hearing, the gentlewoman from California also hauled in some of the CEOs of the regional banks, the big regional banks, in addition to the G-SIB Wall Street banks.
I noticed that the CEO of a successor institution that was formed by the merger of two regional banks was sitting right next to the CEO of one of the largest banks on planet Earth, so I said to the CEO of one of the largest banks on planet Earth: This gentleman who is now the CEO of a big regional bank is sitting next to you. Can you tell me what a more formidable competitor to your big Wall Street bank is? Is it the original small regional bank, the other small regional bank, or is it the combination of those two regional banks that made a bigger regional bank?
He said: Undoubtedly, it is the bigger regional bank that poses a bigger competitive threat to me, the big Wall Street bank.
Not all mergers are bad. There are a lot of mergers that help create more competition. That is what we want.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it provides better financial services and products and access to the American Dream for the American people.
That is why we want to disapprove this bad regulation. That is why we want to make sure that mergers are allowed to allow for distressed banks to sell themselves instead of failing, thereby insulating the Deposit Insurance Fund from losses.
This is to help financial stability, Mr. Speaker. I urge all of my colleagues, for the reasons that we have outlined today, to help us invalidate this bad regulation and to make sure that no regulator in the future can pass another bad regulation like this that would prevent healthy mergers.
For goodness' sake, if you want dynamism and competition in a diverse banking system, support our agenda that not only allows for healthy mergers but also provides for regulatory tailoring so that we provide relief to small community banks so that they can compete, relief to the regional banks so that they can compete, and, for goodness sake, clear the way for de novo charters, new banks, to come into the system.
I don't know, for the life of me, why my friends on the other side of the aisle who complain about big banks won't allow for healthy mergers to compete with them, won't allow for new banks to come into the system by overregulating the heck out of the sector, and won't allow there to be a dynamic, diverse banking system.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and others, as I explained earlier, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1969) to amend and reauthorize the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1969, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1969, as amended. This bill was introduced by the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), my friend and colleague.
The bill is a powerful reminder that mental health and physical health go hand in hand. This bill extends authorization for the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program.
House Republicans created the Fox grant program to expand the reach of VA's mental health services through community-based organizations where veterans and their families live. The organizations that have qualified for the Fox grant program provide traditional and nontraditional mental health and therapy support services to veterans in need. This ensures VA services are reaching everyone who needs them. We should, without question, continue the Fox grant program.
This bill also recognizes that being in the military is a physical task. If our country wants to make veterans whole after their service, it only makes sense that VA should provide the means for physical activity.
Representative Miller-Meeks' bill would make adaptive prosthetics a necessary medical service. This would help our veterans to return to the activities they were accustomed to or even explore new opportunities.
We must not let our veterans' time in service be what holds them back from living the rest of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I thank our Health Subcommittee chairwoman for her leadership on both issues. This bill is a fantastic idea that will save veterans' lives, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1969, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in hesitant support of H.R. 1969, the No Wrong Door Act, as amended.
This bill would reauthorize the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program, or Fox grants, for fiscal year 2026.
As the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, one of my top priorities has been and will continue to be veteran suicide prevention. The Fox grant program is an important tool in our arsenal for this work.
Community-based programs are a crucial part of a public health approach to suicide prevention. However, I do have significant concerns with this legislation's approach to reauthorizing this program.
We must ensure that we reauthorize this program in a way that ensures it is as effective and robust as possible. I would like to take this time to highlight some of those concerns.
First, based on congressionally mandated reports that the committee has received, VA has not established enough metrics to allow Congress to monitor the success of the program. Additionally, in our view, grantees are not collecting or reporting complete data for all participants, which further limits Congress' ability to determine whether the program is meeting its intended purposes. It is clear that this bill, as drafted and amended, will not do enough to improve data collection and make clear what data grantees are responsible for collecting.
This bill would also compound this issue by requiring grantees to use the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale to screen participants for their baseline mental health when entering the program. While this scale is a widely accepted, clinically validated behavioral health screening instrument, its primary use is to measure a patient's suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal risk at a given point in time.
VA already requires Fox grantees to screen their participants using a number of other validated screening tools, both at baseline and after connecting veterans to additional support. Each of these tools measures other upstream factors of mental health that contribute to veterans' suicide risks, such as levels of emotion, optimism, work satisfaction, and social support.
Limiting grantees to the use of a single screening instrument that measures suicide risk at a point in time will further limit our ability to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Fox grant program on improving veterans' mental health.
Perhaps more importantly, Congress is not and should not be in the business of mandating the use of a particular clinical tool. Not only does it micromanage providers or grantees in terms of determining the most clinically appropriate tool, but it also arbitrarily limits providers and grantees from using a different tool in the future if it is determined to be more effective.
Finally, I remain concerned about language that would dramatically alter the entities that would be eligible to receive grants. Specifically, we oppose language that would add ``healthcare providers'' as eligible grantees. The Fox grant program was designed to allow community-based organizations to help address upstream suicide risk factors and provide services to support veterans' needs. It was never intended to directly provide clinical care, particularly mental health care.
Combined with my existing concerns about the bill's lack of requirements to strengthen data collection and demonstration of effective outcomes, I remain extremely concerned that opening eligibility up to new types of grantees without establishing additional definitions, guardrails, or oversight will weaken the quality of care provided to veterans.
In its current form, H.R. 1969, as amended, does not reauthorize this grant program in a way that will meet the needs of our veterans.
Just 2 weeks ago, we held a markup where my Republican colleagues rejected several amendments to improve this version of the bill, including an amendment I offered that would have at least partially addressed my concerns. Thus, the bill that we are considering today is not one that considers any of the areas of improvement that I had hoped could be incorporated into the legislation at the community level.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Senator Warner's bill to reauthorize this program, S. 793, is a better starting place that will help ensure that we reauthorize the strongest possible version of this grant program.
I hope we will have an opportunity to engage in robust renegotiation and discussion with my Republican colleagues and our Senate counterparts to ensure we advance the strongest possible bill to prevent veteran suicide.
That said, while I have serious concerns about how this bill would reauthorize the program, I want to make clear that I understand that this grant program is a critical piece of VA's efforts in ensuring veterans receive the outreach, support, and services they need and deserve when it comes to their mental health.
Therefore, I hope that, moving forward, we can work together, along with our Senate counterparts, to reauthorize the Fox Grant Program in a responsible way and ensure it is as effective and robust as our Nation's veterans deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the fiscal year, the Fox Grant Program expires. This bill will keep the Fox Grant Program going. We have made important
I look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders and veterans groups to find ways to make even more improvements to the Fox Grant Program, but I won't let perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't let this lifesaving program that veterans and their families rely on stop. That is what we are here to do.
When it comes to the screening tool, it is essential that all grantees use the same protocol to determine the effectiveness of services and programs.
The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale is currently a tool used by VA as one component of an eligibility screening and identifies individuals with suicidal thoughts and behavior.
If we simply allow grantees to use whatever protocol they choose, this could create differing approaches and confusion. The bill simply requires that grantee servers include this essential screening tool. The code says include, not exclude or only.
This bill, as amended, preserves VA's flexibility to ensure the best results for veterans who are seeking mental health services in their most desperate moments.
It is common sense to allow those who are already providing mental health services to receive grants for a suicide prevention program. Not only are these applicants subject to the same level of scrutiny as previous years' grantees but they also receive the same amount of funding.
The idea that this creates a loophole or expands community care is far from reality. Adding qualified providers to the list of grantees helps keep the door open for veterans seeking mental health services. The reality is this program is set to expire in September, and we cannot allow this to happen.
Delay jeopardizes this program. We have big problems to solve. Adding qualified mental health providers will only help.
I can appreciate the fact that the Senate has a different perspective. However, I find their approach to be business as usual for Congress and VA. Their bill would simply reauthorize the program for longer and with more money. It would also oblige VA to provide more vague reporting requirements and briefing, in other words, more money and more bureaucracy.
If this program had been perfect, maybe this would be a good idea. I think we can do better by ensuring the program continues longer, while giving Congress the opportunity to revisit these programs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Bost for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1969, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act. As an Army veteran of 24 years, a physician, and a Member of Congress, I have seen the toll that service can take on our veterans, not just physically but mentally and emotionally. I have heard from too many who feel forgotten once they have taken off the uniform.
While I respect my colleague's comments from the other side of the aisle, to ask for data for metrics and for outcomes but not to provide a tool for these grantees seems to be the wrong path to take.
Mr. Speaker, 17 veterans die by suicide every single day. That number should shake this Chamber. It is a national tragedy and a moral call to action. This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the VA's Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program, one of the most effective tools we have to get local, trusted organizations the funding they need to help struggling veterans.
In Iowa, I have seen incredible work being done by people like Shane Sawyer, an Air Force special operations combat veteran who helps lead the Quad Cities Veterans Network. He brings veterans together, not just to socialize but to survive, to reconnect with the tribe they lost, to rediscover their identity, and to talk to people who understand what they have been through.
His work saves lives. It is that simple. This bill helps him and thousands like him do even more. It also includes my Veterans SPORT Act, which ensures veterans can access adaptive prosthetics for sports and physical activity.
Recovery isn't just about prescriptions. It is about purpose. Whether it is walking a golf course or playing a team sport, these activities can be the difference between isolation and hope.
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to our veterans. This bill is about keeping it. It ensures no veteran falls through the cracks. No door should be the wrong door when a veteran is in crisis. No door should be the wrong door when it comes to making our veterans whole.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1969. Let's do the right thing by those who put everything on the line for us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share my position on H.R. 1969, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act, as amended. I will always be supportive of efforts to prevent veteran suicide, but I remain concerned that this bill does not do enough to ensure the Fox Grant Program is working as intended.
Veterans deserve our best legislative efforts, not legislation that creates more problems than it solves and that does not take steps to improve suicide prevention efforts.
That being said, I will not stand in the way of forward progress on veteran suicide prevention efforts, but I strongly urge my House and Senate colleagues to work with us to ensure that final reauthorization of this program is as robust as possible.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I encourage all Members to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1969, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury Relating to the Review of Applications Under The...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, nays 207, not voting 6, as follows:
Ms. PINGREE and Mrs. McIVER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WITTMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Madam Speaker, I was necessarily absent and missed one vote on the House Floor during the 5 p.m. vote series today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 137.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 692nd Tank Destroyer Battalion for their service in World War II. Their accomplishments cannot be overstated.
The 692nd Tank Destroyer Battalion endured 195 consecutive days of combat across Europe in the fall of 1944 through the spring of 1945. They helped free thousands of prisoners in the Dachau concentration camp. The day after that, they captured Munich.
There are many names to be honored in such a historic group, but two I would like to highlight today are Captain William McQuade and the last surviving veteran of the battalion, Jack Myers. Their stories serve as a great reminder of the dedication this great generation had to the principle of freedom.
I thank them for their service, and God bless America.
Mr. Speaker, I recently heard from a mom in Massachusetts. I will call her Rachel.
Rachel's son was born 3 months early and then spent 2 years in the hospital. He is finally home, but he needs a ventilator and a feeding tube. Still, his mom says he is the happiest little 3-year-old in town.
They have been through a lot, but they are able to get by--unless this Republican budget becomes law.
Medicaid pays for the daily care this little boy needs to survive. Rachel wrote: ``We are terrified about what losing Medicaid support would mean for our family.''
Moms have enough to deal with. Let's leave their healthcare alone.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional man who recently celebrated 30 years of dedicated service to Waupaca County and the citizens of northeast Wisconsin.
Last week, Waupaca County Sheriff Timothy Wilz reached a milestone of three decades of service in law enforcement. From his time as a jailer and dispatcher to his current role as sheriff, Timothy Wilz's dedication to public service is an inspiration to us all.
It is especially fitting that his 30-year anniversary fell during National Police Week, a time when we honor the hard work of our law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe.
Throughout his impressive career, Sheriff Wilz has served in multiple roles that have been essential to maintaining the safety of Waupaca County residents.
Sheriff Wilz began his career in law enforcement with the Manawa Police Department in 1991 and became a corrections officer in 1995 with the
In 2018, he was elected to serve as the sheriff of Waupaca County due to his wide-ranging skill set, ample knowledge, and unwavering service to the people of Waupaca County.
I had the privilege of getting to know Sheriff Wilz personally over the last year, and I know that he is a man of integrity who is committed to upholding the rule of law and protecting the people of Waupaca County.
On behalf of the people of Waupaca County and Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District, I thank Sheriff Wilz for his decades of honorable service.
There are a lot of Representatives here today because the Democratic Women's Caucus and my Democratic colleagues are here to stand against Republicans' bad bill and their budget.
My Democrat colleagues are here to tell the stories of how the Republicans' slashing of Medicaid and SNAP will betray American families, women, and cause immense suffering.
Vanessa's 6-year-old son, Alex, has hemophilia. The littlest cut could cost him his life. Imagine worrying about your child bleeding to death just for playing in the schoolyard.
Alex can live an almost normal life with medicine, but it costs $700,000 a year.
Vanessa works at the Taos schools, but in her words, without Medicaid, we would not be able to afford this medicine. Alex's mom is terrified to lose Medicaid because she is worried it means she will lose her son.
Republicans, we need four of you, just four of you, to stand up against the billionaires and to stand with Alex and working moms like Vanessa.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Luke Jennings.
Luke is from Felicity, Ohio, and was elected to serve as the national secretary of the Future Farmers of America.
Farming is in Luke's blood, as he has raised livestock, shown pigs and cattle, and his family owns and operates Windy Ridge Acres, a beef cow operation. As the Representative of an agriculture-focused district, I understand how important family farms are. It is my honor to advocate on their behalf in Congress.
The FFA plays a critical role in equipping our young people with the tools they need to successfully lead the next generation of American farming. Farmers across the United States and my district have benefited from the FFA's commitment to advancing agriculture education through their comprehensive learning model.
Luke earned his national secretary position after serving as the Felicity-Franklin chapter officer and Ohio State officer for 2 years.
In addition to his service in the FFA, Luke is currently pursuing a degree in agriscience education at the Ohio State University.
I would also like to recognize Luke's mom, Holly, who is a longtime FFA adviser.
Luke, the whole Jennings family, and the farmers across America represent the best of this country. I congratulate and thank Luke for all he does.
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, Medicaid and SNAP are lifelines for hundreds of thousands of people in mid-Michigan.
There are 148,000 people in my district who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.
Over 224,000 in my district get healthcare through Medicaid, including over 87,000 children and 19,000 seniors.
Every one of these individuals is now at risk of losing their lifeline because of these cuts.
Rhonda from Genesee County has a 28-year-old son with Angelman syndrome whose intensive care is heavily funded by Medicaid. Rhonda had to quit her job to care for him and receives money through a Medicaid- funded program for caregivers.
There are thousands of stories just like Rhonda's in my district and millions more across this country. This budget will be devastating for the very people we swore to serve.
That is why I am offering an amendment to address how these cuts will hurt maternal health outcomes in this country.
Slashing SNAP, eliminating access to prenatal care, and kicking expecting mothers off their insurance will only worsen the maternal health crisis in this country and lead to more suffering.
Working families, children, mothers, and seniors deserve a budget that works for them, not the ultrawealthy.
One of the Merit Caucus' core missions is to spotlight exceptional educators, and Utah is blessed with so many. My team recently visited Bluffdale Elementary, a dual language immersion school where students start learning Portuguese in the first grade and stick to it throughout high school.
Two inspiring classrooms were taught by Ms. Jessica Bell-Aver's first grade class and Edson Habelo's sixth grade class. Both teachers spoke exclusively in Portuguese, and the students rose to meet the challenge. First graders eagerly answered questions about the calendar and weather in Portuguese. Sixth graders tackled science concepts like ecosystems in fluent Portuguese.
This is what happens when we set a high bar. Bluffdale's students are thriving because dedicated teachers believe in their potential and push them to reach them. That is merit in action.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to attempts by Republicans to slash healthcare that millions rely on just to benefit Elon Musk and the friends of the President.
Almost 14 million Americans will lose healthcare coverage if this plan is successful. This is life or death.
In my home State of Georgia, these Republican cuts impact 2 million people, real people. A single mother in Atlanta working two jobs is now facing losing her Medicaid. A veteran in rural Georgia now has to face red tape just to get the benefits he earned serving our country. This isn't about accountability. It is about taking food and healthcare from people who need it most.
People have seen how these policies fail. In Georgia, red tape and paperwork errors have already kicked thousands off their healthcare coverage, even when they are eligible.
This isn't reform. This is cruelty. My colleagues need to protect healthcare for working families, not strip away their lifeline.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Paul Redman, the visionary leader behind the world-renowned Longwood Gardens, which is a fixture of my community in the Philadelphia area.
Since 2006, Paul's masterful leadership has helped Longwood navigate modernization, a global pandemic, and even an escaped convict hiding on the grounds. Under his direction, Longwood has grown physically and programmatically, becoming a go-to destination for events, employing hundreds across southeastern Pennsylvania, and bringing 1.6 million people to our community last year.
I have been proud to honor hosts like the Japanese Ambassador to Longwood Gardens, and I am always grateful for Paul's graciousness and hospitality.
This week, for his steadfast dedication to our community and to Longwood, Paul is being inducted into the Chester County Economic Development Council Hall of Fame. He has made innumerable contributions to our region, and this honor is beyond well-deserved.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Paul. I am so proud to have an extraordinary leader such as him in our community and at the head of our Longwood Gardens.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the California Air Resources Board is trying to jam through a gas price hike under the cover of its so-called low carbon fuel standard. After the rule was blocked earlier this year for being unclear and poorly written, CARB is now racing to make it effective by July 1, just months after quietly approving it right after the election and in time for summer travel for people on vacation, et cetera.
Even their own staff at CARB admitted it will raise gas prices. Californians already pay the highest gas prices in the country. This will just make it worse.
This is set to add at least 65 cents per gallon by this move. Combined with a couple of closed refineries in California, by the time that kicks into place, a USC study indicates it could be $8.40 per gallon. Let that settle.
That is exactly why I acted at the Federal level and led the charge to rein in California's Clean Air Act waiver authority, the same waiver CARB uses to push these costly, unchecked regulations onto the rest of the country. No agency should have this much power to raise costs without public input or accountability. This is bureaucratic overreach.
We voted here to contain CARB on forcing electric cars and trucks under these waivers. We should give them no more waivers and allow that or other radical policies that raise costs for families and everybody else.
Mr. Speaker, of all of the titles I hold, the most important is ``mom.'' Like fierce, fighting mothers across this country, we want a better future and a safer future for our children, like Tiffany George. She is a courageous mother in Hood River who has two beautiful children, Wylie and June.
Wylie, her youngest, was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder at 18 months. Very quickly, Tiffany and her husband were overwhelmed with medical bills, doctor visits, therapies, medical equipment, and hospital visits.
Mr. Speaker, 10 hospital visits almost put them into bankruptcy. Medicaid was a lifeline. Without Medicaid, Wylie's lifesaving medications would cost $9,000 a month. That is $9,000.
Democrats are united against this cruel Republican budget because we are willing to fight for families, for their future, and for their health.
Without food stamps and healthcare, children like Wylie will suffer. Families will be pushed to the brink. I am here fighting every day for Tiffany, for Wylie, and every other mother and American family who deserves that stability.
Mr. Speaker, I feel I must address one of the key issues that we are going to be dealing with in the next 2 days, and that is: What type of new tax cuts are we going to put into the Internal Revenue Code?
Some people think that if I had my choice, I would bring back the personal exemption and put $1,000, or $2,000, or $3,000 per child on that return because there is no time in life in which you need money more than when you are just starting out with children and have a big mortgage. We should look out for the average guy at a time when they are most desperate.
Some people would say my second pick would be to reduce the marginal tax rate on the most technical manufactured goods because we want those goods to be made here in America, and it would be great to have those manufactured in America.
Some people, however, think the most important thing is to encourage States to increase their taxes and have higher property taxes from the local units of government and higher income taxes for the State government. They want to increase the exemption for those to encourage State governments and local governments to spend more money.
No, we should be helping out the young people with children just starting out.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the impacts of Republicans' big, bad bill.
I don't want us to forget that healthcare is a matter of life and death, and the proposed Medicaid cuts are a death sentence for people like Jessica, who lives in my district.
Jessica fled an abusive relationship when she was 25. Then she found out she was pregnant. Only through Medicaid, Jessica was able to access prenatal care.
Then, late in her pregnancy, her doctor discovered a knotted umbilical cord. She was rushed into surgery. Thankfully, Jessica gave birth to a healthy baby.
Without Medicaid, Jessica might not be a mom today. She and her daughter might not have survived. These massive cuts will force hospitals and birthing facilities to close. That means that no one has a safe place to give birth.
The result is a tragic domino effect for moms and kids.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Charlene, a grandmother in Michigan, who wrote me with a real, honest fear about Medicaid cuts.
Her granddaughter is just 11 years old, and she lives with type 1 diabetes.
Her mother is a single mom and a nurse. She takes care of others for a living. Even though she has her own insurance, it doesn't come close to covering all of her daughter's needs.
That is where Medicaid comes in. She is doing everything right and this family is still holding their breath. If Medicaid disappears, Charlene's granddaughter faces the possibility of going without the medicine that keeps her alive.
Who are we as a nation? Why are we talking about this right now, and all for what? It is so that Republicans can continue massive tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. We can afford the healthcare that we need and deserve in this country if we are willing to stand up to the ultrawealthy.
I will never stop fighting for Charlene's granddaughter and every family like hers in west Michigan and across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the GOP tax scam, which would gut the programs that families rely on, like Medicaid and SNAP, just to give trillions in tax breaks to the wealthy.
In my district, more than 208,000 people rely on Medicaid, and 75,000 people rely on SNAP. They include women like Nancy from Pasadena, California.
Nancy has stage V kidney failure. She relies on Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security to keep a roof over her head, food on her table, and continue her treatment. She is scared to death about losing these.
Nancy asked me to tell my Republican colleagues that one day, they or their loved one might need the resources that they are fighting so hard to slash.
Do not take food literally out of the mouths of babies just so Elon Musk can buy another yacht. Nancy deserves better. All of our constituents deserve better, and House Democrats are here to fight back against this cruelty.
Mr. Speaker, Medicaid is a critical and important safety net and a provider of affordable, accessible, appropriate healthcare, especially in the rural communities I represent.
Today, I will share a story of Florence from North Bend, Oregon. She is a mother, a caregiver, and a fighter. She lives with a rare neuromuscular disease, myasthenia gravis, a rare form of angioedema.
For her, Medicaid isn't just a safety net, it is a lifeline. It covers the critical treatment and specialist care that keep her out of the ER and out of the ICU. Beyond that, it allows her to be there for the people who count on her most. Because Medicaid helps her manage her health, Florence is able to raise her 10-year-old daughter and care for her elderly parents. Her mother who has heart failure and COPD, and her father, who has serious health challenges of his own, were able to age in their homes.
Without Medicaid, this entire support system would collapse. Taxpayers would pay more to support all of them, and their family would be broken. This is what is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, Medicaid isn't just about individual coverage. It is the backbone of family stability across the country; for Florence, for her daughter, for her parents, and for millions of families like theirs. We must protect and strengthen Medicaid. Lives and futures depend on it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join our Democratic leader and Democratic Women's Caucus colleagues in highlighting stories of women and children who would be harmed by the House Republican agenda.
Republicans are slashing $300 billion--that is b, billion dollars-- from SNAP, in addition to cutting $700 billion from Medicaid. That is $1 trillion in cruel cuts from our Nation's children in order to give tax cuts to billionaires.
SNAP is our Nation's most effective antihunger initiative. The devastating Republican cuts threaten children and families in California and across America who are scared and crying out for help.
One single mom, Melissa, from California who lives in a district represented by one of our Republican colleagues shared that if not for SNAP, her family of three children every month would be running out of money for food. She would have zero dollars for food. She attends school full time and says that without SNAP they would be forced to rely on food giveaways or starve.
Republicans shamelessly call this reform, but let's be clear: It is a sinful betrayal of the Gospel of Matthew: ``When I was hungry, you fed me.''
Mr. Speaker, Democrats will never stop fighting to ensure no child is left behind. Hands off our Medicaid, and hands off our SNAP.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.
There are 25 million Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in the U.S., representing the fastest growing racial group in the country. We have made invaluable contributions to our country and play a vital role in shaping America for the better.
However, at a time when we should be celebrating, our communities are anxious and afraid. This celebration of our heritage, culture, and stories is dampened by the Republican scheme to strip away benefits from those that need them most.
This big, bad billionaire bill would impact nearly 200,000 Asian- American constituents, many of them senior citizens in my district alone, not to mention the nearly 1 in 10 Asian Americans across our country that rely on food assistance through SNAP and the 1 in 6 NHPIs living in poverty.
Meanwhile, the top 20 percent of income earners will get nearly 70 percent of the benefits of this bill.
There are hungry grandmas, sick children, and veterans who were promised care after serving our country. What a way to celebrate and uplift our diverse AANHPI communities.
Our communities deserve not just to survive but to thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to read the letter that the Governor of Michigan and I received from Marie Adkins.
``I'm a mom to a son with special needs. I'm also a nurse in primary care settings. My story is from the front lines. . . . If you cut Medicaid, Americans will die. People will get sick. They'll lose jobs. Some won't survive. It's not an exaggeration. It's reality.
``This bill doesn't cut waste. It cuts the heart out of programs that help Americans meet their basic needs: healthcare, nutrition, essential services. There's nothing excessive about needing insulin or a wheelchair or therapy. This isn't luxury. It's survival. My son is on the autism spectrum.
``And let's be real about who this hits the hardest: children, people with disabilities, and low-income seniors. These are Americans who rely on Medicaid to live with dignity, to have food
``Every day at our clinic, I hear it: `I'm scared. I feel hopeless. I don't know how much longer I can hang on. . . .'
``This is the health crisis we're living in and this bill would make it worse.''
Mr. Speaker, for months, Members of Congress and the American people have been told by our Republican colleagues that we are being alarmist about this budget proposal.
We aren't being alarmist. House Republicans' cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other essential programs are alarming. These are real people who are depending on us to make sure they still have healthcare and are able to feed their families.
These are real people who come to my townhalls, who write to us, and who call my office. They are real people like Aneliese, a single mother, who called our office urging us through tears to protect SNAP, saying: I will have no way to feed my child. I am extremely stressed out, and if they cut food stamps, I don't know what I will do.
They are real people like Christy, whose daughter has autism and epilepsy. She said: Losing Medicaid would be absolutely devastating to my family. I won't be able to keep my daughter healthy or get her the medications she needs.
They are real people like Veronica, whose grandmother's last few days in long-term care were only possible because of Medicaid.
Taking healthcare and food away from people isn't bringing down prices for families. It is telling people that your health and your lives aren't worth as much as billionaires' bank accounts.
Mr. Speaker, in just a few hours, the Rules Committee will be making the final touches to America's worst budget ever. They are doing it in the middle of the night to hide the fact that this bill will make Americans sicker and poorer.
Take SNAP, the most effective antipoverty tool we have. This bill is the deepest cut to food assistance in history, making it harder to put food on the table for seniors, families, and veterans, including 74,000 people in my district.
Vivian, in New Rochelle, said: I have been delivering food to seniors and people in need since 2009. I do this every day because I know what it is like to be in need myself. I had to stop working when I was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and now I rely on SNAP, and it is still not enough. If those benefits are cut, it would be devastating.
Republicans are taking food assistance and healthcare away from those who need it the most to give tax breaks to those who need them the least.
Try to spin it any way you want. Everyday Americans will suffer.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the big, bad billionaire bill, especially the cuts to Medicaid.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will result in more than 13 million people across the country losing health insurance coverage, and people with disabilities will be the hardest hit.
Medicaid is the primary program for comprehensive health and long- term care coverage to one in three people with disabilities.
My colleagues across the aisle are so focused on giving tax cuts to billionaires, I think they have lost sight of the everyday people who will be harmed by their reckless decisions.
One of my constituents, Rachael, is a caretaker for her adult son with Down syndrome. Payments from Medicaid allow Rachael's son to survive. Rachael told me that without these payments her son could die.
Republicans have claimed that vulnerable populations who need Medicaid will not be harmed by provisions in this legislation, but we saw this play out before.
In 2011, when States had to cut spending to comply with Federal requirements, many people with disabilities were hit hard and fast by the loss of services.
I implore every one of my colleagues: Do not be complicit in destabilizing the lives of millions of people, including Rachael's son who will have their healthcare ripped away.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues today to call out the House GOP's big billionaire bailout at the expense of my neighbors back home in Illinois-17.
Their bill would take away food from hungry families and kick people off their health insurance, all so the richest people who walk the face of the Earth get a bigger tax break.
The other side claims to be fiscally responsible, but they are blowing a $5 trillion hole in our national debt to do it.
What am I supposed to say to Mary Anne from Morrison, Illinois, who says she can't feed her kids without SNAP, or a veteran like Mike, who stopped in for his one meal a day at the veteran drop-in center in Rockford?
Republicans in committee voted unanimously against our amendment that would protect veterans from cuts.
They are saying this is about waste, fraud, and abuse? Give me a break. This bill is a disaster for anyone who is struggling to make ends meet, and it will be a disaster for our country, all so the filthy rich get richer. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the privilege of welcoming the Corkern family to the Capitol. They traveled all the way from Louisiana to join me for the Energy and Commerce Committee's budget reconciliation markup because they, like so many Americans, are proof that Medicaid saves lives.
Connor Corkern was born 18 years ago with a congenital brain malfunction. At 6 weeks old, Connor's parents were told that his brain malfunction was so significant that he would need one-on-one care for all aspects of his life.
After nearly a decade of being on a waiting list for home- and community-based disability waivers, Connor was given an emergency New Opportunities Waiver, or NOW, in 2015. It changed their lives.
Medicaid funding and waivers like the New Opportunities Waiver, NOW, have been and continue to be the lifeline for the Corkerns. His Medicaid waiver is the reason he is able to live today.
When Republicans attack Medicaid, they attack families like the Corkerns. Cutting Medicaid means that a little boy born today with Connor's medical needs might not make it to his high school graduation. Connor and so many others need this service to live.
Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans like their big, beautiful bill so much, I beg this question: Why are they displaying it at 1 o'clock in the morning?
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to uplift the story of a hero from Ohio's 13th Congressional District, Mariah Stacy Frederick.
Mariah is the voice and advocate for her daughter, who lives with spina bifida, a condition that occurs when the spine and spinal cord don't form properly.
For Mariah and her daughter, Medicaid is a crucial resource without which they would not be able to afford the proper care that her daughter requires for her condition.
In her message to my office, Mariah said: ``I am asking for the budget to not touch Medicaid funding. My daughter is 2 years old and is just starting to walk on her own. This is all with the support she receives at physical therapy and the Help Me Grow [program]. I would be lost without all of these resources for her.''
Mariah's story is one of heroism, but not different than many of my other constituents', a mother working hard to provide for her daughter who was born and lives with a condition that requires the care that Medicaid provides.
Mariah is fighting to make sure that her daughter is able to keep receiving that care alongside the 200,000 people in Ohio's 13th Congressional District.
What makes this even more infuriating is that this bill is robbing the working poor to pay for tax cuts to buy a yacht or a second home.
Mariah's story is inspiring, and she is not alone. Thousands of constituents from Ohio's 13th Congressional District have called and written to my offices in Akron, Canton, and here in D.C., imploring me to save Medicaid.
That is exactly what I am going to do. I am going to fight for Mariah and Ohio's 13th Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of a mother from Delaware whose daughter lives with a condition that means she cannot eat food without getting sick. Her daughter relies on Medicaid to pay for the formula that keeps her alive.
Without it, she won't just struggle. As her mother wrote plainly to me: ``If she loses Medicaid, she will die.''
Mr. Speaker, we must not gut Medicaid to give tax breaks to billionaires while moms are begging for their children to survive. This mom's story is not an outlier. This is a daily reality for thousands of my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: Protect Medicaid and protect this child. This is a lifeline.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the extreme cuts to Medicaid and SNAP being pushed by extreme Washington Republicans.
Last month, I spoke with Shannon, a mother whose son relies on Medicaid for lifesaving care. I also spoke with Eugene, a fifth- generation farmer in Culpeper who grows produce that goes straight to food banks, schools, and churches. Both Shannon and Eugene are facing uncertain futures because of these cuts.
More than 56,000 kids in Virginia's Seventh Congressional District rely on Medicaid or SNAP. These cuts would take food away from children as young as 8 years old. I guess we will just have to give our 8-year- old kids little, tiny boots with little, tiny bootstraps so they can pull themselves up.
These aren't just budget choices. They are moral ones. They are the wrong ones. We should support families and the farmers who feed them, not punish them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these cruel cuts and stand with families and farmers like Shannon and Eugene.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican cuts to Medicaid jeopardize the lives of women and families across our country, women like Kristen from my district.
Kristen suffers from Williams syndrome, which causes cardiovascular issues and developmental delays. She receives care because of Medi-Cal. Every 4 months, she must drive 2 hours to San Diego to run lab tests and functions on her vital organs.
Despite these health concerns, Kristen works, volunteers in our community, and dreams of owning a bakery, thanks to Medicaid. All of that is endangered by this reconciliation bill.
I ask my Republican colleagues: Who are they to decide who gets the care that people like Kristen need and depend on to survive? All of these cuts are for what? So that billionaires and big corporations can get even more handouts?
Let's stand with people like Kristen. Protect Medicaid and the families who rely on Medicaid and got us to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, when I first met Atalina, she was on the front lines of the pandemic, keeping families housed and fed. When fires ravaged Maui, she was there for the victims.
Atalina is a pillar of her community and her church. She gives everything she has to others, but even angels need help.
Atalina is the mother of five, soon to be six. Her husband, who is battling cancer and now severe back injuries, can't work consistently. Atalina still works full time and still serves her neighbors and community.
``If I put my entire family on my employer insurance,'' she told me, ``it would cost more than half my paycheck.''
Medicaid gave her family access to lifesaving care. SNAP made sure her kids didn't go to bed hungry. These programs aren't ``handouts,'' she says. ``They are lifelines.''
Now, because her income barely crossed the threshold, she has lost SNAP. ``It doesn't mean we can suddenly afford groceries,'' she says. ``It just means we sacrifice even more.''
If we cut Medicaid and SNAP, we are not trimming fat. We are cutting hope.
Let's be clear about the false choice we are being asked to make. Do we feed the greed of billionaires, or do we feed and care for families like Atalina's? We know who Republicans are choosing.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Medicaid and nutrition assistance. I would like to tell you about Arica from Indianapolis' Eastside, a single mother of five, including one child with special needs. She says that if Medicaid is cut, she and her five children will not be able to survive.
There is Carol Ann from Indianapolis' Northside. Her Meals on Wheels have already been reduced. She told me simply: We need food to live.
Bethany from Center Township says that without Medicaid, she would be dead. If Trump cuts Medicaid, she will probably die.
These are the stakes. Every corner of my district, every corner of the great Hoosier State, and every corner of our country will be impacted by these very cruel budget cuts.
Under this budget, 14 million people will lose healthcare. Millions will lose SNAP benefits. Those aren't just numbers. These are people like Arica, Carol Ann, and Bethany.
I implore my colleagues to remember our shared humanity and vote ``no'' on this heartless bill.
Mr. Speaker, I was in the Virginia State Senate when Virginia finally expanded Medicaid.
By giving them insurance, we were able to keep our rural hospitals open. We were able to keep costs from going up too much for everybody else because even the uninsured get sick. They don't seek care until they have to go to the emergency room.
Hundreds of thousands of Virginians now stand to lose their healthcare if this big, bad bill cuts Medicaid as it does now. Some Members of the Republican caucus want to go even further.
Gloria has struggled for a long time with her health. She was born with a heart murmur, blood pressure issues, and constant bronchitis. She was recently diagnosed with glaucoma and cataracts that are getting worse.
For years, Gloria had to rely on emergency care at the hospital because she was uninsured. Because she has Medicaid, she can have the surgery she needs and see again. Don't take Gloria's healthcare away.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of Minnesota families who will lose access to healthcare if the Republican budget passes. I want to tell you about Alicia and her daughter, one of them.
Alicia's oldest daughter is 11 years old. She is a happy, active, and confident fifth grader. She has also faced a lifetime of medical challenges including an immune disorder, a blood disorder, and a spinal condition.
Alicia and her family didn't ask for this. Nothing they did caused this. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They love their daughter fiercely. They simply cannot afford the care that she needs without Medicaid.
Medicaid is what allows Alicia's daughter to go to school, to regain her motor skills, and to run a 5K with her classmates, something unthinkable before her treatment. It is the reason she is not just surviving but she is thriving.
Republicans are going to gut the program that she and half of all American children get their healthcare coverage through. This isn't about politics. It is about our values. It is about protecting the health and future of our children. We must protect Medicaid. Our kids are watching, and they are counting on us.
Mr. Speaker, my constituent, Debra, has this to say about Medicaid, and I agree. She says: It is absolutely essential.
She adopted two medically fragile children from foster care. Both have Medicaid as their primary and only health insurance. They both receive services through the Division of Specialized Care for Children in Illinois.
Her daughter has a Medically Fragile, Technology Dependent waiver. Together, they require 19 daily prescription medications. Her son requires a nightly injection that is $4,000 a month. Her daughter requires multiple pieces of expensive medical equipment.
She would never have been able to adopt or afford to keep them without knowing they would receive Medicaid. She is so proud of them. Medicaid is a vital, lifesaving program for thousands of children like hers.
Mr. Speaker, I agree, and let's make it accessible to all who need it. I thank Debra, and I thank her children.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Leader Jeffries and Chair Ledger Fernandez for hosting this important discussion on the disastrous impact Republican cuts to Medicaid would have on women and children across the country.
In the middle of the night, Republicans on the Rules Committee will consider a bill that contains the largest cuts to Medicaid in our country's history. This outright assault on healthcare will result in 13.7 million Americans losing their health coverage, including many of the 370,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in my district.
This includes people like Yvette from Van Nuys who said that she wants to retire without spending a large portion of her pension on medical coverage.
I also heard from Joe from Panorama City who, without the help of Medicaid, would not be able to afford medical treatments for his children.
Cutting Medicaid will be a disaster for families across the country. I stand with my House Democratic Caucus colleagues in protecting it from Republicans' cruel and extreme budget.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with Leader Jeffries and my Democratic Women's Caucus colleagues to oppose harmful cuts to food and health assistance.
Today, I rise to share the story of Cheryl from Cleveland Heights, a constituent whose life could be upended by cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.
Cheryl is a retired small business owner who ran an advertising company with her husband for 25 years. They were forced to close that business due to their health issues.
Cheryl lives with chronic respiratory issues and arthritis. Her husband is disabled. She also takes care of her 90-year-old father who is disabled, too. None of them can work, and they depend on SNAP and Medicaid to survive. If Congress guts these programs, it will gut a lifeline for Cheryl and her family.
Mr. Speaker, we must remember who we are here to serve. These are real people with real lives, and we must stand up for them.
Mr. Speaker, Scripture calls us to help one another.
In the Gospel of Matthew it says: I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. . . . I was a stranger, and you invited me in.
However, Republicans never come here to talk about poverty or hunger or the sick. It is always about tax cuts, the rich, and the billionaires.
Tonight I rise for one of the Houston families they are attempting to hurt.
Luisa and Roberto are seniors in my district. They have worked their whole lives, and now they are afraid. They are afraid of what happens when Republicans slash the programs they paid into and now rely on to stay healthy.
It is not just them. We hear from moms with cancer, families with disabled children, or families with loved ones in nursing homes, and on and on. They are terrified of losing Medicaid and SNAP.
What Republicans are doing is un-American, un-Christian, and unacceptable.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. The American people know the difference between leadership and cruelty, and they won't forget who chose cruelty.
Mr. Speaker, please let me share the story of two of my constituents who will be hurt by the cruel bonanza for billionaires budget bill.
Bonnie is 82 years of age. She is the primary caregiver for her 63- year-old nephew, Michael. He is deaf, neurodivergent, and lives with multiple chronic health conditions.
For years, Bonnie has been his primary support so he can live independently, manage complex health needs, and navigate programs like Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, and subsidized housing.
Bonnie handles most of Michael's communications with medical providers as he is unable to due to his ability to communicate by mouth or by ASL. Michael has relied on Medicaid for hearing aids, surgeries, dental work, housing, and more. If he loses his coverage, she believes Michael will become frustrated and either go to jail, self-harm, or die.
Michael's mother passed away when he was 19. With no other family to step in, Bonnie worries about what will happen to her nephew after she is gone. This is just one of many examples of who will be harmed by unreliable and onerous work requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely morally wrong that millionaires and billionaires will be given $4 billion plus $4 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about America first. This is about billionaires first and corporations first.
I will take a moment to bring part of my district into this Chamber. I will read a letter from Angeline from Redford Township.
She said: ``I am terrified about what the Trump administration is doing to those of us living in poverty with these cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.
``My family and I could not survive without these programs. It is bad enough we are struggling to purchase the basic essentials and have been heavily leaning on food pantries not only for extra food but also for toilet paper and soap.''
That is with having the benefits that they have now.
``I am waiting for my Social Security case to go on appeal. I currently have no income. I am unable to work due to spinal injuries. With less people working at the Social Security office, it has taken longer than it should to review my case.
``I am barely surviving as it is, and I couldn't see any of my doctors without Medicaid. My grandchildren couldn't be able to see doctors. My single daughter and myself both rely on SNAP to eat and Medicaid to see our doctors.
``It is very clear those voting for these cuts have never experienced the traumatic effects of living in poverty and the threat of taking the only help we have away. Please don't let them do this.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Trump's one big, ugly bill which would cut Medicaid by $715 billion and devastate access to healthcare for millions of Americans, like Victoria. She is a young graduate student in the Imperial Valley, a rural and impoverished region.
She says: ``Medi-Cal is the only way I can access essential healthcare. It protects me from financial hardship and ensures I can get the care I need to live and thrive.''
Victoria isn't alone. She speaks for millions who rely on Medicaid for basic services like birth control and cancer screenings. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office warns that this bill would cause at least 13.7 million people to lose coverage.
Mr. Speaker, 42 percent of my constituents depend on Medicaid, and 60 percent of children in the district depend on Medicaid. Republicans are choosing to strip healthcare from those who need it most to provide tax cuts to billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I choose to protect healthcare for working-class families, and I urge my colleagues to stand with Victoria and protect Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for a 28-year-old single mother of five in my district. She is doing everything right. She is working hard, raising her babies, and trying to keep them fed and healthy.
She was receiving $1,000 a month in SNAP benefits. Then one day it was suddenly cut to $500. She picked up more hours because that is what moms do.
In this bill they talk about people being lazy. I just want to say that the only thing that is lazy about this bill is their lies. That is because when we think about their lies and their lying, it relates to those who are going to be subjected to the work requirements.
There are lies about cutting almost 14 million people off their healthcare. Frankly, they lie about this being fiscally responsible. You don't have to believe me, Mr. Speaker. Just Google members of the Freedom Caucus and their objections. They hate the fact that after all of this, we are going to have death, malnutrition, and the shuttering of hospitals both in rural and urban America. Yet still, they are going to drive us into further debt.
When we talk about cutting SNAP, she was only going to get $15 a day or $2.50 per person.
Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we don't choose cruelty over competency, callousness over compassion, and cons over constituents.
Mr. Speaker, tell Republicans where they can cram this crap.
Mr. Speaker, tonight is about the millions of lives Republicans are destroying.
I rise for a single mother in my district caring full-time for her 16-year-old daughter, Naomi, who has chronic health conditions.
I want Americans to know the face of this family. Sandra Black is one of the millions whose family could lose their healthcare.
Sandra left her job as a veterinarian to care for her daughter. She would tell you tonight, Mr. Speaker: ``Without Medicaid, literally, our lives would be at stake.''
Republicans want to slash Medicaid and bankroll billionaires. Let me say that again. Republicans want to slash Medicaid and bankroll billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, today is about billionaires over hardworking Americans like Sandra Black's family.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, you will hear story after story. Tonight you will hear Democrats standing up for the American people and staying here tonight for however long it takes. That is because we want America to know that we are standing up for Medicaid.
I will not be silent. I will fight for lives like Sandra's and Naomi's.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituent Monica.
Monica has lupus, kidney disease, and congestive heart failure. Constant hospital stays make it tough for her to make ends meet.
Monica told me that her last hospital stay brought dialysis, blood transfusions, and one complication after another. It also brought a loss of her job.
Monica was hospitalized, fighting for her life, when she learned that her $31 a week in SNAP benefits were being cut. Still, with the rising cost of food, she told me that just those $31 in benefits made it possible for her to eat the foods that were healthy to keep her thriving and manage her health.
Monica wrote: ``Any cuts to these programs would be devastating for people like me. This isn't just about politics. This is about survival.''
I agree with Monica. This is about survival. This is about the millions of people who will lose access to food under the GOP tax scam.
Mr. Speaker, we demand better. It is time for House Republicans to stand up and join us in protecting the basic needs of the people instead of
Mr. Speaker, ``I probably wouldn't be alive because I wouldn't have been able to afford [my] medicine.'' That is what Dominique from East Orange, New Jersey, said about Medicaid.
Dominique is one of the 100,000 Americans who lives with the sickle cell disease, and she is one of the millions of Americans who would be devastated by Republicans gutting Medicaid.
We need to understand that the suffering they are going to create has a face, and it is Dominique's.
When she was just 6 years old, Dominique was diagnosed with sickle cell disease. That is also when her aunt enrolled her in Medicaid.
Medicaid didn't mean that life was easy--Dominique spent much of her time in hospitals and visiting doctors--but it made life possible.
With Medicaid, she is able to see a hematologist regularly, receive the appropriate equipment and medications to make living at home possible, seek mental health care due to the toll of living with this disease, and receive treatment for any potential emergencies.
Dominique gets to live knowing the care she deserves is within her reach, in her own words, thanks to Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican administration claims to care about babies and families, but I cannot hear the words they speak because I see the things that they do.
The birth of every baby should be a joyful transition defined by compassion and whatever healthcare is required for the baby and the mother.
America's broken for-profit healthcare system denies far too many this basic dignity, but Medicaid has been a lifeline.
Today, 42 percent of births in America are funded by Medicaid. Republicans who claim to be pro-family are coming for Medicaid with a sledgehammer.
What would this mean for families across America? It would mean even worse maternal health outcomes, States rescinding policies that improve access to reproductive care, and decimating access to prenatal care, contraception, and cancer screenings.
This big, shameful, unconscionable bill is unacceptable, but it is not inevitable.
I need just four Republicans, four people of conscience, to listen to their constituents, to look into the eyes of pregnant mothers praying for a safe delivery, and to show a shred of humanity and oppose this horrific bill.
If my colleagues aren't here to fight for the people who sent them, they should give up their damn seats.
Mr. Speaker, proponents of Donald Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill are lying to the American people. They claim it won't cut Medicaid, but it slashes $715 billion, gutting care for seniors and children with disabilities.
They insist moms and kids won't lose food assistance, but this bill will cut SNAP benefits for over 7 million Americans, stripping food from families' tables.
They say new red tape will improve efficiency. Come on, we know better. New GOP paperwork hurdles will cause millions of eligible Americans to lose Medicaid and SNAP, not because they don't qualify, but because they missed a form or got stuck in the system.
We have seen it before in Arkansas, Georgia, and New Hampshire. Republicans tried this approach, and people suffered.
Why are they doing it? They are doing it to fund tax breaks for billionaire donors--who won't have to fill out a single form, by the way.
Are these your priorities, tax cuts for the rich paid for by taking healthcare and food assistance away from everyone else? Prove us wrong. Reject this bill, and stand up for working families.
Mr. Speaker, addiction is a public health crisis from which no community is immune. We saw the worst of it in 2021, when, in a 12-month span, more than 110,000 people died of overdose. That is 300 or more people a day, 365 days a year.
Here is a small light. In 2024, overdose deaths fell by 27 percent. We are finally seeing progress. That is a huge dent in this horrible tragedy.
What is the response of the Trump administration? Shuttering SAMHSA and shifting and shafting it into an illogical AHA--somebody tell me what that department is--organization and proposing a budget that kicks nearly 14 million people off Medicaid.
Nearly half of those struggling with opioid use disorder rely on Medicaid. In Pennsylvania alone, that is 100,000 people who may now lose their only chance at life, at recovery, at treatment.
I know the desperate hope. I know the prayers for a loved one to find recovery. My son Harry is 12\1/2\ years in recovery from opioid addiction.
My family knows the struggle of way too many families, and we are among the lucky ones, though I don't like to call it lucky. Every family should be as lucky as I.
At this time, we must save more lives.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the President not cut Medicaid and SAMHSA.
Mr. Speaker, this week, Republicans are attempting to pass a budget that will gut Medicaid, all to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
These Medicaid cuts aren't just numbers on a page. They will hurt real people.
My constituent Rosemary wrote to me and shared her family's story. Rosemary has a child with disabilities. She says that if Congress were to cut Medicaid, their lives would be upended.
She wrote: ``My child would no longer be able to receive therapies, and I would lose my ability to care for her and keep her safe. We have been stressed completely about our daughter's future without Medicaid. Please help our children by voting no on the cuts to Medicaid and other proposals that would take away these lifesaving services from people who need them, like my child.''
I ask if my Republican colleagues, my friends, are listening and hear Rosemary and the millions of moms and dads across the country.
Giving a handout to the rich at the expense of families' access to care is shameful. It is just shameful.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to stand up and fight for their constituents, not for their billionaire buddies.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my honorable friend from Arizona whose crusade against the debt is a
I also thank the folks here in the well who are working diligently to always take down the words that we say, take down our votes, and work day in and day out, allowing us to speak to the American people.
As we are about to enter Memorial Day, I wanted to bring attention to someone that led me in my career in the Navy, that I fought with and remember fondly. His memorial service is going to be this Friday, so I would like to read his obituary and tell a quick story about a man that we all know and loved and adored.
Bruce Fecht, born November 16, 1955, passed away March 16, 2025.
Captain Bruce William Fecht, U.S. Navy, retired, a true American hero, passed away on March 16, 2025, at the age of 69. He was born in Missoula, Montana, to Robert William Fecht and Marjorie June Fehr.
When he was a young boy, the family along with older sister Bobbi, moved to Spokane, Washington, where the family grew to include his two younger sisters, Rebecca and Brenda.
He went to Mead High School, where he was a standout basketball player. He continued his education and basketball prowess at Spokane Community College, eventually completing his electrical engineering degree at the University of Washington.
His first job at AT&T offered the comfort of a 9-to-5 routine, but it was the thrill of the flight that ultimately called him.
Bruce pursued his dream of becoming a naval aviator, applying to and being accepted into AOCS in Pensacola, Florida. He was commissioned in 1982, and 1 year later in 1983, he received his wings of gold in Beeville, Texas, marking the beginning of a distinguished career in the skies.
For the next decade, Bruce, call sign Puppy, served with distinction in various squadrons, including VF-124 Gunslingers, VF-111 Sundowners, VF-126 Bandits, VF-1 Wolfpack, flying the iconic F-14A and F-14D Tomcats along with the T-2C, A-4E, and F-16N.
He completed multiple deployments aboard aircraft carriers like the Carl Vinson, Ranger, and Enterprise.
He also graduated from Navy Fighter Weapons School Adversary Course and earned a master of science degree in systems management from the University of Southern California.
Most famously he was selected as an extra for the movie ``Top Gun,'' which was filmed on site in Miramar, and can be seen in the Top Gun photo used in the movie.
His career was defined not only by his technical skills and unmatched piloting abilities but also by his leadership. After 14 years in the cockpit, he transitioned to staff roles, including serving as the Pol- Mil officer at U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. There, he played a key role in operations in the Middle East, focusing on Israel, Lebanon, and Syria.
He returned to the cockpit in 1999, joining the VF-14 Tophatters as executive officer, where I knew him, and, later, commanding officer.
During his leadership, the squadron earned numerous awards, including the Clifton Trophy as the Navy's top fighter squadron, the Battle Efficiency award, and the Safety ``S'' Award. Under his command, the Tophatters were among the first to conduct air strikes on terrorist sites in Afghanistan following the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
His leadership during the onset of the global war on terror left an indelible mark on both his squadron and the larger Navy community. After leading the squadron through its transition to the Super Hornet, he was selected for an executive fellowship with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, where he shared his vast knowledge and insight with the next generation of leaders. He completed his career as commanding officer of VX-9, the Navy's premier test and evaluation squadron.
His career was a testament to his love of flying, his unwavering dedication to service, and his profound impact on all who worked with him.
His sense of adventure, intellectual curiosity, and deep care for his fellow servicemembers will forever be remembered by those whose lives he touched.
Bruce was a man of faith, and, interestingly, in the last 2 years of his life, he earned a master's degree in Catholic theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. He planned to retire from General Atomics and serve as a chaplain. He attended St. Ann Catholic Church in Ridgecrest, California, and enjoyed serving meals and singing in the choir.
Bruce will be remembered for his great sense of humor and his generous heart. He was a faithful son, wonderful brother, and a fun uncle to his nephews and nieces.
His personal relationship with Jesus Christ took him through his last difficult journey with the strength and confidence that he could trust his Lord with the outcome of his life. We will miss him dearly but look forward to the day we will be reunited in Heaven.
Bruce will be remembered for his great sense of humor and his generous heart. He was a faithful son, wonderful brother, and a fun uncle to his nephews and nieces. His personal relationship with Jesus Christ took him through his last difficult journey with strength and confidence that he could trust his Lord with the outcome of his life.
Bruce is survived by his sisters, Bobbi, Rebecca and Brenda; numerous nieces and nephews; cousins; aunts; friends; and a lot of shipmates.
So now I am going to tell you about that little story I was telling you about, Puppy Fecht. Under his steady hand, Fighter Squadron 14 embarked on what was meant to be a routine deployment aboard the USS Enterprise in April of 2001. As we all know, history had different plans. This deployment, while routine at the beginning, was set to be special before anybody stepped foot on the ship.
As it was, Fighter Squadron 14's final deployment with the F-25 Tomcat marked the end of an era. Once this mission was complete, the F- 14 would be retired, and in its place the squadron would transition to the F-18 Super Hornet.
With both excitement and a bit of sadness at the loss of an aircraft that the squadron had known for so long, they were off. But just like every deployment under Puppy's leadership, his command was ready for any mission at any moment or any call to action.
On September 8, 2001, the USS Enterprise departed the Arabian Gulf, bound for home with a scheduled port call in South Africa for the first time in about 40 years. Just days later, while still south of the Arabian Peninsula, those aboard the USS Enterprise watched in horror as the tragedy of 9/11 unfolded.
In that moment, Commander Fecht's calm, visionary leadership shone through. He made sure his squadron was prepared not just for what came next but for whatever would follow. That readiness was tested when the call came.
On the eve of the first strikes of Operation Enduring Freedom in early October, Puppy assembled his team: Monty ``Ash'' Ashliman, Marcell ``Opus'' Padilla, and Art ``Kato'' Delacruz, their target a surface-to-air missile site northeast of Kabul, nearly 1,200 miles from the USS Enterprise. 1,200 miles; that is at least three refuelings.
It was a mission demanding precision, resilience, and courage. It was a nighttime operation deep into enemy territory, requiring multiple in- flight refuelings and flawless coordination with allied formations. At the time, we didn't have any other air bases that we could go to in Afghanistan.
Commander Fecht led his team with the same unshakeable calm that had become his signature, guiding them through enemy fire and back home for a sunrise recovery on the USS Enterprise. That is leadership. That is courage.
Puppy's strength wasn't just in his command of the skies. It was in the command of the hearts of those who served under him. Those who served alongside him speak of his infectious laughter, his unshakeable calm, and his belief that even in the most trying of times, there was room for joy and comradery. His unique ability to diffuse tension with humor and build trust through unyielding confidence made Fighter Squadron 14 not just a team, but a family.
He understood that a leader's spirit resonates throughout the entire crew, and because of that, his squadron was not only ready, they were resilient.
That is the mark of a leader who not only commands respect but inspires it. He embodied the warrior spirit, the never-quit attitude, and the deep sense of duty that defines the very best of our Armed Forces in this country.
Today, I am proud to tell you just one of many stories of Bruce ``Puppy'' Fecht, and we honor him not just for what he did but for how he did it, with courage, with conviction, and with a spirit that lifted up everyone around him.
His legacy lives on in the hearts of those who served alongside him and the freedom that he so selflessly defended. Great American patriots like Commander Bruce ``Puppy'' Fecht will always ensure our Nation is secure, and they will also ensure the next generation of great leaders are trained and ready to carry that responsibility forward to wherever the next calling may be.
So fair winds and following seas, shipmate.
I would like to add, as we debate these bills on the floor here, that this weekend is Memorial Day where we remember those who have given their lives, that we may speak freely down here, that we may debate with our colleagues, hopefully in civil tone and purpose but understanding that this is the last great hope on Earth. With friends like my friend from Arizona, we will make it an even better place to live.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas. He always has some amazing stories.
Mr. Speaker, tonight is going to be a little tricky because I am going to try and weave three major subjects together. Some of it is going to be really technical. Some of it will be slightly sarcastic, but the math here is really important.
I am going to do it backwards from how I originally thought because I want to hit a couple of things that are remarkably important.
I have come behind this microphone, heaven knows how many times and shown the charts. We are borrowing $72,000 a second. We could borrow as much as $2.3 trillion this year. I am going to show some other things in here such as Moody's, and why they downgraded us, and show some of the things that are going on.
On occasion I get this: What are your solutions? Then we always try to come in and say: Here is the technology chute where you can disrupt the cost of healthcare. Here is the technology where you could change the price of delivering government services.
We started almost a year ago in my capacity on the Ways and Means Committee, chairing the Oversight Subcommittee.
I now chair the Joint Economic Committee, and I thank Mr. Speaker because he helped me actually have the capacity of hiring a Ph.D. in healthcare economics.
We have dropped last week--that is a term where we put in something called a ``hopper.'' That is actually where you file your piece of legislation--two pieces of legislation where the preliminary scores are almost $2 trillion in savings over 10 years.
As we are having this discussion of debt and deficits, can you extend the tax policy? Can you do other things? It is not going to come from traditional austerity. The fact of the matter is that math doesn't work. You are going to do it through policy. You are going to fix policy, and people just stare at you like you are an idiot when you try to explain these things.
Let's walk through our big one. This is an occasion where I promise you that there is so much money involved. There is a reason other Members of Congress have been unwilling to do what we knew was a problem.
A few weeks ago, I came here with the MedPAC reports. I don't know if anyone ever bothers to read them, but you go through there, and it should light your hair on fire. For the last year, The Wall Street Journal has done a series of articles basically showing hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, misallocation, just misalignment incentives in something we call Medicare Advantage.
Walk with me through. In the early 2000s, there was this concept of managed care that if we could help our brothers and sisters with their earned benefit in Medicare, saying that we have fee-for-service, but you have to pay all of these copays. What would happen if you could align the incentives saying that we want insurers to manage a portfolio of access to healthcare, but within that, those insurers will actually make their money by helping you be healthier?
The model, which started in 2005--many of you know it as Medicare Advantage. You see the ads, and that is actually part of the problem-- was supposed to come in at 95 percent of fee-for-service because this was a system where you were going to get better quality care, get taken care of, and the insurers would make their profit by helping their population become healthier.
Mr. Speaker, it turns out that if you actually read those MedPAC reports--these are the auditors who do the modeling, and we are talking something that is almost a trillion dollars in spending last year, so we are talking about something that is stunning amounts of money--last year, Medicare Advantage came in at 120 percent of fee-for-service.
Mr. Speaker, just that delta, 120 percent to the 95 percent that it was envisioned to be, that right there is $100 billion a year. The fact of the matter is if you have been following the series of articles--I think ProPublica--The Wall Street Journal has spent tremendous resources doing it--it will curl your hair.
Then you have been seeing the most recent stories about the potential criminal acts. I think last Thursday, a story broke of actual criminal--not civil; criminal--coming.
Is it time for us as Members of Congress to talk about something which is often dangerous because when you are taking on a system that has trillions of dollars flowing through it, you have to understand that there will be ads in my district that are going to beat the ever- living crap out of me. It is the job. You have to tell the truth, know the math, and come with actual solutions.
Mr. Speaker, we went back and said: How do you design a system where you make sure the benefits, the promises, are there for seniors because it is an earned benefit? How do you make sure that you are doing nothing--nothing--to cut that access to healthcare, to cut that access to quality healthcare, but you align the incentives to go back to the original vision where it is about helping those seniors who are on Medicare Advantage become healthier, and the morality of that.
We had to do a number of things in design, so we introduced legislation. This was the preliminary score from the Joint Economic Committee economists: $1.76 trillion of savings over the 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is it is only about 10 percent of the cost of the program over those 10 years, so you start to understand the scale of the cost of this. We believe--understand, this is only conversation between economists, and I was not on the call--that the preliminary score right now is $1.84 trillion coming from the people that will score the legislation.
That would make it probably, from everything we can guess, the single biggest reduction in spending in a single bill in probably U.S. history. Does that give you a sense? When you have people talking about waste and fraud and misalignment and bad acts, this is the ginormous granddaddy of it all.
It is not that big of a bill. It is a little complex. It is really scary because, as you know around here, we are not ever supposed to talk about these things, particularly Medicare, but this is not Medicare as you think about it. This is the insurers who are paid to actually manage your care and help you be healthier. Yet, you have this series of stories saying how they have been taking advantage of the system.
There is a way to make this work. Even the MedPAC report says that we support Medicare Advantage and want it to stay, but we are going to have to fix these misalignments. The economists have been modeling the savings.
Mr. Speaker, what happens if you have a moment here where these sorts of dollars in savings--and this is going
This is an example of getting policy right to actually take on a small sliver of the debt because, remember, our baseline debt for the next 10 years, we are going to borrow another $22 trillion. Even though this number is massive, it is still just a fraction of what is coming at us.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to make the point again. Our legislation, which we call Better Medicare, has been introduced. It is in the process of being scored. Yet, when you start to see these sorts of dollars--and, yes, it would change the current spending projection by about 10 percent to 10.7 percent according to the Joint Economic Committee economists. Yet, you already had the MedPAC saying it is already 25 percent more expensive than was the original model.
It gives you a sense of we are making reforms, but we are just trying to align the incentives. We have done some things to actually help the insurers be able to have sort of automatic enrollment, but you can choose to opt out for a longer period of time so that the investment for that senior who chooses that Medicare Advantage plan to be given the services to be healthier. Yet, also with that healthier, the provider benefits by having a healthier population.
We have been trying to just think like economists instead of so often what you hear behind these microphones because something I have teased about--I actually talked about this a couple of weeks ago--in Nature Human Behaviour, there was an academic article. This is one of those geeky ones that is peer reviewed, all of those things: ``Computational analysis of U.S. congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition.''
They basically took 240 years of House floor speeches, ran AI across them, and said: Guess what has happened? These speeches around here no longer talk about facts, about data, or about math. We now tell our feelings.
The problem is, if you have complex problems, your feelings aren't going to help us fix complex problems. It turns out that math does.
This is what we have been trying to do on this reform of Medicare Advantage. We want the system to work, but we can't allow $1.76 trillion over 10 years of fraud and bad acts.
If you don't believe me, get in front of your computer right now and look up some of the articles of the potential indictments, the criminal activities that are coming. Also, look up The Wall Street Journal series that actually talks about people being scored as sicker, and they don't have the diseases. They don't receive services. They are not on those medications. Yet, you and I as taxpayers are paying for it, and we are borrowing the money to do it.
Please, if you are a staffer watching this, if you are an American that actually cares about us getting our act together and doing things better, if you are a Member of Congress, I know doing big things around here is terrifying. We don't have a choice anymore.
If anyone actually read the Moody's report that was put out last Thursday, they make a couple points that should scare the crap out of us.
In 9 budget years, they believe about 9 percent of the entire economy in that year will be borrowed by the Federal Government. That $3.8 trillion will be the borrowing amount in 2035, and that is just a baseline.
The reason we often don't tell the truth, the reason we avoid it is because almost all this growth of this borrowing is interest and Medicare. It turns out it is really not Republican or Democrat; it is demographics. We are so busy trying to get elected next time, we need something to blame them, and they want to blame us.
If you stand up here and try to actually fix problems, you will get the crap kicked out of you, but at least you are trying to do the right thing. This is what you are hired to do on this job. It is not pander to your voters, but tell them the truth and try to fix things.
I can't tell you how many speeches I hear behind these microphones where people will tell you the problem over and over. They will never spend a year writing a bill, putting about 100 hours in to it with academics, with Ph.D.'s, and healthcare. Experts from the industry put together a bill that says: This will work. This will make things better.
Mr. Speaker, here is a philosophical thought I want everyone to think about. The United States just got downgraded by the third major credit rating agency. Did you know there are 18 States that have a higher credit rating than the United States Government right now? Eighteen States have a higher credit rating, yet every dime a Member of Congress will vote on, every dime of discretionary, nondefense discretionary, as we call it, is borrowed money. Every dime of defense is borrowed money.
About $400 billion, I believe, last year of what we call mandatory spending, the formulaic earned benefits, things of that nature, is borrowed money. Last year, for every dollar we took in in tax receipts, we spent $1.39, and much of that money we are sending to States.
My State of Arizona, we do some things actually really well. Our Medicaid system called AHCCCS is actually remarkably well run, except for some of the fraud. I am going to touch on that. We haven't built the models to catch it faster because we are not actually incentivized.
Now, we also play incredible games where we use a provider tax. We actually make money for the general fund more than is actually spent on healthcare. One of the great scams we are trying to fix right now is what happens when the washing machine is actually where you are padding State budgets instead of taking care of healthcare, but that will get protests.
Eighteen States have higher credit ratings than we do. It is just an interesting thought experiment. How about if I told you that, I think it is as of yesterday, either 12 or 13 countries can sell a 10-year bond cheaper than the United States. Greece today can sell a 10-year bond cheaper than the United States.
If any of you are paying attention, remember there is this concept of interest fragility. One of our greatest threats to this country is our ability to finance this debt. Today, both the 20-year and 30-year bond went over a touch 5 percent. We showed actually a couple months ago that a single point of interest on U.S. debt over 10 years came in at like $3.3 trillion of additional interest.
Just a small movement of interest rate is bigger than everything we are debating here, but we are not going to tell you that. A, because it would require math; B, it would require facts; and C, it might actually mean someone has to do something.
There is an economist at Bloomberg, Anna Wong, who is truly freaky smart. I have had the opportunity and the honor. She came and spent part of a day with my Joint Economic Committee economists. She has been at the Federal Reserve. She has been at the White House. She is one of those people that is just intimidating on how she is able to calculate the world. She actually was looking at our reconciliation budget. She says that if we will do just a couple policy things, it is neutral in cost. It balances out. That is the point I am standing here for.
We cannot allow the taxes to go up on working people in this country. Well, right there that is $3.1 trillion. How are we going to offset it?
It turns out if you take a look at--and this is just from Anna Wong's analysis. If you are a really geeky, you can get this on your Bloomberg terminal, all six people in Washington that have a Bloomberg terminal. They are really expensive, but I actually need it for what we do.
If the tariffs what they are producing, some of the DOGE offsets, it turns out if we will incorporate some of this policy, we can make this budget neutral. That is actually often part of my request for the leadership, for the committee chairs, for those of us in Ways and Means, we need to start actually pulling out our calculators and thinking this through. How do we do these things so we can stabilize the economy, maximize economic growth,
We actually start to walk through this. We are actually trying to build models right now on trying to see what is coming in in custom duties. That is the tariffs. What is that offsetting? You will see me over the coming weeks with a couple of charts and start saying: Okay, here is what we have to plug into our models. For everyone who has been whining around here, here is your math problem. I wish they would start the whining with telling the truth on math and facts before telling anecdotes and stories. Remember, I just pointed out to you the 140 years analysts of the speeches here in Congress, how they have become now about feelings instead of facts because we can manipulate you with telling anecdotal stories.
This simple chart here--see the nice coins? We stole this from someone else. Baseline is we are going to spend $86 trillion over the next 10 years. All we are talking about trying to save is $2 trillion out of that $86 trillion. Are you telling me we can't get $2 trillion out of $86 trillion over 10 years?
This is what is causing the emotional meltdown here because this place only cares about one thing, and that is the money. Spend it, spend it, spend it, and basically screw over people's retirement and my kids. I have a 2\1/2\-year-old and 9-year-old. When my 2\1/2\-year- old--yes, I know. My wife and I adopted some kids. It is the greatest thing we ever did. When my 2\1/2\-year-old is basically 23, 24, every single tax in America has to be doubled to maintain baseline spending.
I have done presentation after presentation where I have come here with the actual charts using Democrat economists showing that every tax hike the Democrats have proposed on the wealthy--capital gains, income--the entire plethora produces about 1.5 percent of GDP. All the austerity, the cuts on our side, accounts for 1 percent of GDP. That is a big 2.5 percent.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to borrow about 7.3 percent of the economy this year. I showed you a chart a little while ago that Moody's has us in 9 budget years borrowing 9 percent of the economy.
Does anyone see a math problem? The rhetoric here, the moving of the mouth, doesn't match what is on the calculator. We make crap up. This is the baseline fact. Baseline, we are set to spend $86 trillion over the next 10 years, and all we are trying to do is reduce $2 trillion.
I think we should reduce dramatically more, but I think you can do it through policy, the adoption of technology, and the alignment of incentives, and we can make the delivery of government services work.
When only 31 percent of the phone calls at the IRS get answered, are we doing our job? You do realize there is technology that would fix that, but that would anger the union of the government employees there. There are these barriers where you have armies of lobbyists walking up and down these hallways, and the inefficiency, that waste and fraud, is their profit model.
Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the spending growth--we are not supposed to tell people this, but it is the math. You can't do policy unless you are willing to tell the truth about the math. Eighty percent of the spending growth over the next decade is Social Security, Medicare, and interest. The interest is now scaring the crap out of us because there is this concept called term premium.
As the Ray Dalios and these people who are the billionaire experts are saying: China is in the market. Germany is in the market. The United States is bingeing on debt. There is almost not enough savings in the world to finance the scale of borrowing, and much of that borrowing is driven because of demographics. The entire industrialized world got old. We have a shortage of young people. I think the math is, in 9 budget years, 23 percent of America is 65 and up.
Are we doing the things to maximize automation and growth so we can have productivity and continue to afford and provide the very services we promised? No, that would require math, thinking, and policy. It is not good storytelling, is it, Mr. Speaker?
Look, it is also one of the reasons I was so enraged about the intellectual laziness, I thought, of the Senate. Look, this is where I am being a bit sarcastic, if not mean. The House is not perfect. There are a number of things I am unhappy with. Leadership still doesn't have my vote on it until I get some agreements that we are able to move policy to start changing some of these numbers, but I have shown up with the policy. I am not just moving my mouth. We put it on paper, and we introduced them as bills. Now, look at the charts of the Senate's unwillingness to actually put policy into their budget reconciliation.
The reason we have to demonstrate a level of fiscal discipline--if you care about poor people, if you care about economic growth, if you care about my kids, if you care about your retirement, and if you care about what this government provides to society--we have to figure out how to pay for it.
CBO says that when we finish this fiscal year, U.S. debt will be at $37.2 trillion. We have to take to market this year in just refinancing--and I am not counting the short roll on the short end of the curve if you want to geek out. I think we are going to bring $9 trillion to market. We are probably going to bring another $2 trillion, $2.3 trillion of new issuances, and will start to see where the United States is interest rate-wise.
We start seeing Greece and other countries having substantially lower interest rates than us. That should set off an alarm. Do you want the money to go to the world's bond markets? You do realize that convincing the world debt markets that we are creditworthy, that we are being disciplined, that we are doing things--just that differential is more money than everything that is being debated here.
When just 1 point of interest, 1 point differential here, is over $3 trillion, that would solve a lot of this debate, wouldn't it? We can actually get those types of bond rates if we demonstrate to the world that we are creditworthy, disciplined, sensible, seeing long term, and actually understanding the honesty of our demographics.
Instead, a bunch of the brain trusts here in Washington spend their time attacking Moody's for downgrading us and telling the truth. The problem is, if you actually read their document, it is the truth.
For everyone out there who thinks balancing the budget and doing those things is simple, if you actually listen to folks from the last administration, this administration, the fantasy goal is to get to 3 percent of debt to GDP, not 7, not, heaven forbid, in 9 budget years being at 9 percent. If you have 3 percent, you are more sustainable.
You have to stop the fantasy of saying that we are going to cut it all with nondefense discretionary. Nondefense discretionary is 12 percent of our spending. Almost everything you think of as government-- the Park Service, the FBI, the White House, our salaries here--that is in this 12 percent.
Interest on the debt is every bit as big as all the nondefense discretionary. Actually, real interest on the debt, if you add up everything, is about $1.2 trillion this year. Remember, when we borrow money from the trust funds, we have to pay interest and pay it back.
For those who are willing to run around here and are interested in having discussions on Medicaid--remember, Medicaid is the program that was designed for indigent populations, for women, children, infants. Yet, you hear almost protests from the left. Here is a $2.5 billion fraud in Medicaid in Arizona, where they exploited Tribal members, abused them, recruited them from our Tribal communities, put them in sober living homes, and bled the system for money. It took years because in a system that has the incentive where you are doing provider taxes and more of that money, raising the cost, it ends up in the general fund of your State. We should be ashamed that these types of scams were allowed to bleed money that should have been going to people who needed the help.
Look, if we don't get an alignment of policy, the cost, and how these things can actually work, Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to continue to live in this world where our debates mean nothing here. They are just based on feelings, exploitation of our voters, telling them things that are actually mathematically not true. It is great politics, and right now, this place
Is prosperity moral? There is a path where we can meet our obligations, help our brothers and sisters who need the help, and not scare the hell out of the very people who we turn to every single day because this government borrows $9 billion a day, $72,000 a second. Next year, it is going to be close to $82,000 a second. In 9 years, it is approaching $100,000 a second.
Often, the discussion behind these microphones are things that set off your anger and the mathematical fantasies. If I get one more person who says: I saw on cable news this, so why don't you fix it? I say that I would be happy to fix it, but realize that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--I think that calculated to paying for 2 hours, 15 minutes of borrowing in an entire year.
Mr. Speaker, it is the lack of understanding of the scale of this math. There is hope. There is a way you can make this work but not until the calculators are pulled out. The morality and the prosperity are the goals, and it is the moral thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to anyone if I hurt their feelings. Send me a note. I will write you an apology note. I seem to write a lot of apology notes. I continue to be mad at both parties and almost everyone around here because we are not willing to do the math. There is a way we can make this work.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Washington?
Mr. Speaker, I am here as one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Doctors Caucus in the House of Representatives. I am here to talk straight with you and with the American people and my constituents about this tax plan that is being worked on by my Republican colleagues.
It will explode the deficit. It will also hurt every single person in this country by making the biggest cuts to Medicaid and to food benefits ever.
I want to make clear, as I talk about this, how reckless it is and that even people who do not rely on Medicaid themselves will be impacted by this. I am outraged. We are talking about a cut of $715 billion to Medicaid. That is the largest cut ever. It will kick 13.7 million Americans off of their health insurance.
Let's just be really clear about why they are doing this. This isn't to balance the budget. It is not to deal with the deficit. In fact, this bill is exploding the deficit. This is to pay for a gigantic tax break for the wealthiest people in this country a la Elon Musk.
It is morally bankrupt to think about that, that transfer, about taking healthcare away from the people in my district and across this country and transferring it to the wealthiest Americans. It is also fiscally reckless.
Doing this will essentially collapse our healthcare system in the United States of America. That is why just last week, we spent 26\1/2\ hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee discussing this very thing, telling the stories of our constituents, painting a picture of what it would mean to cut 13.7 million Americans off of their insurance.
It is interesting that this whole discussion didn't start until 2 o'clock in the morning because my Republican colleagues didn't want to have this discussion during the day when people would actually hear it. They waited until the dead of night to bring up this topic of taking healthcare away from our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, in the State of Washington, one in three people rely on Medicaid. I am going to tell you that most people who do don't even know it because in Washington State it is called Apple Health. If people are asked if they are on Medicaid, they will say no. If they are asked if they are on Apple Health, they will say yes.
This represents the most vulnerable people. These are kids, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and the elderly in nursing homes. These are the people who need our help the most.
I think about my patients. I am a pediatrician. I think about the ones who have Apple Health. If they didn't have it, if they didn't have access to come see me, their primary care pediatrician, and get diagnosed early with a mild pneumonia or an ear infection or whatever the case may be, they would be forced to go to the emergency department for that care.
It is not like they are not going to get sick. They are going to get sicker, and they are going to go later when things are more expensive and more complicated.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what else? Even if you are not on Medicaid, as I think about my patients with private insurance, they are going to be waiting in that emergency department line, too. They will have broken an arm or have some other emergency. They are going to be waiting in a longer line. We all know that the lines are already long to be seen in the emergency department.
The care there is the most expensive a person can get. The lines are the longest lines. Somebody is going to pay for that care. Otherwise, hospitals go underwater, and they go out of business.
Who is that? That is the people who are not on Medicaid but who are paying private insurance premiums. Those premiums are going to go up. It will hurt individuals who buy their own insurance. It will hurt the businesses and the companies who employ those people. This hurts everybody.
I want to tell you the story about Ayla. This is Ayla. She is 4 years old. She was born in 2021 in a rural part of my district after an uneventful pregnancy. Right after she was delivered, something went very, very wrong. She was in dire straits. She was clearly sick. She needed emergency care.
Thank goodness, this rural hospital has a labor and delivery unit. They were well-equipped to resuscitate a baby, to stabilize her, and then to Life Flight her to a hospital that could provide the specialty care that she needed.
Let's think about it for a moment. If Medicaid gets cut and these rural hospitals see a disproportionate share of patients on Medicaid, either those hospitals are going to close or they are going to start cutting back services. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you the first service to go will be labor and delivery.
What if that had happened after these Medicaid cuts? What if Kittitas Valley Healthcare didn't have labor and delivery? What if Ayla had been born then? What if she had not had the specialists there and had not had the ability to be resuscitated there in the delivery room? She would not have made it.
That is what we are going to see when they start cutting away at Medicaid. It will mean the closure of rural hospitals and fewer labor and delivery units. More people will get sicker. They will get poorer. Children like Ayla will not make it.
That is what I mean when I say it collapses our whole healthcare system. Our healthcare system is like a three-legged stool. One of those legs is Medicaid. If we start taking that away, the whole system collapses.
That is what we are talking about: Hospital closures, taking away services, long waits in emergency departments, and a population that is sicker and that needs more care. That care becomes more expensive. It hurts us all.
That is why I am so outraged that this is the mechanism that my Republican colleagues want to use to pay for a tax plan that will give gigantic cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers in this country such as Elon Musk. That is unconscionable. I wanted to start with that.
I am really honored to yield to our Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi from the great State of California.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to receive time from the distinguished Congresswoman from Washington State (Ms. Schrier). She is a pediatrician. We have all learned a lot about how public policy has a direct impact on the health and well-being of the American people.
When I hear them talk about cutting over $700 billion in Medicaid and that it is just waste, fraud, and abuse, this beautiful child is not waste, fraud, and abuse. I will talk about a little child in my remarks who is not waste, fraud, and abuse.
This Special Order comes together to shine a bright light on the Republican plan to fund tax breaks for billionaires by making huge cuts to Medicaid.
That is what it looks like. The fact is they will still with their tax bill add nearly $4 trillion to the national debt to cover their tax break for the wealthiest people in our country.
This is fiscal engineering to reduce the role of government in the lives of the American people where it is most needed. This is Robin Hood in reverse, taking resources from where it is most needed, from people who need it most, and giving it to those who need it less, the billionaires in America.
This is shameful. It is a fraud, and it is a shame.
When President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, he traveled to Independence, Missouri, to be in the presence of former President Truman who had worked on this when he was President, but it came to fruition under President Johnson. President Johnson went there, and he signed the bill in the presence of Harry Truman. He reminded the American people of a shared tradition:
``Never to be indifferent toward despair. . . . never to turn away from helplessness. . . . never to ignore or spurn those who suffer untended in a land that is bursting with abundance.''
Indeed, Medicaid saves lives and is a pillar of health, security, and justice for tens of millions of Americans.
People often think of Medicaid as healthcare for poor children, and that would be justification enough, healthcare for poor children. However, it also is a middle-income benefit for nursing home residents and people needing it for long-term care services. They get that largely through Medicaid. It is also a benefit for people with disabilities.
The Republicans' devastating budget plan would push about 14 million Medicaid recipients off lifesaving healthcare and leave countless vulnerable families exposed to catastrophic medical bills. This is terrible. This is about health and financial health that is being devastated.
Working families and children from low-income households would face ruinous consequences as would rural hospitals--as the distinguished Congresswoman has mentioned--families seeking opioid addiction treatment for their loved ones, and middle-class Americans with long- term care needs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a statement from the California Medical Association into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
California Medical Association issued the following statement regarding House Republicans' proposed cuts in Medicaid:
``The latest Federal proposal to gut Medicaid is reckless. Physicians and hospitals will be pushed to the brink, forced to close their doors and unable to continue care for their patients.''
Mr. Speaker, that is because when this funding leaves those rural hospitals, then not only do the Medicaid patients lose, but all the patients in that rural area lose.
``These would be the largest Medicaid cuts in history and will leave veterans, seniors, the disabled, children and working families without healthcare coverage''--this is as the distinguished physician colleague has said--``making emergency rooms the only point of care for millions of people. Communities will be devastated; lives will be lost.
``Congress must reject these cuts and instead focus on strengthening the safety net that protects us all. Otherwise, at least 13.7 million people will lose healthcare coverage.''
Republican attacks on healthcare impact real people, including little children. My guest at the President's State of the Union Address to Congress was Elena Hung, mother of Xiomara, a courageous Little Lobbyist, who is 11 years old.
Xiomara has complex medical needs, including chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, and global development delays. She has a tracheostomy, is ventilator and oxygen dependent, and uses a feeding tube.
Access to quality, affordable healthcare ensured that Xiomara received the care she needed during an extended hospitalization and can now live at home with her family.
Medicaid has helped Xiomara receive the therapies she needs to catch up with her developmental milestones, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, feeding therapy, and speech therapy.
However, these very lifelines, including Medicaid and more, are what Republicans are working to destroy to fund tax cuts for billionaires.
Democrats are standing strong against the administration's many attacks against families' healthcare. This is just one of them.
With this Special Order hour, we are calling out Republicans to either vote to protect their constituents' healthcare, or to vote to take it away. That is the choice.
In stark contrast to the President and Republicans in Congress, Democrats will always fight to lower healthcare costs. We are unified and ready to use every tool to stop this GOP scheme. We will always work to strengthen pillars of health and financial security in America. That includes the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We will always fight for Medicaid.
I just want to go back to that one thing. They are still adding nearly $4 trillion to the national budget to give tax breaks to their wealthy billionaire friends. When the Republicans passed that bill and the President signed it into law, 83 percent of the benefits went to the top 1 percent, adding $2 trillion to the national debt. They are doubling down on that, adding almost $4 trillion to the national debt and saying: We have got to give all this money to billionaires and call children waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicaid system.
It is really sinful, it is really sad, and it is something that I hope the Republicans will reject.
I hope their constituents will call them, because these Medicaid people are in Republican districts. One of our colleagues in California has, out of all of our constituents, he has nearly 500,000 people on Medicaid. Yes, he voted with Republicans on this.
Mr. Speaker, you can be sure he will be hearing from his constituents because people know.
I will close by saying that Lincoln said:
``Public sentiment is everything. With it, you can accomplish almost anything. Without it, practically nothing.''
However, for public sentiment to prevail, people have to know, and we are making sure that our constituents know and they are being informed as to our knowledge of what Republicans are doing. It is Republican reverse Robin Hood.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to share the story of this beautiful little girl.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Schrier, and I am happy to be here.
Just this morning, President Trump said that the Republicans aren't cutting anything meaningful in their budget. What a thing to say. What a shocking thing to say when these cuts will hurt so many Americans. I am having a really hard time understanding how taking away healthcare from nearly 14 million Americans isn't meaningful.
It is not meaningful that rural hospitals across Vermont and across this country are going to be at risk of closing?
Just today I met with Vermonters from a little town called Coventry, and they are deeply concerned that they are going to lose access to labor and delivery healthcare at their local hospital.
Republicans are so out of touch with the reality of American families right now, and it is shocking to call these cuts not meaningful when their bill will hurt working families.
It takes away food and healthcare from millions and millions of people, their own voters, but yet they are not meaningful cuts.
These cuts are certainly meaningful for all the kids and veterans who will go hungry because of this cruel and what I think is a very cynical bill.
Why are my Republican colleagues making the cuts?
That is what we all want to know.
It is to give the very wealthy another big tax cut and deliver tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, people who absolutely don't need any more assistance.
It is taking that money from people who desperately need help and giving away to the people who don't.
People who are just struggling to get by are having precious resources taken away from them.
Right now, across this country, Americans are trying to figure out the math. Are they going to be able to afford groceries for their kids? They are trying to decide whether they can afford to go to the doctor.
While that is happening, in real time, my colleagues are spending time demanding more work requirements for Medicaid recipients when we know that almost half of adults on Medicaid are already working. They act like they are not working. They are working, and 27 percent of those working-age adults on Medicaid are disabled. They are doing the best they can here.
It couldn't be more obvious that they are just looking to remove more people from the Medicaid rolls in order to have more money to give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. It is sick.
These are real people who we are talking about tonight in every congressional district who cannot handle these cuts. It is as simple as that.
The reality is that Americans can't pay for their rent right now. They can't pay for their groceries. They are too high. Prescription drug prices are too high. Costs for consumers and small businesses are just going to go up because of the asinine tariff regime that we have been dealt.
Of course, Americans feel like it is rigged against them because it is. That is why we have to be here fighting for them. That is why we have to be here, raising the alarm about what is happening in this bill with Medicaid.
What Americans want is fairness. What they need is fairness. We owe them that. They want and need affordable healthcare, and we owe them that. They want and need a fair shot, a better life for their kids, and we owe them that.
This bill that cuts Medicaid is a statement of values. It shows exactly what and who the Republicans are caring about. It is not you and your family. It is not me and mine. It is about propping up billionaires and kicking the rest of us in the teeth while they do it.
What kind of leaders take away healthcare and food from working people so that the wealthy can get even more money? What kind of leaders? Not strong leaders, not leaders of conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Balint for that clarity. I appreciate drawing that distinction that Speaker Emerita Pelosi referred to as reverse Robin Hood. That is exactly what is going on here.
Who are you standing up for? We saw with the Republican 2017 tax cut that the vast majority of that benefit went to the wealthiest, and it did not trickle down to people. People are already having trouble affording rent, home prices, food, and other goods.
Putting this kind of financial pressure not just on Medicaid recipients but on everybody else, because insurance rates and medical costs are going to go higher, only makes that squeeze worse.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a warning--no, a plea.
Rural America is already in crisis. People there die younger. Mothers face greater risks when giving birth. Hospitals teeter on the edge of collapse.
Medicaid is the thin lifeline holding together that fragile system. Cut it and people will die.
At Adventist Health Castle in Kailua, 75 percent of patients rely on Medicaid and Medicare. They have already weathered the storm of COVID. With new GOP-led cuts to provider fees, they may be forced to shut down essential services--obstetrics, pediatrics, and emergency services, care that literally keeps babies and people alive.
This is not just about one hospital in Hawaii. This is a national crisis. Rural Americans face significantly worse health outcomes and health disparities. In too many rural counties, life expectancy is a decade shorter than that of their urban neighbors.
Maternal mortality in rural areas is nearly double that of urban areas, and more than 200 rural hospitals have closed their doors since 2005. Over 450 more are currently at risk of shutting their doors.
This isn't hypothetical. It is happening right now. Let's be clear: When these providers and hospitals close their doors, everyone in those communities, including, by the way, some Members of Congress and their families, will lose their healthcare. It won't bring me or anyone impacted any comfort or peace to say, ``I told you so.''
Suma Metla, a pediatric physical therapist and mom, treats kids with complex needs. Forty percent of her patients are on Medicaid. She told me plainly, as she sat in my office today with her 1-year-old, Kashi: If these cuts pass, we will not survive past this year.
Already, speech therapists and other specialists are shutting their doors in Hawaii and across the country. Her own practice is buried in a 2-week backlog. One of two hospitals that offer similar care, and we only have two throughout the State, has a 100-child waiting list right now.
Suma has traveled to Lanai to treat children no one else could reach. She tried to keep care going through telehealth, but when Congress let those tools expire, families were left stranded.
Let's talk about the preschool teacher in my district whose son was born weighing less than 2 pounds--5 months in the NICU, emergency surgery, feeding tubes, with a hospital bill 50 times more than she will make in a single year covered by Medicaid.
That little boy is now 3 years old, full of life, laughter, and love and obsessed with music and trucks. He is alive only because Medicaid was there.
We cannot forget what is at stake. These are not just numbers on a page. They are real lives, real children, real families, and real communities, people like you and me.
Slashing Medicaid won't balance a budget. It will close hospital doors. It will rip care from those who need it most. It will end lives.
We must not let this happen. Find the courage. Have a conscience. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Tokuda for bringing up that particular issue of children in the neonatal intensive care unit, where I have worked.
I think about this frequently. When over 40 percent of births in this country are covered by Medicaid, I think about what it would mean for a family
Sometimes this is not a matter of life and death but a matter of life, death, and lifelong disabilities. That is what good NICU care will mean, and it makes a difference for these babies who are relying on Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the first oath the gentlewoman took before she got here: First, do no harm.
I wish my Republican colleagues would take that oath because the harm that this proposal does to the least amongst us in this country is unfathomable, cruel, and madness from a financial perspective.
When everyone is cut off from Medicaid, where will they go? They will go to public hospitals that are already underfunded and trying to serve the least among us.
After all the stories you have heard, I want to put in some numbers. Think of multiplying these numbers to the stories you have heard, particularly for people who are the least among us as Americans.
There are 78.5 million people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program across America. This is 10 percent higher than in February 2020, pre-COVID.
One in three people with disabilities, 15 million, have Medicaid. Comparatively, 19 percent of adults without disabilities have Medicaid. These are the people who Republicans and Democrats in the past have tried to protect. Now, we are being cruel and dismissive of their needs.
One in five Medicaid enrollees has a disability. Two-thirds of Medicaid enrollees do not receive SSI benefits.
Mr. Speaker, 10.3 million people would lose Medicaid coverage in the next 10 years if the budget reconciliation bill of the Republicans passes because of its punitive work requirements. Most of these people are already working.
In 2022, Medicaid covered two-thirds of all home-care spending. 4.5 million people receive Medicaid-covered home-care services each year in America.
Medicaid cuts as proposed under the Republican budget threaten optional benefits the most, including long-term services and supports that help the disabled and the elderly in home- and community-based services that help protect these Americans who need our help. They live with disabilities in their own communities and get the support, love, and affection of those communities and their families.
In California alone, almost 15 million Californians are on Medicaid. 1,906,300 Californians on Medicaid have a disability. Of those, 992,000 people are working, aged 19 to 65. A million people in California with disabilities who get Medicaid are working, and now they are going to be forced to go through a bureaucracy that supposedly the majority wants to make more efficient. That is not efficiency. That is cruelty to the least amongst us.
Mr. Speaker, 68 percent of California adults on Medicaid have a job. In just my district, which is the fifth wealthiest district in the House, 131,634 people are on Medicaid and are at risk of losing care under the Republican budget. 45,916 of those are children, 19,000 are seniors, 10,000 are people with disabilities, 48,300 adults are on Medicaid due to ACA expansion.
Mr. Speaker, this is madness. I thank my colleague for bringing this to the floor, and I thank her for her spirit and her personal testimony to what this will mean to millions of Americans who are the least amongst us.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and putting this in a very personal way.
I am wondering for people out there watching if they are thinking, gosh, I wonder is this really true? Are hospitals really going to close? Are we really going to lose labor and delivery and have to drive hours to get to the nearest hospital to deliver a baby?
In my district, the hospital that I talked about earlier is between two mountain passes. If it is snowing, there is really nowhere to go except by Life Flight, and that is not hyperbole. I have sat with the heads of school-based health clinics and community health centers, with heads of hospitals, with nursing homes--and, by the way, we have been referring to rural hospitals, but there are urban hospitals and suburban hospitals that are also highly dependent or have a very high percentage of Medicaid-dependent patients.
We are already seeing cuts in hundreds of employees in the Seattle area because of these impending cuts to Medicaid. I want to just be crystal clear; this is absolutely true. We are hearing this across the board that when Medicaid gets cut, we all lose.
We lose our local labor and delivery service. We lose our local emergency room. We lose the ability to be seen quickly in the event of an emergency because somebody who could have been taken care of by a primary care physician a couple of days earlier with an uncomplicated illness is now in the emergency room ahead of you in line, making you wait when you are having a heart attack. That is completely preventable by using the leanest, most efficient healthcare service and insurance that we have called Medicaid.
I want to tell another story. This is the story of Miguel. Now, we talked about Ayla before, a little 4-year-old girl. Miguel is at the other end of life. He is a senior. He is a constituent who is dependent on Medicaid. He is actually a 76-year-old widower who lives in Wenatchee, the apple capital of the world.
Now, after Miguel's wife passed away, he relied solely on his Social Security check to cover his living expenses. He is a retired orchard worker, and he worked hard to earn that Social Security. He spent decades doing physically demanding labor without access to a pension later, and private insurance was never affordable.
He still depends on Medicaid to stay in his modest home, receiving regular in-home nursing visits and help with daily tasks, like bathing, cooking, and managing his medications. Medicaid's coverage for home- based care is, by the way, far more affordable than nursing home-based care. He gets that home-based care, transportation, and care coordination through Medicaid. Without that, he would have no way to attend his checkups, manage his diabetes, and function through the limitations that he suffered because of a stroke.
Miguel fears losing access to the services that allow him to live at home with dignity, with independence, in familiar surroundings, and he deserves that. Frankly, that is the most cost-effective way to help Miguel.
For seniors like Miguel, Medicaid is not optional. It is their lifeline. It is how they keep dignity. It is how they stay at home. Unfortunately, Miguel's fears are not unfounded. The rural hospital that he depends on treats patients who are more likely to be on Medicaid or Medicare. In other words, they have a disproportionate share, and if these patients, these Medicare patients, lose their health insurance because of this bill, the cost of their care gets absorbed by the hospital.
For hospitals in rural areas that are already struggling, barely keeping their heads above water, this could be the death blow. This will force them to first cut services. I talked about labor and delivery. I could also talk about mental health services and opioid treatment. Those are often the first to go. This would leave Miguel without access to care.
I am not trying to fearmonger or deceive Americans, but this is scary. It is real. I am simply saying what our community health centers, and our hospitals, and our nursing homes, and our school-based health clinics are telling me, that the Republicans' budget will take healthcare away, and health insurance away from 13.7 million Americans all while, therefore, increasing costs for everyone, decreasing access to care, and leaving us all sicker and poorer.
Now, we haven't even talked really about the impact on nursing homes and on our seniors. Speaker Emerita Pelosi touched on this, but I also want to be very clear that three out of five middle-class, working- class Americans in nursing homes depend on Medicaid to pay those bills.
We already say in Washington we don't have enough nursing homes. In fact, people who should be in nursing homes are now filling hospital beds because there is nowhere else to go. Just
Then think about this: I am in the sandwich generation. If I had a parent who relied on Medicaid to be in a nursing home and could not otherwise afford that, I would need to leave my job to take care of my parents. That is not what they would want for themselves or for me or for my family. This is what millions of families out there will go through if these Medicaid cuts happen.
Just briefly, I want to make this further point. Ms. Schrier has been so eloquent, and all of us associate ourselves with her remarks and the professional knowledge that she brings, the intellectual resource she is on all of this.
I just want to add one thing. At the same time as the Republican reverse Robin Hood plan is going, taking it from those who need it most, giving it to those who have the most, they are also taking nearly $300 billion from SNAP.
SNAP is for food. Food is medicine. You are going to make people even more sick if those children don't have food.
There was one time when Medicaid first began that one of the people who was starting community health centers around the country insisted-- insisted--with the Federal Government that food be counted as medicine because it is about health. Children who do not have access to food are the ones who suffer the most.
I see that our colleagues have arrived.
Let me just add one thing. People ask me: What is your why? Why did you ever decide to leave home and come to Congress? I have five children. The idea that one in five children in America lives in poverty and goes to sleep hungry at night in the greatest country that ever existed in the history of the world, I just couldn't handle that. That is what took me from kitchen to Congress and housewife to House Speaker, to feed the children.
When Matthew says: ``When I was hungry, you fed me,'' in the Gospel of Matthew, what do we do with that? Just tear it up. This is immoral. It is sinful for us to be taking food out of the mouths of babies to give tax cuts to rich people.
Yet, do you know what? It isn't about that. Republicans are giving those tax cuts anyway. The majority is fiscally engineering the shrinking of the compact that we have with the American people and that developed countries have with their constituents.
We are behind the rest of them in many of these regards when we have to take food out of the mouths of babies to say that we are going to give a tax cut to the wealthiest, but we just really are taking food out of the mouths of babies because we don't want to feed them. That is what this is about, $1 trillion: $700 billion or more for Medicaid and $300 billion for SNAP. It is reverse Robin Hood a la Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I so very much appreciate those comments and Speaker Emerita Pelosi's dedication to children in every way.
Just to put an even finer point on that, food is medicine, cutting SNAP benefits not only takes food away from hungry people, but it also undermines our economy because those dollars are spent at our local grocery store.
I also have to just mention that food banks, which are the next line of support, are also under threat because DOGE and Elon Musk and Donald Trump have cut the food going to those food banks, leaving shelves bearer and leaving food banks having to ration foods. They also canceled the program where local farmers can provide their food to the local food banks, which is the healthiest and local and fresh food.
All of this just adds up, once again, to hurting people in need in order to fund a tax cut for the billionaires in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my colleague from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison) to give her perspective about Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Schrier for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today alongside my colleagues in the Democratic Doctors Caucus and as the first and only pro-choice OB/GYN here in Congress to speak out against the Republicans' disastrous budget proposal and to fight for our women, children, and families.
For more than 20 years, I have had the honor and privilege of taking care of OB/GYN. One of the great joys of my job is caring for my patients during their pregnancies and helping them grow their families. I carry my patients and their stories with me, and they inform my work here in Congress.
I think about them and all of the challenges that new parents face during pregnancy and then after they head home with their new baby: recovering from the delivery, adjusting to life with a little one, accessing the care they and their family need, balancing caregiving and work, making ends meet, and the cost of raising children in the United States. It is a lot.
I think about all of the babies I have delivered whose moms got their healthcare through Medicaid and how critical that was to help them get off to the best possible start.
It is because of those patients and patients all across the country that I stand here today both incredulous and outraged that the Republican majority in Congress is shoving a budget through that will gut Medicaid, the very health insurance program that covers 40 percent of all births and insures almost half of all children in our country. As an OB/GYN, as a mother, as a Member of Congress, and as an American, this is unconscionable to me. We already have a maternal health crisis in our country.
Let's look at the facts about that maternal healthcare crisis that we face now and remember that this is before we gut Medicaid. In more than half of our country, women do not have a place to go to get obstetric care. Among our peer nations, the United States has the highest rate of both maternal and infant deaths.
In 2022, there were more than double and sometimes triple the rate of maternal deaths in the United States compared to most other high-income countries, and unacceptable disparities exist. Black, American-Indian, and Alaska-Native women are three to four times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause compared to White women. Most of these deaths, more than 80 percent, are preventable.
What is the Republican majority doing to address this unacceptable crisis? Instead of working to find ways to improve women's health and to help moms and babies, they are shoving a budget through that will devastate our Nation's maternal healthcare and decimate many of our hospitals and clinics. It will unequivocally make our Nation's maternal health crisis worse.
Why in the world are they doing this? Why are they choosing to harm women and children? They are doing it to pay for tax cuts for the ultrawealthiest among us. That is literally why. To make the math work to cut taxes for billionaires, they are choosing to sell out the health of women, moms, new babies, and the future of our country to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, choosing to take healthcare away from moms and their babies.
Let's be clear. This won't just be devastating to the moms and new babies who get their healthcare coverage through Medicaid. It will be devastating for maternal healthcare across the country. All of this is coming from the party that calls itself pro-life and profamily. It is hard to imagine a more antifamily policy.
Instead of wasting time musing around ridiculous ways to persuade women to have more children, like giving medals for having six or more babies, I would remind my Republican colleagues that they could start with something real, meaningful, and impactful right now by not gutting the health insurance program that covers almost half of all births and half of all children in our country. The Republican majority needs to make their profamily rhetoric match their policy, put America's moms and babies first, and stop these proposed cuts to Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Dr. Morrison for her perspective, from the perspective of an OB/GYN who has taken care of pregnant women and new babies and really
It is interesting. All of us in the Doctors Caucus have been talking for years--in fact, for the whole time I have been in Congress--trying and trying to improve Medicaid reimbursement, to make it so that Medicaid reimbursement can match Medicare reimbursement so that more children can have a medical home. It is about expanding Medicaid care for pregnant women until 1 year postpartum to make sure that they are healthy and plan their pregnancies and that we can cut down this outrageous incidence of maternal mortality in this country.
Now we are just fighting to keep Medicaid. That is the situation we are in now because Republicans want to gut Medicaid and take health insurance away from 13.7 million Americans to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. That is just plain wrong.
I will talk for a moment about another constituent of mine who paints just a different angle on what it looks like to cut Medicaid. I will tell you that our phones are ringing off the hook. People understand what is going on. They are worried for their health, for the health of their families, and for the health of their parents. They get what will happen to their local rural hospital if these go into effect.
I will tell you about Kathleen, who graciously shared a story about her own mother. Kathleen's mother lived to be 92 years old. She was a widow for 42 of those years and helped care for five of her grandchildren.
Kathleen's mom lived through the deprivations of the Great Depression and World War II and was never one to complain. She lived simply.
In the last decades of her life, she had a number of serious, complex medical conditions that presented real challenges for her medical team and specialists and, of course, for her. Medicaid supplemented her traditional Medicare plan in the last years of her life and allowed her to get the medical care that she needed. She was treated with care and respect.
When Kathleen's mom injured herself in a fall, Medicaid covered the rehabilitation facility and, later, in-home physical therapy and occupational therapy so she could be in her own home.
Later, she had a life-threatening event and was hospitalized. Eventually, she was well enough to move to an outpatient rehabilitation facility, followed by in-home care. Again, Medicaid was there for her. The care was safe, reliable, and appropriate, and it gave tremendous relief to her and her family.
In the last months of her life, Medicaid provided hospice care. The nurses, home health aide, OT, PT, and case manager were her guardian angels. They treated her with compassion and dignity.
Isn't this the type of treatment and care, the care made possible by Medicaid, that all of us deserve, that all of us want, and that we want for our friends, family, and ourselves?
For so many seniors in this country, this type of care is made possible thanks to Medicaid. It is unfathomable that my Republican colleagues want to deny our seniors the type of comprehensive, compassionate, and thoughtful care that Kathleen's mother received.
That brings us full circle to how these cuts to Medicaid, Apple Health in Washington State--something a lot of people out there think is that they are not relying on Medicaid, so maybe it doesn't affect them.
The message I really want to deliver, Mr. Speaker--and I am actually going to look at the camera to speak directly to the American people-- is that cuts to Medicaid, or to Apple Health, impact every single person in this country.
They impact you if you are the son, daughter, or spouse of a senior who needs to be in a nursing home because nursing homes will close, and you will have to leave your job to take care of your ailing parent or spouse.
They impact everybody who lives in a rural community or in an urban community where there are a lot of patients who rely on Medicaid insurance, because when Medicaid doesn't pay the bills for those people, the hospital gives away that care for free. Then, they either cut services or close--or, more likely, a combination of them--and your insurance premiums go up because somebody has to pay. Who is going to make up the difference? Private insurance. That means your insurance rates go up, and they are already high.
Everybody hurts from this, even if you are not paying for your own health insurance. I bet, at some point, you are going to the emergency room, and those patients who don't have Medicaid are now getting sicker, waiting longer, and getting their care late in an emergency department.
If you think the waits are bad now because hospital beds and ER beds are full of patients in mental health crises or with fentanyl overdoses or with nursing home patients who don't have a nursing home to go to, if you think the waits are bad now, just wait till 13.7 million Americans lose their health insurance.
We are all impacted. If you live in a rural area and have private insurance, you are doing fine, but if the labor and delivery department closes at that rural hospital and maybe you have a high-risk pregnancy and need obstetrics care and might have a complication with that delivery, you might have to go live in a more urban area for the month before that delivery just to make sure that you are safe and that your baby is safe.
This is something that none of us should have to worry about in the United States of America. This is a prosperous country. We have excellent healthcare here, and to think that my Republican colleagues want to cut Medicaid, a lifeline for the patients who depend on it and for our entire healthcare system, that they want to cut what the people most in need depend on--again, we are talking about the elderly, people with disabilities, pregnant women, children. To think that they would cut care for them in order to pay for gigantic tax cuts for billionaires--it is a backward transfer of money. It is Robin Hood in reverse. It is just plain wrong. I have explained now that, in addition to being morally bankrupt, it is also fiscally reckless.
It is irresponsible, and I just don't understand how this is the plan that my colleagues came up with. Their constituents are going to hurt every bit as much as mine and, statistically, with more rural areas and already more vulnerable rural hospitals, chances are their constituents are going to hurt even more.
I sure hope that people out there are paying attention. Call the people who represent you. Tell them what your fears are. I know people are calling me, and I am standing up here to appeal to my Republican colleagues and let the American people know what is going on right now, why they should be concerned.
This is a democracy. Call the people who represent you. Tell them what you think. Tell them what it would mean for you, for your family, for your neighbor.
Again, when it is one out of three in Washington State, what would it mean if these largest-ever cuts to Medicaid transpired?
Here is what is going to happen tonight. At 1 o'clock in the morning, the Rules Committee is going to meet. They are going to craft the rules for Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill, which would be a travesty for the people I represent. They are going to do this at 1 o'clock in the morning when everybody else is asleep, not watching, not paying attention, not watching the nightly news. This is not prime time because, I think, they are embarrassed about what they are doing, but they are going to do it anyway. They are going to do it for the people who were in the front row at President Trump's inauguration. That is who they are going to do it for.
This is not helping their constituents. It is not helping my constituents. America, it is not helping you.
It is morally bankrupt. It is fiscally irresponsible. It is just plain cruel. That is why I, along with the rest of the Doctors Caucus, have spent this evening talking about what this means for our patients and for our healthcare system.
We understand it on a visceral level because we have lived in and worked in this healthcare system. We have worked in crowded emergency departments, seeing people who, if they had health insurance, wouldn't need to be
We have seen these things. Dr. Morrison and I have both seen complicated pregnancies and neonatal resuscitations. These are patients who rely on Medicaid. We are here as doctors who swore an oath to our patients to protect them, to stand up for them. This is us standing up for our patients, to plead with my Republican colleagues not to cut Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, I will let them know and will let my constituents and the American people know that I will continue to fight every minute to make sure that these cuts don't happen and that we keep this oath to our patients.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 21, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
