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.
45 public bills, H.R. 3699- 3743; and 10 resolutions, H. Res. 469-478, were introduced.
Pages H2466-69
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 1900, to specify when the record is complete on certain acquisition applications related to depository institution holding companies, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119- 132); H.R. 3323, to update the definition of an emerging growth company, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-133); H.R. 3348, to amend the Securities Act of 1933 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act with respect to the definition of accredited investor, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-134); H.R. 3380, to require the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to take risk profiles and business models of institutions into account when taking regulatory actions, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-135); H.R. 2441, to provide for the electronic delivery of certain regulatory document required under the securities laws, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-136); H.R. 884, to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-137); and H.R. 2096, to restore the right to negotiate matters pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement officers of the District of Columbia through collective bargaining, to restore the statute of limitations for bringing disciplinary cases against members or civilian employees of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-138).
Page H2466
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Fong to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2423
Recess
The House recessed at 10:59 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H2430
Recess
The House recessed at 1:16 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Page H2439
Recess
The House recessed at 3:27 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m.
Page H2456
SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025
The House passed H.R. 2483, to reauthorize certain programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery, by a yea- and-nay vote of 366 yeas to 57 nays, Roll No. 151.
Pages H2431-39, H2439-41, H2441-56, H2456-57
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-4 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill.
Pages H2247-53
Agreed to
Bresnahan amendment (No. 1 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-130) that requires all HHS regulations or guidance documentation to use language that is inclusive of all opioid overdose reversal drugs that have been approved by FDA, instead of referring to brand names;
Page H2453
Kiggans (VA) amendment (No. 2 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-130) that requires the Office of the National Coordinator to convene a public roundtable to examine how the expanded use of electronic health records among mental health and substance use service providers can improve outcomes for patients in mental health and substance use disorder settings and how best to increase Electronic Health Record adoption among such providers; and
Pages H2453-54
Wittman amendment (No. 4 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-130) that requires HHS to convene a public meeting to improve awareness of, access to, and information related to funding opportunities related to mental health and SUD programs of SAMHSA grant programs.
Pages H2455-56
Rejected
Pettersen amendment (No. 3 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-130) that sought to codifies Biden-era guidance to ensure that budget neutrality requirements for Section 1115 Waivers take into account downstream savings (by a recorded vote of 213 ayes to 213 noes, Roll No. 150).
Pages H2454-55
H. Res. 458, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 2931), (H.R. 2966), (H.R. 2987), and (H.R. 2483) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 217 ayes to 208 noes, Roll No. 149, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 206 nays, Roll No. 148.
Pages H2439-41
Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken while the House is in actual session on a date designated by the Speaker
The House agreed to H. Res. 469, permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken while the House is in actual session on a date designated by the Speaker.
Page H2458
Discharge Petition
Representative Golden (ME) presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 432) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2550) to nullify the Executive Order relating to Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs (Discharge Petition No. 6). Senate Referral: S. 201 was held at the desk.
Page H2441
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H2441. Quorum Calls--Votes: Two yea-and-nay votes and two recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2439-40, H2440-41, H2456-57, and H2457. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:23 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: 117 of 212 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.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the cruel cuts Republicans want to make to SNAP, the food assistance program. These would be the largest cuts in our Nation's history.
No one in the United States should go hungry. Unfortunately, President Trump and Republicans don't agree. They want to make the largest cuts in our Nation's history to the food assistance program that we call SNAP.
House Republicans just voted to do this. When did they do it? They did it in the middle of the night so it wouldn't be covered and so nobody would see. House Republicans voted to take away food assistance from hungry Americans.
House Republicans' plan would slash and cut $300 billion from SNAP. That means ripping away meals from children, seniors, veterans, and families just trying to get by. Why? It is all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations.
SNAP is not a handout. It is a lifeline. Behind every SNAP benefit is a person. It is a mother, a veteran, and a neighbor doing everything they can to survive.
We also know that food assistance helps keep people healthy, and it helps them survive. What do Republicans say when constituents have expressed concerns about cuts to things like healthcare and programs to keep them healthy like SNAP? This is what they say: ``We are all going to die.'' This is an actual quote. This is what Republicans are telling the American people. We are going to die anyway. How outrageous is that? How cruel is that?
Mr. Speaker, that may be true someday. It is no excuse to let people starve today and not because of Republicans' cruel policies. We should not turn our backs on millions of Americans and their fight to survive poverty and live with dignity.
Republicans are doing nothing to bring down costs. Instead, their policies and their failure to act are making life more expensive for hardworking Americans during a time when inflation and a rise in grocery prices make it harder for people to get by.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about Tylynn. Tylynn is a single mother of four from Wilmington, California, in my district. She fell on hard times. Tylynn was homeless and lost custody of her children because she simply could not afford to feed them. SNAP changed everything. With help, she got back on her feet. Today, she has a stable home and has regained full custody of her children.
Mr. Speaker, let me also tell you about Michael. Michael is a 66- year-old disabled veteran from San Pedro, California, in my district. He served in the Army for 7 years. He and his partner, Suzanne, now rely on SNAP to afford groceries. Without it, they go hungry.
For Tylynn, for Michael, and 42 million Americans, food assistance programs like SNAP are so critical. It is not a luxury. The Republican budget bill to cut SNAP is a direct threat to their well-being and to millions of Americans.
House Democrats stood strong and voted to oppose these cuts. The fight is not over. We will not stand by silently while Americans are pushed into hunger.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to reject these cuts. I urge my House Republican colleagues to grow a spine to fight so Americans don't go hungry.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mike Leach, a dear friend, a brilliant coach, and one of the most original minds college football has ever known. His long overdue path to the College Football Hall of Fame was finally cleared with last week's decision to revise the hall's eligibility criteria. As such, Mike Leach will be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2027.
Mike Leach wasn't just a coach. He was the most influential mind in college football in the last 30 years. No one is more deserving of being in the Hall of Fame.
Mike was a pioneer. He was the architect of the Air Raid offense, a system that changed the game and
Most Hall of Fame coaches inherit programs steeped in tradition. Mike didn't. In fact, he didn't even play football at the college level. He was a rugby player who earned a law degree. He took on the challenge of rebuilding, starting at the lowest levels of college football. He worked his way up in the true American Dream fashion.
He coached at Texas Tech, Mississippi State, and, most importantly for me, at Washington State University. He didn't just win games; he changed cultures. He made football fun, fearless, and innovative.
Off the field, Mike was just as remarkable. A few years back, together, we created and taught the insurgent warfare in football class at Washington State University, which we then taught on a special basis at Mississippi State University.
When I first met Mike, I had come off some time working with the State Department in Iraq where I had the privilege of working very closely with General Petraeus and came to know General Mattis.
When I thought about Mike and the connection to football and how he was an innovator and an insurgent warrior, I thought about the football analogy. General Petraeus and General Mattis would be a little more like Nick Saban. How do we win when we have all the heavy firepower, the four-star and five-star recruits?
Mike was more like Ho Chi Minh, sitting out in the jungle. How do we win with two-star recruits and three-star recruits?
We created this class to look at asymmetric strategy. It was a great success and great fun. Mike and I would speak two to three times per week, often about politics and culture.
Together, we traveled the world, visiting over 10 countries, from Israel to Dubai, Tanzania to Panama. He was a pirate with a playbook. He was intellectually curious, endlessly witty, and genuinely kind. His insights on leadership, war, and human nature are a fundamental reason of why I am here today.
Mike and I also talked about him running for office someday. Not many folks know that, but he looked seriously at coming to Congress. At the time he did so, I told him that he has a young team. He is making over $5 million a year. He can always run again. Unfortunately, he was taken from us too soon when he passed.
His legacy lives on, and his greatest love was for people, for his players, his friends, and his family. Coach Leach finished with a career just .004 below the previous threshold-winning percentage for the Hall of Fame. With last week's decision by the National Football Foundation to revise the rule, the door is now open, and rightfully so.
If the Hall of Fame is about more than just numbers, if it is about impact, innovation, and legacy, then Mike Leach belongs there without question. I urge the foundation to complete this long overdue recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, who I have no doubt is watching Congress every day, that he always did things his own way. Now, even the Hall of Fame is catching up to him.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Trump administration just cut a 60-year program called Job Corps that provided young people with stable housing and career training.
This is why I joined several of my Michigan colleagues in a letter to the Trump administration, demanding that they reverse this reckless decision to abruptly shut down Job Corps centers across the Nation.
This action is yet another example of the cruel actions taken to dismantle programs for our families. Many of them depend on this. They are lifelines for our families.
Mr. Speaker, in Michigan alone, Job Corps has three centers with more than 700 students in Flint and Grand Rapids, including 200 young people in the city of Detroit.
Everyone deserves the ability to shape their own future with access to career training and hands-on experience. The sense of stability and direction Job Corps provides for our youth is invaluable.
Now, the sudden closing of these centers has left students devastated. I wish my colleagues would see the images of the young people dragging their black trash bags through the parking lot with nowhere to go.
It is heartbreaking for these students, who have worked so hard to join the workforce, to have the rug pulled out right from underneath them with only hours of notice. It is disgraceful that our government would turn its back on them like this.
There is one young person in my district in the city of Detroit whose mother has cancer. She is trying to seek treatment and trying to live. Her son depends on Job Corps for housing and for future career opportunities.
Yet again, here we are, cutting these vital programs that many people across the country support, no matter political affiliation.
I want them to know that they deserve better and that not all of us in this Chamber will turn our backs on them. We are going to fight together to restore the funding. I will continue to call out these inhumane and lawless actions.
It is very important for the American people to know this Congress and this Chamber authorized the funding for Job Corps. The President of the United States does not have the authority to snap his fingers and cut the funding.
The American people must continue to speak up about the impact of having Job Corps cut. Again, we are going to work together to try to restore it.
Mr. Speaker, last week was the 60th birthday of Head Start, which is a lifeline and a life-changing experience for many of our families and has anchors all across the country and communities. It has helped our young children for decades.
I do want to bring a story from my district. Alex, a public school speech therapist in Dearborn Heights, said that several of her students are directly impacted by threats to Head Start funding. Students attending Head Start are entitled to receive necessary special education services.
As a parent of a 2-year-old daughter, she also knows that there are opportunities for her to start her education in the welcoming community that Head Start provides.
This year alone, nearly 750,000 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers will receive Head Start services, supporting early childhood learning, development, and health. These centers rely on us to make sure we keep that Federal funding to provide the care for our children.
Again, I know earlier this year we were all thrown into a panic when the Trump administration recklessly decided to cut off the Federal funding. I led 23 of my colleagues with the Congressional Mamas Caucus in a letter to President Trump. We demanded he take immediate action to restore the Head Start funding, many of them, again, months and weeks without receiving funding.
Our fight isn't over, though. Head Start is essential to countless communities in every State and every corner of our Nation. The threat to Head Start is real. Colleagues must work together to try to protect it.
As the chair of Congressional Mamas Caucus, I will continue to lead efforts in Congress to defend these critical programs for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know about you, but I have no idea that someone's income, occupation, education, ZIP Code, marital status, credit score, or homeownership status have anything to do with somebody's auto insurance rates or whether or not they are a good driver. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Yet, we are allowing in this country for the auto insurance industry to use nondriving factors to discriminate and to allow predatory practices to determine auto insurance rates.
In my district alone, I have seen many families with auto insurance, which is required by law, see their rates go up almost 40 percent, keeping
Auto insurance rates should be based on how good a person's driving record is, period. It is outrageous that many continue to allow these discriminatory practices to be applied.
Please support the PAID Act. It is good legislation to continue to protect our residents and make sure they get insurance that they can afford.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the unique opportunity to say congratulations to the fifth and sixth grade Team Army flag football team for winning the Northwest Tucson Under the Lights spring championship, a team that I had the pleasure and the privilege of coaching.
The spring season was our third undefeated season in a row and the second championship in the last three seasons. With this spring season championship, we have qualified to compete in the national tournament in Florida this July.
I absolutely love coaching, and I don't think there is anything better than that. I have been coaching most of these boys since they were in second grade, and it has been amazing seeing them grow up, compete together, and support each other like teammates always should.
My players--Kenny Ciscomani, Augie Axen, Mateo Brandt, Cooper Brayant, Braeydn Darby, Isaiah Davis, Bas Guthrie, Preston Harshberger, Warrick Mendoza, Dominic Olivito, and Cor Pinneo--throughout the entire year, and this season's playoffs in particular, played with grit, determination, and passion. In spite of being down by several possessions at different points, they kept their composure and executed the game plan perfectly against tough opposition. I congratulate the boys. They earned this victory. I am so proud to display the trophy right here in my office in Washington, D.C.
I thank the coaches who often had to take over due to my hectic schedule. We would not be here without them.
I thank the families and fans who came to cheer us on for being with us throughout it all. They were truly an indispensable part of our remarkable season.
The team should enjoy this championship. They earned it.
Now, on to nationals representing Arizona. Let's go get it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend and Army veteran Jane Strain on a well-deserved retirement as a trustee of Cochise College's governing board after an incredible 27 years.
Since even before being elected, I have been lucky to have Jane as a resource, and I have come to deeply respect her role as a community leader, a tireless advocate for our veterans, and a devoted volunteer.
A fighter and leader by example, Jane's work on behalf of our veterans is well known across Arizona, which is why I jumped at the opportunity to ask her to be a part of my veteran advisory council.
Jane's powerful voice, grounded by personal experience and genuine desire to help those who served, has been an invaluable resource for me and has greatly informed my efforts working to support the nearly 80,000 veterans in my district that they call home.
Jane's exceptional record reaches beyond our veterans. It also focuses on education and empowering our youth to reach their potential.
As a trustee of Cochise College's governing board, Jane has been instrumental in shaping Cochise College into the innovative institution it is today.
While Jane's retirement marks the end of an extraordinary chapter, I have no doubt that she will continue to do amazing work and will enjoy this new chapter being closer to her children and grandchildren.
On behalf of a grateful community, I thank Jane so much for her service. I look forward to hearing about Jane's next adventure and all the amazing things she will still be doing and be able to achieve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say congratulations to the Salpointe men's baseball team for their remarkable achievement in winning the 4A State championship.
In a thrilling match, they defeated Flagstaff by a score of 8 runs to 0, truly an incredible performance by all the players.
This victory earned Head Coach Danny Preble his second State championship since 2017.
I thank and congratulate Coach Preble, his staff, the players, parents, fans, and everyone who played a part in this special season. They made their school and community incredibly proud.
Once again, I congratulate them. Go Lancers. This is their victory. They earned it, so enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in fierce objection to the hasty, ill-considered decisions made by the new administration that undermine new investment in America's future energy and manufacturing systems.
Rather than enhancing new energy generation and bolstering good- paying jobs in the United States of America across all energy sectors, including advanced energy manufacturing, the U.S. Department of Energy has ceded ground to global competitors like Communist China.
Last Friday, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced that the Department of Energy was canceling $3.7 billion of previously appropriated funding for 24 advanced energy projects inside the borders of the United States of America.
Our goal must be to make America energy independent inside our borders in perpetuity.
These initiatives were designed to reduce energy costs and to reinvest in American-based manufacturing firms, our Nation's future.
These projects were funded under the Infrastructure Investment and JOBS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. The goal was to resecure the United States as the global leader in energy innovation, but now, the Department of Energy has pulled the rug out from the future by walking away from leading-edge U.S. manufacturers. I never thought I would see that from this administration.
Two weeks ago, I raised this issue of strategic U.S. investment during a hearing with the new Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright. In terms of these companies, he said: ``If it is viable, and it is going to create jobs, and it is going to do these great things, we are going to support that project.''
The Secretary said that he would ask these questions to make the decisions: Is the investment legal? Is the technology viable? Is the engineering done competently? Is there a market for it? Does it add to our national or economic security?
The projects in question check all of these boxes, so what has changed? The Department of Energy claims that it conducted a ``thorough and individualized financial review of each award.'' It found that ``these projects failed to advance the energy needs of the American people [and] were not economically viable.''
Every company is economically viable.
Turning America's back on recognized U.S.-based manufacturing--I will underline that--facing fierce global competition--I underline that--is an insult.
This includes hundreds of hardworking constituents even across northwest Ohio. If the goal is to Make America Great Again, then the U.S. Department of Energy just failed royally. Each of these U.S. manufacturing companies has developed plans to modernize operations and to position themselves and our communities to fight back toward economic success in a fierce global economic race.
America can lead in the energy sector, but we cannot roll back the clock to a former era when America became economically paralyzed due to oil embargoes and dirty manufacturing.
Three of the projects across our country for which funding had been assured are from well-respected Ohio
Let's talk about Libbey. This historic company holds deep roots in my hometown of Toledo, long known as the Glass City. Glass requires lots of energy. The firm has been working for years to maintain competitiveness in a terrible international glass environment while reducing its environmental footprint.
Making glass requires huge amounts of power, as I said, and the funding Libbey was awarded would have helped it transition to more powerful glass furnaces with cleaner manufacturing technologies. These jobs are union jobs with living wages and benefits that strengthen Ohio as a hub for advanced industry.
Owens-Illinois Glass, another recognized heritage glassmaking firm, is headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio. It had similar plans at its Zanesville, Ohio, plants to remain viable and globally competitive.
Third, Kraft Heinz, a giant in the food industry, is in Fremont, Ohio.
I simply do not understand how canceling these projects makes America great again. Instead, it emboldens our foreign competitors.
I invite President Trump to Ohio to visit these companies. He can change these decisions by his Secretary of Energy.
America can't look in the rearview mirror. We have to look forward to America's new energy future, and the Department of Energy's misguided decisions will really hurt American advanced manufacturing.
Ohio knows what it means to get left behind. We have seen the effects of globalization. We have lived it. We have seen the effects of outsourcing and automation. The United States simply should not be hurting our legacy companies.
Mr. Speaker, what began as a concept to connect California's two largest cities with high-speed rail has become a national embarrassment and one of the most expensive boondoggles in modern infrastructure history.
After more than 17 years and $6.9 billion in just Federal money, and overall $17 billion raised over 17 years, not a single mile of high- speed rail track has been laid, just a few bridges built.
A report released today by Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and the Federal Railroad Administration confirmed what many of us have been saying for years and years: This project is not viable. It is riddled with mismanagement, massive cost overruns, missed deadlines, fantasy- level ridership projections, and even promising 1.1 million jobs in the process. After they got pinned down in committee at the State legislature, they finally admitted it was 1 million job-years.
If you do the math on that, Mr. Speaker, they claim 10,000 workers there currently, so that would mean about 100 years to equal 1 million job-years. They seem to be right on track for 100 years in building this project.
It is still $7 billion short just to build a sliver of this segment between Merced and an almond orchard somewhere outside of Bakersfield, hardly the world-class system voters were promised back in 2008.
The original vision for the project from S.F. to L.A. also included spurs to Sacramento and San Diego possibly, which would have been about an 800-mile network.
Now, well after a decade, what is left is simply the 119-mile stretch through the Central Valley I just mentioned, which doesn't really connect any major metro areas. That segment is years behind.
The whole project should have been done by 2020. They are hoping to get that Central Valley Project done by maybe 2030.
That project, the Central Valley part by itself, would be $38.5 billion. The original concept of the whole thing was $33 billion from S.F. to L.A.
The total estimated cost today is a staggering $128 billion. As I mentioned, over a 17-year period from 2008 to now, they have raised only $17 billion. They are short $110 billion. They think they are going to come to the Federal Government and ask for that here? Are they going to hit the taxpayers for more? Are they going to pass more bonds to raise $110 billion--what?--five or six times more than what they have already raised over 17 years?
There is no serious plan to even secure that kind of money. There is no credible timeline to finish the construction. There is no evidence that the California High-Speed Rail Authority is even capable of delivering or operating the system. The authority has failed to meet even the most basic terms of its Federal grant agreement.
That is why I am so pleased that Secretary Duffy has taken a good hard look at this and has come up with the conclusions they have.
They have not acted in good faith. They have downplayed the risks. They have run out of time and money. Basically, the voters--the people, everybody--have been lied to in order to keep this project alive.
Even Governor Newsom, about the first week or two he was in office as Governor, for a moment there he said, you know, maybe we need to relook at this thing because it is not going very well. He must have got a hot set of phone calls from some angry donors, or somewhere in the system in Sacramento, because he got right back on track, so to speak.
The Trump administration is right to put this project on notice, claw back whatever Federal money is still unwasted in that, and make sure that not a single dollar goes toward this boondoggle.
As a Californian, I can see plenty of other needs that California has that are grave, such as our water infrastructure, our electricity infrastructure, our highways, and our levies that prevent floods. I would probably dwell mostly on the water supply situation, as more and more of it seems to be devoted to fish, running it right out to the Pacific Ocean. Less and less agriculture is being planted and operated in California, including the issue in the San Joaquin Valley where more acres are taken out, which creates a higher dust situation, which contributes to more of what is known as Valley fever, a big problem. Instead, they want to put so-called solar farms--calling solar panels ``farms'' is an insult anyway.
So much of the Nation's food supply comes from California, the specialty crops: tomatoes, almonds, pistachios, so many things that America consumes. Many of these crops are 100 percent grown in California or 90-plus percent grown in California. Yet, they still want to keep wasting money on this high-speed rail boondoggle that, as I said, is $110 billion short of today's projections of finishing this thing when they have only raised $17 billion over 17 years.
Certainly, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has shown that it can't deliver on this project. Shift the money to something else. California could build 25 large dams and store enough water to grow everything it could ever want to grow in California. It is time to focus on infrastructure that really makes a difference for Californians, the American people, and keeping food on the table.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Fauquier High School class of 2025.
Last month, the 301 graduates and their families gathered at the packed Jiffy Lube Live to celebrate this milestone.
This senior class has a lot to be proud of, including beating their teachers in the students versus faculty basketball game.
The graduates excelled not only in the classroom but also on the field and in their ability to persevere through challenges. Whether they are heading into the workforce, trade school, college, or embarking on their service at institutions like the Air Force Academy or Virginia Military Institute, the values of hard work and determination that they learned as a Falcon will always be with them.
I congratulate the class of 2025 at Fauquier High School.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Rappahannock County High School class of 2025.
This year's graduating class is a remarkable group of students, including future firefighters, servicemembers, college and trade school students, and workers ready to contribute across many sectors.
In their time at Rappahannock County High School, they have achieved a lot of great things, including bringing home a Class 1 State title for the women's basketball team and winning a Scholastic Bowl regional championship. Whether on the field, in the classroom, in the drama club, or as part of one of Rappahannock County High School's bands, I know they will carry the lessons they have learned as a Panther to whatever comes next.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 287 graduates in Kettle Run High School class of 2025.
The graduates, as Cougars, have balanced life as students, teammates, and coworkers, and through it all they have learned the value of perseverance. They have excelled across a wide range of fields: In band, in chorus, and in orchestra, on the stage and in the art room. They brought home a golf State championship and led the football team all the way to the State championship game.
They left their mark on Kettle Run, and I look forward to watching all that they will accomplish in the future.
I congratulate the class of 2025 of Kettle Run High School.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 347 graduates of Liberty High School's class of 2025.
The graduates, as Eagles, have achieved so much and, most importantly, have learned how to tackle whatever challenges come next.
As their principal said to them:
Whether their next stop is college, trade school, the workforce, or the military, I can't wait to see what their future has in store, and I look forward to watching them change the world. The graduates should always remember that once an Eagle, always an Eagle.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Liberty High School class of 2025.
Mr. Speaker, in his inauguration address, President Trump declared that America was entering a golden age, a new chapter of economic prosperity.
For Virginians, and millions across the country, that promise remains unfulfilled. Instead of prosperity, Americans are facing economic hardship and uncertainty.
This administration's steep tariffs are taking a real toll here in Virginia.
I heard from a constituent, like the one who started his own small business selling action figures. After a lot of success selling preorders of the action figures, his business is now facing budget shortfalls because they don't know what the tariffs on China will be from month to month. They don't want to raise prices on customers, but the tariffs have made it impossible to plan for his business and for his future.
They are not alone. Businesses, small and large, are feeling the pain all across the Commonwealth. They are unable to plan, unable to predict what this administration is going to do, and in many cases unable to keep their employees, or keep their doors open in some cases. This uncertainty is weighing on a lot of families as well. According to one poll, 59 percent of Virginians expect to face financial difficulty in the years ahead. This doesn't sound like the golden age. It sounds like fool's gold.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of merit-based hiring, especially in the Federal Government, because this administration, which has talked a lot about the evils of diversity and fired veterans left and right, is now focusing its hiring efforts exclusively on one thing, blind loyalty to the President. It is like DEI for MAGA.
According to a recent memo from the Office of Personnel Management, all of the civil servant applicants will now be required to answer a series of questions explaining which of the President's executive orders are their favorites and how they will advance the President's pet projects.
Now, to be fair, there are other countries that do similar loyalty tests, like North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and Iran, just to name a few, but those are authoritarian regimes. That seems to be this administration's model.
I ask instead that everyone should swear loyalty to this country and not to the President, and instead of spying on Federal workers and contractors and firing ones who aren't the most blindly loyal that the best are chosen, the brightest, the most qualified people to serve our Nation, to keep us healthy, safe, and secure.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House about a clause that is in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
This clause would take away States' rights to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I think federalism is something that must always be protected, and I warn against the dangers of protecting a tech industry where we have no idea what the future of this industry will hold.
AI is rapidly developing. AI has developed quickly over the past few years. Imagine what it will be 1 year from now, 5 years from now, and 10 years from now.
When people look to the future, they cannot take away States' rights to regulate or make laws to protect the people in their State or to regulate businesses that operate in their State. That would be destroying the very foundation of this country, which is federalism. Federal power must always be limited and State power protected.
Now, the pushback and the reasons that I have been told about this is that American tech and AI companies must be able to compete with China. Well, American tech and AI companies can compete with China, and they should compete with China. However, don't destroy federalism in order to allow them to do that. That would be a fool's errand.
Here is how this can work: Governors and State legislatures can make their States friendly for tech companies in AI, bringing these companies in by making it easy for these companies to operate in their States. That is how it has been done for every single innovation, industry, manufacturing, and all companies across America. You don't destroy federalism for one industry. You protect it and allow States to compete to bring those companies into their States. That is the right way to handle this going forward.
Here is a lesson for us all. No matter what political party holds office and is in charge, my colleagues should all watch carefully the bills that are passed and should be mindful about protecting not only State rights but the rights of the American people and looking to the future.
When I was a freshman Member of Congress in 2021, I was told that America would be at war with China within 5 years. Well, here we are approaching 5 years later. I don't think America should have to go to war with China. America can beat China economically.
Ask yourself: Why do we send our food to be processed over in China? Why do we rely on China to produce our critical supply chain like medicines? Why would we depend on this country for the American people's supplies, and why would we go to war with them when we can be innovative right here at home, in America, producing critical chain supplies, medicines, and processing our own food?
A war is nothing America should ever strive for, look for, or prepare to have to engage in. Americans should conduct ourselves here at home in a way where we don't have to go to war, we don't have to depend on foreign countries, and we never destroy federalism for the future of an industry that we have no idea what it will do.
With this warning, I urge all of my colleagues that when the House gets to
This bill should be about tax policy, protecting Americans to not have to have a tax increase of over $4.7 trillion. It should be about America-first energy and Americans' border security, not about allowing AI to run rampant and destroying federalism in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the cruel and morally bankrupt healthcare agenda moving through this Chamber that would gut Medicaid; gut Medicare; collapse our healthcare systems; and cut food assistance to millions of children, seniors, and veterans across this country.
You don't have to take my word for it because Elon Musk, himself, called this a big, disgusting abomination, this bill that currently stands in the Senate. While here in the House the GOP is trying to gut healthcare and mental health care and addiction services through the budget.
These cuts will be devastating for New Mexico. New Mexico already has a healthcare crisis, where two-thirds of New Mexicans are on Medicaid and Medicare, where even with the best healthcare insurance you can get, you still can't get in to see a specialist, and where thousands of our rural and Tribal residents must travel hours just to get basic care.
Let me be clear. People will die if these cuts go through. What is the GOP doing here in this week? They are running a bill that is at best window dressing, hypocrisy, saying that they are supporting healthcare and addiction programs while they literally gut the programs that fund them. It is a complete lie.
Like so much of what they do, these guts are a scam, not just on the American people, but on themselves because apparently they don't read their own bills.
Let's be clear. Republicans are gutting healthcare and behavioral health programs. DOGE has cut thousands of employees at healthcare agencies, frozen funds for vital medical research, and eliminated mental health and substance abuse programs. They have rescinded a billion dollars in State and local behavioral health programs and cut 40 different mental health programs across the country. They are proposing to literally eliminate the vast majority of SAMHSA, which is the mental health program for this country, in the fiscal year 2026 budget. They just transmitted a rescission package to this Chamber last night that would cut billions of dollars in public health assistance for starving children and people suffering from AIDS and preventable infectious diseases across the world.
I ask my colleagues: What is this country becoming, where it dismantles our own healthcare system and literally allows children to starve and die across the world? What has literally become of the GOP?
Let me just say this. This is personal for me. This is personal in New Mexico, as somebody who grew up in a low-income family, as somebody who grew up relying on public healthcare and assistance programs, as somebody who has lost friends and family from the fentanyl crisis, and as somebody who represents one of the strongest and resilient set of communities in the country but who struggle every single day.
This is not leadership. This is a moral failure.
It is why I show up every single day to this Chamber with my full heart and my full fight for our communities.
It is why I have reintroduced my bill this week to expand Indian Health Service. It is why I introduced legislation to stop fentanyl, to address the public health nursing crisis, and to ensure that our rural communities can access telehealth and that they can actually stay in business with our rural clinics.
It is why I have secured millions for New Mexico for mental health and addiction recovery. It is why I submitted funding this year for the fiscal year 2026 budget to build a state-of-the-art trauma center in Valencia County and mental and behavioral health services in Sandoval.
It is why I have secured millions for transitional housing for veterans; a sobering center; behavioral health centers in Albuquerque; mobile school health centers in APS; and new fire and EMS stations in Moriarty, Sandia Pueblo, Peralta in Valencia. This is what leadership looks like.
I will just say this: In New Mexico, we know, of course, that we are all going to die, but we do not allow people to die because of policy failure and moral corruption.
We are here to fight. We will fight this abomination of a bill. We will fight the draconian cuts in the budget, and we will fight this corrupt rescission package. I will keep working every single day for New Mexicans because that is who we are.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a momentous achievement by the men's volleyball team at Southern Virginia University in Buena Vista, Virginia, which has brought home the school's first-ever NCAA Division III National Championship victory.
On Monday night in Salem, Virginia, the Knights defeated powerhouse Springfield College in a thrilling straight-set sweep of 25-20, 25-23, and 27-25, capping an extraordinary 35-1 season. This victory wasn't just a win on the court but the culmination of years of hard work, perseverance, and belief.
Led by veteran Coach Tom Peterson, who has now guided three different programs to NCAA titles, the Knights embodied excellence in every sense. Senior outside hitter, Christian Sheaffer, named the tournament's most outstanding player, led the charge with 13 kills, while his teammates, including Kristo Bianchin, Kyler Evans, Justin Madsen, and sophomore setter Gehrig Tolman, delivered in every critical moment.
From a heartbreaking quarterfinal loss last season to the national championship podium this year, this team exemplifies resilience and heart.
I congratulate the Knights, Coach Peterson, and the entire SVU community. This championship belongs to all of them.
Honoring 75th Anniversary of Norfolk and Western Class J No. 611
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of a true icon of American railroad history, the Norfolk and Western class J No. 611 steam locomotive.
Built right in Roanoke, Virginia, in May of 1950, this bullet-nosed, coal-fired marvel remains a shining example of American innovation and craftsmanship. Spanning 110 feet and weighing 872,000 pounds, the 611 generated a staggering 5,400 horsepower and reached speeds of up to 100 miles an hour. For nearly a decade, it connected communities from Virginia to Ohio, proudly pulling passengers across the heartland.
In 1952, it famously hauled President Dwight D. Eisenhower's campaign train from Columbus, Ohio, to Kenova, West Virginia.
Thanks to the vision and tireless efforts of local advocates like Bev Fitzpatrick and the dedicated team at the Virginia Museum of Transportation, the 611 has undergone two major restorations, in 1982 and again in 2014, and it continues to operate as a living monument to our railroading past.
Named a National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark in 1984, designated Virginia's Official State Steam Locomotive in 2017, and added to both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places in 2023 and 2024, the 611's legacy endures.
Mr. Speaker, as we mark this milestone, let us salute 611 and all of those in Roanoke and beyond who have kept its whistle echoing through the Blue Ridge and across the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans delivered on our promise last month to the American people by passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This landmark legislation makes the Trump tax cuts permanent, slashes taxes for working families and seniors, and eliminates taxes on tips and overtime. If you earned it, you should keep it.
It secures our border by finishing the wall, funding mass deportations, and giving our agents the resources they need to stop the fentanyl crisis and protect our communities.
It restores fiscal sanity by identifying $1.6 trillion in wasteful spending for savings, ends taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries, and implements real work requirements for able-bodied adults who are benefiting from Medicaid or food stamp programs.
It unleashes American energy by reversing Biden's anti-energy mandates and brings back American jobs. It strengthens our national defense by modernizing our military, our shipyards, and our missile defense systems to keep America safe.
This bill reflects what Americans want: security, prosperity, and leadership. The Senate needs to act. Let's get this to President Trump's desk and deliver real results for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a good man and an exceptional leader in my district, David Kirschtel, the chief executive officer of JCC Rockland.
Marking 25 years in June of this year, David has poured his heart into building the JCC into what it is today: a thriving center for fitness, early childhood education, summer camps, and cultural life.
The JCC has served not just the Jewish community, but the broader Rockland community, as well.
David's legacy goes beyond just the JCC. He was a driving force behind the global effort to honor the Munich 11, Israeli athletes murdered at the 1972 Olympics. Thanks to his work and the work of many others, the world finally paused to remember these victims with a moment of silence at the Tokyo Games in 2021.
In addition, he has been a leading voice in the effort to combat anti-Semitism, especially after the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023.
I am proud to call him a constituent and even prouder to call him a friend.
I thank David for setting an example that reminds all of us what it means to lead with heart, purpose, and persistence.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the retirement of my pastor and dear friend, Father Bob Stagg of the Church of the Presentation in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Father Bob has been a guiding presence in my life and the lives of countless parishioners. Whether through his unwavering support for bringing folks of all walks of life into the fold, his thoughtful homilies, or the warmth of his many parish gatherings, Father Bob has led with heart, humor, and humility.
He is the kind of priest who is not afraid to speak plainly, laugh loudly over a beer, or show up when it matters most. Through it all, he has reminded me that living the Gospel truth means meeting people where they are, with compassion first.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 50 years since his ordination, and we thank Father Bob for his decades of faithful service. I thank him for the profound impact he has had on my faith and my family.
He will be missed at Sunday mass, but his presence will be felt in the community he helped to build.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of William Vincent Motto, a lifelong resident of Nyack, New York, who passed away on May 8, 2025, at the age of 87.
Bill spent more than 41 years with Orange and Rockland Utilities as a line foreman and gave nearly 70 years of dedicated volunteer service to the Orangetown Fire Company No. 1. He served as captain, as a longtime commissioner for the Nyack Fire Department, and as a driver, always stepping up for his neighbors and his community.
He was also a devoted family man. Bill and his wife, Beverly, were married for nearly 65 years, raising three daughters and building a life grounded in love, faith, and hard work. Whether it was woodworking, fishing, or taking his annual trip to South Bend to cheer on Notre Dame, Bill lived a full and meaningful life.
His commitment to service, his love of family, and his deep roots in Rockland County are what made him such a respected figure.
I extend my condolences to Beverly, their children and grandchildren, and all who knew and loved him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Frank ``Butch'' Hagen, a proud veteran, a devoted public servant, and a beloved resident of Rockland County.
Born in the Bronx in 1950, Frank spent his life in service to others, first in the National Guard and the Army, and later as a village trustee and deputy mayor in Suffern. He was a steady presence in local organizations like The American Legion and the Lions Club, always showing up and always giving back.
More than anything, Frank was a family man. He raised four boys with heart, humor, and grit. His sons remember him not just for his selflessness but for the joy he brought to life.
For instance, he led a sled ride down a snowy road in an old plastic boat because if it was fun, it was an option, and Frank made it happen.
He kept the peace. He led with love, and he never backed down from a challenge. His life was full, and his legacy will live on through his children, his grandchildren, and all who were lucky enough to know him.
I was proud to call him a friend, and his memory will always be a blessing to the Suffern community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable man from my district, Officer Joseph Gravino of Orangeburg, New York, who passed away suddenly on May 23 at just 37 years old.
Joe served the NYPD with distinction for 12 years, most recently as part of the Strategic Response Group. He faced every challenge with calm resolve, earning the trust of his colleagues and the gratitude of the city he served. He protected New Yorkers with honor, courage, and a deep sense of duty.
Yet, Joe's greatest role was at home as a husband to his beloved wife, Katie; and as a devoted father to their three children, Anthony, Juliana, and little Dominic.
Whether coaching a Little League game, showing up for a dance recital, or simply spending time together, Joe gave his heart fully to his family. Being described by those who knew him well, Joe Gravino was simply full of love.
Today, the people of Rockland County and the city of New York mourn his loss. May his memory be a source of strength to his family and community in the coming months and years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Nathan Lund of Starbuck, Minnesota, on receiving Minnesota's Agriculture in the Classroom 2025 Outstanding Teacher of the Year Award.
This award is given to K-12 educators who can creatively incorporate agriculture concepts into their teaching.
Nathan has taught fifth and sixth grade students at Glacial Hills Elementary School since 2001. His students have been able to grow their appreciation for agriculture through hands-on learning experiences, like maintaining a school garden and hosting food-making contests.
Community members have been grateful for Nathan's work in the classroom, as he has inspired many students
I congratulate Nathan on this amazing achievement, and I wish him the best of luck as he continues his fantastic career.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Dominique Claseman and Ahren Jurgensen of Olivia, Minnesota, on raising nearly $120,000 for a veterans memorial in their hometown.
Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, Dominique raised over $77,000 to construct a memorial for veterans. Since then, he has enlisted in the U.S. Army and is currently completing his basic training.
In less than a year, his younger brother, Ahren, who also intends to join the military after high school, raised $40,000 to expand on the memorial, installing additional plaques, benches, flags, and pavers.
I congratulate Dominique and Ahren on their amazing achievements, and I thank them for their service to their community and to their country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Lawrence Weinrich of Ottertail, Minnesota, on turning 100 years old last Friday, May 30.
Lawrence was born in Fergus Falls and grew up during the drought in the 1930s. He was one of the first drafted for the Korean war, serving 13 years. When he returned, he went to work for a lumber company and only quit chopping wood a couple of years ago.
Today, Lawrence is an avid dancer who goes out dancing at least five times a month in the winter and even more during the summer.
Lawrence credits his agility and dance ability to his active lifestyle as he walks frequently and has had several successful deer hunts. Reaching the century milestone is a testament to his strength, wisdom, and many lives he has touched over the years. I wish Lawrence a happy birthday and congratulate him on 100 amazing years.
Mr. Speaker, on October 19, 2023, I gave a 1-minute speech which is, sadly, more true today than ever, with all deaths in Gaza being solely responsible to Hamas with the invasion and then using of children as human shields as directed by Iran, which must not have a nuclear weapon.
The enemies of civilization are gruesomely clear in their murderous intentions, as detailed in the Hamas Covenant of August 18, 1988, article 7: ``The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees. . . . `There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.' ''
The goal of Hamas, financed by Iran, is to murder all Jews worldwide. It is fake news that they care about the Palestinian people. Suffering by the Hamas-suppressed people of Gaza is solely Hamas dictated, which uses Palestinians as human shields to be murdered.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Donald Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting and mocking Trump with record drone attacks, murdering civilians. Now, 4,000 Soviet-built tanks have been destroyed by talented Ukrainians--20 years of production.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is going after the food budgets of regular people, canceling programs that improve access to nutritious, locally grown produce.
It is bad for consumers, bad for hungry people, bad for public health, and bad for farmers.
Last week, Trump doubled down on this cruelty, cutting the benefit for fruit and vegetables in the WIC program by two-thirds.
Who does that?
WIC provides pregnant women, new moms, and young children with the nutritious food they need to remain healthy, and the fruit and vegetable benefit has meant families can eat more nutritiously.
This budget would mean young kids get just $10 per month, and breastfeeding moms will see their benefits reduced to $13 per month.
Mr. Speaker, you have been to the grocery store, and $10 doesn't buy you a whole lot of nutritious food in Trump's economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues in Congress to do the right thing for once. Reject Trump's budget. Fully fund WIC to reverse the cuts to food programs, and end hunger now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary leader, visionary, educator, and friend, David C. Munson, Jr., on his retirement after 8 transformative years as president of the Rochester Institute of Technology and over four decades in higher education.
Under President Munson's leadership, RIT soared into the top 100 national universities, doubled global learning opportunities, expanded Ph.D. programs, and guided over $500 million in capital projects that have reimagined the student experience. His visionary work has positioned RIT as a nexus of technology, design, and global impact.
Dr. Munson's legacy will continue to inspire generations at RIT. I am grateful for his friendship, unwavering commitment to creativity, and belief in the limitless potential of students and scholars alike.
Mr. Speaker, I wish him and his wife, Nancy, all the best in his well-earned retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 15th time to call on the Trump administration to honor its commitment to restore funding for lifesaving food aid for children around the world.
This is Plumpy'Nut. This is used to treat malnourished children and get them back to health. It saves millions of lives a year, or at least it did until the Trump administration cut off funding earlier this year.
A couple of weeks ago, Secretary Rubio was back here at the Capitol, testifying to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee. He said that the Trump administration was going to restore funding for this emergency food aid. He is the Secretary of State, and he is also the Acting USAID Director. He said under oath that they are going to do it, so why haven't they?
As we speak, this is sitting in warehouses in the United States. Production has virtually shut down while we wait for the administration to honor its commitment.
I will continue to speak on the floor every legislative day until the administration follows through on its word to save the lives of starving children around the world.
Mr. Speaker, Oregon's Crater Lake National Park is a national treasure. As a lifelong hiker and camper, I have a deep affection for it among other national parks.
During my high school and college years, road trips to national parks like Crater Lake were all I could afford, but what they offered was priceless: awe, adventure, and connection.
For families across this Nation, these parks provide an affordable way to explore, learn, and build lifelong memories.
Just as Oregonians are gearing up for a summer of enjoying our most treasured places, Trump is driving out the public servants who protect them. Kevin Heatley, Crater Lake National Park's superintendent, has resigned.
Trump cut off one-half of his permanent staff, leading to unsustainable workloads and the deterioration of the care that Crater Lake demands.
Experienced professionals are being driven out under this administration's corrosive leadership. Our public lands deserve better, and Americans deserve better.
I will not stand by while Trump attacks our public lands. We must protect our national parks and the public servants who protect them.
Hands off Crater Lake, and hands off our national parks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunn of Iowa.) I would like to welcome all of the students to your Congress. Thank you for joining us here today.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2483, Support for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2931, Save SBA From Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are here today to debate the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act; H.R. 2966, the American Entrepreneurs First Act; H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, which will be considered under a closed rule; and H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act to be considered under a structured rule.
One hour of debate each for H.R. 2931, H.R. 2966, and H.R. 2987 shall be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Small Business Committee, or their designees.
One hour of debate will also be provided for H.R. 2483 and shall be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, or their designees.
The rule provides a motion to recommit for all four bills.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are here to deliver on the Trump administration's agenda and solidify his executive actions with commonsense legislation. With Congresswoman Van Duyne's American Entrepreneurs First Act, my colleagues are going to help codify the work that the Small Business Administration is doing to ensure that businesses receiving Federal benefits are 100 percent owned by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and businesses that employ illegal immigrants are ineligible for these funds. This is part of our ongoing effort to stop subsidizing previous open-border policies. It makes sense that only law-abiding American citizens should have access to programs that American taxpayer dollars go towards.
SBA offices are being located out of sanctuary cities and into places that do not limit their cooperation with Federal agencies that are charged with immigration enforcement. The SBA Administrator announced that the agency would be relocating offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City, and Seattle, and moving them to less costly and more accessible locations to better serve the mission and comply with Federal immigration law. With Congressman Finstad's bill, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act, Republicans are supporting this plan with legislation, giving the SBA 120 days to deliver on this commitment and relocate those offices. Sanctuary cities need to be held accountable and need to see the consequences of their disregard for Federal law.
With Mr. Bresnahan's CEASE Act, it is strengthening SBA's programs by limiting the number of nonprofit small business lending companies licensed by the SBA to 16. This will allow the agency to provide the necessary oversight to ensure that they are effectively serving the small businesses that Congress intended.
Finally, my colleagues are here to debate the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act. I thank Mr. Guthrie for introducing this important legislation. This bill reauthorizes the 2018 legislation President Trump signed into law and strengthens it. I am glad to say that across the country we are seeing a decline in overdose deaths. Of course, the work is not over. My colleagues are making sure we are investing in overdose prevention and equipping communities to counter substance abuse disorders.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has taken a hard look at what worked best from the 2018 law and built off its success by continuing to provide resources for prevention, education, treatment, recovery, workforce, and law enforcement to help patients struggling with substance use disorder. It ensures first responders are able to administer lifesaving drugs, ensures HHS cannot require States to use one specific vendor over another, clarifies that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration's State and Tribal Opioid Response Grants can be used for test strips, and requires that Administration to identify and address serious mental illness.
This bill is part of President Trump's and the Congressional Republicans' promise to stop the flow of fentanyl by securing our borders and then combat the crisis caused by these drugs in our communities. President Trump has done his part to secure our border, and Republicans will supply him with more resources to do so in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Through the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act, we will combat the existing opioid crisis in our communities.
I am proud to stand in support of these bills. I look forward to this debate, and I hope my colleagues can stay focused on the topic in front of us today as we discuss these proposals that are important to American families and taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last time Members were here, House Republicans rammed through their latest GOP tax scam, a bill that would rip healthcare away from over 15 million Americans by slashing Medicaid and, let's be honest, likely Medicare. I am sorry the gentlewoman doesn't think that that is in the interest of the American people, but my colleagues on the Democratic side do. My colleagues think when Republicans are taking away people's healthcare in this country, it is a big deal.
This bill, this tax scam bill, would literally take food out of the mouths of kids, and take nutritious food from senior citizens and veterans. For what? To give massive tax breaks to billionaires and to add trillions of dollars to our national debt.
Mr. Speaker, their ugly, big bill is a disgrace, and it does not serve working people. It serves the GOP's donors. It is a scam, a handout to the rich, paid for by nickel-and-diming moms and dads who are just trying to get by.
Even Elon Musk, one of Donald Trump's top advisers, called the Republican bill a ``disgusting abomination.'' Let me repeat that, a disgusting abomination. He said: ``Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong.''
Now, let that sink in. Let that sink in. Elon Musk, the man who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Donald Trump and other Republicans, is now saying Members should be ashamed of themselves for voting for this disgusting bill.
Remember when Republicans were falling all over themselves calling Elon a genius and he could do no wrong?
I have got to be honest, Mr. Speaker, it gives me whiplash. I think I need a neck brace to deal with all of these contrary quotations coming in.
The icing on the cake, Mr. Speaker, is the number of Republicans who are now publicly claiming buyers' remorse for voting for this bill.
This is a tweet from one of my Republican colleagues from Georgia. People are going to love this. She says: ``Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278 to 279 of the OBBB that strips States of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years.
``I am adamantly opposed to this, and it is a violation of State rights, and I would have voted no if I had known this was in there.''
This needs to be stripped out of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this takes my breath away. All my colleague from Georgia needed to do was to read the bill. I know that is a tough thing to ask Members of Congress to do, but read the damn bill. If she wasn't going to do that, if she was like our President, who doesn't like to read and only gets his information from the TV, she could have tuned in to the Rules Committee meeting where for 20 hours, beginning at 1:00 a.m., the Rules Committee debated not only this bill but even this policy that she was concerned about.
In fact, I offered an amendment to strike the awful AI provisions from this bill. There was a debate on it, and every single one of her Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee, every single one of them voted against it.
Get this: According to this article in The New York Times titled: ``After Muscling Their Bill Through the House, Some Republicans Have Regrets,'' our colleague from Georgia wasn't the only Republican who didn't read the bill before voting to pass it. Another one of our conservative colleagues from Nebraska admitted he did not know the bill makes it harder for the courts to hold the Trump administration officials in contempt for defying a court order. Get this: He claims he would have voted against the bill had he known it was in the bill. I can't make this stuff up.
Another conservative Republican colleague from Pennsylvania tweeted: ``Elon Musk is right to call out House leadership. I wish I had a nickel for every time the House Freedom Caucus sounded the alarm and nobody listened, only to find out the hard way that we were right all along.''
Right all along? From what he just said, I would have thought that he voted against the bill or that the entire Freedom Caucus voted against the bill.
Yet, he voted for it, and so did the Freedom Caucus. I think every Republican but one voted for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, here is the deal: Republicans are really good about making statements and speeches, but that is about it. Yet, where is their backbone? If my Republican colleagues believe some of the stuff is bad, why didn't the majority vote against the bill?
One by one, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle caved. The budget hawks wanted a bill that wouldn't add to the debt. This bill adds trillions to the debt, and Republicans caved.
Moderates said they wouldn't vote for a bill that slashes Medicaid and threw people off of healthcare, which this bill did, and guess what? They folded. They folded.
Where I am from, in Massachusetts, that is what we call a cheap date. Republicans from across the ideological spectrum caved and got nothing. The majority listened to Donald Trump and closed their eyes and just voted for it without reading it, without a CBO analysis. Whatever Trump wants, Trump gets.
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing for this institution, and it is embarrassing for our country. It is making a mockery of this House of Representatives. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
I thought all of us ran for Congress, regardless of party, to try to help people. What Republicans did a little over a week ago was about not only hurting people but screwing them over. That is sad.
Then, look at today. Some of the bills at one time were bipartisan. H.R. 2483 reauthorizes funding for programs that help communities fight the opioid crisis. It is something I support and something I voted for in the past.
Mr. Speaker, over 20,000 lives have been lost in my home State of Massachusetts alone to this crisis over the past decade. Yet, in Massachusetts, we actually saw a 33 percent drop in fatal overdoses for the first time last year, showing that public investments that we all voted for, public investments in treatment and in prevention, are actually starting to make a real difference.
Mr. Speaker, I am horrified, and I am outraged that Trump is actively dismantling our ability to respond to the opioid crisis moving forward.
The administration recently sent over more details about Trump's ``skinny'' budget, which proposes very large cuts to health programs that American families rely on. These include eliminating programs of regional and national significance at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, otherwise known as SAMHSA, which encompassed nearly all programs aimed at substance use and mental health, including the ones in the bill before us today.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take Republicans seriously when the majority is actively dismantling the very programs and the very agencies that this bill is trying to reauthorize. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were serious about this crisis, my Republican colleagues would stop undermining the solutions.
I guess maybe the rationale for Republicans bringing this bill to the floor is to have some cover as Trump basically undoes all of the programs that are authorized under this bill. Yet, what a cynical thing to do, and it is going to cost lives. This isn't a game we are playing. At this point, this really shouldn't be about pleasing the guy in the Oval Office. This should be about serving our constituents and supporting what is already working and showing some promise.
Then, Republicans claim the other three bills in this rule support small businesses. Yet, there is no surprise. They do the exact opposite.
DOGE already shuttered an SBA office in my district in Massachusetts, forcing a lot of rural small business owners to have to drive hours to get to the office in Boston. Now, under this bill, if Republicans force the closure of the Boston office out of political spite, which Republicans seem to be really good at, it will leave small businesses in Massachusetts with nowhere to turn. Yet, it is not just Massachusetts, but it is a whole bunch of other States that will fall under these cuts.
It will also have disastrous, long-term consequences for the rural entrepreneurs and working-class families in my home State who rely on the SBA to navigate Federal assistance and recover from economic setbacks, like the increased costs they are facing because of Trump's reckless trade war.
Mr. Speaker, while we are having this debate and Trump is having tantrums day in and day out and tariffs this and tariffs that, do you know who is paying the price? It is small businesses. Do you know what is happening in this country? People are beginning to get laid off. Again, there is silence. There is silence from the other side.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Trump's tariff chaos does, in fact, punish small businesses the most. Unlike the mega-donors who bankroll Republican campaigns, small business owners can't hedge against the kind of volatility that we see playing out in the economy right now.
Every time Trump throws another tantrum on trade, Republicans are tossing small businesses into a tailspin with no warning, no help, and, frankly, no concern.
Maybe that is the point. Republicans don't care about new small business entrepreneurs or those people struggling with opioid addiction. If the majority did, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would uplift successful programs and agencies like SBA or SAMHSA, not gut them.
Unless you are a mega-donor or a loyal MAGA mouthpiece, you do not matter to this Republican majority. What is happening here isn't just irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, it is immoral, and it is a damned disgrace. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am just a little confused. My colleague mentioned ``whiplash,'' and I am feeling a little whiplash over here because Democrats liked Elon Musk. Then, the minority hated Elon Musk. Now, my Democratic colleagues like him again?
I am just a bit confused and ask that maybe someone can clear that up for me because it goes back and forth, and I feel like there is lots of whiplash going on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it sure does feel like Democrats are going back and forth on him, and there is lots of whiplash going on, so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to make it clear because now Democrats are quoting him on the floor.
What is embarrassing really, truly, is that the Democrats adhere to their talking points and repeat them and repeat them, and this is a perfect example of where Democrats are spreading misinformation.
The minority wants the public to believe that Republicans are cutting Medicaid, and we are not. We are making sure it goes to those people who need it and that we use every taxpayer dollar wisely. That means we are making sure that American tax dollars go to American citizens.
That means strengthening the system so care can get to those who need it most and that we weed out waste, fraud, and abuse. Individuals who are suffering from substance addiction, like those we are working to help with the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act, are not subject to the work requirements in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Mr. Speaker, 11 Democrats voted for the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act coming out of committee. I think that we need to make sure that we are sticking to the facts instead of Democratic talking points.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Finstad).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Minnesota for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025.
Over the past 4 years, the Biden administration's open-border policies have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour into our country. Making matters worse, Democratic politicians in cities across our country have enacted sanctuary city policies that have further encouraged waves of illegal immigrants to come into our communities, circumventing Federal law and raising serious public safety concerns.
Last November, the American people overwhelmingly elected President Trump with a clear mandate to secure the border and restore public safety in our communities. Since taking office, President Trump has delivered on this promise.
Despite the incredible efforts by this administration to secure our border and remove criminal aliens from our country, Democratic mayors have doubled down on their failed sanctuary city policies that harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement.
In my home State of Minnesota, the local SBA office is based in the city of Minneapolis, and it is responsible for serving all 87 counties throughout Minnesota. For years, Minneapolis has passed several sanctuary city policies while at one point attempting to defund its own police department, further jeopardizing public safety.
My legislation, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, would require the Small Business Administration to relocate its offices out of sanctuary city jurisdictions to better ensure that resources benefit American small businesses in rural communities without being entangled in local policies that promote lawlessness.
Our small business owners and those who rely on the SBA for loans, disaster relief, and support deserve access to these services in a safe, secure environment.
This bill would codify two of President Trump's executive orders: Protect SBA employees, and safeguard the entrepreneurs who fuel our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the idea that quoting somebody means that you like them is kind of absurd. I quote Trump a lot, and I could assure the Speaker that he is not anywhere on my top two-millionth list of people who I like.
In any event, earlier today, Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I point out that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office put out new estimates on the Republicans' tax scam, which shows that this bill is even worse than we thought, if that is even possible.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the new CBO cost estimate into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Net Effect on the Deficit....... 453 -12,597 -16,168 -30,026 -30,058 -29,094 -28,121 -30,535 -30,874 -31,065 -88,396 -238,085 Title II. Committee on Armed Services:
Net Effect on the Deficit....... 1,957 40,299 42,019 23,548 16,779 9,367 4,878 2,889 1,514 742 124,602 143,992 Title III. Committee on Education and Workforce:
Net Effect on the Deficit....... -197,940 -14,271 -12,706 -12,649 -15,714 -18,455 -19,118 -19,236 -19,422 -19,591 -253,280 -349,102 Title IV. Committee on Energy and Commerce:
Off-Budget Deficit.............. 7 433 1,045 1,720 1,966 2,084 2,192 2,322 2,451 2,586 5,175 16,809 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. *=between zero and $500,000. Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. In keeping with reconciliation instructions from the House Committee on the Budget, this estimate reflects CBO's January 2025 baseline projections updated to reflect enacted legislation and
administrative and judicial actions. It includes budgetary effects through fiscal year 2034. This estimate incorporates interactions among provisions within each title. (Budgetary effects of interactions among titles are shown on the "Interactions Among Titles" tab.) Because of the magnitude of its estimated budgetary effects, H.R. 1 is considered major legislation as defined in House Rule XIII(8). That rule requires cost estimates, to the extent
practicable, to account for the budgetary implications of certain bills' macroeconomic effects. CBO has not yet completed an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of H.R. 1 or their
additional budgetary effects. The revenues and outlays of the Social Security trust funds and the net cash flow of the Postal Service are classified as off-budget. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, stipulates that revenue estimates provided by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) will be the official estimates for all tax
legislation considered by the Congress. As such, CBO incorporates those estimates into its cost estimates of the effects of legislation. The estimates for the revenue provisions of some
sections of the legislation were provided by JCT. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase by 10.9 million the number of people without health insurance in 2034. That total includes an estimated 1.4 million people without verified
citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status who would no longer be covered in state-only funded programs in 2034. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would lower gross benchmark premiums, on average, in marketplace plans established by the Affordable Care Act by an estimated 12.2 percent in 2034. (That is,
the premiums for the plans used to determine premium tax credits, but before those credits are accounted for.)
Mr. Speaker, the document shows that the Republican bill, the bill that the gentlewoman supported, will blow a massive hole in our deficit, costing taxpayers close to $3 trillion over the next decade.
Here is what is particularly galling: The Republicans' bill would also kick more than 15 million people off of their healthcare through devastating cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, including the millions of Americans who will lose coverage on the exchanges once Republicans let the premium tax credits expire.
This isn't me saying it. This is the CBO saying it, that the majority's bill is going to throw millions and millions of our fellow citizens off of their healthcare. Republicans are doing it and are going forward with it like it is no big deal.
At the same time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are giving a tax break to billionaires. Why, again, are Republicans adding trillions to our debt and kicking millions off of their healthcare? Again, it is to hand out $3.7 trillion in tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit billionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations. It pains me to say that I agree with Elon Musk on some of his criticisms here, but the Republican tax scam really is a disgusting abomination.
Mr. Speaker, I urge people who watch this debate not to take my word for it and not to take the gentlewoman's word for it but to actually google CBO. Look up what the facts are. The facts, quite frankly, are damning.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025, which would block the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off of these lifesaving programs.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans jammed through their multitrillion-dollar budget scam by a one-vote margin--a one-vote margin--and now we are learning that some Republicans didn't even know what was in the bill, which is inexcusable. Yet, that is what they are claiming publicly.
Let me remind my colleagues: Republicans are giving more tax breaks for billionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations, while lower income Americans are made worse off through the largest cuts to healthcare and food assistance in our Nation's history. This is the biggest cut to our nutrition programs in the history of our country.
Again, Elon Musk called this bill a disgusting abomination, but it is not too late. Republicans can still correct their grave injustice and vote to protect healthcare and SNAP for millions of Americans by voting to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts for the time and for offering this bill, which is simple. It would block any budget reconciliation language in the House or Senate that reduces Medicaid or SNAP benefits. In other words, it would block any legislation that would unnecessarily increase human suffering and that would harm fellow Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this is day No. 152 of the 119th Congress, and American families have seen no relief. Instead, this Republican majority is poised to make things worse through the reconciliation process.
In pushing $300 billion in cuts to food support, congressional Republicans will make groceries even more expensive for the 42 million families already struggling to put food on the table every day.
Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of these households include a child, a senior, a disabled person, or a veteran. Let that sink in.
SNAP provides $6 a day in food assistance to hungry Americans. It is a small amount, but it is enough, Mr. Speaker, to lift millions of Americans out of poverty and to create a foundation of health and well- being. Just $6 a
Republicans want to take food away from hungry people, not to balance the budget. We know the bill actually increases the deficit by nearly $3 trillion, and they are not doing it to better serve our veterans. The bill actually reduces funding for our vets, too.
Republicans are doing this to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest of individuals and big corporations. If that is not enough, the House Republican bill slashes nearly every bit of Medicaid funding needed, $1 trillion, taking away healthcare from 14 million Americans, including children, mothers, seniors, and low-income families. Many will die.
While a Senate colleague correctly pointed out this week that, yes, death is inevitable, we should not actively work to expedite it. I would hope and pray that we can all agree on that point.
We are public servants. We are called to lead with compassion, to feed the hungry, and to care for the sick.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, there isn't a single Member of Congress who doesn't represent families who rely on SNAP or Medicaid to make ends meet. It is simple. These cuts will lead to suffering, and we must stop them.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring this important legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about what we are talking about. The notion that my colleagues are really considering voting against the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act is baffling to me. Really, I think it all shows that they hate President Trump so much that they are willing to vote against legislation that would help communities combat opioid abuse.
They want to stick to their anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points and avoid talking about the bills that are in front of us. I would like them to try taking that message, the message that they refuse to provide resources to their communities to combat opioid abuse, back to their constituents.
This bill brings resources to our constituents to combat opioid abuse. That is what we are talking about. It is that simple. They can hate the President, or they don't have to, but don't let these people facing substance addiction and our communities suffer for their talking points.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentlewoman by saying that I don't know how Democrats are going to vote. I think some will vote for the bill, and some will vote against the bill.
What people are really upset about is the fact that we are bringing a bill to reauthorize programs that, as we speak, Donald Trump is cutting. My friends on the other side of the aisle are saying not a damn thing. This is what the American people hate about Congress, when Members of Congress get up and say one thing and then do another thing.
He is trying to eliminate SAMHSA. He is firing people as we speak. I mean, every State is being negatively impacted by this.
I supported these programs and this reauthorization in the past. I support the underlying programs, but I am furious that as we are having this debate, making believe to the American people that somehow we are on their side and that we are fighting substance use disorder, fighting addiction and the opioid crisis, and that we are really serious about this, while we are having this debate, the President of the United States and this administration are gutting these very programs, and my friends are saying not a damn thing.
Maybe the gentlewoman supports what the President is doing. Maybe she supports gutting these programs, but I don't. I don't, and if you truly support what these bills are authorizing, you would be screaming as loud as we are.
This is bad for our constituents. This is bad for our country. We have made progress in my home State of Massachusetts in reducing the number of opioid-related deaths. We can point directly to some of these programs that have made a real difference, but as we are speaking right now, these things are being undermined. That is what has us so upset.
I mean, let's make no mistake about it. We, in a bipartisan way, moved these programs forward in the past. That is because we believed it was all real, that it wasn't fake, wasn't show business. What is happening here is not real.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to talk about an issue that touches every community in this country, mental health.
More than one in five adults in the United States lives with a mental illness. These are our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and family members. For many of us, the issue is deeply personal.
Whether one lives in a big city or a small town, almost everyone has a person in their life who is struggling. Chances are that they know someone who has struggled or that they could be struggling themselves.
In Ohio, we have seen just how urgent this crisis has become. We have only about half of the mental health behavioral workforce that we need to meet the demand. In fact, there is just one psychiatrist for every 6,000 Ohioans. That is not just a workforce problem. That is a public health emergency.
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act would authorize hundreds of millions of dollars and much-needed Federal funding to address this crisis. It also includes my bipartisan legislation, the Mental Health Improvement Act, which provides tens of millions of dollars annually to expand our behavioral health workforce, helping to train, recruit, and retain mental health professionals across the country.
It is a commonsense solution that will bring resources directly to communities like mine and yours, Mr. Speaker, helping to address addiction, reduce suicide, and ensure more Americans get the care they need when they need it.
It is important that this program and others that are included in this bill actually reach the communities that desperately need the assistance. That is why I urge my colleagues to not only pass this bipartisan legislation but also to continue to advocate for its implementation.
Just a few weeks ago, I visited a federally qualified health center in my district. It is called the I Promise Health Quarters, which is supported by the LeBron James Family Foundation. In a meeting with the behavioral health services there, they said they don't have enough people to work for the need that is in our community. This bill would be able to help it.
While we have worked with and come up with a serious solution to this crisis, the administration has proposed cuts and fired hundreds of workers at agencies that are supposed to implement these very programs.
This is unacceptable, undermining the Medicaid program and getting people kicked off. I can't even support this really great underlying bill because of the funding mechanisms. This is unacceptable, and this is why we must show the American people that we have put partisanship aside and put people first.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, we can deliver meaningful results. We need to put programs in place that will help our citizens, save lives, and keep our communities safe.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues on the other side have been using the same anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points for months and months, and I understand that they don't like what the House Republicans are doing and don't like what the
Poll after poll is showing that an increasing number of people now believe this country is heading in the right direction. A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that this is the first time in 20 years that the majority of respondents have felt that way.
Go ahead and vote against these things that will increase work to stop the opioid crisis, curb wasteful spending of the American taxpayer dollar, and address illegal immigration, but know that it will be a vote against the will of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), another colleague of mine.
As a former police officer in Duluth, Minnesota, one of the worst calls an officer can get is an overdose. When they go there, the individual is deceased. They make sure that it was an overdose, that nothing else took the life of that individual. Then, they have to formulate a plan on how they are going to notify mom or dad or the next of kin.
That is the most gut-wrenching thing a law enforcement officer can do. It is like rock slag. It is very hard to do that, to knock on that door. They are about to give a loved one the worst news ever. The officer knocks on a door, and a loved one opens the door and sees a police officer in full uniform. They know something is up, and then, the officer has to tell them, has to be straight up with them, that their son or daughter or their loved one died.
The first question is how. Mr. So-and-so, Mrs. So-and-so, we believe it was a drug overdose. The toxicology test will confirm, but we believe it was a drug overdose.
Then, all holy you-know-what breaks out in the house, from crying tears to frustration at the individual who delivered the worst news in their lifetime. They never forget that police officer, what he or she looked like, the demeanor he or she had, what they smelled like, what time of day it was, how hard the knock was, how many times you rang the doorbell.
Mr. Speaker, it is tough. This is a very good bill to stop drug overdoses.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for the record, again, what we are objecting to is the fact that all the programs that are contained in this bill that are being authorized are being gutted by this administration, and my friends are saying nothing about it. That is the ultimate kind of cynical maneuver.
I mean, this administration is cutting money for first responder training, cutting money for pregnant and postpartum women, cutting programs to help prevent children from going down the road to addiction, cutting programs to track opioids, and cutting comprehensive opioid care centers. They are proposing that they be totally eliminated.
I mean, we are having this debate while, as we speak, they are gutting these programs, and my friends are saying nothing, like, ``No, everything is great.'' Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding to me.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the divisive, destructive bills that it brings to the floor, especially H.R. 2931, the so-called Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act, because, in reality, this bill doesn't save anything.
It continues to eviscerate small businesses in order to benefit the greediest, biggest corporations and their CEOs, who don't even need the Small Business Administration. Do you know who does? Small businesses that just want customers, employees, and the chance that SBA affords them to attain success.
This bill actually punishes small businesses and immigrant communities to score cheap political points, forcing the SBA to close or relocate offices in cities like Los Angeles, my home, simply because we refuse to bend a knee to the President and to MAGA Republicans' anti-immigrant agenda, which is about retaliation, not good governance.
Immigrants start businesses, and do you know what? They hire other immigrants. Do you know who benefits? Everyone because they are paying taxes, hiring our neighbors, delivering a service, and growing our economy.
L.A. is home to over 244,000 businesses. Is the goal for this administration to shut all those businesses down, the red businesses, blue businesses, and independent businesses, because there is a problem with L.A. and because the administration doesn't like immigrants?
They are businesses like Dulan's, a family-owned business in my district that has been open for 30 years. After the L.A. urban fires, they fed victims. They need and deserve SBA, as do the millions of small businesses like them. This bill gives them the finger on top of the chaos of the TACO taxes.
I am urging a ``no'' vote on the rule and the cruel, unnecessary legislation that it brings forward.
This is an alternate reality, this floor, when I am hearing from Republican colleagues who are not talking at all about the millions of Americans who are going to be harmed by these destructive bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman doesn't want me to talk about Elon or what Elon said, but we are going to talk about it anyway.
Mr. Speaker, as Elon Musk said: Trump's one big, beautiful GOP tax scam is a ``disgusting abomination.''
Let me break it down for you and for the American people. Here are 10 of the most egregious abominations in this bill.
One, the GOP tax scam is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest in our country. We are talking about investment and hedge fund managers paying a lower tax rate than regular income earners like schoolteachers or firefighters. It would cut taxes for the top 5 percent of taxpayers while reducing critical resources for the poorest households, setting off what would be the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history.
Two, Trump's bill guts Medicaid and likely Medicare, too. If this bill is signed into law, we will expect to see widespread hospital closures, and 15 million individuals, including sick children, seniors, and the disabled could lose their healthcare coverage.
Three, it raises costs for people on individual health insurance plans. Republicans' under-the-radar tweaks to the Affordable Care Act could increase health insurance premiums by hundreds of dollars and force tens of thousands of people out of the marketplace.
Four, this bill attacks food stamps. Millions will lose access to their SNAP benefits, taking food off the plates of hungry families, seniors, and veterans.
Five, it terminates the IRS Direct File program, a successful, free tax filing service that helped over 140,000 people file their taxes in 2024.
Six, it increases fees on asylum seekers and dumps billions into Trump's mass deportation efforts.
Seven, get this: The Republicans' bill is great for Big Oil and Gas. It turns over millions of acres of public lands to big corporate drillers and would allow them to pay to get their projects rubber- stamped without any input from the public.
Eight, it guts green energy subsidies, including investments in renewable energy projects that are already underway.
Nine, it blocks State AI regulations in a giveaway to Big Tech, completely trampling over State legislatures.
Ten, it scraps nearly a century-long tax on gun silencers. Who does that? Who does that? It is truly horrendous. We have a gun violence epidemic, and the Republicans want to make it easier for dangerous people to access deadly gun attachments.
Mr. Speaker, clearly this tax scam bill is no good, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will clarify some things. My colleague continues to talk about the tax bill, which is not actually in front of us right now. We are talking about different things. I do feel
I will just use my district as an example.
In my district, in the Seventh District of Minnesota, the reconciliation bill that he opposes would prevent a 25 percent tax hike for most people in my district where the average income is $70,000, not billionaires, $70,000.
It also increases the standard deduction. It increases the child tax credit. It helps small businesses through the 199A deduction. This is a solid tax bill. We looked at what we can do to help the average citizen in the country, and we made sure that it was a solid tax bill.
I just wanted to make sure that we are correcting some of the talking points that the Democrats are using because this does provide tax breaks for the middle income.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about people in the gentlewoman's district in Minnesota. I point this out because I am learning that a lot of Republicans didn't read what was in the bill, so let me just provide some information for her.
Under this bill, 5,800 people would lose coverage under the Affordable Care Act in her district alone; 15,367 in her district alone would lose Medicaid coverage; 21,167 people in her district alone would lose their health insurance outright.
I mean, really? Is that what representation is all about? Please. That is what is in this bill that most of you never read.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Mr. Speaker, I find it laughable that for the last several decades, the GOP has branded themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and economic development when they are trying to pass a bill right now that would blow a hole through the deficit, $37 trillion over 30 years, while they are trying to gut the infrastructure that helps small businesses survive.
They have attacked the Small Business Administration. They have a bill on the floor this week that would take SBA out of our communities. They slashed the New Mexico Minority Business Development Agency. We are talking about millions of dollars in lost revenue. They paused Job Corps and are going to cut it in communities across the country. They have gutted funding for NGOs and paused funding on the IRA. They are trying to directly attack our small businesses.
Now, when I think about the impacts of these cuts, I cannot do so without thinking of John Garcia, who has been the director of SBA for the last 8 years. He is a Vietnam veteran who has dedicated 40 years of his life to ensuring that our communities and our veterans have the resources they need to thrive, and yet DOGE didn't care. Elon Musk didn't care because he is one of those Federal employees, who just a few months ago was planning to do an expansive economic development plan across the State of New Mexico when he received the fork-in-the- road letter.
These are real people's lives, and you all are standing around here clowning us, pretending like you actually care about the American people and the economy and the deficit, and it is just a lie. You are running a scam on the American people. You are running a scam on yourselves, and you are hurting real people.
Mr. Speaker, I stand against this rule and the bill that it would advance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I always have to take the opportunity to correct things. What we are doing in the reconciliation bill--because this bill in front of us is not what they are talking about because they have digressed into Democrat anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points, but I do have to make a few things clear.
In the reconciliation bill for Medicaid, we have for able-bodied individuals without dependents, there is a work requirement. That work requirement could also be schooling or it can be community engagement.
We will be removing illegal immigrants who should not be on Medicaid. We also are looking at that waste, fraud, and abuse. The people that will be removed should not have been on Medicaid in the first place. They shouldn't have been on the rolls.
We are not removing people that need Medicaid because those people who need it will be getting it. It is that work requirement, the illegal immigrants, and those who should not have been on it in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlewoman that, according to CBO, undocumented immigrants are not receiving Federal funds for Medicaid. My colleagues should read CBO. Don't listen to your Republican talking points. Actually read the stuff that we pay people to provide to us with the information to make sure we have the facts.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are not stand-alone ideas. They are part of a larger Republican playbook, one that protects the powerful and punishes the rest.
It is more tax breaks for billionaires, more crumbs for working people, more favors for Wall Street, more struggles for Main Street, more cruelty towards the vulnerable, more indifference to anyone who isn't writing a campaign check. We have never seen pay-to-play as much as we have seen in this Congress and in this administration.
This isn't governing. It is greed. It is corruption and cruelty masquerading as policy. The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this dark vision. The idea that you could take healthcare away from people is unconscionable and that you will do so with a straight face is unconscionable.
This big, ugly bill is a disgrace.
Today, you are attacking small businesses and you are attacking programs that help combat drug abuse addiction in this country. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will take an unorthodox step and associate myself with the remarks of one of my Democrat colleagues from New Mexico in the Rules Committee last night.
What is astonishing is that my Democrat colleague finally admitted what we have been telling the American people for weeks. As I mentioned, we are talking about the illegal immigrants in light of the CBO score that 1.4 million illegal immigrants are, indeed, on the rolls of State healthcare systems.
Now, our colleague tried to take us down a rabbit hole, and she ended up twisting herself in knots to find the terminology to aid her in the talking points. The latest argument, apparently, to hide the fact that illegal immigrants are accessing Medicaid is that they are only accessing State health systems, not the Medicaid program. I will point out in a news flash that Medicaid is a State administered program that supports State health systems.
Mr. Speaker, don't take it from me. Let me quote the Congressional Research Service: ``Medicaid is a joint Federal-State program . . . The Federal Government requires States to cover certain mandatory populations and services,'' but ``allows States to cover other optional populations and services.'' Due to this flexibility, there is substantial State variation in ``factors such as Medicaid eligibility, covered benefits, and provider payment rates.'' In addition, several waivers and demonstration authorities and statutes ``allow States to operate their Medicaid programs outside of [certain] Federal rules.''
Now, even Democrats are admitting that Medicaid dollars are being used to benefit illegal immigrants and that is what we are trying to stop, the draining of this program of funds that are intended to help American citizens in need.
Mr. Speaker, as expected, my colleagues are unable to focus on the task
For the record, again: It does not cut Medicaid for any U.S. citizen who needs it. It does strengthen the system and makes sure it benefits the people who really need it. We need to be responsible to the taxpayers, and we are going after waste, fraud, and abuse.
I will say it, again: Anyone who needs Medicaid will have it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has the only time remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as expected, my colleagues deviated completely from the task at hand today, and instead, like I said earlier, they wanted to continue these attacks on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As I have mentioned repeatedly, Medicaid is not cut for those who need it.
We are ensuring that American taxpayer dollars are going to help American businesses. The American Entrepreneurs First Act does not prevent people with temporary visas or other legal immigrant statuses from holding jobs at American businesses or from owning their own small businesses. It just says that if you want support from American tax dollars, you need to be an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
Mr. Speaker, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act further supports that mission, a mission that the majority of Americans support, to end pro-illegal immigration policies by showing these cities that the SBA is serious and is going to move its offices if sanctuary cities do not start following Federal law.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to further the great work that is being done by our communities to put a stop to the terrible overdose and substance abuse issues in this country through the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act. I do not believe that there is a person in this Chamber who does not see this as one of the most serious issues facing our Nation today.
I support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 458 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2483, Support for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2931, Save SBA From Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025...
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. 458) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2483) to reauthorize certain programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2931) to direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to relocate certain offices of the Small Business Administration in sanctuary jurisdictions, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2966) to require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to require an applicant for certain loans of the Administration to provide certain citizenship status documentation, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2987) to amend the Small Business Act to require a limit on the number of small business lending companies, and for other purpose, 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 213, nays 206, not voting 12, as follows:
Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. MOULTON, Ms. SANCHEZ, and Mr. PAPPAS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. BOEBERT changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, today I did not vote on Roll Call Nos. 148 and 149, as I was meeting with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 148, Ordering the previous question of H. Res. 458, and NO on Roll Call No. 149, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2483, SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025; H.R. 2931, Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025; H.R. 2966, American Entrepreneurs First Act of 2025; and H.R. 2987, CEASE Act of 2025.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material in the record on H.R. 2483.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 458 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2483.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (DesJarlais) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2483) to reauthorize certain programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery, and for other purposes, with Mr. DesJarlais in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act.
When the Committee on Energy and Commerce led the way on the original SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act 7 years ago under the leadership of Chairman Greg Walden, the opioid crisis looked different. Overdose deaths were largely driven by prescription and semisynthetic opioids, like oxycodone and heroin.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, government-enforced lockdowns hurt patients in recovery and sent more people into despair, increasing the amount of people taking illegal drugs for the first time.
Since then, the heartbreaking stories about the toll illicit fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances have on our communities have continued. The rate at which Americans are dying from fentanyl poisoning is just devastating.
In our first Health Committee hearing this Congress, my colleagues listened to the testimony of Ray Cullen, who lost his son Zach to fentanyl poisoning. Nobody should have to experience this pain.
Earlier this year, the House took a critical step to get illicit fentanyl off our streets in passing the HALT Fentanyl Act, which was led by my friend, Congressman Morgan Griffith.
I am proud today to lead the reauthorization of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. By passing this bill, my colleagues continue our work to help improve treatment and recovery opportunities, bolster prevention initiatives, and fight the fentanyl crisis.
This bill is about offering hope to those in despair, those battling substance use disorder, their families and loved ones, healthcare heroes, and first responders who need continued support to help save lives.
I thank Congresswoman Pettersen and all the Members who have supported this important bipartisan piece of legislation.
I am hopeful that by reauthorizing programs with proven success and increasing access to treatment, Congress can continue to address and prevent these tragic drug-related deaths and restore hope and healing to those who need it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2483, legislation that reauthorizes the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act.
Last Congress, this bill passed with strong bipartisan support right here on the House floor under suspension of the rules. Today it is coming up under a rule because a lot has changed since last year. There is a new administration, and the Trump administration is attacking mental health and substance use response efforts on every front.
Republicans want to move forward with this legislation at the same time that they are silently watching as the Trump administration dismantles SAMHSA, the very agency that is responsible for carrying out the programs that the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act reauthorizes.
Thanks to our efforts in recent years, significant improvements have been made in combating the opioid overdose epidemic that has devastated families in every community throughout our Nation, but those improvements are now threatened as the Trump administration guts the very programs and funding that have helped us turn the corner.
In the past few months, the Trump administration has completely eroded the mental health and substance use treatment landscape as we know it. It has fired hundreds of workers at SAMHSA, including key senior officials, such as the director of the center focused on mental health. The department continues to refuse to respond to
The Trump administration has eliminated entire offices that are responsible for collecting data on mental health and substance use and helping people locate treatment services. These actions will only make it harder for people who are seeking treatment to find care.
The Trump administration is also eliminating SAMHSA altogether without congressional reauthorization. It will be combined with other agencies that the Trump administration doesn't care about under the banner of a larger make America healthy again office.
These critical programs to treat mental health and substance abuse will be deprioritized or eliminated in favor of Secretary Kennedy's pet projects, like destroying Americans' access to vaccines. Congress has received zero--zero--information from the administration about how this new office will work and how the work of SAMHSA to address the mental health and substance use treatments needs of our communities will be prioritized.
The Trump administration is also rescinding more than $1 billion in essential funding that States rely on through block grants. It has also proposed eliminating dozens of different mental health and substance use programs, including eight programs reauthorized by the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025.
This includes programs to train first responders who respond to opioid overdose calls, provide residential treatment to pregnant and postpartum women, and support people on long-term recovery.
If Republicans really support these programs, my colleagues should be opposing the President's budget, which lays out plans to cut the very programs Republican Members claim to care about. In fact, the Trump administration budget goes further and proposes eliminating nearly all of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 programs as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose to eliminate all of the so-called programs of regional and national significance.
This is the umbrella under which nearly all of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 programs reside. My colleagues have also proposed gutting the mental health block grant, the substance abuse block grant, the State opioid response grants, and consolidating them into one program with a deep funding cut.
I will be clear, Mr. Chair. This is not a budget proposal in the traditional sense. This is a roadmap for what the Trump administration plans to do unless the Federal courts prevent them from proceeding.
Their expansive and limitless view of the President's authority knows no bounds. If DOGE wants to cut entire agencies, eliminate programs, and impound funds, they will do it regardless of the law. The Trump administration is making clear that funding treatment and prevention for mental health and substance abuse issues is not a priority.
Unfortunately, Republican majorities of both the House and the Senate silently sit by and watch all of the destruction and illegal actions. House Republicans have not conducted any oversight of this administration.
Let us not forget also, Mr. Chair, that last month, House Republicans passed the biggest cut to Medicaid in history as part of their scheme to fund giant tax breaks for billionaires. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just announced this morning, the GOP tax scam now cuts 16 million people, up from 13.5 million people, from their healthcare, all to give tax breaks to their billionaire friends.
Medicaid covers 40 percent of all Americans with opioid use disorder. Gutting the program will leave millions of Americans without access to lifesaving care. We can't just go back to business as usual after that devastation was supported and passed by my Republican colleagues.
All of these actions completely undermine the efforts we have made to address substance use disorders in communities across the country. They will have disastrous and deadly consequences on the millions of Americans impacted by substance use disorder. Yet, House Republicans are here on the floor today pretending that we are conducting business as usual here in Washington.
If that were the case, I would join them in supporting the legislation, just as I did last Congress. Yet, this administration is not conducting business as usual, and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to fight back.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I can't support this bill while our mental health and substance use treatment infrastructure is being gutted by the Trump administration. There needs to be a functioning agency to implement the programs in this bill. There needs to be actual funding for the agency to carry out these programs. Neither will exist under what Trump has done or is proposing.
If Republicans were really interested in continuing to combat the opioid overdose crisis, they would finally join us in opposing the illegal actions of the Trump administration rather than hiding behind this legislation today.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I point out, as they have had efficiencies in HHS in this area, it has been reported to us that there are no material changes in the programs before us today, showing that the Trump administration has substance use disorder and drug addiction as a number one priority.
Mr. Chair, I don't understand the logic that the best way to send a message to the President that you support these programs is to vote ``no'' on the bill. I just don't understand that logic. I hope we can get bipartisan support. We will put the bill on the President's desk, and I believe the President will sign the bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the full committee for yielding. I appreciate it.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025.
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 is one of the most impactful bills the Committee on Energy and Commerce has worked on during my time in Congress. Simply put, we came together to implement bipartisan policies that would save lives.
Gone are the days that substance abuse and addiction are a far off problem that doesn't impact each one of our districts. Instead of hearing the words: ``I know someone who knows someone,'' we hear too often: ``I know someone personally who is impacted by addiction.''
That is why it is absolutely essential that we reauthorize the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, which will ensure that we have the right tools at our disposal to fight the scourge of fentanyl and opioids in our communities. We must continue vital resources for prevention, education, treatment, recovery, workforce, and law enforcement to help patients struggling with substance abuse. This reauthorization ensures that we will continue to make progress, continue to fight back, and will continue to save lives.
Mr. Chair, I again thank the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), for his leadership on this legislation. Let's fix it. Let's promote treatment before tragedy, and stop the drug poisonings.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
Mr. Chair, SAMHSA's stated mission is to lead public health and service delivery efforts that promote mental health, prevent substance misuse, and provide treatments and supports to foster recovery while ensuring access to better outcomes for all.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the public servants at SAMHSA work
As a longtime champion for behavioral health parity and access to treatment and as co-chair of the Congressional Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery Caucus, bipartisan in nature, there have been a few questions on my mind.
For instance, how many public servants need to be fired at SAMHSA before we say enough? How many suicide prevention trainings need to be canceled before Republicans can speak out? How many lifesaving naloxone trainings need to be canceled for Republicans to say anything? How many lives need to be lost before Republicans tell the Trump administration to stop the decimation of SAMHSA?
I have other questions, too. They are simple ones like: How many people work at SAMHSA currently? What divisions have no staff left at all? What programs have they had to cut in local communities?
In February, following the firing of probationary employees, I started asking these questions. Since the firing of nearly 50 percent of SAMHSA's staff, I have continued asking those questions. To date, I have gotten zero answers--zero.
Currently, we have lost 50 percent of SAMHSA's staff, and it is not HHS or the Trump administration that shared that with Congress. We only have confirmation that SAMHSA lost half of its staff from the press and from the former SAMHSA employees. That simply is unacceptable.
As a Congress, if we say we care about behavioral health and if we say there is a crisis, then we should be ashamed that we are okay not knowing this. For 4 months, we have been asking questions. Instead of answers, we have even more concerning questions.
I shared with our Committee on Energy and Commerce chair that, as the committee that has jurisdiction over SAMHSA, how do we not have these very important answers? This affects every community in the country, and our first action should be finding out these answers.
If the administration refuses to come in, then let's bring in the fired employees. These people are some of the most dedicated public servants who did this work for all of the right reasons, and they served an incredible need.
On behalf of all Americans, I thank all of the fired SAMHSA employees for their service to our Nation. They deserved better. Frankly, all Americans deserved better. Our loved ones should have access to effective addiction treatment, prevention and recovery support, and behavioral health support and services.
The recent actions of this Trump administration are betraying the goal of access to behavioral health treatment and support. RFK and Donald Trump have proposed to eliminate SAMHSA as an independent agency, burying it somewhere in the so-called Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA.
Let's remember that the whole reason Congress moved SAMHSA into an independent agency was to ensure that behavioral health was prioritized despite the longstanding stigma.
Instead, AHA would take us back to the time that behavioral health is tucked away in another agency and deprioritized. When the agency is gutted, the programs and the mission suffer. Ultimately, the individuals we are trying to help with their mental health and substance use struggles will simply not get the support they need. People will die.
I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's reverse course. We have an obligation to protect SAMHSA's mission and all of our constituents who SAMHSA serves. Like many of my colleagues, I support the programs in this package, but it is completely disingenuous and, frankly, outrageous that Republicans are here today trying to pat themselves on the back as doing something meaningful for those struggling with addiction while the entire agency we are authorizing programs for is being dismantled.
The people doing the work we are authorizing have all been fired, and the administration is proposing even more draconian cuts for mental health and substance use programs in the 2026 budget.
Mr. Chair, give me a break. It is like we are trying to heal a bullet wound with a Band-Aid. I am regrettably going to have to vote ``no'' and would respectfully ask my Republican colleagues to pause today's vote and, instead, focus our attention on responding to the actual crisis at SAMHSA.
Let's stop this performance. Instead, let's do the right thing and walk out right now and meet, make calls, and work together to stop this madness. Let's actually do something to meet this moment before it is too late and we no longer have an agency focused on behavioral health.
This is truly a performative vote if Republicans are too scared to say anything when the agency is being decimated and the mission is on the line. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to go home and say they voted for support, but my colleagues won't mention that. It will never be implemented because the funding and staff are gone.
Let's return to my initial question: How many lives need to be lost before Republicans tell the Trump administration to stop the decimation of SAMHSA? If Republicans go forward with this vote today while staying silent as this administration takes the chain saw to SAMHSA, then it is clear that my Republican colleagues are willing to let SAMHSA lose all of its capacity to serve its mission to save lives.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health, an important worker on this piece of legislation and my good friend.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of Chairman Guthrie's SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025.
This critical legislation reflects House Republicans' ongoing commitment to fighting the opioid and fentanyl crisis that is devastating families across this Nation.
Under the leadership of President Trump and Chairman Guthrie, we are finally seeing real progress.
Listen to these figures, Mr. Chairman:
For the first time in years, opioid overdose deaths have declined, dropping from over 83,000 in 2023 to under 55,000 by the most recent data.
Those are good numbers. They did not happen by accident. It happened because we took bold action to secure our borders, to prioritize treatments, and invest in recovery programs that work.
We can help continue this trajectory by advancing the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, which is one of the single largest congressional efforts to address our opioid crisis.
Through the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, we are reauthorizing prevention programs and recovery services and ensuring that first responders can access and administer Naloxone. We are ultimately restoring hope and healing by putting a stop to drug overdose and poisoning.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Guthrie for his work on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, let's pass this bill. Let's secure our borders. Let's stem the tide of the growing fentanyl crisis, and let's save lives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, but he goes on to talk about how the Republicans are supporting these programs, and it is simply not true.
Mr. Chair, I have in front of me the ``Fiscal Year 2026 Budget in Brief'' that came from the Department of Health and Human Services.
On page 35 to 36 of the document, it says: ``The budget eliminates the following programs to align investments with the administration's priorities. . . . ''
It lists the following programs. First responder training--there are so many. I don't want to read them all. The chairman mentions helping first responders. That first responder training
I understand that the President is trying to prevent fentanyl from coming in from across the border. I, obviously, support that. The chairman from Georgia said we still need treatment and education. Of course, we do, but that is not what is going on here.
The budget eliminates these programs, so my Republican colleagues can't just come here on the floor and say that they support all this and then authorize the very programs that are being eliminated, so there is no funding and no staff to carry them out. It is not fair. They are giving the impression to the public that they are doing something that they are not.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), my good friend who is the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act.
This bill is a critical piece of legislation that will help bolster prevention, treatment, and recovery for millions of Americans suffering from substance abuse disorders.
Thanks to the investments from the original SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act in 2018 and the efforts of the Trump administration, we are finally starting to see a decrease in the overdose death rate.
Florida is a shining example of this progress. In Florida, pilot programs have taken innovative steps, such as using long-acting injectables to help fight opioid addiction. I am encouraged by the number, and I also thoroughly believe that Congress needs to continue the program to make this response possible.
One SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 program I am especially excited for is the first responder training program, which helps ensure that first responders are prepared and trained to administer Narcan.
I also strongly believe in the residential treatment program for pregnant and postpartum women. This program is vital to help new moms obtain treatment for substance abuse disorders.
Programs in this bill can change the lives of those who are suffering from substance abuse disorders when they have nowhere else to turn.
For these reasons, I stand in strong support of H.R. 2483. I look forward to voting in favor of this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I rise today not just as a Member of this body but as a physician who has spent nearly two decades caring for patients in the intensive care unit, many of them fighting for their lives because of a system that has failed to support them before a crisis hit.
In Oregon's Third District, we see every day how critical prevention, treatment, and recovery programs are. We need those programs that my colleague from New Jersey just referred to as being cut. This bill does nothing to repair those cuts.
These aren't abstract policy ideas. They are the difference between life and death for many of my constituents. They are critical for the health and safety of Oregonians and Americans across this country.
That is why efforts to sustain and strengthen these programs matter deeply to the communities I represent. They are essential for the parents working two jobs while navigating recovery, for the young people trying to build a future after surviving an overdose, and for families trying to heal.
Let's not kid ourselves. While Republicans bring this reauthorization bill to the floor, they stand by as the Trump administration dismantles the very agency responsible for implementing these programs. They have fired experts, erased offices, and rescinded over a billion dollars already allocated to State and local response. Just 2 weeks ago, they passed the largest Medicaid cut in history out of this Chamber despite the fact that Medicaid covers 40 percent of Americans addicted to opioids.
This wasn't fiscal accountability. It was a decision to directly undermine the access of care for millions of people who need it most. These are people who desperately need our compassion and care.
Do not be fooled by this game of smoke and mirrors. This kind of hypocrisy cannot go unchallenged. Claiming to support recovery while simultaneously gutting the programs that make it possible is politics at its worst.
My Republican colleagues cannot honestly stand for people's need to access treatment while kneecapping the agency that is accountable for providing it.
Lives are at stake, and the American people are watching. They do know what it means when elected leaders say one thing and do another, and they deserve honesty and real action.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for this debate.
Mr. Chair, I want to point out that Medicaid reform specifically exempted people with substance use disorder from being defined as able-bodied for the purpose of the work requirement. It specifically exempted them. We understand that Medicaid is a big payer for people with substance use disorder recovery services, and our bill exempted them. That will continue.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my good friend.
Mr. Chair, communities in my district and across the country continue to feel the devastating impact of the opioid and fentanyl crisis. We all know someone who has been affected, and many of us felt that loss ourselves.
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, first signed into law by President Trump in 2018, brought vital resources to those on the front lines: patients, families, first responders, and recovery providers.
Since then, overdose deaths have dropped significantly, but as we all know too well in Appalachian Ohio, there is much more work to be done.
Today's reauthorization builds on that progress. This bill ensures access to lifesaving medications for first responders, expands treatment for pregnant women, strengthens prescription drug monitoring, and supports recovery centers and workforce reentry programs.
By continuing this critical work, we can save more lives, restore more families, and bring hope to communities hit hardest by the addiction.
Mr. Chair, overdose deaths are preventable, and we should be using all the tools at our disposal to save American families from the pain of losing a loved one to opioids. It is past time we treat the opioid crisis like the public health crisis that it is.
My bipartisan RECONNECTIONS Act will do that by helping get overdose education and prevention tools like naloxone into the hands of those who need it. I am proud that my commonsense bill is included in the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025.
It is great to see my colleagues recognizing the urgency of the crisis, but we have to be clear-eyed about the moment we are in. Medicaid is the country's single-largest payer of both mental health and substance use services, and it is on the chopping block if my Republican colleagues' budget bill is signed into law.
We have to protect Medicaid at all costs. I will continue standing up against any cuts to these lifesaving benefits.
Mr. Chair, I thank everyone who has been part of this fight. This bill will save lives.
Mr. Chair, I want to point out one more time that in Medicaid reform, people with substance use disorder and mental health issues are exempted from having to comply with the work requirement so that hardworking taxpayers who go to work will provide the categories we were just talking about today with Medicaid. They are not going to provide for the able-bodied. There is an exemption
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), my great friend and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Guthrie for his leadership on this bill and on this issue.
I have a hard time listening to opposition to this bill. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last 4 years have continuously voted against the HALT Fentanyl Act and have stood in opposition to any effort to curb the opioid crisis in this country, which up until recently was killing 100,000 people every single year.
That is why, today, I rise to urge passage of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 because this ongoing addiction crisis, fueled in large part by fentanyl, is still killing Americans.
This legislation builds on the hard work that Republicans started back in 2018 under President Trump. Guess what? That work has made a difference.
Instead of studying something over and over, this bill, along with other legislation, has directed resources to the ground where it is intended.
Overdose deaths have dropped by nearly 30,000 last year. That is not just a number. That is moms, dads, sons, and daughters who are still with us today as a result of Congress stepping up.
This reauthorization keeps the momentum going, and it makes sure that first responders--first responders like my husband, Matt, who is a paramedic and a SWAT medic/firefighter--have the resources that they need to save lives in the field.
It doesn't stop there. This bill supports a full range of evidence- based treatment options, from emergency overdose reversal to long-term recovery tools, like medication-assisted treatment, counseling, and peer support.
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 has the backing of more than 160 different organizations dedicated to substance abuse disorder treatment and recovery, and it expands care for pregnant and postpartum women, strengthens prescription drug monitoring, and helps individuals in recovery reenter the workforce and rebuild their lives.
That is what real solutions look like, not another study. Stop playing politics with people's lives, please. We need to support prevention, treatment, and recovery at every single level.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Guthrie again for leading on this issue, and I urge every single one of my colleagues to support this bill. Let's get it done.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I want to talk about not only the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 but the ineffectiveness of what is going on today with this reauthorized bill, but also the Medicaid cuts, which also affect people who are impacted by behavioral or mental health problems.
I put up the budget before. This is the President's budget. This is the Health and Human Services Department's budget. Again, I don't understand how my Republican colleagues can come here and say they are reauthorizing this program and ask what we are complaining about. The programs that I had mentioned that are cut in the President's budget, I am not going to go through them again, but I mentioned the first responder training, the comprehensive opioid recovery centers, and the youth prevention and recovery initiatives. All these programs are reauthorized by the bill before us today, but in the budget, the President eliminates the programs--no funding, no staff, no nothing.
How do they say that they are doing anything when the Trump administration is publicly laying out its plans to eliminate the very programs that they are reauthorizing? My colleagues on the other side are applauding their efforts to pass this bill even though it is meaningless.
How do they support a bill when the programs it reauthorizes are set to be eliminated by the President of the United States and their own party?
The same thing is true with regard to the Medicaid cuts. I hear my colleague, who I respect, the chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee, keep saying that the Medicaid cuts in the budget bill that they passed a couple of weeks ago affect only the able-bodied, that it doesn't affect people with substance use disorders or those struggling with mental illness because they are exempt from the work requirements or the paperwork, if you will, that is in this bill, which CBO says is going to result in 16 million people losing their health insurance.
This morning, CBO revised their analysis of the Republican budget bill. They had said it was 13.5 million, but now, because of the changes before the bill went from the Energy and Commerce Committee to the floor, it is now 16 million people who will lose their health insurance, primarily because of all this red tape.
Taking health coverage from 16 million Americans is entirely unacceptable, and there is no amount of rationalizing that Republicans can do to make it any better. They said they have exemptions from this paperwork. Those exemptions have never worked.
We have the example from the State of Georgia, which admitted that there were 300,000 to 400,000 people under expanded Medicaid that were eligible for Medicaid under the State program, but only 4,500 of those 300,000 to 400,000 qualified because of the paperwork.
It doesn't matter what you say. Eliminating these people is simply unacceptable, and it just means they are going to go without health insurance. Then the costs are going to go up for everybody else because now the hospitals and the nursing homes that take them are not going to get paid and then all your private insurance and other insurance bills are going to go up. Your premiums are going to go up. Your deductibles are going to go up.
Mr. Chair, I will use, if I can, two examples from organizations that represent people with disabilities and know that the Republicans are taking away their health coverage, regardless of what they say about the red tape.
This is from a coalition of 425 disability and aging organizations. They say: We strongly oppose Medicaid cuts in any form. Whether it is done by imposing work requirements, repealing the eligibility and enrollment rule, or further eliminating the way States fund their share of Medicaid costs, these proposals all lead to the same result: People with disabilities and older adults will lose care and support that keep them healthy and independent. That is the bottom line. No rationalizing away what is happening here.
This is from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. I could give you so many examples. I don't want to use up all the time. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation says:
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter how you do it; 16 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance under this legislation, and no amount of rationalizing on your part is going to change that.
Mr. Chair, I will remind you that we spend about almost $700 billion in Medicaid. When this bill goes into effect, 10 years from now, we are going to spend $1.1 trillion in Medicaid. I just want to make sure that point is made.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), my good friend and a great leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill that reauthorizes the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act programs from 2018.
Mr. Chair, we are facing an epidemic of fentanyl overdoses in this country and this bill provides meaningful steps in countering them. The programs that this bill reauthorize provide naloxone for first responders, funding for prevention programs, funding for treatment programs, funding for recovery services, and the efficacy of these programs
We have seen, Mr. Chair, a dramatic decline in overdose-related deaths, but more work remains to be done.
Last year, Mr. Chair, over 50,000 Americans lost their lives to opioid overdoses. That is why this bill is so important to reauthorize. I thank my friend and the chairman for including my bill, the 9-8-8 Lifeline Cybersecurity Responsibility Act in this bill. I hope everyone in the Chamber is aware of the 9-8-8 lifeline and the vital services that it provides. It provides 24/7 crisis mental health counseling to Americans that are facing mental health crises and are in danger of committing suicide.
Mr. Chair, recently the crisis line was taken down by a cybersecurity incident and I think we should all be able to agree that that is unacceptable. My bill will solve that problem by improving information sharing between law enforcement agencies and the operators of the lifeline, which will keep that lifeline up for the people who need it.
Mr. Chair, this is a great bipartisan bill. I urge its support.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate what the gentleman from California is saying. The bottom line is, if these programs are successful under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and I agree they have been, the numbers in terms of people dying, people who are severely impacted by opioid use and overdoses, clearly they have gone down because of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act programs, but that is the very reason why the Republicans should speak out against the administration that is rescinding a billion dollars in grants that are going for these treatment centers. It is why they should speak out against the budget on the part of President Trump that I have cited several times today that eliminates these programs. It is why they should speak out against these cuts in the staff for these programs.
It is the very fact that the programs have been successful is why the administration should prioritize the programs. The Republican leadership on our committee and in the House should say: What you are proposing, what you are doing, President Trump, is not acceptable because it is going to reverse this. It is going to reverse the trend where opioid use and overdose goes down. It is going to reverse it if we don't have these programs. That is why they are successful.
To just say we are going to reauthorize the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, which is meaningless because they are eliminating the programs, that is not the answer. The answer is for all of you to get up, go down to the White House, join us and say: What you are doing, President Trump, is not acceptable. It is going to reverse the progress that we have made.
Mr. Chair, dramatic pause for effect, I rise today to speak in favor of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025. I thank my friend, Chairman Guthrie, for his very hard work and leadership in getting this done.
Fentanyl is a scourge on our Nation, leaving a trail of heartbreak and destruction in its wake. We cannot allow this poison to continue tearing our families apart, and I am proud the House Republicans are, once again, leading the fight to protect our communities and get fentanyl off our streets.
Nationally, in 2022, the United States saw over 107,000 overdose deaths in 1 year. That is 45 more deaths in 1 year than we lost during the entirety of the 20-year war in Afghanistan. It is unconscionable.
While I am thrilled to see that opioid overdose deaths have declined from an estimated 83,000 in 2023 and 54,000 in 2024, there is still so much more that we have to do.
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 plays a critical role by ensuring first responders have access to lifesaving naloxone, increasing treatment options, and bolstering support services.
I am especially pleased to see that provisions of my Road to Recovery Act were included in this SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025. The bipartisan Road to Recovery Act reauthorizes lifesaving resources vital to addressing opioid addiction and substance abuse across the country.
It provides critical resources for SAMHSA's National Helpline, a free, confidential, 24/7, 365-day-a-year treatment referral and information service for individuals and families facing mental and/or substance use disorders. This service provides referrals to local treatment facilities, support groups, and community-based organizations.
Mr. Chair, the American people are tired of Democrats and Republicans bickering. I imagine both Democrats and Republicans agree on fentanyl and any direction on fixing this scourge is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Chair, with this bipartisan legislation and action that we are taking to save lives, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this crucial legislation.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt), one of our freshman Members, not a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but he has been on the front lines of the opioid crisis in Topeka as attorney general, and it is great to have his expertise in the Congress.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I come from a part of the country in southeast Kansas where I have got a lot of classmates, friends, and neighbors who have struggled with addiction over the years. I know them personally.
When I started in public service, it was all about methamphetamine in our part of the world. It was the clandestine meth lab in the trunk of a car or an abandoned barn or an old house. We dealt with that, as a matter of public policy, by putting Sudafed behind the counter. We made it harder for people to pilfer Sudafed and go out and cook up their own meth. We knew that that was going to cut down the number of clandestine laboratories, but it wasn't going to decrease the demand; it was just going to increase the demand for meth to come across the southern border, and that is what happened. They created trade routes.
Then along came the 1990s and unrelated to methamphetamine, we had a lot of big drug companies and some bad actors, who decided they were going to make more money by doing a lot of stuff they shouldn't have done to incent the medical community to prescribe more opioids, and they did and it was illegal.
When I got to serve as attorney general, we joined together, Republicans and Democrats. We didn't think about party affiliation, and we sued some of these companies and held them accountable. When I left office, we had recovered about $340 million, $350 million for my State of Kansas to deal with drug treatment from Purdue Pharma and other companies that had peddled addiction for profit.
It doesn't sound like a lot of money in this Chamber, but to put it in context, that was many times more than the State of Kansas had ever spent on addiction treatment and intervention and prevention.
We have an obligation to support these folks who are struggling down the street from us with addiction. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is more than just closing the border, although we have to do that. It is about helping folks change their behavior and their lives.
There is a lot that needs to be done. This is one piece of it. I am a little bit disappointed that this has been something of a partisan debate. It never has been for me. It never was in my previous public roles. It should not be now.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership and encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chair, I want everyone to understand my opposition to this bill.
While the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was first passed in 2018 with bipartisan support, the idea was to address the opioid crisis by authorizing programs that aimed to prevent substance use disorder and increase access to treatment and recovery, but the Trump administration has unlawfully gutted the agency responsible for carrying out these programs that the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 reauthorizes. Congressional Republicans are trying to have it both ways. You really can't.
They are trying to have it both ways. They are saying we are going to reauthorize the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, but then they silently stand by as the Trump administration dismantles the very program under SAMHSA or the very agency, SAMHSA, that actually implements the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025.
The Trump administration is moving forward with its unauthorized and illegal plans to eliminate SAMHSA altogether and combine mental health and substance use programs under this unrelated agency called the new Administration for a Healthy America.
Believe me, Secretary Kennedy has not explained in any way what this new administration will do or how it will continue any of the programs under SAMHSA.
What has the administration done? First, they fired hundreds of workers at SAMHSA, including key senior officials such as the directors of centers focused on mental health and substance use treatment. They have eliminated entire offices authorized by this statute, including the National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy Lab and the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, which has been opposed by dozens of leading mental health and substance use groups that don't want these agencies eliminated because they actually play a major role in helping people with mental and behavioral health problems.
The Trump administration has rescinded over a billion dollars from State and local behavioral health programs under mental health and substance use block grants. This is the money that goes back to the States, the counties, and the towns to open up the centers, particularly for young people. That is where this all happens. It happens at the local level where people are treated, where the education programs take place. That billion dollars is gone. I am sure it is in the courts and the courts may say you can't do it, hopefully, but they have rescinded it.
Lastly, the Trump administration has disregarded the will of Congress by preparing to eliminate 40 different mental health and substance use programs. I am not going to go through them again. I listed them. They are all in the President's budget. It is terrible. It is things like the centers for youth, the centers for first responders, who are the ones who go and see people that overdose and try to make sure they don't die.
Again, all of this is happening, and the House Republicans say: Oh, don't worry about that because we are going to reauthorize the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and this is 2 weeks after the biggest cut to Medicaid in history with their GOP tax scam.
My only point is very simple, Mr. Chair, and that is this: The Energy and Commerce Committee is an authorizing committee. Sure, you can get up here and say we are going to authorize this program because we care about all the programs under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, but it is meaningless.
It makes no sense for us to authorize or reauthorize a program, whether it is substance use abuse or whatever it is, and give the impression to the public that somehow we are accomplishing something by authorizing or reauthorizing a program where there is going to be no agency to carry it out, no money, no staff.
I just think it is just not fair. It is trying to give the impression that you are doing something when, in fact, you are not. I feel obligated to expose that and to say, no, we are not going to vote for this hollow bill that actually does nothing because it gives the impression that we are doing something that we are not.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, this isn't a hollow exercise. This is our opportunity to say these programs are important to us. Article I of the Constitution clearly gives us legislative authority: All legislative authority will vest in the Congress of the United States.
We authorize these programs. I don't think the answer is to say we believe in these programs, therefore we are not going to vote to reauthorize them because we don't believe they are going to be carried out. It is our job to authorize them, to work the appropriations process, and then to do the oversight to make sure these are implemented.
If the White House and the President can do this more efficiently, I am all about doing it more efficiently, but our job is to ensure that the mission is accomplished. If they can do that with different agencies, we need to have that debate. I think that is important. It starts with authorizing the program, and in this case reauthorizing the program.
Mr. Chair, I just want you to know there are no reasons to vote against this in substance. The language of this bill that we have before us was negotiated by both the House and the Senate, with the Democratic leaders and the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate, so it was bipartisan and bicameral discussions. That is the text of the bill before us.
What we are here doing today, it is not a hollow move. That is not it at all. We are here today to say these are important to us. If there are discussions on what is important and what is not important, the first thing we need to do is come together as a House and say these issues are important to us as a House. Let's get this bill to the Senate and put it on the President's desk.
I strongly believe the President will sign this bill because he believes, as we all believe, that people are hurting. They are hurting with substance use disorder. You have the supply coming across the border that he is shutting down and trying to shut down, but we also have to deal with the demand side. We need not just to slow down the demand, which is important, but change people's lives because when they are suffering with substance use disorder, it is just chaotic on themselves, their families, in which they live and the friends that they have.
This truly changes people's lives. It is a bipartisan bill. Everything in it is bipartisan and has been discussed. I just encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill, reauthorize these provisions, fight to get them through the Senate, put them on the President's desk, and then fight for their authorization through the appropriations process, as well. I am committed to doing that, and I look forward to hopefully a bipartisan vote on this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 119-4, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
``PART O--FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER PREVENTION AND SERVICES
``Subtitle F--CAREER Act; Recovery Housing Pilot Program''; and
The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 119-130. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part A of House Report 119-130.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, today I rise on my amendment to H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025. Opioids, like fentanyl, are incredibly dangerous. Last year, our Nation lost just over 80,000 people to drug overdoses. That is 220 per day. In my home State of Pennsylvania, someone dies of a drug overdose every 2 hours.
As we work to stop these dangerous drugs from entering the country, it is important we make available the necessary resources to reverse opioid overdoses as they happen. Emergency opioid overdose reversal drugs are a lifeline, having the ability to save so many lives. Currently, HHS regulations refer to certain name brand drugs, such as Narcan, which can limit usage of other versions that may be more readily available.
My amendment would require HHS regulations or guidance documents to include any opioid overdose reversal drug approved by the FDA when referring to these emergency drugs. This will expand and ensure better access to these lifesaving drugs.
I lost my 16-year-old cousin to a drug overdose. It is incredibly important to me that we are not limiting access to these resources.
By adjusting current regulations and language, we are protecting our children, our families, and our communities. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to save lives and support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment. More than 50 million American adults consider themselves to be in recovery from a substance use disorder or mental health condition.
In order to ensure that more patients can reach recovery, we must bolster treatment integration and wraparound services for patients suffering from substance use disorder and addiction.
This amendment directs the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to convene a public roundtable to examine the use of electronic health records among certain providers and issue a report of the findings. This would better inform policymakers about the existing landscape and uptake of certain providers utilizing electronic health records.
In closing, I urge support of this important amendment as well as the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am here to beg for your consideration in support of my amendment to address something that happened with the reconciliation bill that changed the 1115 waiver.
Now, this sounds incredibly wonky. An 1115 waiver to Medicaid is something that we are not going to be able to go home and talk to constituents about what we were able to do for them. Nobody knows what the 1115 waiver is.
However, when you talk about the impacts that this has made, this is especially impactful when it comes to Colorado and what we have been able to do to address the opioid epidemic. In Colorado, we were able to utilize the 1115 waiver by proving that by covering substance use disorder treatment, we could save money over time.
What happened in the reconciliation bill was language that said you actually had to prove that it was cost neutral up front and that you couldn't prove the cost savings over time.
What this language will do, it will take our ability in Colorado away to utilize this waiver that has drawn down hundreds of millions of dollars for substance use disorder treatment. In fact, we were the second in the Nation to implement this waiver, and a total of 37 States now take advantage of this.
Mr. Chair, 83 percent of people who are treated in the rural parts of Colorado and across the Nation are on Medicaid. This will significantly impact red States, blue States, and especially the rural places across the United States.
Like many people, my family has been impacted by the opioid epidemic. When I was just 6 years old, my mom hurt her back. She was overprescribed opioids and became addicted like so many Americans. Through my struggle fighting to save my mom's life, I saw how broken our system was, and that is when I worked as a State legislator to change that.
What I saw in my mom's fight when she was overdosing at a high rate when fentanyl started coming into the supply chain, and she was begging for help with nowhere to go, was that Medicaid did not cover substance use disorder treatment. You actually had to go through this waiver process.
I watched my mom being churned in and out of the ER, being kept alive in the ICU in critical condition. The State of Colorado and the Federal Government spent over a million dollars in one year keeping her alive in the ER while denying her access to the care that she so desperately sought.
I was finally able to go through a very complicated court order process to get her the care that she needed. My mom now is about to celebrate 8 years in recovery. She works at one of the places that saved her life and gives back to the community. She is a taxpayer. She is an example of what is possible when we actually invest in people and give them the care that they need.
After hearing her story, we were able to implement this waiver to really increase our capacity as a State to address the opioid crisis. We know that more people have died from the opioid crisis than all world wars combined, and these are people that we didn't have to lose if we actually had the system to support them.
Mr. Chairman, by rolling back this language, you are decimating the substance use disorder treatment across the United States in 37 States and many right now who are in the process of applying for the waiver and who are looking to Colorado as an example.
This would mean hundreds of millions of dollars of treatment we would be denied. The first year alone, we treated 58,000 people with the care that they needed in Colorado. This is 5 years with implementation. It is the reason why we now have a 35 percent reduction in overdose deaths in Colorado. It is overwhelmingly the reason.
Addressing the Medicaid barrier is so important. Let me explain why. People who struggle with the substance use disorder, this brain disease, it increases the likelihood of a decrease in employment.
Mr. Chairman, 80 to 90 percent of people who are struggling with substance use disorder qualify for Medicaid. When the treatment they need and the healthcare they need is not covered and the healthcare system they are relying on is dismantled, the people in this community who are the most vulnerable are disproportionately impacted.
On a day when we are working to ensure that some of the critical programs at the Federal level are funded in this bill which is an important piece of this, we also have to support the structure
It took us years to bring the study, bring the waiver, and prove that this would be a cost savings over time, and then to implement it.
Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I really appreciate the hard work of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) on this issue. She is a leader in Congress on substance use disorder.
I actually didn't know the story of my friend from Colorado's mother. Certainly, when someone is touched by an issue, they certainly become passionate about it. I greatly appreciate her passion on the issue.
The section 1115 waivers are important to the Medicaid program. States are the laboratories for democracy. Section 1115 waivers provide key State flexibility to test new authorities and ideas in the Medicaid program.
In substance use disorder alone, 1115 waivers were pivotal in early efforts to lift the IMD exclusion, an obsolete edifice to the Medicaid program that undermines access to mental health care and substance use disorder care by only allowing for Medicaid to reimburse for care in- patient facilities with fewer than 16 beds.
Under President Trump's guidance, in 2018, States were able to use 1115 waivers to waive the IMD exclusion, expanding access to care as the opioid epidemic began to grow worse.
After 5 years of State experimentation with 1115 waivers to lift the IMD exclusion, Congress stepped in and ultimately lifted the IMD exclusion. We took on that initiative in 2023, alongside the rest of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. We were able to get that signed into law, even when the Senate blocked the rest of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, because it was important to get it done.
The 1115 waivers have been on the books for decades, and States have used them a multitude of ways to transform the Medicaid program. A key tenet of those waivers, though, is that they have to be budget neutral. This wasn't a problem when 1115 waivers were used to lift the IMD exclusion. States were clearly able to demonstrate how early access to care reduced emergency room services.
Nonetheless, the Biden administration in the use of 1115 waiver authorities put forth new guidance that allowed States to rely on so- called hypothetical expenditures that let States spend Medicaid dollars on services that were over budget and unrelated to the core functions of the Medicaid program.
Some examples of this included paying for air conditioning systems for beneficiaries and for providing payments for legal support for beneficiaries. This isn't to say that HVAC systems in a hot climate or legal supports aren't important or may have some potential relation to someone's health, but they fall far outside the scope of what Medicaid is intended for. They open the door for States to draw down Federal funds or for services that are oftentimes entirely funded by the States.
In 2023, as the then-subcommittee chairman for Energy and Commerce's Health Subcommittee, I raised concerns with that direction with the Biden administration as they were moving toward these waivers.
Specifically, in this CMS, I wrote:
``The committee is also concerned about the potential for fraud, waste, and abuse in calculation and application of States' budget neutrality limits under Section 1115 Medicaid waivers.''
As chairman of the full committee, those concerns remain. Madam Chair, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans began to take steps to address this. In the reconciliation bill that we passed, we included key language to require stricter adherence to the budget neutrality requirements for 1115 waivers.
It doesn't matter if the President is Democrat or Republican who is approving these waivers. It needs to be budget neutral. We need to be good stewards for programs like Medicaid and to make sure that it is spending in a fiscally responsible manner and that we aren't just writing blank checks to States who can spend money how they choose.
I will close by saying I greatly appreciate the leadership my friend from Colorado has shown. She is a leader in this House and in ensuring that we deal with as much as we possibly can in every way possible with substance use disorder. I believe we need to stick to the budget neutrality.
Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment. In 2018, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities, otherwise known as the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, was signed into law.
In the years since, the bill has provided States and localities with the tools to combat the opioid crisis.
The crisis, the scourge of this Nation, as of 2024 has taken the lives of nearly 80,000 Americans. That is nearly 240 Americans every day last year. That is equivalent to a jet airliner crashing every day. If that were happening
While I am encouraged to see that number beginning to recede, it is still way too high. The drop in number in 2023 is a good direction, but there is still lots of work to be done.
That is why today I rise in support of an amendment to H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025. This amendment would require the Department of Health and Human Services to convene a public hearing to improve awareness of, access to, and information related to funding opportunities related to mental health and SUD programs within SAMHSA, S-A-M-H-S-A.
This would be a review of not only current funding activities but future funding activities. These activities would increase much-needed awareness of important tools within States and localities.
Many times, there are tools there that people or local governments are not aware of. This is going to extend and make sure everybody is aware of the full scope of tools that are available to address the scourge of this fentanyl crisis.
By closing this knowledge gap, we are going to help patients, providers, and families with key access. Again, it is about getting treatment for this addiction. This is a very debilitating addiction. It is a biochemical addiction. It is something that takes a lot of effort in order to separate people from that addiction.
This effort saves lives. It makes a difference in families. Families that have been victimized by this addiction crisis will explain how debilitating it is not just to their loved ones but also to families. This crushes families in the things they have to endure and the folks that have this biochemical addiction to opioids.
Madam Chair, in closing, I urge support of this important amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to my amendment, as well as the underlying bill.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wittman) having assumed the chair, Ms. King-Hinds, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2483) to reauthorize certain programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Support for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 458 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2483.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran) kindly take the chair.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2483) to reauthorize certain programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery, and for other purposes, with Mr. Moran (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, amendment No. 4 printed in part A of House Report 119-130 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) had been disposed of.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3, printed in part A of House Report 119-130, offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, noes 213, not voting 12, as follows:
Messrs. ARRINGTON, LATTA, McGUIRE, WILLIAMS of Texas, JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Ms. LETLOW, Messrs. BACON and WESTERMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. NEAL, Mses. GILLEN, and McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendment under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Maloy) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2483) to reauthorize certain programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 458, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
On page H2457, June 4, 2025, in the second column, the following appeared: and read a third time, and was read the third time. The question was taken; and the
The online version has been corrected to read: and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill. The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 366, nays 57,
On page H2457, June 4, 2025, in the second column, the following appeared: RECORDED VOTE Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 366, noes 57,
The online version has been corrected to read: RECORDED VOTE Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- ayes 366, nays 57,
Mr. GARCIA of California changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we say good-bye to a longtime member of Team Scalise, Michael Comer.
Before joining Team Scalise, Michael began his Hill career working with the Education and Workforce Committee.
Michael has been a valuable member of my team for the past 7 years, starting as my digital director before moving up to deputy communications director.
From taking incredible videos and photos and designing eye-catching graphics to teaching other Hill staffers how they can best produce great content for Members of Congress, Michael's inspiring creativity and work ethic have been a major contribution not only to my team but to the entire Republican Conference as a whole.
As every Republican on Capitol Hill knows, Mr. Speaker, if you have a question on how to use digital media equipment or just create something that stands out, then you ask Michael Comer.
Many Members on the floor here today have taken pictures of his slides during Conference or asked for a graphic or a video he put together. He is an expert at conveying an important message in an interesting, creative, and attention-grabbing way.
I appreciate everything he has done for my team and the House Republican Conference. I know his experience and expertise will be a major asset in his next chapter.
Mr. Speaker, I wish Michael Comer well, and I congratulate him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the amazing James Brown III of Wilson, North Carolina, for not just one but two remarkable achievements.
James is graduating as the valedictorian of his class at Wilson Preparatory Academy, and if that is not enough, he is doing so with perfect attendance that dates all the way back to kindergarten--yes, kindergarten.
Using his words, James said: ``I promised my grandmother that I would do well in school, and that is what I am going to do.''
His late grandmother, Annie Pitt, would be so proud of James, as we all are.
I thank James for keeping his promise to his grandma. He has earned the title of the hardest working student in eastern North Carolina's class of 2025.
I congratulate the entire class.
As I think about your future, ``I feel good.'' Now, James, keep making Grandma Annie proud.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 23rd anniversary of an exceptional U.S. Army entity at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, the prototype integration facility, also known as the PIF.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention this facility is named after Dr. Larry O. Daniel, the beloved late grandfather of one of my district staffers.
Operating out of the DEVCOM Aviation and Missile Center, the PIF has been the Army's premier provider of rapid prototyping and integrated hardware for aviation and missile programs since opening its doors in June 2002.
The PIF personifies fast and efficient contracting, benefiting from its unique government-owned, government-operated, and contractor- supported model.
I encourage the Army to keep this effort going and to apply this same contracting concept more broadly.
Lastly, I thank the PIF team and wish them a happy anniversary.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the life of a dedicated public servant and civil rights champion, former Mayor Horace Johnson, Sr., of Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Mayor Johnson was a trailblazer in every sense of the word. As the first Black mayor of Hillsborough, his election marked a historic moment not just for the town but for the broader movement toward equity and representation in government, inspiring generations of future leaders.
Mayor Johnson's legacy reaches far beyond his title. He was a lifelong advocate for civil rights, school integration, and voting access, values that he upheld not only in word but in action.
Mayor Johnson understood that government could be a force for good, and he always lived with integrity, wisdom, and compassion. Throughout his many years of public service and leadership, the town of Hillsborough became not just more inclusive but more forward-thinking, more resilient, and more just.
Mr. Speaker, I join the town of Hillsborough in mourning the loss of a true pillar of our community, and I offer my deepest condolences to Mayor Johnson's family, loved ones, and the entire community during this difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Katie Ankrom.
Katie is a junior at Portsmouth City Schools and a member of the Lady Trojans softball team and recently recorded her 300th career strikeout.
In the 2024-2025 season, Katie pitched over 136 innings and recorded 145 strikeouts. In addition to her success on the mound, Katie has been effective at the plate over the course of her career. She boasts a .332 on-base percentage and has driven in over 40 runs.
Beyond her success on the softball field, Katie is also a member of the Lady Trojans volleyball team. In 2024, she was named first team all-conference as she logged 42 kills. Katie's athletic achievement reflects her God-given talents and all the hard work she has put into improving her craft.
Youth sports have played an important role in the history of our Nation. They teach young people how to be hardworking, detail-oriented, and resilient. Katie's experience as a team leader has prepared her to be a leader in life, and I am excited to see what she accomplishes beyond high school.
All of southern Ohio is proud of Katie's accomplishments. If she has any tips for me before I play in the upcoming Congressional Baseball Game, I will gladly take them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents and the thousands of folks that have called our office begging Congress not to cut their healthcare or their food assistance all to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
One of the calls came from a single mother who just moved to Cincinnati to escape domestic violence. She is raising a daughter with disabilities and relies on Medicaid and food assistance. She relies on both to survive.
There is a 62-year-old woman on a fixed income. Food assistance is the only way she has enough food.
These stories matter because Trump and congressional Republicans are pushing this bill that cuts $300 billion from food assistance and over $1 trillion from healthcare. Mr. Speaker, 16 million Americans will lose their healthcare. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the superwealthy and big corporate investors.
It is a terrible bill. It is deeply unpopular. It will cost people their lives. Kill the bill. Save Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American patriot, Mr. Loys Virgil Sadler, known to his friends as ``LV.'' Born on June 6, the day we celebrate as D-day, Mr. Speaker, he was born on June 6, 1925. This Friday, he will celebrate an incredible milestone, 100 years of life, liberty, and his pursuit of happiness because of his love for this great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sadler is a proud member of the Greatest Generation. When our country called during World War II, he answered without hesitation, serving honorably in the United States Coast Guard as a ship's serviceman barber, 3rd class. He put his hands to work and his heart into service, just like so many of the men and women of that time who built the great America that everyone knows today, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I worry that too many have forgotten that spirit that Mr. Sadler has, the grit, the patriotism, the unwavering belief in American exceptionalism. Mr. Sadler reminds us. He reminds us all what it means to serve, to sacrifice, and to live a meaningful life in the greatest country on Earth.
He remains active in his community, and today people join together to celebrate his life, his service, and his century of American greatness.
Mr. Speaker, I wish LV a happy 100th birthday. God bless him and God bless these United States.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the big, ugly bill, which even Elon Musk has called a ``disgusting abomination.''
The big, ugly bill undermines the programs millions of Americans rely on to survive, like healthcare and food assistance. Perhaps less discussed is that it will increase your energy bills.
Right now, 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their electricity bills, and according to a recent report in The New York Times, this bill will make it worse.
The big, ugly bill ends tax credits to promote clean energy and will increase household energy costs by up to $415 a year.
On top of that, ending the tax credits will lead to thousands of job losses nationwide, in red States and blue States. This comes as demand for electricity is surging, driving up costs even more.
Everyone in this body talks a good game about lowering costs; but when the time came to actually do something about costs, my House colleagues voted to put Big Oil CEOs over the American people.
I urge my friends in the Senate to fix this mess and actually lower energy prices for the American people.
I have good news for Californians. Today is the beginning of the end of high-speed rail, the biggest public infrastructure disaster in U.S. history.
A few months ago, I joined Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy in Los Angeles to announce an investigation and compliance review into the State's high-speed rail project. Today, the results are in.
The State, with respect to $4 billion in grants that it took, is woefully out of compliance with the conditions of those grants, and, fundamentally, the audit found that this project has no viable path forward.
Of course, Californians have known that for a long time. They have spent $17 billion and haven't laid any track. The New York Times found the project is not on track to be completed this century and will be $100 billion over budget.
They initially told us that there would be a high-speed train from L.A. to San Francisco by the year 2020. Now, even the modest initial segment from Bakersfield to Merced is going to miss its 2033 deadline. Even if the train were to magically come into existence today, it would be decades-old technology.
It is time to end this embarrassment for our State once and for all and use our transportation dollars in ways that will actually benefit the quality of life of Californians.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Lisa Gissendaner, who retired recently as the Canton Program Director for The Ohio State University Young Scholars Program as this week's Champion of the Week for Ohio's 13th Congressional District.
Throughout her career, Lisa helped and supported countless students in Canton City Schools who aspired to be the first member of their family to attend college.
Through her work, she has made a lasting impact on our community, undoubtedly inspiring many more to strive for higher education.
The Young Scholars Program fosters generational change by instilling a college-going culture in underserved areas, inspiring younger siblings and peers to pursue higher education.
For her outstanding devotion, Lisa earned the respect and esteem of many. In the wake of her departure, I know her numerous contributions will not be forgotten. I am confident that her fine character and decisive leadership will be sorely missed.
Again, I thank Lisa Gissendaner for her distinguished career serving our community and congratulate her for being this week's 13th Congressional District Champion of the Week.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize United Way of the Bradford Area as they celebrate 100 years of dedicated service to our community.
Since 1925, the United Way chapter has been a driving force in improving lives across McKean and Potter Counties.
From supporting food pantries and emergency shelters to investing in youth mentorship, mental health resources, and financial literacy programs, they have touched every corner of our community. Their commitment to education, health, and financial stability ensures that families in need are never alone.
The United Way brings people together, nonprofits, businesses, volunteers, and donors, with the common goal to improve lives by mobilizing the caring power of communities worldwide to advance a common good.
They have proven time and time again that when a community unites, anything is possible.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff; the board members; the partner agencies; and countless volunteers for their compassion, leadership, and hard work
Congratulations to the United Way of the Bradford Area on a century of service.
Mr. Speaker, on May 21, Sarah and Yaron were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. They worked at the Israeli Embassy and were planning their engagement, but their future together was cut short when a man yelling, ``Free Palestine,'' murdered them.
This past weekend, 12 people who gathered weekly to bring attention to the hostages held captive by Hamas were firebombed by an anti- Semitic terrorist in Boulder, Colorado. Committing violent acts and murder against Americans living their everyday lives is not justifiable protest.
These two unconscionable tragedies in just the past 2 weeks are a product of a terrifying rise in anti-Semitism in our country. Sadly, this does not come as a surprise to the American Jewish community, who regularly face hatred and threats.
According to AJC, roughly 7 in 10 Jewish adults have experienced anti-Semitism online, and 77 percent feel less safe in America over the past 18 months.
I will be clear that I do not stand for normalizing hate and anti- Semitism. I stand with the Jewish community in my district and around the country against these increasingly brazen attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a significant milestone in America's push for critical mineral independence.
Last week, I joined Talon Metals to celebrate the new Beulah Minerals Processing Facility, which will process high-grade nickel and copper, just like this, from Talon's high-tech, environmentally friendly mine in Minnesota.
They will turn it into materials for our defense, aerospace, and energy industries, all while reducing our reliance on adversaries like China and Russia.
North Dakota has been abundantly blessed with natural resources, but our greatest resource is our mentality. We build, innovate, and solve problems. This project is another great example of that.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Talon Metals and the Beulah community for this amazing project.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Patriot High School class of 2025.
This year's graduating class is a remarkable group of students, including 405 students who are continuing their studies in college, 24 who are attending trade schools, 19 who are planning to serve in the military, and 32 who are heading straight into the workforce.
In their time at Patriot High School, this class achieved so many great things, including receiving $14.8 million in scholarship offers and winning their eighth straight basketball district championship.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the class of 2025, whether it is in the basketball gym, class, mock trial, or on stage, will carry their lessons learned during their time at Patriot High School in whatever they do next.
I congratulate the class of 2025, and they should not forget to thank their parents and teachers, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Buford City Schools as being named among the top school districts in America.
Education is one of the greatest gifts we can provide our children, and I am proud that Georgia is receiving recognition for this honor.
Buford City Schools ranked at No. 22, achieving an overall A-plus rating, with A-pluses in nearly all categories.
The top-rated public school serves 5,946 students from pre-K to 12th grade, maintaining a student-teacher ratio of 18:1. Additionally, 70 percent of students are at least proficient in math and 65 percent in reading.
I thank the teachers and the Buford community for setting an example for the State of Georgia and the rest of our Nation to follow.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the despicable anti- Semitic terror attack targeted against Jews who were marching in Boulder, Colorado, in support of the hostages being held in Gaza.
This horrific attack comes on the heels of another targeted anti- Semitic terror attack at the Capital Jewish Museum here in Washington, D.C., where a hate-filled gunman murdered two young employees of the Israeli Embassy, Yaron and Sarah. May their memories be a blessing.
We must send the strongest message to those who seek refuge in our country, only to come here and commit crimes and harm innocent people. They should know that their actions will not be tolerated, and they will have no home here.
As a Member of Congress, I will continue to fight for policies that confront anti-Semitism, extremism, and hate wherever it is found.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of wrestling coach Scott Glabb, the saint in the city.
Scott took the Santa Ana High School coaching job in 1990 because nobody else would apply for the job.
Mr. Speaker, 30 years later, he has produced national high school wrestling champs, State champs, CIF wrestling champs, both boys and girls.
Mr. Speaker, it is often said that, when a person tastes success, it changes their lives forever. Coach Glabb has helped thousands of students discover their inner youth and their strength, and helped them to overcome tremendous adversity. It is this kind of leadership that earned Scott the title ``Coach of the Year'' and a place in the California Coaches Hall of Fame.
Only Coach Glabb could see that all that these kids needed was a break and somebody who cared for them.
I thank Scott for the positive role model that he has presented to our kids. We love him and wish him success in his retirement.
Mr. Speaker, 1.4 million meals have been lost at local food banks across Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., because of the shortsighted funding cuts to the Department of Agriculture.
That is 1.4 million times in the last few months alone when our neighbors couldn't get a meal when they were in need. Maybe they opted to stretch one meal into two or decided to go to bed hungry so that they could afford rent.
Our food banks are there for our neighbors on their hardest days. Today, they are raising the alarm as they see record-high demand alongside very low unemployment.
Instead of solving this dire hunger problem, the Trump administration is now slashing critical funds to USDA.
It is rare to have a hat trick in public policy: a program that helps our small
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more American program that serves our communities, and that is why I will continue to fight for our food banks and our neighbors.
FEMA, NOAA, and National Fire Academy Are Not Optional Items to Cut
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern for the senseless defunding of FEMA and critical public safety agencies that protect our communities and strengthen our national resilience.
Recent examples also include canceling classes at the National Fire Academy and defunding parts of NOAA and the Emergency Weather Service. This isn't just bad policy; it puts lives at risk.
This past month, we have seen historic flooding in my district in Allegany County, tornadoes ripping across the Midwest, wildfires burning unchecked, and hurricanes that level communities.
Yet, nonsensically, the Acting Administrator of FEMA just admitted that he didn't even realize that hurricane season existed. With extreme blowback, he then said that he was joking. Emergencies are no joke.
What this does is really demonstrates a lack of understanding of the value of the very agencies tasked with protecting the American people.
FEMA, NOAA, and the National Fire Academy are not optional items to cut. They are essential pillars of our emergency response and national security and contribute to our resilience.
In my district and across the country, we must come together to act collectively in a bipartisan manner to fund and respond to national emergencies, which hit everywhere despite ZIP Code, circumstance, or party.
I will fight for our communities and for that help in Allegany County that they need, and I urge my colleagues to also fund and support the agencies that serve us faithfully every day.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor World War II veteran and D-Day survivor ``Papa'' Jake Larson for his invaluable contributions to our country.
After Pearl Harbor, Jake was eager to serve his country. He enlisted in the National Guard at 15 years old, not telling the truth about his age. He was sent to Europe, where he assisted in the planning of and participated in the Invasion of Normandy on D-Day and bravely endured six battles, including the Battle of the Bulge.
More recently, at 102 years old, Jake's storytelling on social media about his military service has earned him over 1.3 million social media followers and the nickname ``Papa Jake.''
As we commemorate the 81st anniversary of D-Day, I extend my gratitude and respect to Jake for his extraordinary service to this country.
Please join me in recognizing ``Papa'' Jake Larson for his dedicated service to America.
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 topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the floor this evening and to give that opportunity to some of my colleagues also, if their schedule permits.
We don't get enough opportunities to speak to the American people, and I don't get enough chances to speak to my constituents back home, particularly from the House floor. I think it is a unique opportunity that I will get to address a few things this evening.
I want to take a minute just to walk through, big picture, what we are accomplishing with this reconciliation bill titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and walk through some of the provisions.
I actually tried my hardest back in my district to let facts rule the day and not be governed and manipulated by a lot of rhetoric about this particular type of work.
I am going to take you back, Mr. Speaker, to my first election when I first decided to run for Congress. It was the end of January 2020. We had never heard of the term ``COVID'' before. We had seen a tax reform bill take place at the end of 2017 that people couldn't really wrap their heads around.
I was working for a consulting firm, and I remember talking to some of the partners at the firm. I was a principal at the time--actually, I was probably an engagement manager at the time.
I remember them saying: We are going to see a significant tax decrease. If this bill goes through, we are going to have a substantial amount of extra discretionary money. What are we going to do with it? This is going to be significant.
More so, many of our clients that we served were going to all of a sudden see some discretionary income that they would now be able to use and had to figure out what they were going to do.
This wasn't a client of ours, but in the aftermath of that bill, this is what I understand took place. When they had a corporate tax rate decrease, they have shown me their books, and the areas that they prioritized were to increase wages for their frontline workers. They said every single person at the firm got a pay increase. They grew real wage growth without massive inflation that takes place sometimes under a reconciliation bill.
I will point to the American Rescue Plan that took place when Democrats took control of the White House, House, and Senate. We saw the worst inflation we have seen in my lifetime under the guise of a COVID relief package.
That company, which had some tax pressure removed from their books, went straight to their employees. They created wage growth opportunities. The other thing was that they had extra discretionary income to take to their immediate community in which they worked and bought ambulances for the emergency response in the community.
This is the type of stuff that happened across the country post-2017 when you saw a significant economic boon in the U.S.
Years prior to 2017, you saw a lot of companies decide there were favorable tax rates elsewhere. Oftentimes, in countries in Europe-- there was a tax provision that was done in 2017 that is called FDII, an intangible income piece.
You can establish intellectual property overseas at a lower tax rate than what we were doing here in the U.S. We decided to make our rates in the U.S. competitive. That provision alone immediately stopped the term ``corporate inversion,'' where U.S. companies were taking their revenue to other countries. Instead, they decided that they have a more favorable rate here, so they will bring it back. Most multinational companies, most U.S.-based companies, a lot of times foreign companies, want to be based here.
All we did with that rate was to say that we are going to make that rate competitive. With that, they repatriated their money back to the U.S.
When I talk to townhall participants, regular constituent meetings, I highlight that when you make taxes competitive, you get companies to reinvest back in the United States, and we then can grow our revenue.
Companies have told us since 2017, even though they got more favorable,
The whole concept behind Republican tax policy is to make taxes competitive against the OECD, against our allies or our adversaries, to make sure we repatriate and keep that money in the U.S. and grow our revenues. That is why, even with tax cuts, we don't see a dip in what we have gained from revenue.
We can argue all day long, and you can even draw the graph: Should we be spending a higher percentage of our GDP? Should we be collecting a higher percentage of our GDP in tax revenues?
Twenty-five years ago, approximately 17 percent of GDP was what we collected in tax revenues, and at that same time, 17 percent of GDP was spending. In those 25 years, our spending has gone from 17 percent of GDP to approximately 26 percent of GDP. That is what our spending has done.
Our revenue has actually stayed at approximately 17 percent through Republican and Democratic administrations. That means our revenue has continued to grow, but it actually stays consistent as a percentage of our entire GDP. Our spending has grown, up to 26 percent.
That is why you see in a Republican reconciliation bill like we passed a couple of weeks ago that a significant portion of that bill is spending cuts, offsets to spending, and revenue increases. Yes, there are actually tax increases in a Republican bill, but overall, we are creating a very competitive tax rate that exists.
Companies from 2017 on have reinvested in the U.S. and, at the same time, have reinvested in their communities, reinvested in their employees, and have grown their presence. Most of that is set to expire at the end of this year. If we don't get a tax bill done, then you are just going to see a significant tax increase across everything.
Mr. Speaker, I will also talk briefly about some of the individual provisions because it is important to talk about the small business corporation, S corps, LLCs, all the various different types of businesses that we run here in the U.S., they all get a competitive tax rate, keeping them wanting to invest here in America and reinvesting in their business. If they can reinvest in their business, they can actually grow overall tax receipts because of the concept of economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, on the individual side, this is something that my Democrat colleagues oftentimes overlook. They oftentimes talk about, oh, this is just some tax giveaway to the billionaires. I have never seen anybody actually pinpoint and show me where this is targeted toward giving the billionaires some type of tax relief.
Probably the largest portion of this tax reconciliation bill is what is called the standard deduction. The standard deduction is taken advantage of by over 90 percent of Americans. This is what simplifies our tax code. When you show up to do your taxes for that year, you are automatically given a dollar figure that you can deduct from your taxable income.
In 2017, that number was doubled. We said to middle-income filers, lower-income filers that we want to give you a significant deduction and we are going to double that standard deduction. It hasn't been done for a while. We need to increase this to a really healthy amount. That simply means that individual and married filing jointly can look at their tax bill and say, we are going to offset our taxable income by $30,000. In a lot of cases that is a significant benefit to them because that helps lower their overall tax liability and puts money directly back in their pocket.
Guess what? It doesn't help the wealthy. The wealthy itemize their taxes. They will probably have more mortgage interest to write off than they will that $30,000 standard deduction, if you will. Then all of a sudden, we see that that makes sense. We can see how the standard deduction actually affects middle- and lower-income Americans.
Okay. Why in the world do my Democrat colleagues keep repeating this constant--I think it might have just been something they saw in some polling that said: It works well if you say this is just tax cuts for the wealthy.
Let's look at the child tax credit. If you have a child under the age of 17--prior to 2017, it was $1,000 that you were able to deduct from your taxable income. Republicans in 2017 doubled it and they set that amount for 8 years. That is what expires at the end of this year.
If Republicans don't act, that number goes back to $1,000. Anybody that votes against this bill is saying: I am okay with that number going back to $1,000. We actually, in this bill, repeat that $2,000 amount per child, but we did something unique. We are going to index it to inflation. It is something we should always be thinking about doing in any type of tax policy. We are indexing it to inflation. We actually added an enhancement to it, so you are able to, for the next 4 years, take a $2,500 deduction. If you are building a family, if you have young kids, this is a big expense. We are giving that tax relief to families so we can continue to grow our next generation.
The unique part is, in 4 years or so when that extra $500 enhancement is up for renewal, we will have already grown the $2,000 to be at approximately that level. What we are doing is, we are really doing right by individuals that are doing the right thing by investing in our future and raising kids.
Those two things are the biggest items of this entire bill. Then to go and say it is just some tax giveaway to the wealthy, it just flies in the face of reality. It might poll well, I guess, but it is disheartening to see something that I actually believe most, if not all, Members of Congress believe in a simplified, higher standard deduction, increased child tax credit, which covers the vast majority of the cost of this bill.
Then you get to things that actually help individuals that we are doing with our research and development, helping small businesses be able to grow and have that discretionary income.
There is just so much here, and I would love to be able to, in long form, talk a little bit about the specifics because too often these become one-liners or a tweet here or there that says this or that. We are being as responsible as you possibly can be by making this bill deficit neutral.
We will see growth in our economy because of it. We will see historic decreases in our overall expenditure and spending, and at the same time have policies that will drive economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my good friend and also the chairman of the Budget Committee, who tirelessly works on all of these issues, to share a few words with us this evening.
I thank him for his dedication and time investing in me as a member of his committee, to help bring me up in the ways of doing the right thing for the right cause in all these things related to tax, spending, and such.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Arrington from the Permian Basin, the food, fuel, and fiber capital of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moore is a dear friend not only to me but to my children. My children don't know him well. They have met him, but the reason he is a friend to my children and to your children and grandchildren is because he is fighting for their future.
He cares about this Nation. He believes that we are on an unsustainable fiscal path and he believes that if we don't intervene, we will not only jeopardize our economic strength but our national security, our global leadership, and God forbid, a sovereign debt crisis certainly would rob our children of their freedom and opportunities in this great land.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Moore for his leadership on the committee. I thank him for his strong voice and vision and most of all for his courage to do the right thing not only for our citizens and our constituents of today but for generations of Americans, who, by the way, will inherit the whirlwind of our recklessness in terms of the unbridled spending and unsustainable debt if we don't step up in this historic moment.
Let me comment on some of the things that Mr. Moore was mentioning in his remarks.
Let's do a comparison and contrast with our Democrat colleagues when they had control of both Chambers and the White House. They, too, used the tool of budget reconciliation to advance what was their partisan Democrat agenda.
Over the last 4 years under the Biden-Harris administration and Democrat control, they added $8 trillion to the national debt.
They did it by expanding the Federal Government, offering ObamaCare to people making hundreds of thousands of dollars, price-fixing in the drug markets and having premiums go up on seniors.
They did it by expanding the IRS by 80,000 IRS agents and by offering tax subsidies to green energy corporations to the tune of $850 billion.
When they had the tool of budget reconciliation and unified Democrat leadership, that was what they offered to the American people: more spending, more debt, more government, and less freedom.
We have the tools and unified Republican control of both Chambers, and we are investing in border security and defense because we believe the safety and security of the American people is job number one, like providing the common defense is the first and most important job of the Federal Government.
Secondly, we are spending money to allow hardworking American families to keep more of their money and to incentivize investment, growth, job creation, and wage increases. We have been sputtering along because of the failed economic policies of my Democratic colleagues in the Biden-Harris administration and their unbridled, reckless spending.
There is your comparison. One gives you more government with more spending and debt, and the other has a complete offset with a modest reduction in deficit spending, a 10-point reduction in debt to GDP. We have the largest tax cut, the largest spending cut, the largest investment in border security and defense in the history of this country, and the most significant commitment to unlocking American energy resources in our Nation's history.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what we did in this bill. There is so much to talk about, but some of the myths and false claims that are propagated to suggest that this bill will somehow increase the debt are totally false and using a baseline, a CBO score, with a growth assumption based on the policies and laws of the last 4 years.
I think 1.8 percent growth is actually generous considering the last 4 years and the economic policies of our Democratic colleagues. What we did was we assumed a growth rate not based on CBO, JCT, or any other predictive modeling. We said the best way to predict future achievement is past performance.
What did President Biden have as an annual average growth rate? What did President Trump achieve? On average, Biden was at 2.7 if you control for COVID. If you control for COVID, then Trump had a 2.8 percent annual average. Since World War II, the annual average has been a little over 3 percent.
We picked a conservative number, but we know we will outperform it with good energy policies, work incentives, deregulation, America First trade, and locking in low taxes from TCJA.
That 2.6 annual average, that conservative growth assumption, will yield $2.5 trillion over the 10-year budget window. If you stack the spending reforms--which, by the way, are the deepest cuts by two times in our Nation's history. If you add the two, you totally offset the cost of border, defense, and any cost associated with reducing taxes.
It is fiscally responsible. It will do the two things that you primarily need to do in order to restore the fiscal health of this country, put it on a stable path, and prevent or stave off a debt crisis of some magnitude. It grows the economy. It deals with economic growth, which brings revenue to the Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, 1 percent growth over the projections of CBO is $3 trillion against the deficit, and it starts to bend the curve on deficit spending.
Now, is this going to save the country from a debt crisis in the future and address the $120 trillion unfunded liabilities in 30-year accumulative projected debt? No, but this is the first in my lifetime, probably since the post-World War II era--when we were coming out of this same level of indebtedness, with a debt to GDP of around 120 percent--it is the first time since then and in my lifetime that we have taken a meaningful step with growth and spending reforms to start bending the debt-to-GDP curve and start turning this Titanic before it sinks and we do irreparable harm to our Nation and our kids' future.
We have to rinse and repeat this process. There are no silver bullets. There is no one reconciliation bill. Even in generations past, coming out of comparable debt after World War II took two decades, and that was an easier exercise in reducing spending because it was mainly defense after a war.
We are talking about entitlement spending. We are talking about a lot of promises made to a lot of people. We are talking about $2 trillion that we are borrowing now annually to pay for those promises, 50 cents on the dollar of which is just servicing the debt or our interest payments.
Mr. Speaker, we have work to do. Nobody knows that better than Mr. Moore. No one also has called out the fact and reality that at some point, with some of the larger mandatory spending programs, we are going to need Democrats and Republicans to join forces to put the Nation first to solve the problems of sustainability and solvency of programs like Social Security and Medicare that our seniors depend on so that they can have peace of mind and so that our children can actually expect the same safety nets and the same opportunities in this country.
It will take tremendous political courage. Nobody has that more than my friend, Blake Moore. He speaks the truth, and he has said this is his top priority since he was sworn in in his first term. He has made good on that pledge and promise.
I believe that if we continue to do the things that we are doing in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and we join forces like Ronald Reagan did with Tip O'Neill, which was the last time that Social Security and the solvency were addressed, I think, quite frankly, it is an opportunity made for President Trump. He is the greatest dealmaker we have ever had in the Oval Office.
When I was a freshman and he was recently elected, he did what nobody thought we could do. He revamped and restructured our biggest trade relationship and trade agreement with our two biggest partners, Canada and Mexico, which was known as NAFTA. Then, we had USMCA, and our trade activity and our jobs and wages in agriculture and manufacturing have gone up since, and we had overwhelming bipartisan support.
I have seen President Trump in action. I believe this will be not just a tremendous legacy. I think it would be the biggest legacy. Let's reignite growth. Let's rein in some of the spending and root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs. Let's reinvest in our sons and daughters in uniform who do the most difficult and dangerous jobs.
Let's look not where the puck is but where the puck is going, as they say in hockey. Why would I know anything about hockey? I am from Plainview, Texas. We don't play hockey in west Texas, but I always loved that analogy. You have to skate to where the puck is going.
While we are doing these things in the short run, in this budget window, in this decade, let's look out and be leaders. Let's address those things that we know are coming, and that debt crisis that looms large.
Let's extend the hand of bipartisanship to our friends and Democratic colleagues, again, for the sake of this country, like my hero who inspired me to get involved in politics, Ronald Reagan, did back in the day.
I said that I want to be like that guy, and it was for a lot of reasons. I just got back from the economic forum out there in California and saw the museum. I was reminded of what a statesman leader he was and how he was the right person to work with Tip O'Neill and our Democratic colleagues to do something really big that hasn't been done in 40-plus years.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Moore for the opportunity to address our colleagues. I thank him for his leadership, his Conference leadership and on the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. It is an honor to work with him.
God bless our great country. Let's get that One Big Beautiful Bill Act and that America First vision that is wrapped in that reconciliation bill to the President's desk. Most importantly, let's make it a reality for the people we serve and for the country we love.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Permian Basin.
Just to quickly recap, I love the concept that he juxtaposes to opportunities.
It is interesting that in our political environment, from 2017 to 2021 and 2025, we have seen the White House, House, and Senate flip completely three times. I think that is a little bit unprecedented. We mentioned there were times with Reagan where there was a sustained period of Democratic control of Congress but there were Republicans in the White House and vice versa.
To flip the White House, House, and Senate three times in the last 8 years is unprecedented. It gives us a unique opportunity, though.
Look at TCJA and ARPA. Look at the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and then go look at the American Rescue Plan Act. Created wage growth, no inflation. Those are consistent things that took place from TCJA when tax reform took place with Republicans.
The American Rescue Plan was stimulus spending masquerading as COVID relief spending. It was massive amounts of monetary policy added to the system. There is only one equation, and that is inflation.
Look at the difference between an inflationist and real wage growth. Those are the two things we have to compare.
This bill basically takes 2017 and says we have seen this work. Democrats looked at the tax policy in 2017, when they had the White House, House, and Senate. They said: We like the standard deduction. We like the increased child tax credit. We like the approach to getting U.S. companies to reinvest in America. We are not going to touch it.
They had an opportunity to change all the things that they say are so bad in this bill. They didn't touch any of the core tax policies from 2017 to today. They expire at the end of this year.
Republicans are going to go at it alone. We are going to make sure we extend this out. We are going to give companies and families some consistency. All we have to do is juxtapose those two bills--the TCJA and the American Rescue Plan--and make the decision based on that. That is as simple as it needs to be.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) likes to say a lot of things. He talks a lot. He is very verbose. When he mentions my leadership, I very much appreciate the sentiment. I have been watching and following him. He is my committee chair and has an extremely strong leadership in the conference.
I express my appreciation and downplay the fact that he is just blowing smoke there sometimes when he says it about me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak). I would like to get to some real substantive remarks now with my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of both Mr. Moore and Mr. Arrington. Both of them are great mentors to me as a new Member. I hope I can aspire to be as strong as they are someday.
Working-class families, seniors on fixed incomes, farmers growing our food, restaurant waitresses working double shifts, law enforcement officers putting in overtime, manufacturers keeping the lights on, and border communities shouldering a burden Washington created are who the one big, beautiful bill is going to help.
Who are these people? These aren't the millionaires and billionaires. These are everyday Americans. Despite what we hear from the Democrats and the media over and over again, this bill isn't tax cuts for the rich. It is not about eliminating healthcare for people who need it.
This big, beautiful bill is pro-family, pro-business and workers, pro-American energy and agriculture, pro-border and national security. Above all, it is pro-growth and pro-common sense.
Let me spend a few minutes talking about what that all means. Let's talk first about pro-family. My husband, Mike, and I have three children. Raising a family is one of life's greatest blessings and biggest responsibilities. Government should not make it even harder.
That is why the tax relief is a top priority for Republicans in Washington and is the centerpiece of the one big, beautiful bill. This bill includes a commonsense tax package that extends existing tax policy, avoiding the highest tax increase in U.S. history. That is right. This bill just extends existing tax policy, improves it, and avoids the highest tax increase in history.
It also enhances tax relief for working families. This one big, beautiful bill lets North Dakotans and Americans keep more of their hard-earned money.
A few key provisions include increasing the child tax credit to $2,500 per child; raising the standard deduction for all filers; establishing savings accounts for newborns; and creating a new deduction on Social Security benefits for senior citizens.
For the average family of four in North Dakota, this package will help save an estimated $1,600 in taxes. That buys about 8 weeks of groceries. This is American money staying with the American family, which is exactly where it belongs.
This bill is also pro-business. The one big, beautiful bill also includes a long list of reforms and investments that will make America, including our small businesses, stronger and more competitive.
Our goal is to reward entrepreneurship, to reward hard work, and to grow the economy. For small businesses, we permanently increased the small business deduction to 23 percent. This will impact 67,000 North Dakota businesses.
This bill will allow 100 percent immediate expensing for equipment and facility upgrades and raise the death tax exemption, helping families pass down their farm or ranch to the next generation.
For workers, the one big, beautiful bill significantly reduces taxes on tips and overtime. This lets servers, bartenders, and hourly workers keep more of their money. This means that waitresses working late and the factory worker picking up an extra shift will finally keep more of what they earned.
It is time to bring common sense and competitiveness back to our economy, which is exactly what this bill does.
I will talk a bit about energy and agriculture, big industries for my State in North Dakota. We are slamming the breaks on the Biden administration's radical energy agenda. The one big, beautiful bill repeals over $500 billion in the style of Green New Deal spending and boosts mineral development to reduce our reliance on China for critical materials.
It ends electric vehicle mandates and subsidies funded by taxpayers for wind and solar. This is a provision I have been working hard on since I arrived in Congress.
I am especially excited by the provisions in the one big, beautiful bill that support our North Dakota farmers and ranchers.
In addition to the tax provisions in the bill, which are very important for our farmers and ranchers, this bill significantly improves the core safety net and risk management tools by increasing reference prices and improving crop insurance.
It expands flexibility for family farms to reinvest in equipment, inputs, and labor. It renews 100 percent expensing for capital purchases so producers can write off the cost of new machinery, infrastructure improvements, or production facilities right away.
The bill also delivers on President Trump's promise to secure the border and enhance national security.
This bill includes the largest investment in border security in over a generation. There is nearly $150 billion to secure the border and deport criminal illegal aliens. We are restoring order at the border and restocking our military.
Finally, this bill is pro-common sense. There are no more student loan bailouts, no more tax dollars for abortions or transgender surgeries on minors, and no more benefits for illegal immigrants who break our laws.
We are making universities pay more from their endowments, and we are taxing nonprofits that support terrorism.
We even impose a small fee on electric vehicles because they use our roads, too, and should help fund the highway trust fund.
It provides tax relief to Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time in history.
I was proud to help move this legislation forward because North Dakotans and all Americans are tired of waste and overreach, and they are ready for real results from Washington.
This is about more than fixing broken policies. It is about turning the page on the last 4 years of dysfunction, division, and decline and writing a new chapter where government once again serves the people, where families can afford to grow, small businesses can afford to hire, and rural communities can thrive without interference from Washington.
It is about restoring common sense, restoring accountability, and rebuilding an America where people aren't just getting by. They are getting ahead.
This bill puts working families first. It reins in bureaucracy. It returns power to the people where it belongs.
Most importantly, this bill is just the beginning.
What an exciting time. I couldn't be happier to be here working with these great leaders and bringing forward important legislation just like this to make things better for America and the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Dakota for her remarks.
I appreciate my colleagues for participating this evening. This is something historic, and it is something monumental.
As I was talking about at the beginning of my remarks, when I first ran for Congress in January 2020, the entire conversation of every single candidate was: How do we go about extending and making permanent the tax reform that just took place in our country a few years prior and the juice that it created for our economy and the growth that it had that was raising the tide of all income levels?
That was the concept, and 4\1/2\ years later, I am sitting here on the committee particularly regarding the tax policy to be able to bring it up.
This is a unique and really special time. We are already engaging with the Senate to make sure this can adhere to and go through the Byrd rule, all the specifics of making this a reality.
This is an exciting moment. It will be monumental, and it will do so much good.
I have always said, as I have been involved in congressional policymaking, that we live in 2-year increments, but every CEO across the country has to live in 15-year increments. They have to see what is around the corner, and we are constantly putting people at an impasse because we just keep dealing with 2-year increments of what their policies are going to be.
We have to signal what the future holds with respect to tax policy, and there is nothing that would do more for sustained economic growth than this bill.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time this evening and for my colleagues being here to share the message.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 5, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
