Precision Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's fiscal crisis threatens all Americans. We are here today to debate legislation that accomplishes so much of what the American people want. Specifically, it begins to get Washington's spending habits under control. It starts to slow the flow of special interest handouts to the wealthy and well-connected, and it throws much-needed water on the fire of inflation burning through the wallets of American families.

Unlike the Inflation Reduction Act, the Limit, Save, Grow Act under consideration today actually does what it says it is going to do. It puts real limits on future spending, so that we begin to turn the ship back in a more fiscally sound direction.

It saves taxpayer dollars by clawing back unobligated pandemic spending, a sensible solution given the fact that the President himself has declared the pandemic over.

It saves taxpayer dollars by ending welfare for the wealthy and loopholes for big corporations in the Inflation Reduction Act. Ninety percent of these special interest green tax breaks go to companies with over 1 billion in sales. Financial institutions alone pocket three times as much as any other industry, and these tax dollars are being funneled to China, enriching the Chinese Communist Party and allowing it to dominate critical mineral supply chains.

I know my friends on the other side share in frustration in how that law has ended up so different than what they thought they were voting for.

In this bill, we propose proworker, pro-small business policies like work requirements in our welfare programs that will not only support a more vibrant economy, but also help more Americans realize the dignity of work. This plan will also take the target off the backs of low- and middle-income taxpayers under threat from a supercharged army of 87,000 at the IRS.

The Biden administration brags about the $400 billion in revenues they plan to bring in by unleashing the new agents. To do that, audit rates will have to go up on low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, under the so-called historical audit rate the administration says it will adhere to, we will see a million--a million new audits with 650,000 of them falling on folks who make $75,000 or less.

I find it curious to hear my Democrat colleagues and the President say they will not negotiate on spending when it comes to the debt ceiling, while at the same time complaining there is no plan over which to negotiate.

Well, here you go. Republicans have a plan. It is time for the President to negotiate overspending reforms as part of addressing the debt ceiling just as we have done many times before. In fact, just as the President himself has done many times before as a Senator and as Vice President.

Eleven of the previous debt ceiling increases going back decades have included fiscal reforms. President Biden voted for such agreements as a Senator, and he negotiated them as a Vice President. The President's current position of refusing to discuss commonsense spending restraints when it comes to the debt ceiling is a reckless abandonment of past precedent and in his own history.

Under one-party Democratic rule, we got $10 trillion in new spending. The consequences have been very real. Since President Biden took office, we have seen a spike in prices by 14.9 percent. Real wages have declined by 3.5 percent and interest rates have increased more in the past year than in the prior 15 years combined.

The American people are demanding something to be done about all of this. Let's pass this legislation and put the interests of workers, families, farmers, and small businesses first and foremost. Let's do as Congress has done before and address the debt ceiling with policies that also address the Washington spending habits that got us here.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of comments just recently about tax provisions that helped the wealthy, the well- off, and the well-connected. Let's point out the Democrats' tax policies that we are ripping out from the roots are helping the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record analyses from the Joint Committee on Taxation, showing that big corporations with more than $1 billion in sales receive over 90 percent of all special interest electricity subsidies, and that financial institutions receive three times more benefits from these tax credits than any other industry where the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected benefit.

Congress of the United States

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC, March 31, 2023.

From: Robert Harvey.

Subject: Distribution Data.

This memorandum is in response to your request of March 28,

2023, for data on the distribution of claims for certain

energy credits by the gross receipts of the taxpayer. Below

we report the tentative claims for credit under Code section

45, the credit for electricity produced from certain

renewable resources, and the tentative claims for credit

under section 48, the energy investment credit, by C

corporations for the 2019 tax year and 2020 tax year. The

amounts reported are the tentative claims for credit before

any limitation that the taxpayer might face and before any

audit adjustment that might occur. For each of section 45 and

section 48 we report the dollars of credit claimed

categorized by gross receipts reported on line 1c of Form

1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this JCT analysis from 2022, suggesting that the total costs of the special interest tax credits for the rich in the Inflation Reduction Act would be $271 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record yesterday's CBO score, which shows that the cost has more than doubled to $570 billion, and it is growing every day. The wealthy and politically connected corporations will receive hundreds of billions of dollars more than advertised.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article detailing how Ford is using a loophole in the IRA to partner with CATL, a major Chinese battery company, on a project intended to harvest EV battery tax credits. Chinese companies are lining up to cash in on Democrats' green corporate welfare that we are rescinding in this bill.

[From Forbes, Feb. 13, 2023]

Ford To Build $3.5 Billion Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Plant in

Michigan Using CATL Technology

(By Sam Abuelsamid, Senior Contributor)

Ford plans to build a $3.5 billion factory in Marshall,

Michigan, which will produce 35 gigawatt-hours of lithium

iron phosphate (LFP) cells annually for electric vehicles

starting in 2026. The move comes after the automaker said it

would use LFP batteries in the Mustang Mach-E from mid-2023

and F-150 Lightning from early 2024. However, those batteries

will be sourced from CATL in China, the leading cell

manufacturer in the world and one of the leaders in LFP

production. Ford will license CATL technology but it will own

the new factory and operate it, rather than creating a joint

venture.

While Ford will start using CATL LFP batteries later this

year, shipping them from China won't help the company reach

its sustainability goals. Batteries are heavy and bulky and

the emissions associated with shipping them halfway around

the world will significantly cut into the gains from

eliminating the tailpipe from these vehicles. Those vehicles

also will not qualify for any clean vehicle tax credits.

This is why Ford and other OEMs are moving so aggressively

to localize battery production to wherever vehicles are built

and sold. Ford previously announced a joint venture with

Korea's SK ON for three cell plants in Kentucky and Tennessee

that are already well under construction. Those plants will

produce nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) cells.

Nickel-rich cell chemistries such as NMC (also referred to

as NCM), nickel-manganese-cobalt aluminum (NMCA, which GM

uses for its Ultium cells), nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA,

which Tesla uses) have a higher energy density than LFP.

However, Nickel and cobalt are much more expensive than iron

and phosphorus and also more volatile. When there is an

internal short circuit in a nickel-rich cell, it is much more

likely to experience thermal runaway. LFP cells are

inherently more stable and are nearly impossible to

experience thermal runaway or fires.

Despite LFP having a lower energy density than nickel-rich

cells, much of that can be offset by adopting cell-to-pack or

structural battery pack designs rather than the modular

designs that are typical today. In addition to lower cost,

LFP cells have much longer charge cycle lifetimes. A typical

nickel cell can do between 500 and 1,000 charge cycles before

it loses enough capacity to be no longer useful in a vehicle.

LFP cells can withstand thousands of cycles and some

manufacturers, including CATL, have claimed EVs with LFP can

go 1 million miles.

The added stability of LFP cells means they can better

withstand charging to l00% without degrading. Nickel-rich

cells typically have to leave unused buffers to prevent

overcharging. Thus some of the energy density disadvantages

can be safely recovered.

The decision to structure the new operation as a wholly

owned subsidiary of Ford rather than a joint venture is

likely driven in part by the content requirements in the

Inflation Reduction Act. Since China is a foreign entity of

concern, batteries and materials from that country do not

qualify for clean vehicle credits. Thus the Mach-E and

Lightning with Chinese-sourced batteries won't be eligible.

Limiting the equity stake of CATL in this deal and only

licensing some technology along with local sourcing of most

materials will probably enable Ford to claim its cells meet

the domestic content requirements.

``This is how we look at the recipe to create one of the

lowest cost, U.S.-produced batteries when this plant comes

online in 2026 and this helps us contribute to Ford's goal of

an 8% Model E EBIT in 2026,'' said Lisa Drake, Ford VP of EV

industrialization. ``It strengthens our domestic supply chain

and helps us ramp production, getting more EVs to more

customers sooner.''

As with the Mach-E and Lightning, the new LFP batteries

will likely be used mainly in standard range and lower cost

EVs and many of the commercial vehicles Ford sells. Most of

those commercial vehicles, such as Transit vans used for

everything from last-mile deliveries to plumbers and

electricians, rarely go outside of a limited geographical

area and don't need more than 100 miles of range. With more

availability of domestic LFP batteries, future electric

versions of vehicles like the compact Maverick pickup and

Escape crossover are likely at prices that more consumers can

afford.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a March 8, 2021, Politico article titled: ``Biden's welfare flip-flop,'' which points out that President Biden was once an ardent supporter of commonsense welfare reforms, including work requirements.

[From POLITICO, March 8, 2021]

West Wing Playbook--Biden's Welfare Flip-Flop

(By Alex Thompson and Theodoric Meyer with help from Allie Bice)

Joe Biden, the young senator, would be surprised at Joe

Biden, the elderly president.

When he first ran for president in 1988, 44-year-old Biden

was one of the Democrats challenging what he called ``liberal

orthodoxy'' on issues like welfare.

``Our handouts are not enough,'' Biden said at Princeton

University in a May 1987 speech meant to beef up his policy

profile ahead of a June campaign launch. ``Government subsidy

is not the ultimate answer to the problems of the poor.''

In November 1988, he penned a column in his local Newark

Post: ``We are all too familiar with the stories of welfare

mothers driving luxury cars and leading lifestyles that

mirror the rich and famous,'' he wrote, parroting Republican

critiques of the program. ``Whether they are exaggerated or

not, these stories underlie a broad social concern that the

welfare system has broken down--that it only parcels out

welfare checks and does nothing to help the poor find

productive jobs.''

In 1996, Biden was one of 24 Democratic senators who voted

for the welfare reform bill that President Bill Clinton

signed, but which progressives and much of Clinton's Cabinet

opposed. ``The culture of welfare must be replaced with the

culture of work,'' Biden said on the Senate floor. Bruce

Reed, who's now Biden's deputy chief of staff, was an

architect of the legislation. He helped coin Clinton's pledge

to ``end welfare as we know it.''

And yet, the first piece of major legislation Biden is

poised to sign as president represents the largest expansion

of the welfare state in decades. It even undoes some of the

reforms Biden, the senator, helped enact.

The 1996 bill, for instance, imposed time limits and work

requirements on money sent to parents to support their

children. Biden's American Rescue Plan would at least

temporarily resume sending money directly to impoverished

parents without any strings attached--and some Democrats are

already pushing to make the aid permanent.

The bill would also send poor and middle-class parents

checks of up to $300 per child each month--a provision that

the Biden team believes could dramatically cut child poverty.

The legislation won't recreate the welfare system that

Biden voted to reform in 1996. Instead, it will expand the

existing child tax credit for poor and middle-class families

alike. The credit starts phasing out at $75,000 a year for

single parents and $150,000 a year for married couples.

Part of Biden's evolution on welfare spending is tied to

the pandemic and the massive economic hole that it has

caused. But another part of it reflects the evolution the

Democratic Party has undergone in recent years.

Once fearful of race-baiting rhetoric on supposedly lazy

``welfare queens,'' the party now is largely unapologetic

about spending money to strengthen the social safety net.

``One of the side effects of the pandemic has been to

change the profile of poverty in America,'' said Robert

Reich, Clinton's Labor secretary who clashed with people like

Reed over the welfare reform measure. ``It's no longer just

`them,' people of color, people who conservatives accuse of

taking handouts. It marks a huge shift in public policy from

quite punitive welfare to giving needy families money.''

White House spokesperson Michael Gwin emailed a statement

saying, ``As a Senator, Joe Biden worked to make welfare

reform more progressive by supporting childcare and

maintaining funding for children's health and safety, and as

President, Joe Biden is meeting the unique crises we face by

giving children and families a financial lifeline, reopening

schools safely, and securing the resources we need to defeat

the virus.''

Reed declined to comment.

Donald Trump, during his presidency, seemed to usher in a

Republicanism that was more comfortable with spending more

money on things past Republicans would have bashed as

handouts. But so far Republicans in the Biden era are making

a different calculation. They unanimously voted against the

plan and are betting that the pandemic hasn't changed

perceptions around welfare programs so completely.

On the Senate floor last Friday, Sen. Mitch McConnell

blasted the welfare provisions in the package for paying

``people a bonus not to go back to work when we'll be trying

to rebuild our economy.''

He added that: ``There's an effort to create a brand-new,

sprawling cash welfare program--not the one-time checks, but

constant payments--that ignore the pro-work lessons of

bipartisan welfare reform and which the White House has

already stated they want to make permanent.''

Biden was one of 24 Democrat Senators who voted for the 1996 welfare reform bill that President Bill Clinton signed.

That bill imposed time limits and work requirements for welfare recipients. In fact, Biden's Deputy Chief of Staff was a key architect of the 1996 welfare reform bill and helped coin Clinton's pledge to end welfare as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article titled: ``Poverty, Plunging,'' from September 14, 2022.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 2022]

Poverty, Plunging: Child Poverty in the U.S. Has Fallen by More Than

Half Since the Early 1990s

(By David Leonhardt)

When President Bill Clinton signed a bipartisan bill

tightening the rules around welfare eligibility in 1996--and

making many benefits conditional on work--critics on the

political left predicted terrible effects.

A few members of the Clinton administration quit in

protest. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of

devastating increases in child poverty. The New Republic

proclaimed, ``Wages will go down, families will fracture and

millions of children will be made more miserable than ever.''

A quarter-century later, these predictions look very wrong.

As my colleague Jason DeParle wrote this week:

``A comprehensive new analysis shows that child poverty has

fallen 59 percent since 1993, with need receding on nearly

every front. Child poverty has fallen in every state, and it

has fallen by about the same degree among children who are

white, Black, Hispanic and Asian, living with one parent or

two, and in native or immigrant households''

How did this happen? The 1996 welfare law turned out to be

a case study of different political ideologies combining to

produce a result that was better than either side would

likely have produced on its own.

Some conservative critiques of the old welfare contained an

important insight, Jason told me. Poor single mothers (the

main beneficiaries of welfare) were better able to find and

hold jobs than many liberals expected. Over the past few

decades, increased employment among single mothers has been

one reason for the decline in child poverty, according to the

study, which was done by Child Trends, a research group.

But the biggest cause was an expansion of government aid.

And progressives were the main force behind this expansion.

With welfare less generous, Democrats (sometimes in alliance

with Republicans) pushed for policies to help low-income

workers, such as expansions of the earned-income tax credit

and food stamps. Increases in state-level minimum wages also

played a role.

``I don't know where I'd be right now if I didn't have that

help,'' said Stacy Tallman, a mother of three and a waitress

in Marlinton, W. Va., referring to Medicaid, tax credits and

food stamps.

After welfare reform, the focus of the government's anti-

poverty efforts shifted from

people who weren't working to people who were--and, thanks

partly to the generosity of the new programs, child poverty

plummeted. The size of the decline, Dana Thomson, a co-author

of the study, said, ``is unequaled in the history of poverty

measurement.''

Dolores Acevedo-Garcia of Brandeis University pointed out

that 12 million additional children would be poor today if

the poverty rate were still as high as it was in the 1990s.

The reasons to cheer this development are both immediate and

longer term: Children who spend even modest amounts of time

in poverty earn less money and are less healthy as adults on

average, research has shown.

Hiding in plain sight

I am guessing that many readers are surprised to hear about

the big drop in child poverty since the 1990s. I'll confess

that I was and I have been covering economics for much of the

past two decades. As Jason told me, ``It is odd that such a

big decline in child poverty has gone almost completely

unnoticed.''

In part, the lack of attention stems from a theme I've

mentioned before in this newsletter: bad-news bias.

Journalists and academic experts are often more comfortable

reporting negative developments than positive ones. We worry

that we come off as blase or Pollyannaish when we report good

news.

The poverty statistics add to the confusion because there

are so many different versions. The measure that the Census

Bureau calls ``official'' does not include government aid,

which is bizarre, as Dylan Matthews of Vox has noted. And

every measure has limitations. The one that Jason used in his

story overestimates the impact of the earned-income tax

credit and underestimates the impact of the food stamps, for

technical reasons. (Neither alters the basic conclusion, as

Robert Greenstein, a longtime progressive policy adviser,

says.)

Still, I understand why many people are reluctant to focus

on the poverty decline. The U.S. has not solved poverty. More

than 20 million Americans are poor today, and many others

above the poverty line also struggle to afford a decent life.

As successful as President Biden has been in passing many

parts of his agenda, Congress failed to pass several of his

anti-poverty proposals. Those measures would have expanded

access to child care and increased the child tax credit,

among other things.

Despite these caveats, the decline in poverty deserves to

be a major news story. For one thing, it's legitimately

surprising: Even Jason--who has spent more time writing about

American poverty than almost any other journalist--

acknowledges that welfare reform did less damage than he

expected, in part because of the subsequent expansions of

aid.

At a time of deep cynicism about government, the drop in

poverty is an example of Washington succeeding at something

big. ``The decline in child poverty is very, very

impressive,'' Greenstein said, ``and it is overwhelmingly due

to the increased effectiveness of government programs,''

Mr. Speaker, this article found that child poverty in the U.S. has fallen by more than half, 59 percent, since the early 1990s. When President Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform bill implementing time limits and work requirements, the far left predicted terrible effects. Twenty-five years later, these predictions have been proven wrong.

The simple fact is work requirements worked. Caseloads dropped, and families moved into the workforce and left the cycle of dependency.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the other side numerous times today say that we need to just pick up and pass a blank-check debt limit increase.

The United States Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats, couldn't even pass what President Biden and the

House Democrats have been suggesting on this floor. If they could, they would have already passed it. Even Democrat Senators on the other side of the building said they will not support an absolute blank-check debt limit because they are concerned about the fiscal state of America.

Today, the contrast could not be clearer.

On the one hand, we have President Biden and Washington Democrats who have proposed zero solutions for getting America's fiscal house in order or addressing the inflation crisis. For months, they have delayed and denied real discussions while they fought to preserve special interest tax breaks for big banks, corporations, and the Chinese Communist Party.

On the other hand, Republicans stand with working families. We have an actual plan that will rein in runaway spending to fight inflation. It will save taxpayer dollars by canceling handouts to the wealthy and big corporations, and it will grow the economy.

The American people are sick and tired of business as usual in Washington. With today's vote, we are sending a message to the President: It is time to stop your reckless behavior and negotiate and stand up and talk with Congress and deliver for the American people. The American people are demanding it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the default on America act. The chairman just mentioned something that is noteworthy. He said, We are seeing a Republican plan, and for the next hour, we intend to make sure America gets a chance to see the Republican plan.

A reminder for those who might be paying attention to this debate today as to how we traveled on this road which, by the way, is eminently manageable through negotiation after a clean debt ceiling vote might take place.

So our Republican colleagues, I think--and I might be mistaken. You know what? I am sure. They voted for more defense spending. $800 billion we are now at with defense spending. They voted for pandemic relief. They voted for aid to Ukraine. How about the million and a half new veterans that we have in America in the aftermath of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? They deserve our care, and our Republican colleagues voted for that aid.

Republican Members, some of whom voted for the infrastructure bill, some of them who voted for the legislation on the Inflation Reduction Act, and some of them who voted for the CHIPS Act--that is what is in front of us at this moment.

Here is the real ringer, Mr. Speaker. In December of 2017--and I hope everybody pays attention to this argument--they voted to borrow $2.3 trillion over 10 years for the purpose of giving a tax cut to the wealthiest among us with, by the way, modest to limited economic growth.

Why is that important?

Because there has been $10 trillion worth of tax cuts over the last 25 years. Do you want me to recite it?

President Bush's tax cut in 2001, $1.3 trillion. They came back in 2003, another trillion, and subsequently presided over the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which we should note the cost of which are in the trillions of dollars today.

They want us to believe that this problem that we have in front of us--which I mentioned is manageable--they want us to believe that this is the Democratic position on spending after they embraced the tax cuts that I have just described.

This is about America's credit. What ever happened to the Republican Party that talked about probity as it related to financial stability?

Whatever happened to the Republican Party that talked about the importance of investment?

These arguments that they make now are largely vacuous because it is inconsistent with the Republican Party I knew when I came to Congress. They could borrow money for the Iraq war month after month to keep it off budget so nobody would see what it was really about. They could borrow money repeatedly, and the moment a Democrat gets to the White House they are blamed for inflation.

I don't think Joe Biden should be blamed for inflation in the United Kingdom. How about Germany? That is how empty these arguments are that they are making.

There is a chance for us to do what we used to do here--and by the way, Democrats responsibly voted for raising the debt ceiling three times under the former President because we thought it was the responsible thing to do. Speaker McCarthy got himself into this by the promises that he made along the way.

The suggestion here is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Pass a clean debt ceiling and then let's get on with negotiating.

Bill Clinton, on January 19, 2001, had balanced the budget four times, projected surpluses in the trillions of dollars and 22 million new jobs. The Republican Party gave it away through tax cuts to wealthy people.

They are asking us today the following--they get to set the fire and then call the fire department because that is what this argument is about.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my point was and is Republicans voted for the PATH Act, as we did, and the bill is due.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the minority leader in the House of Representatives, a champion of long-term worthwhile investments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia for calling attention to these tax credits.

Talk about fortuitous timing, Mr. Speaker, here is the author of these tax credits, all $370 billion, along with Earl Blumenauer. We intend to lay out where these tax credits are going to in Republican districts and see if those Members wish to take advantage of those tax credits or not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is a veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the minority whip and a great talent in the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a longtime observer and critic of Republican spending plans in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who had a profound impact on writing the tax credits that the gentlewoman from Virginia acknowledged a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a champion of Medicare, Social Security, and renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has been a leader in terms of adoption opportunities for those outside the mainstream.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), one of the most talented Members of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Mr. Pascrell.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2023.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy.

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker McCarthy: Our most basic duty as Members of

Congress is to protect the well-being and security of our

constituents. If Republicans block America from paying our

bills, it would be a gross betrayal of our governing

responsibility and invite cataclysmic damage to our economy.

Therefore, I call on the House to advance legislation to

raise our debt limit and prevent a second Great Depression.

It has been 48 days since the United States reached its

current statutory limit and the Treasury Department began

taking extraordinary measures to prevent a default. On

February 15, the Congressional Budget Office raised the

specter of a default as soon as July without urgent

congressional action. Congress has acted to raise or suspend

the debt ceiling 49 times under Republican presidents and 29

times under Democratic presidents. This is a bipartisan

responsibility.

According to the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), if the

debt ceiling is not raised, Social Security checks will come

to a halt and seniors will be without means to eat or turn on

the heat. Medicare reimbursements will freeze, leaving tens

of millions of Americans unable to pay for essential medical

care. Our veterans will see their health care cut off.

It gets worse. The collapse of available credit would send

shockwaves through the economy, leading to a bank run and a

decimation of small businesses. The cost of borrowing would

soar, leaving new homebuyers locked out of the housing market

and causing regular people to lose everything. The jobless

rate would skyrocket, with millions of Americans losing their

jobs and elevated unemployment lingering indefinitely.

Markets would be thrown into a postulated that the impact of

default would be ten times worse than the 2008 recession.

Republican-precipitated default would be just as

devastating for the global economy. America's treasury debt

is considered the world's safest asset and the dollar acts as

the globe's reserve currency. World confidence in our entire

economy would be irreparably wounded by default.

When Republicans put our Nation's credit on the line, the

result has been widespread turmoil and suffering. After

Republicans threatened to breach the debt ceiling in 2011,

Standard and Poor's downgraded the U.S. long-term credit

rating for the first time in history. Private sector hiring

froze, job growth withered, and consumer sentiment dropped to

its lowest level in 30 years. The Government Accountability

Office (GAO) estimated that federal borrowing costs increased

by about $1.3 billion, while the Bipartisan Policy Center

estimated that the 10-year cost to taxpayers was a staggering

$18.9 billion.

In 2013, when Republicans tried this play again, our Nation

experienced an annualized 0.25 percentage point reduction in

annualized fourth quarter's gross domestic product growth,

resulting in an estimated 120,000 lost jobs. Investors

stopped accepting Treasury bonds as collateral for short-term

transactions, and the government was forced to pay higher

interest rates at auction. Treasury's borrowing costs on

securities increased by an estimated $38-to-$70 million, and

rates for commercial paper also rose, disrupting private

markets. After Republicans yet again menaced our Nation's

credit in 2015, the Treasury Department postponed the release

of a new 2-year bond due to lack of demand, and was forced to

reduce bill issuance, leading to a drop of $210 billion in

bill supply.

The full faith and credit of America is not a bargaining

chip to be gambled whenever Republicans want to reverse

policy they don't like. Refusal to let our Nation pay its

bills would lead to a domino effect of catastrophic

proportion. The effects of failing to raise the debt ceiling

are real, tangible, and would be felt by every American

family and business.

Given these risks, I ask: where is the Republican plan to

raise the debt ceiling and when can we expect its

consideration before Congress?

Sincerely,

Bill Pascrell, Jr.

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), whose knowledge of economics is second to none in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), whose city is home to some of the most important retirement plan management opportunities in all of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), an individual who is well known for his proficiency in accounting procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a very capable gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the most capable people that I have had a chance to serve with in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who comes from the same class as the last two Members, the class of 1988, a very talented lot.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a very distinguished and capable gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for acknowledging the role that the child tax credit played in that statistical analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman), a new and very capable Member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I remind everyone that, in Georgia-3, there was $2.6 billion worth of tax credits; Ohio-15, $4.5 billion of tax credits; West Virginia-1, $22 million worth of tax credits. Those tax credits did not go to the

Chinese. They went to American families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your impeccable fairness once again as you have presided over this Chamber as usual. I call attention to the argument I made at the outset as to how we got to where we are today. This is a manageable issue that men and women of good sense and good instincts could come together on to find a solution.

The debt-to-GDP ratio, I understand the argument, but does that take into consideration a pandemic and aid to Ukraine, stopping the hostility of Putin's aggression?

Does it take into account our obligations--and for those who voted for the PACT Act here--to come to the aid of our veterans?

Does it take into account the infrastructure bill that some Republicans voted for?

Does it take into account the CHIPS and Science Act that some Republicans voted for?

Does it take into account the extraordinary increases in defense spending as China threatens America in the Straits of Taiwan and the South China Sea?

These are all parts of votes that both parties have cast. These are parts of the obligations that we have to members of the American family.

Republicans suggest, well, if we just chop Medicaid--and earlier today, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted this exclamation point that they have added to the argument that we have no intention of cutting Social Security or Medicare. Great. That is nice to hear. There are members of the Republican leadership in the Senate who have said precisely the opposite. They would put Medicaid and Social Security on the chopping block, and our side should not be restrained in calling attention to that, despite the debate that takes place in this Chamber.

The spending challenges that we have as they relate to defense, where every Republican voted, I believe, for that defense budget and the substantial increases that have taken place, that has been an act of responsibility based upon what happens with Putin and President Xi and others who would threaten freedom across the globe.

When we look at this argument that has been presented to the American people today, I want to ask you about their 401(k) plans. As they allow this argument to be pursued, the markets are going to begin to reflect this in coming days.

People are going to pull back from investment. People are going to pull back from what ordinarily would be an act of good fiscal prudence. People are going to begin to pay a great deal of attention to this.

The argument that Democrats have offered today is really simple: You and us, we were responsible for those increases in spending. Let us have a vote on a clean debt resolution here and then proceed to negotiation and discussion.

I have heard this argument when former President Bush never vetoed one spending bill during 8 years as President. I have seen this argument when we cut taxes, without the help of us, by $1.3 trillion in 2001 and, by the way, another trillion in 2003.

With the subsequent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and a million and a half new veterans, these are our obligations.

Even though we disagreed, by and large, with those positions that were adopted by the then-majority, you recognize the reality, that the tally of the credit card is in front of us.

When you get the credit card, you don't get to say, ``Well, I don't like the part of the bill that I have run up here, so I am not going to pay it,'' or you don't say, ``I will only pay this.''

The bill is in front of us. The full faith and credit of the United States is in front of us.

I made reference earlier today to the fiscal probity of the Republican Party when I first came here. Whatever happened to the Republican Party when it relates to fiscal prudence and probity?

We pay our bills, and we don't threaten the currency of the United States where that dollar is recognized everywhere across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 327, I call up the bill (H.R. 2811) to provide for a responsible increase to the debt ceiling, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill, H.R. 2811.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act.

Over the last 2 years, President Biden has financed his radical agenda and vast expansion of the Federal Government with an unprecedented $10 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to our national debt, the highest level of deficit spending in the history of America.

This unbridled spending spree has resulted in sustained record inflation, soaring interest rates, an economy in a recessionary tailspin, and a nation on the brink of a catastrophic debt crisis.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal state of the Nation is bleak; our national debt is unsustainable; and the outlook grows more uncertain every day.

For 100 years, the debt ceiling has served as a check on our accumulating debt and its impact on the financial health of our Nation. No responsible leader can look at the rapid deterioration of our balance sheet and the unsustainability of our deficit spending and stand idly by defending the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't a Republican problem, and it is not a Democrat problem. It is America's problem, and it is a mathematical reality that requires real leadership from both sides of the aisle before it is too late.

House Republicans' debt ceiling proposal is an important first step to getting our fiscal house in order and a good faith effort to bring the President to the negotiating table.

Our plan will reduce deficit spending, save taxpayers $4.8 trillion, and begin extinguishing the flames of our current cost-of-living crisis.

First, we limit Federal spending by reining in and rightsizing the Federal bureaucracy. Our bill will reduce FY24 discretionary spending levels by 9 percent, $130 billion, returning us to the same spending levels we were operating under just 4 months ago.

Going forward, we will cap the growth of discretionary spending by 1 percent annually over the next 10 years, reducing wasteful Washington spending by over $3 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, put simply, this bill would require Washington to do what every American has been forced to do as a result of Biden's spending-induced inflation: tighten our belts and change our spending habits.

Second, we save taxpayer dollars by reversing some of the Democrats' reckless spending, reclaiming tens of billions in unspent COVID funds, defunding the President's army of 87,000 IRS agents, repealing special interest tax breaks for the largest green energy corporations, and rescinding President Biden's unconstitutional student loan bailout.

Third, this legislation will grow the economy by returning to pro- work, pro-growth, and pro-energy policies that will unleash American prosperity once again. It stops the assault on U.S. energy production and restores American energy dominance. It reins in Biden's unprecedented barrage of regulations. It breaks the cycle of poverty

and government dependence for generations of Americans by restoring commonsense, Clinton-era work requirements for able-bodied adults.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to get America back to work, turn this economy loose, and let the tide of prosperity lift all boats.

We have put forward a plan worthy of the people we serve. Now, we must put aside political small-mindedness and rise to meet the enormous challenge facing our great Nation.

If we fail to meet this moment, then we risk being the first generation in history to leave our children a weaker America with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living.

Let me be clear. We will pay our creditors, and we will protect the good faith and credit of the United States, but we will not give this President or any politician a blank check to bankrupt our country.

Mr. Speaker, this is where the reckless spending stops. This is where we speak up for our children. This is where we fight together to save our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2811, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time we had a significant fiscal reform it came through debt ceiling negotiations that were led by no other than President Joe Biden in 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When President Biden negotiated the fiscal reforms in the debt ceiling in 2011, he said he was pleased and thankful to do it. He called it a normal process. He said that you have got to compromise, didn't like the my-way-or-the-highway approach, and said it was a great honor. I hope he shares those sentiments today and soon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax cuts gave us unprecedented growth and prosperity. It lifted 6 million people out of poverty and created the lowest poverty rate in the history of our great Nation. President Biden's budget recently has the highest levels of sustained spending, borrowing, and taxes in the history of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my dear friend and a champion of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues act like there are no alternatives for funding cuts and savings, like there is no waste, woke, and bloat in the Federal Government.

The President himself has issued 800 executive orders totaling $1.5 trillion. One of those items is the student loan bailout that benefits two out of three highest income earners in our country. It is costing taxpayers $700 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my dear friend and colleague on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear about a number of vulnerable people, communities that get Federal funding, but you will not hear, I bet, anything about the most vulnerable group of people in this country, and that is the next generation of Americans who will inherit $31 trillion in debt, the highest levels of indebtedness in our Nation's history.

Where are they in this debate? That is the big question. Who is speaking up for them? That is a big question. I know my colleague will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear many of the tired, old, false choices like hungry children, struggling families.

I would remind you and the people of our great country who are experiencing sustained levels of 40-year inflation, who are struggling to put food on the table, that that has come as a result of reckless spending here in Washington.

There are a lot of programs: Global Equity Fund, electric buses and ferries, $80 billion for IRS agents, $27 billion for climate slush fund--I could go on and on. You will not hear any of that from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), my colleague on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, again, with all due respect to my colleague from Texas, Democrats will act as if these are the choices, but they are false choices because they could choose to defund the moneys that came from Democrat earmarks to companies that create dirt bike culture or maybe--with all due respect to the First Lady--the Michelle Obama Trail in Georgia.

There is a list of things. You will not hear them today in this debate or any concern, in my opinion, for our children's future as it relates to the debt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my colleague on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, more ``Apocalypse Now'' from my colleagues who give electric vehicle tax breaks to people who make $150,000. That is not a priority when you are $31 trillion in debt. Government subsidized healthcare for people making over $300,000 is not a priority when you have a 10-year tripling of our interest, doubling of our annual deficits, and a bleak outlook for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), my good friend and somebody that is very concerned about this issue.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend and colleague, we are trapping millions of people in poverty and dependence on the government because we are not incentivizing people to move up and out of welfare so they can realize their greatest God-given potential. It is not compassionate to not expect the best out of our fellow Americans.

President Biden, when he voted to support commonsense welfare-to-work reforms said this: We need to replace the culture of welfare with the culture of work. We need to replace the culture of dependency with the culture of self-sufficiency. I agree with the Joe Biden that said that then. I hope he will come to his senses, come to the table, and do what he did in 2011: include responsible fiscal reforms as we lift the debt ceiling and pay our bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. A budget is a vision and a statement of values. We have received the President's budget. We are conducting oversight. We will be presenting our full 10-year budget resolution. I can tell you; it will be starkly different than the President's and the Democratic Party's vision for America's future.

This budget will not ask for $100 billion more in discretionary spending while American families are struggling to buy groceries and put gas in their cars. It is just so out of touch.

We need the kind of leadership that will lean in and say we are going to be an example and that we are going to look for the waste, which is not hard to find in this town. We are going to right the ship and restore fiscal responsibility.

The President, also, as part of his value statement adds trillions of dollars--$65 trillion--in taxes over the 10-year horizon, which is the most that any President has ever proposed in the history of our country. He proposes spending to the tune of a quarter of our entire economy, which is the largest economy in the world. That is larger than any year of spending since we invaded Normandy. That is what our President is doing and putting forth as the Democratic Party's vision for this future in the midst of this economy that is struggling. Families are struggling. This debt crisis looms large on the horizon.

Where is the leadership?

I respect my colleagues. I appreciate their friendship, but this is the moment that we have to step up and put our fellow countrymen first and walk in their shoes and not get caught up in trying to protect with a death grip the blank check that we have seen and the endless money that is being printed and borrowed. It will end poorly.

We have this window of mercy to act, and we have got to act together ultimately for this to be sustainable because this is the first step. It will require many more steps. We didn't get here overnight. We won't get out of it overnight. We have to take the first step together. I implore my friends and my colleagues to come with us and do what has been done so many times.

That is the thing, Mr. Speaker. Eight of the last most meaningful, most significant fiscal reforms in this Congress came as a result and at the same time we were negotiating a debt ceiling. It is not wild, and it is not reckless. It is responsible to do that. You can raise the debt ceiling. You can pay your bills. You can protect the future for your children.

That is leadership, and that is what this country needs in this hour.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say how blessed I feel to serve alongside my ranking member. I appreciate his thoughtful comments, and we are going to do a lot of great things together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my fellow Budget Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, leadership isn't easy, and boy, does our Nation need it right now. I know of such a leader. His name is Steve Scalise. He is our majority leader and a champion for freedom and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank again my ranking member, my friend, and my partner in public service.

My Democrat colleagues say, let's raise the debt ceiling today, and we will deal with the debt tomorrow. Tomorrow never comes. It never comes. We are prepared, I guess, to bury our children under the mountain of debt

that we have amassed because of a government we think the people want and need.

How irresponsible, how reckless, how weak, how cowardly that we won't step up and do the right thing. I can't believe that the Democrat party has strayed so far left that ensuring that able-bodied people who are receiving public assistance work is an extreme MAGA idea and that it is radical for people to rein in spending to just last year's levels of spending.

I have heard a lot of fear-mongering, false choices, and phantom funding cuts, all in an attempt to accept the status quo.

Here's what the status quo has given us: skyrocketing prices, shrinking paychecks, soaring interest rates, a labor shortage, a culture of dependency, an overall weaker economy, and a more vulnerable Nation.

Mr. Speaker, all of us have contributed to this, I will admit. I have conceded that. But we have a moment in time. The hour has come. We have to work together to restore fiscal sanity in this place before it is too late.

The consequences of our failure to act, Mr. Speaker, could not be more grave. I will say it again. We have got to pay our debts. We have got to protect the good faith and credit of the United States. We cannot give an unlimited line of credit to any party, any politician, and allow our country to be bankrupted and to rob our children of the blessings of liberty in this land of opportunity. We shouldn't accept that. We should work together to be responsible, be leaders, leaders worthy of this great Nation.

Let's vote together in support of H.R. 2811.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this regressive, shortsighted, and cruel default on America act that would devastate programs that are critical to Oregonians and Americans.

We have a housing affordability and homelessness crisis, but this bill would eliminate affordable housing assistance for many families and seniors.

Our constituents can't find or afford childcare, but this bill would take away access to Head Start.

The cost of higher education keeps rising, but this bill would cut Pell grants and slash additional funding to support millions of disabled and low-income students.

Instead of addressing the climate crisis, this legislation would entrench reliance on fossil fuels; undermine renewable, sustainable energy options; and raise taxes for middle-class Americans.

This bill could cause millions of low-income seniors and veterans to lose access to nutrition assistance, and up to 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage.

There is a simple solution to prevent these harmful outcomes: Bring a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor so we can end this MAGA Republican-created manufactured crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on how up to 10 million people could be at significant risk of losing health coverage under Speaker McCarthy's bad, backward bill.

[From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Apr. 21, 2023]

McCarthy Medicaid Proposal Puts Millions of People in Expansion States

at Risk of Losing Health Coverage

(By Gideon Lukens)

A Republican proposal led by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy

would take Medicaid coverage away from people who do not meet

new work-reporting requirements. The McCarthy proposal would

apply to all states, but in practice it would heavily impact

people covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid

expansion. Of this group, more than 10 million people in

Medicaid expansion states would be at significant risk of

losing coverage under the McCarthy proposal. This group would

be subject to the new Medicaid requirement, and they are not

part of a group that states could readily identify in

existing data sources and exclude from burdensome reporting.

The McCarthy proposal could jeopardize coverage for millions

more, by prompting some states to drop the ACA Medicaid

expansion or dissuading states that have not yet taken the

expansion from adopting it.

Nationwide, we estimate that over 10 million Medicaid

expansion enrollees--more than 1 in 5 of all Medicaid

enrollees in expansion states--would be at risk of losing

Medicaid coverage under the policy in McCarthy's debt limit

bill, using 2019 (pre-pandemic) data. Some 74 percent of all

expansion enrollees and 21 percent of all Medicaid

beneficiaries in the states that have adopted the expansion

would be subject to the new requirements and, thus, at risk

of losing coverage.

People in every expansion state would be affected, with the

share of total Medicaid enrollees at risk ranging from 15 to

37 percent. (See Table 1 and Methodology.) Because we use

2019 data, the national estimate does not include the nine

states that expanded coverage after that date and therefore

very likely understates the number of enrollees at risk. If

those states were included, it would likely add upward of 1

million more enrollees at risk of losing coverage.

While not all of those at risk under McCarthy's proposal

would lose coverage, many would, including people who are

working or are eligible for an exemption but would be

disenrolled due to administrative burdens and red tape. This

was the experience in Arkansas, which is the only state that

briefly took people's Medicaid coverage away for not meeting

work-reporting requirements, until a federal court halted the

program following massive coverage losses. In just seven

months of implementation, some 18,000 people--1 in 4 subject

to the requirements--lost coverage. Moreover, research found

that the new requirements had no impact on employment

outcomes. The McCarthy Medicaid provision draws heavily from

the failed Arkansas experiment but is harsher in some

respects, applying to somewhat older adults, for example.

The more than 10 million estimate (looking just at the

states that had expanded Medicaid prior to 2019) does not

fully account for the sweeping impact the Medicaid work-

reporting requirement could have. For example, while the bill

directs states ``whenever possible'' to use electronic data

sources to verify whether people meet the criteria for

continued Medicaid coverage, the extent to which this would

protect people from losing coverage or from onerous reporting

would depend on implementation decisions at both the federal

and state level.

Proponents of the new requirements argue that they give

states an option to take Medicaid coverage away from people

who don't comply with the new work-reporting requirement.

This is misdirection at best.

The bill terminates federally funded Medicaid coverage for

those who don't meet the work-reporting requirements. In

theory, states could provide fully state-funded coverage to

those whose federal Medicaid coverage is taken away, but with

the federal government currently covering 90 percent of the

cost of coverage for expansion enrollees, states are

exceedingly unlikely to continue coverage for large numbers

of people who don't meet the requirement. (It is worth noting

that states did not provide state-funded coverage for this

group prior to the ACA's expansion, though they were able to

do so.)

Moreover, administering these new requirements would be

complicated for state and local governments, which would have

to pick up a significant portion of the costs associated with

implementing the complex systems to verify work, determine

who meets automatic exemption criteria (such as those with

children), and assess applications for exemptions based on

criteria, such as an illness, that the state doesn't know

through its eligibility system.

States also would have to absorb the costs associated with

higher caseload churn--that is, people losing coverage and

then having to reapply or seek to have their coverage

reinstated, all processes that require caseworker staff time.

And uncompensated care costs would increase because people

have lost coverage, adding further to the costs that states

and safety net health care providers would have to pick up.

Without a doubt, adding work-reporting requirements to

Medicaid would cause many low-income adults to lose coverage

due to bureaucratic hurdles and would leave people without

the health care they need, including life-saving medications,

treatment to manage chronic conditions, and care for acute

illnesses. People's access to health care and other basic

supports, such as housing, food, or child care, should not

hinge on whether they meet a work-reporting requirement or

successfully navigate a complicated system to either report

work hours or claim an exemption.

McCarthy Medicaid Provision Builds on Failed Arkansas Experiment

The Arkansas plan, implemented in 2018, required that

Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19-49 document at least 80

hours of work or other qualifying activities (e.g. job

training, volunteering) per month. Exemptions were available

for various groups including pregnant people, certain types

of caregivers, and people with certain health conditions, but

qualifying for these exemptions required that enrollees

successfully navigate the reporting system or that the state

use available data to determine exemption status. As a

result, more than 18,000 people (about one-quarter of those

subject to the requirements) lost coverage in just seven

months, before a federal court blocked the policy.

The McCarthy plan is similar to Arkansas' but applies to a

broader set of Medicaid enrollees. First, it applies to

enrollees aged 19-55, a wider age range that includes more

older adults. Second, it is not explicitly limited to

Medicaid expansion enrollees, unlike the Arkansas policy.

While all states would have to set up new processes to

validate exemptions, we assume that because existing state

data sources could readily be used to exempt the bulk of

Medicaid enrollees who are not part of the expansion group,

the impact would be largely on expansion enrollees. Third,

some groups exempt under the Arkansas plan, including

postpartum people, people identified as ``medically frail,''

and people receiving unemployment benefits, are not exempt

under the McCarthy plan.

A KFF study estimated that under a nationwide Medicaid

work-reporting requirements policy similar to policies

implemented in Arkansas and proposed by other states, most

people losing coverage would be complying with or exempt from

the requirements but would be disenrolled due to

administrative burdens and red tape. Using conservative

assumptions about disenrollment based on a survey of the

research literature, the study found that 62 to 91 percent of

those losing coverage would be people who qualify as eligible

under the policy. Coverage losses would be concentrated among

those eligible because the overwhelming majority of Medicaid

enrollees already meet the requirements or an exemption

criterion, yet they would still be at risk due to the

bureaucratic complexity of reporting and proving exemption

status.

Overall, between 1.4 and 4 million people would have lost

Medicaid coverage if Medicaid work-requirements were imposed

in 2016, the KFF study estimated. This estimate is roughly in

line with the Congressional Budget Office's projection that a

nationwide policy similar to Arkansas' would result in a

reduction in Medicaid enrollment of 2.2 million adults per

year for the 2023-2031 period.

Our analysis is not a projection of the number of people

who will lose coverage, but rather shows that more than 10

million people would be subject to these requirements and,

thus, at risk of losing coverage from a policy that would

erect burdensome requirements to report work or claim

exemptions. A large share of the 10 million people subject to

the requirements would have to navigate complex work-

reporting and verification systems each month while others

would have to navigate the exemption process periodically to

retain coverage.

Research suggests that some populations would be especially

harmed by these work-reporting requirements, including people

with disabilities, women, people who are experiencing

homelessness, and people with mental health conditions or

substance use disorders. Even though exemptions would apply

to some in these groups, states often lack the capacity to

hire sufficient staff to respond to people's questions or

manage work-reporting systems and the exemption process.

People who have fewer transportation options or live in rural

areas, face language or literacy barriers, are in poor health

or have limited mobility, or have limited internet access

would face particular barriers to understanding the new

requirements and navigating reporting systems, applying for

exemptions, and collecting the verification needed to prove

that they meet an exemption criterion.

There is no upside to Medicaid work-reporting requirements.

Research has not found any impact of the requirements on

employment, and data from Arkansas show that few enrollees

engaged in new work-related activities. Instead, work-

reporting requirements strip health coverage from people with

low incomes--most of whom are already meeting or exempt from

the requirements--

leading to gaps in care that damage their health and

financial security and make it harder for them to find or

keep a job.

In this paper, we estimate the number of Medicaid expansion

group enrollees at risk of losing coverage using

administrative data on Medicaid expansion enrollment for

2019, combined with American Community Survey (ACS) data and

state enrollment policies.

We use 2019 Medicaid expansion group enrollment to avoid

including the large increase in Medicaid enrollment that

began in 2020 as a result of the requirement that Medicaid

provide continuous coverage during the public health

emergency. This continuous coverage requirement ended on

March 31, 2023, and while estimates of coverage loss during

the unwinding of the requirement are highly uncertain,

enrollment declines are potentially large. By using 2019

data, we avoid overstating our estimates of expansion

enrollees at risk in each state once unwinding is complete.

Methodology

As stated above, our estimates are based on a combination

of administrative data on Medicaid expansion enrollment, ACS

data, and state enrollment policies.

Because our data are based on 2019 (pre-pandemic) Medicaid

expansion enrollment, they do not include expansion enrollees

at risk in states that expanded in 2019 or later, including

Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and

Virginia. We also cannot produce expansion group estimates

for North Carolina and South Dakota, which have enacted but

not yet implemented expansion. Our national total estimate is

therefore likely to understate the number of enrollees at

risk. Finally, by shifting costs to states, the McCarthy

proposal could result in some states deciding to drop the ACA

Medicaid expansion, jeopardizing coverage for millions more.

Similarly, these new requirements could dissuade some states

that have not yet adopted the expansion from doing so.

We consider Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19-55 and

exclude from this group people who live with dependent

children aged 0-17. States should be able to exclude this

group automatically (without requiring them to apply for an

exemption) using existing administrative data, so they are

less likely to be at risk.

We do not estimate other exemptions or work status because

these individuals would be more likely than parents to have

to report their employment or earnings monthly or to apply

for and submit documentation to receive an exemption.

Research indicates that most people who would lose coverage

under work-reporting requirements would be disenrolled

despite working or qualifying for an exemption due to the

complexities of proving that they are working or meet an

exemption criterion.

Publicly available administrative data on Medicaid

expansion enrollees do not include detailed enrollee

characteristics. We therefore use data from the U.S. Census

Bureau's American Community Survey as well as state-level

eligibility rules to estimate the share of expansion

enrollees who are aged 19-55 and who do not have dependent

children in each state.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, not only a leader but the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Arrington, for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, we all know our Nation is at a crossroads. This is a very fragile time for the American people. They are looking at inflation that is going through the roof, decades high, paying more for everything, and they know why that happened.

They are paying more for everything when they go to the grocery store, the gas pump, and anywhere else because Washington has spent trillions of dollars that this country doesn't have.

Over the last 2 years, President Biden has maxed out the Nation's credit card. That is what the debt ceiling is. That is what this debate is about.

As the President has maxed out the Nation's credit card, Americans know what that means. They have credit cards. They work hard not to max out theirs. They all know that we are going to make the minimum payment on those cards.

If somebody maxed out the credit card like President Biden did, the first thing you do is not give them another credit card to max out, as President Biden has asked and demanded. He said to just give him more money to keep spending money that we don't have to rack up more inflation on hardworking families.

Mr. Speaker, that would be irresponsible, yet that is what the President has asked for.

What House Republicans have done is come together to say there is a better way. Sure, we need to address the debt ceiling, but we also need to address, at the same time, the problems that have brought us to this moment.

It is not by accident that the Nation's credit card got maxed out. This is how bad the problem is. We can talk trillions all day long, and the numbers get so big that people just tune it out.

Let's talk some basic numbers. For every $100 that the Federal Government takes in, the Federal Government is spending $129. Now, if a family did that, it wouldn't last long before they would go under, before they would lose their house, before they would go bankrupt. $100 coming in and $129 going out, that is the spending problem in Washington.

President Biden said he wants to spend another $129 with $100 still coming in. Most families would look at that and say it is irresponsible to do that, and we agree, as House Republicans.

You would think the President has acknowledged this finally and said: ``Okay, why don't we sit down at the table and figure this out? We do not need a debt crisis in this Nation.'' Instead of sitting down to negotiate, which is what anybody responsible would do, Speaker McCarthy has said: Mr. President, let's sit down. They did it once over 2 months ago. The President himself, in fact, days later said: Do you know what? We ought to do it again.

The problem is the President then went into hiding. The President will

not sit down and meet with the Speaker to negotiate how to solve this problem because the President wants to run the clock out and create a debt crisis.

That is the height of irresponsibility, Mr. Speaker. If the President is going to shirk his responsibility and try to hide and wait until the clock strikes midnight, House Republicans are not going to sit on the sidelines. We are going to lead and present a solution. That is what this bill is.

That is what Mr. Arrington's legislation does, Mr. Speaker. It says, as we deal with the debt ceiling, let's also deal with the spending problem that got us here.

How do we do it? I think reading the bill would be really important. We will send an extra copy down to the White House so that they can actually see some of the basic things we are talking about.

These are things that families get. Right now, in America, if you talk to any small business owner, they are all looking for workers. You would think we have full employment, that everybody who wants to work and is capable of working is working. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

President Biden put in place over the last few years different changes to welfare so that people who are fully able-bodied, that aren't even--they are not turning down work. They are not even looking for work, some of them making over $35,000 a year to sit at home. That is costing taxpayers over $100 billion.

What we say is, frankly, a question a lot of people have asked over the years. I am just going to read it to you as the voters of the State of Wisconsin had presented to them just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker: ``Shall able-bodied, childless adults be required to look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits?'' That is a pretty straightforward question.

In fact, 79.5 percent of Wisconsin voters just a few weeks ago said, yes, they should look for work before they get taxpayer benefits.

Should a single mom who is working two jobs have to pay for somebody who is just sitting at home and who just chooses not to work?

This is America. If you want to sit at home and not work, that is your prerogative, but should you be asking a hardworking taxpayer to pay $35,000 or more a year for you to sit at home when everybody is looking for workers?

We say let's just put those basic work requirements back in place, just like the voters of Wisconsin said a few weeks ago.

Now, you would think the White House--that that is some kind of far- reaching idea. Most people get this.

This isn't just about saving taxpayer money. It saves a lot of taxpayer money to do this.

Do you know what else it does, Mr. Speaker? Our bill strengthens Social Security because when President Biden is sending tens of billions of dollars every month to pay people not to work, not only are they not working, not only are they eating up all kind of money that our children are ultimately going to have to pay back, they are also taking money out of Social Security because they are not paying into it.

By putting these basic work requirements back in place, there are millions of people who are sitting on the sidelines that would finally get back into the workplace, finally have an opportunity to achieve the American Dream again, finally be able to lift up their standard of living.

Do you know what else they are going to be doing, Mr. Speaker? They are going to be paying into Social Security. They will be paying into Medicare. That would add tens of billions of dollars to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.

Why would the President be against that?

We claw back some of the unspent COVID money. President Biden himself said the COVID emergency is over. Yet, there are tens of billions of dollars out there being spent on things that have nothing to do with COVID, all under the name of the pandemic.

Why not save that money for taxpayers?

In addition to saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, we also put in pro-growth policies in this bill, things like the Lower Energy Cost Act.

When you talk to families about the things that are angering them that are coming out of Washington, clearly, inflation and the cost of everything going up is the biggest item. The biggest item driving inflation is President Biden's anti-American energy policies. Families today are paying 50 percent more when they go fill up their cars at the pump, 50 percent more than the day President Biden took office. There is no reason for that.

Instead of President Biden getting on Air Force One and going to beg Saudi princes to produce more energy, or begging Putin to produce more energy, we can make it here in America cleaner than anywhere else in the world, actually lowering carbon emissions.

Yet, President Biden keeps saying no to American energy. He says ``yes'' to foreign oil but no to American oil. That doesn't pass the smell test. In our bill, we actually fix that and allow Americans to produce more energy here, to produce more critical minerals.

Why should we be relying on China for computer chips?

Over 90 percent of solar panels in the world are made in China. Why not make more of those things here?

Car batteries--they talk about electric cars all day, yet over 90 percent of car batteries are made in China because they won't let America access our minerals here, so we have become dependent on foreign countries.

I am tired of being dependent on countries like China because President Biden has gotten the policies wrong over and over again. Let's fix this. We do fix these problems in this bill.

If President Biden has got a better idea, it is long past time he puts those ideas on the table. This is not a problem you run and hide from. In fact, when you ask to be President of the United States, you are the Commander in Chief, you are the leader of the free world, Mr. Speaker. This is not a job where you run and hide from the tough things. These are the moments where you step up, you rise to the moment.

The American people are calling for us all to do that. Some people want to sit and hide and hope that the clock strikes midnight, and they can just force some bad deal on the taxpayers of America. Well, that is what they are sick about Washington over. Time and time again, Washington doesn't answer the needs of hardworking families who are struggling and just waits until the midnight hour to jam a bad deal down the throats of people. Let's not wait until that midnight hour.

We are standing up and leading. It is long past time that President Biden gets off the sidelines and does his job, too, and gets to the negotiating table with Speaker McCarthy so we can solve this problem and put America on a stronger financial footing that will benefit all Americans.

It is time to end this madness. Let's pass this legislation. Let's start this conversation that families have been having for a long time. It is long past time Washington gets into the middle of this conversation, too.

Let's pass this bill. Let's solve this problem.