CEASE Act of 2025

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.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I don't like Elon Musk.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Olszewski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

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).

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

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman doesn't want me to talk about Elon or what Elon said, but we are going to talk about it anyway.

Mr. Speaker, as Elon Musk said: Trump's one big, beautiful GOP tax scam is a ``disgusting abomination.''

Let me break it down for you and for the American people. Here are 10 of the most egregious abominations in this bill.

One, the GOP tax scam is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest in our country. We are talking about investment and hedge fund managers paying a lower tax rate than regular income earners like schoolteachers or firefighters. It would cut taxes for the top 5 percent of taxpayers while reducing critical resources for the poorest households, setting off what would be the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history.

Two, Trump's bill guts Medicaid and likely Medicare, too. If this bill is signed into law, we will expect to see widespread hospital closures, and 15 million individuals, including sick children, seniors, and the disabled could lose their healthcare coverage.

Three, it raises costs for people on individual health insurance plans. Republicans' under-the-radar tweaks to the Affordable Care Act could increase health insurance premiums by hundreds of dollars and force tens of thousands of people out of the marketplace.

Four, this bill attacks food stamps. Millions will lose access to their SNAP benefits, taking food off the plates of hungry families, seniors, and veterans.

Five, it terminates the IRS Direct File program, a successful, free tax filing service that helped over 140,000 people file their taxes in 2024.

Six, it increases fees on asylum seekers and dumps billions into Trump's mass deportation efforts.

Seven, get this: The Republicans' bill is great for Big Oil and Gas. It turns over millions of acres of public lands to big corporate drillers and would allow them to pay to get their projects rubber- stamped without any input from the public.

Eight, it guts green energy subsidies, including investments in renewable energy projects that are already underway.

Nine, it blocks State AI regulations in a giveaway to Big Tech, completely trampling over State legislatures.

Ten, it scraps nearly a century-long tax on gun silencers. Who does that? Who does that? It is truly horrendous. We have a gun violence epidemic, and the Republicans want to make it easier for dangerous people to access deadly gun attachments.

Mr. Speaker, clearly this tax scam bill is no good, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

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

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 yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlewoman that, according to CBO, undocumented immigrants are not receiving Federal funds for Medicaid. My colleagues should read CBO. Don't listen to your Republican talking points. Actually read the stuff that we pay people to provide to us with the information to make sure we have the facts.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are not stand-alone ideas. They are part of a larger Republican playbook, one that protects the powerful and punishes the rest.

It is more tax breaks for billionaires, more crumbs for working people, more favors for Wall Street, more struggles for Main Street, more cruelty towards the vulnerable, more indifference to anyone who isn't writing a campaign check. We have never seen pay-to-play as much as we have seen in this Congress and in this administration.

This isn't governing. It is greed. It is corruption and cruelty masquerading as policy. The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this dark vision. The idea that you could take healthcare away from people is unconscionable and that you will do so with a straight face is unconscionable.

This big, ugly bill is a disgrace.

Today, you are attacking small businesses and you are attacking programs that help combat drug abuse addiction in this country. Vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are here today to debate the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act; H.R. 2966, the American Entrepreneurs First Act; H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, which will be considered under a closed rule; and H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act to be considered under a structured rule.

One hour of debate each for H.R. 2931, H.R. 2966, and H.R. 2987 shall be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Small Business Committee, or their designees.

One hour of debate will also be provided for H.R. 2483 and shall be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, or their designees.

The rule provides a motion to recommit for all four bills.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are here to deliver on the Trump administration's agenda and solidify his executive actions with commonsense legislation. With Congresswoman Van Duyne's American Entrepreneurs First Act, my colleagues are going to help codify the work that the Small Business Administration is doing to ensure that businesses receiving Federal benefits are 100 percent owned by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and businesses that employ illegal immigrants are ineligible for these funds. This is part of our ongoing effort to stop subsidizing previous open-border policies. It makes sense that only law-abiding American citizens should have access to programs that American taxpayer dollars go towards.

SBA offices are being located out of sanctuary cities and into places that do not limit their cooperation with Federal agencies that are charged with immigration enforcement. The SBA Administrator announced that the agency would be relocating offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City, and Seattle, and moving them to less costly and more accessible locations to better serve the mission and comply with Federal immigration law. With Congressman Finstad's bill, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act, Republicans are supporting this plan with legislation, giving the SBA 120 days to deliver on this commitment and relocate those offices. Sanctuary cities need to be held accountable and need to see the consequences of their disregard for Federal law.

With Mr. Bresnahan's CEASE Act, it is strengthening SBA's programs by limiting the number of nonprofit small business lending companies licensed by the SBA to 16. This will allow the agency to provide the necessary oversight to ensure that they are effectively serving the small businesses that Congress intended.

Finally, my colleagues are here to debate the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act. I thank Mr. Guthrie for introducing this important legislation. This bill reauthorizes the 2018 legislation President Trump signed into law and strengthens it. I am glad to say that across the country we are seeing a decline in overdose deaths. Of course, the work is not over. My colleagues are making sure we are investing in overdose prevention and equipping communities to counter substance abuse disorders.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has taken a hard look at what worked best from the 2018 law and built off its success by continuing to provide resources for prevention, education, treatment, recovery, workforce, and law enforcement to help patients struggling with substance use disorder. It ensures first responders are able to administer lifesaving drugs, ensures HHS cannot require States to use one specific vendor over another, clarifies that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration's State and Tribal Opioid Response Grants can be used for test strips, and requires that Administration to identify and address serious mental illness.

This bill is part of President Trump's and the Congressional Republicans' promise to stop the flow of fentanyl by securing our borders and then combat the crisis caused by these drugs in our communities. President Trump has done his part to secure our border, and Republicans will supply him with more resources to do so in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Through the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act, we will combat the existing opioid crisis in our communities.

I am proud to stand in support of these bills. I look forward to this debate, and I hope my colleagues can stay focused on the topic in front of us today as we discuss these proposals that are important to American families and taxpayers.

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

Mr. 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.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about what we are talking about. The notion that my colleagues are really considering voting against the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act is baffling to me. Really, I think it all shows that they hate President Trump so much that they are willing to vote against legislation that would help communities combat opioid abuse.

They want to stick to their anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points and avoid talking about the bills that are in front of us. I would like them to try taking that message, the message that they refuse to provide resources to their communities to combat opioid abuse, back to their constituents.

This bill brings resources to our constituents to combat opioid abuse. That is what we are talking about. It is that simple. They can hate the President, or they don't have to, but don't let these people facing substance addiction and our communities suffer for their talking points.

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

Mr. 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

President is doing, but the American people do.

Poll after poll is showing that an increasing number of people now believe this country is heading in the right direction. A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that this is the first time in 20 years that the majority of respondents have felt that way.

Go ahead and vote against these things that will increase work to stop the opioid crisis, curb wasteful spending of the American taxpayer dollar, and address illegal immigration, but know that it will be a vote against the will of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), another colleague of mine.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

the need to address that in that tax bill that he is talking about, in the reconciliation bill that he trashes and says that it is tax breaks for billionaires.

I will just use my district as an example.

In my district, in the Seventh District of Minnesota, the reconciliation bill that he opposes would prevent a 25 percent tax hike for most people in my district where the average income is $70,000, not billionaires, $70,000.

It also increases the standard deduction. It increases the child tax credit. It helps small businesses through the 199A deduction. This is a solid tax bill. We looked at what we can do to help the average citizen in the country, and we made sure that it was a solid tax bill.

I just wanted to make sure that we are correcting some of the talking points that the Democrats are using because this does provide tax breaks for the middle income.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I always have to take the opportunity to correct things. What we are doing in the reconciliation bill--because this bill in front of us is not what they are talking about because they have digressed into Democrat anti-Trump, anti-Republican talking points, but I do have to make a few things clear.

In the reconciliation bill for Medicaid, we have for able-bodied individuals without dependents, there is a work requirement. That work requirement could also be schooling or it can be community engagement.

We will be removing illegal immigrants who should not be on Medicaid. We also are looking at that waste, fraud, and abuse. The people that will be removed should not have been on Medicaid in the first place. They shouldn't have been on the rolls.

We are not removing people that need Medicaid because those people who need it will be getting it. It is that work requirement, the illegal immigrants, and those who should not have been on it in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

at hand. Instead, they want to continue their fear-mongering and falsehoods about what is in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

For the record, again: It does not cut Medicaid for any U.S. citizen who needs it. It does strengthen the system and makes sure it benefits the people who really need it. We need to be responsible to the taxpayers, and we are going after waste, fraud, and abuse.

I will say it, again: Anyone who needs Medicaid will have it.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2987, the so- called Capping Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants Act, or the CEASE Act.

This bill would impose a permanent statutory cap on the number of small business lending company, or SBLC, licenses the SBA can issue, limiting them to just 16.

While I understand and share some of the concerns raised about how the SBA has handled oversight of these licenses, I cannot support legislation that is rushed, vague, and potentially harmful to the very businesses we are supposed to be helping. Let's take a step back.

For more than 40 years, the SBA maintained a moratorium on new SBLC licenses, citing a lack of resources to properly supervise new entrants. That changed in 2023 when the agency finalized a new rule lifting the moratorium and began issuing additional licenses to expand participation in the 7(a) loan program. The goal was to help fill lending gaps, particularly in underserved communities that have historically struggled to access capital. That is a goal that I support.

I also believe it should be done carefully with the right oversight in place. I raised questions about the SBA's rollout of this policy when it first proposed the rule. I flagged concerns about whether the agency had the capacity to supervise these lenders effectively, and I called for transparency and clarity every step of the way.

I am not here to defend the SBA's process blindly, but H.R. 2987 doesn't actually fix the oversight issues. It just slaps an arbitrary cap on the program without addressing the real questions of how to improve accountability, how to expand access responsibly, and how to ensure these programs are helping the businesses that need it the most.

What is worse, the bill is completely silent on how this cap would apply to the Community Advantage program, a critical SBA initiative that helps make smaller-dollar loans available to startups, veterans, rural entrepreneurs, and other underserved borrowers.

Since being transitioned into the SBLC framework, Community Advantage lenders have continued to show strong results. Last year alone, the program issued over 1,100 loans worth nearly $200 million, with an average loan size of just $175,000.

These are the kinds of loans that traditional banks often will not make because they are not profitable, but they are exactly what many small businesses need to get off the ground. By leaving out an exception for mission-based CA lenders from the cap, this bill opens the door for a future administration to freeze new licenses or even eliminate the CA SBLCs altogether. That is a concern we have heard directly from lenders, community organizations, and small business advocates around the country.

These are the very lenders we relied on to help target PPP assistance to the smallest of small businesses during the global pandemic. They met the moment for many small employers in our communities that were locked out of the first rounds of PPP assistance.

At a time when small businesses are facing rising costs, tariff uncertainty, and tightening credit, Congress should be doing everything it can to expand access to capital, not pulling back on programs that are actually working. That is why I cannot support this bill in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to oversight. I am not opposed to having a real conversation about the future of SBA programs. I am opposed to legislation that leaves key questions unanswered and puts proven programs in jeopardy.

The Community Advantage program and the CA SBLCs have been a lifeline for thousands of small businesses, particularly in rural areas and for unbanked businesses.

They fill the gap that traditional lenders and larger 7(a) lenders won't. Small and new businesses often require small-dollar loans, not million-dollar loans. They simply need enough capital to get their business off the ground or finance modest expansions. That is why the CA SBLC lenders are so critical to growing our small business ecosystem.

The CA lenders have had bipartisan support for years, so why are my colleagues so afraid to include a provision of congressional intent to protect them from the cap? I just don't get it.

The Small Business Committee has always worked in a bipartisan manner, and here we are with a proven program that has had bipartisan support, and the Republicans with this legislation will put an end to

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2987.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, which would place a statutory moratorium on the number of Small Business Lending Company licenses that can be issued by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

What does this bill do? It will cap the number of SBA 7(a) nonbank lenders who can give loans to America's small businesses, a reasonable endeavor that could have generated bipartisan support had there been any effort by the majority to engage in a thoughtful discussion with us.

Since there was no such engagement, this bill does nothing to protect the hugely successful Community Advantage program. Community Advantage Small Business Lending Companies provide loans to small businesses located in underserved and rural communities, to new businesses, and to veteran-owned small businesses.

For far too long, far too many people in our country have not been able to access capital and participate in the American Dream of starting a business, creating jobs, and growing our economy. The Small Business Administration plays a critical role in providing capital to our small businesses. The Community Advantage program has a demonstrated track record of helping entrepreneurs who face higher barriers to accessing capital grow and scale their businesses.

This is exactly what we should be doing: opening more doors for more Americans to start a business, create jobs in their community, and strengthen their local economy.

My question to my Republican colleagues is: Without providing protections for Community Advantage Small Business Lending Companies in the text of this bill, are you suggesting we eliminate this crucial program? Why would you threaten to remove a way for veteran-owned small businesses to access capital? What is your message to American entrepreneurs looking to access that first loan that could help turn their best ideas into a new small business?

Mr. Speaker, let's just take a step back here. Right now, small businesses across the country are ringing the alarm bells saying that the tariff wars are going to put them out of business in a matter of weeks or months.

Just this past week, we heard from Minnesota's Small Business Person of the Year, given the award by the Trump administration, who said she has 6 weeks until she goes out of business.

These are successful small businesses, small businesses that were thriving, growing, expanding until President Trump started this completely unnecessary, completely chaotic trade war by setting exorbitant tariffs as high as 145 percent, changing policies haphazardly, at times literally by the hour. No one can run a business with that level of uncertainty, and our small businesses are getting hit the hardest.

They can't plan for the future. They don't have the luxury of time. The threat is here right now. They certainly don't have the resources to personally lobby the President like the massive tech companies who got exemptions did. President Trump's so-called tariff policy is literally killing our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has the power to stop it. Article I of the Constitution says Congress has the power to levy tariffs, but what is the Republican majority doing?

They are ceding all their power to this President and completely disregarding their constitutional duty and the outcries from small business owners who are warning us they will have to close their doors in a matter of weeks if this tariff war doesn't end.

Mr. Speaker, the three bills the Republicans are choosing to bring to the floor this week have nothing to do with the existential threat that these tariffs are posing to our Nation's small businesses. The lack of courage to stand up for our Nation's small businesses, and to stand by and watch their downfall, is shameful. We should be passing legislation to end this tariff war and save our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, because it has the potential to harm our Nation's most underserved small businesses.

This bill would cap the number of Small Business Lending Company, or SBLC, licenses that the SBA can issue at its current level of 16 licenses. These licenses enable lenders to make loans of up to $5 million to small businesses that we know often struggle to secure financing from traditional banks.

If Republicans wanted to find a solution to bipartisan concerns about SBA's capacity to oversee an increased number of licenses, Democrats would have been happy to work together on this. Unfortunately, this bill fails to address our serious concerns about how it could devastate opportunities for capital access for the small businesses that need SBA's help the most.

Specifically, this bill is completely silent about how this cap on licenses would impact Community Advantage SBLCs. We know that one of small businesses' greatest challenges is obtaining access to financial capital. For over a decade now, the Community Advantage program has been helping close this funding gap for underserved businesses who face this challenge disproportionately like rural, veteran, and low-income small business owners.

I will never forget visiting one of these businesses in Santa Monica, California. It was a salad-based restaurant owned by two young Hispanic men who had this dream of expanding their restaurant, but they were turned away by every traditional bank due to a lack of assets and credit history. Finally, they were able to get a $250,000 Community Advantage loan, and now they have six of these restaurants.

It was a relatively modest sum, but $250,000 was what it took to make these small business owners successful, and that is why I have long believed in the Community Advantage program. However, it was operating only as a pilot program, and that is why I sponsored a bill to make it permanent. This bipartisan bill has passed out of the House, but the Senate did not take it up.

Great relief, however, came in 2023 when the SBA established by rule the Community Advantage SBLC program

to provide long-term assurance for the program and lenders. Since then, there has been great progress: 143 lenders have registered as Community Advantage SBLCs. In 2024 alone, these lenders have already issued 1,100 loans totaling $196 million to the most underserved small businesses with an average loan size of $160,000.

Congress needs to build on these efforts by providing statutory permanency for Community Advantage, but the bill before us today goes in the opposite direction, potentially threatening the future of Community Advantage SBLCs because it makes no mention of how these licenses would be impacted by the statutory cap.

Congress must ensure that our most underserved small businesses have the resources they need to not just survive but to grow. That is why I will reintroduce the Community Advantage Loan Program Act, which will give permanent authorization to this program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's veteran, rural, and low-income entrepreneurs by voting ``no'' on this bill.