H.Res. 458

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. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2483, legislation that reauthorizes the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act.

Last Congress, this bill passed with strong bipartisan support right here on the House floor under suspension of the rules. Today it is coming up under a rule because a lot has changed since last year. There is a new administration, and the Trump administration is attacking mental health and substance use response efforts on every front.

Republicans want to move forward with this legislation at the same time that they are silently watching as the Trump administration dismantles SAMHSA, the very agency that is responsible for carrying out the programs that the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act reauthorizes.

Thanks to our efforts in recent years, significant improvements have been made in combating the opioid overdose epidemic that has devastated families in every community throughout our Nation, but those improvements are now threatened as the Trump administration guts the very programs and funding that have helped us turn the corner.

In the past few months, the Trump administration has completely eroded the mental health and substance use treatment landscape as we know it. It has fired hundreds of workers at SAMHSA, including key senior officials, such as the director of the center focused on mental health. The department continues to refuse to respond to

my repeated requests about how many SAMHSA employees have been terminated and how many additional firings are planned.

The Trump administration has eliminated entire offices that are responsible for collecting data on mental health and substance use and helping people locate treatment services. These actions will only make it harder for people who are seeking treatment to find care.

The Trump administration is also eliminating SAMHSA altogether without congressional reauthorization. It will be combined with other agencies that the Trump administration doesn't care about under the banner of a larger make America healthy again office.

These critical programs to treat mental health and substance abuse will be deprioritized or eliminated in favor of Secretary Kennedy's pet projects, like destroying Americans' access to vaccines. Congress has received zero--zero--information from the administration about how this new office will work and how the work of SAMHSA to address the mental health and substance use treatments needs of our communities will be prioritized.

The Trump administration is also rescinding more than $1 billion in essential funding that States rely on through block grants. It has also proposed eliminating dozens of different mental health and substance use programs, including eight programs reauthorized by the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025.

This includes programs to train first responders who respond to opioid overdose calls, provide residential treatment to pregnant and postpartum women, and support people on long-term recovery.

If Republicans really support these programs, my colleagues should be opposing the President's budget, which lays out plans to cut the very programs Republican Members claim to care about. In fact, the Trump administration budget goes further and proposes eliminating nearly all of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 programs as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose to eliminate all of the so-called programs of regional and national significance.

This is the umbrella under which nearly all of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 programs reside. My colleagues have also proposed gutting the mental health block grant, the substance abuse block grant, the State opioid response grants, and consolidating them into one program with a deep funding cut.

I will be clear, Mr. Chair. This is not a budget proposal in the traditional sense. This is a roadmap for what the Trump administration plans to do unless the Federal courts prevent them from proceeding.

Their expansive and limitless view of the President's authority knows no bounds. If DOGE wants to cut entire agencies, eliminate programs, and impound funds, they will do it regardless of the law. The Trump administration is making clear that funding treatment and prevention for mental health and substance abuse issues is not a priority.

Unfortunately, Republican majorities of both the House and the Senate silently sit by and watch all of the destruction and illegal actions. House Republicans have not conducted any oversight of this administration.

Let us not forget also, Mr. Chair, that last month, House Republicans passed the biggest cut to Medicaid in history as part of their scheme to fund giant tax breaks for billionaires. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just announced this morning, the GOP tax scam now cuts 16 million people, up from 13.5 million people, from their healthcare, all to give tax breaks to their billionaire friends.

Medicaid covers 40 percent of all Americans with opioid use disorder. Gutting the program will leave millions of Americans without access to lifesaving care. We can't just go back to business as usual after that devastation was supported and passed by my Republican colleagues.

All of these actions completely undermine the efforts we have made to address substance use disorders in communities across the country. They will have disastrous and deadly consequences on the millions of Americans impacted by substance use disorder. Yet, House Republicans are here on the floor today pretending that we are conducting business as usual here in Washington.

If that were the case, I would join them in supporting the legislation, just as I did last Congress. Yet, this administration is not conducting business as usual, and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to fight back.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I can't support this bill while our mental health and substance use treatment infrastructure is being gutted by the Trump administration. There needs to be a functioning agency to implement the programs in this bill. There needs to be actual funding for the agency to carry out these programs. Neither will exist under what Trump has done or is proposing.

If Republicans were really interested in continuing to combat the opioid overdose crisis, they would finally join us in opposing the illegal actions of the Trump administration rather than hiding behind this legislation today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, but he goes on to talk about how the Republicans are supporting these programs, and it is simply not true.

Mr. Chair, I have in front of me the ``Fiscal Year 2026 Budget in Brief'' that came from the Department of Health and Human Services.

On page 35 to 36 of the document, it says: ``The budget eliminates the following programs to align investments with the administration's priorities. . . . ''

It lists the following programs. First responder training--there are so many. I don't want to read them all. The chairman mentions helping first responders. That first responder training

program is eliminated under the budget, right? A pregnant and postpartum women program; building communities of recovery; treatment, recovery, and workforce support; comprehensive opioid recovery centers; and youth prevention and recovery initiatives are all eliminated.

I understand that the President is trying to prevent fentanyl from coming in from across the border. I, obviously, support that. The chairman from Georgia said we still need treatment and education. Of course, we do, but that is not what is going on here.

The budget eliminates these programs, so my Republican colleagues can't just come here on the floor and say that they support all this and then authorize the very programs that are being eliminated, so there is no funding and no staff to carry them out. It is not fair. They are giving the impression to the public that they are doing something that they are not.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

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

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about not only the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 but the ineffectiveness of what is going on today with this reauthorized bill, but also the Medicaid cuts, which also affect people who are impacted by behavioral or mental health problems.

I put up the budget before. This is the President's budget. This is the Health and Human Services Department's budget. Again, I don't understand how my Republican colleagues can come here and say they are reauthorizing this program and ask what we are complaining about. The programs that I had mentioned that are cut in the President's budget, I am not going to go through them again, but I mentioned the first responder training, the comprehensive opioid recovery centers, and the youth prevention and recovery initiatives. All these programs are reauthorized by the bill before us today, but in the budget, the President eliminates the programs--no funding, no staff, no nothing.

How do they say that they are doing anything when the Trump administration is publicly laying out its plans to eliminate the very programs that they are reauthorizing? My colleagues on the other side are applauding their efforts to pass this bill even though it is meaningless.

How do they support a bill when the programs it reauthorizes are set to be eliminated by the President of the United States and their own party?

The same thing is true with regard to the Medicaid cuts. I hear my colleague, who I respect, the chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee, keep saying that the Medicaid cuts in the budget bill that they passed a couple of weeks ago affect only the able-bodied, that it doesn't affect people with substance use disorders or those struggling with mental illness because they are exempt from the work requirements or the paperwork, if you will, that is in this bill, which CBO says is going to result in 16 million people losing their health insurance.

This morning, CBO revised their analysis of the Republican budget bill. They had said it was 13.5 million, but now, because of the changes before the bill went from the Energy and Commerce Committee to the floor, it is now 16 million people who will lose their health insurance, primarily because of all this red tape.

Taking health coverage from 16 million Americans is entirely unacceptable, and there is no amount of rationalizing that Republicans can do to make it any better. They said they have exemptions from this paperwork. Those exemptions have never worked.

We have the example from the State of Georgia, which admitted that there were 300,000 to 400,000 people under expanded Medicaid that were eligible for Medicaid under the State program, but only 4,500 of those 300,000 to 400,000 qualified because of the paperwork.

It doesn't matter what you say. Eliminating these people is simply unacceptable, and it just means they are going to go without health insurance. Then the costs are going to go up for everybody else because now the hospitals and the nursing homes that take them are not going to get paid and then all your private insurance and other insurance bills are going to go up. Your premiums are going to go up. Your deductibles are going to go up.

Mr. Chair, I will use, if I can, two examples from organizations that represent people with disabilities and know that the Republicans are taking away their health coverage, regardless of what they say about the red tape.

This is from a coalition of 425 disability and aging organizations. They say: We strongly oppose Medicaid cuts in any form. Whether it is done by imposing work requirements, repealing the eligibility and enrollment rule, or further eliminating the way States fund their share of Medicaid costs, these proposals all lead to the same result: People with disabilities and older adults will lose care and support that keep them healthy and independent. That is the bottom line. No rationalizing away what is happening here.

This is from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. I could give you so many examples. I don't want to use up all the time. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation says:

While people with chronic illnesses like cystic fibrosis

may be exempt from work requirements, we know exemptions for

people with disabilities and caregivers do not work.

Exemptions may not happen automatically and can require

complex paperwork and regular recertification even for those

with chronic lifelong conditions.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter how you do it; 16 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance under this legislation, and no amount of rationalizing on your part is going to change that.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what the gentleman from California is saying. The bottom line is, if these programs are successful under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and I agree they have been, the numbers in terms of people dying, people who are severely impacted by opioid use and overdoses, clearly they have gone down because of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act programs, but that is the very reason why the Republicans should speak out against the administration that is rescinding a billion dollars in grants that are going for these treatment centers. It is why they should speak out against the budget on the part of President Trump that I have cited several times today that eliminates these programs. It is why they should speak out against these cuts in the staff for these programs.

It is the very fact that the programs have been successful is why the administration should prioritize the programs. The Republican leadership on our committee and in the House should say: What you are proposing, what you are doing, President Trump, is not acceptable because it is going to reverse this. It is going to reverse the trend where opioid use and overdose goes down. It is going to reverse it if we don't have these programs. That is why they are successful.

To just say we are going to reauthorize the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, which is meaningless because they are eliminating the programs, that is not the answer. The answer is for all of you to get up, go down to the White House, join us and say: What you are doing, President Trump, is not acceptable. It is going to reverse the progress that we have made.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I want everyone to understand my opposition to this bill.

While the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was first passed in 2018 with bipartisan support, the idea was to address the opioid crisis by authorizing programs that aimed to prevent substance use disorder and increase access to treatment and recovery, but the Trump administration has unlawfully gutted the agency responsible for carrying out these programs that the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 reauthorizes. Congressional Republicans are trying to have it both ways. You really can't.

They are trying to have it both ways. They are saying we are going to reauthorize the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, but then they silently stand by as the Trump administration dismantles the very program under SAMHSA or the very agency, SAMHSA, that actually implements the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025.

The Trump administration is moving forward with its unauthorized and illegal plans to eliminate SAMHSA altogether and combine mental health and substance use programs under this unrelated agency called the new Administration for a Healthy America.

Believe me, Secretary Kennedy has not explained in any way what this new administration will do or how it will continue any of the programs under SAMHSA.

What has the administration done? First, they fired hundreds of workers at SAMHSA, including key senior officials such as the directors of centers focused on mental health and substance use treatment. They have eliminated entire offices authorized by this statute, including the National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy Lab and the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, which has been opposed by dozens of leading mental health and substance use groups that don't want these agencies eliminated because they actually play a major role in helping people with mental and behavioral health problems.

The Trump administration has rescinded over a billion dollars from State and local behavioral health programs under mental health and substance use block grants. This is the money that goes back to the States, the counties, and the towns to open up the centers, particularly for young people. That is where this all happens. It happens at the local level where people are treated, where the education programs take place. That billion dollars is gone. I am sure it is in the courts and the courts may say you can't do it, hopefully, but they have rescinded it.

Lastly, the Trump administration has disregarded the will of Congress by preparing to eliminate 40 different mental health and substance use programs. I am not going to go through them again. I listed them. They are all in the President's budget. It is terrible. It is things like the centers for youth, the centers for first responders, who are the ones who go and see people that overdose and try to make sure they don't die.

Again, all of this is happening, and the House Republicans say: Oh, don't worry about that because we are going to reauthorize the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and this is 2 weeks after the biggest cut to Medicaid in history with their GOP tax scam.

My only point is very simple, Mr. Chair, and that is this: The Energy and Commerce Committee is an authorizing committee. Sure, you can get up here and say we are going to authorize this program because we care about all the programs under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, but it is meaningless.

It makes no sense for us to authorize or reauthorize a program, whether it is substance use abuse or whatever it is, and give the impression to the public that somehow we are accomplishing something by authorizing or reauthorizing a program where there is going to be no agency to carry it out, no money, no staff.

I just think it is just not fair. It is trying to give the impression that you are doing something when, in fact, you are not. I feel obligated to expose that and to say, no, we are not going to vote for this hollow bill that actually does nothing because it gives the impression that we are doing something that we are not.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I have no statement to make with regard to the legislation. I will yield back after the gentleman closes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no statement to make at this time. I will yield back after the gentlewoman closes. I reserve the balance of my time.

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 in strong opposition to H.R. 2966, the American Entrepreneurs First Act.

If we really wanted to put American entrepreneurs first, we would be debating a bill to strengthen SBA lending and make it easier to access capital, or we could stop playing political games and finally vote to exempt small businesses from these painful on-again, off-again tariffs. That would put American entrepreneurs first.

Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to help small businesses grow or adjust to supply chain disruptions or unexpected tariff costs. Rather, it will actually make it harder for thousands of legally operating small businesses to get the financing they need at a time they need it most.

SBA loans are supposed to help creditworthy businesses that cannot get loans elsewhere. That includes many immigrant-owned businesses, businesses that follow the rules, pay taxes, and create jobs in our communities.

Let's set the record straight. First, the Small Business Act already prohibits the use of funds for individuals not lawfully within the United States. Contrary to any statement that my colleagues may make that Democrats have supported this, this is incorrect. The statute is clear. Secondly, there is no evidence, not a shred of evidence, that has been shared with Members of Congress, the public, the IG, or other law enforcement officials.

My colleagues across the aisle keep claiming that the Administrator, along with DOGE, identified a case wherein an illegal alien--we will get to my thoughts on that term in a minute--received a nearly $1 million loan despite holding only 49 percent ownership of a business.

These allegations are unsubstantiated. We have seen no documents, data, or details that have been shared to support this claim. This claim reportedly came from DOGE, which immediately sets off alarm bells given the well-documented issues with privacy and accuracy since its inception.

It is also troublesome that Republicans are blindly relying on the SBA Administrator's word. At our committee hearing the day before yesterday, all we heard from her was empty rhetoric and evasive answers. I would need to see some evidence before accepting her word on a case such as this.

If we are being asked to enact such drastic measures without proper vetting or a thoughtful process, then we need more than her assurances. We need evidence. We need real facts, not fabricated ones, to back up these accusations.

Republican support for this bill seems to be strictly based on this one case, but without the facts and circumstances, how can we know the truth?

Oftentimes, my counterparts seem to refer to anyone born outside the U.S. as an ``illegal,'' but Democrats understand the nuances of immigration status. What they call an illegal may actually be a visa holder, a green card holder, or someone with DACA or TPS protections. Precision of language matters, especially when it involves accusations of fraud.

That brings me to my next point. Without a full accounting of this case, we could be looking at an illegal rescission of loan funds made by the Trump administration. For all we know, the recipient of that loan was in compliance with the SBA rules at the time, rules that, I should note, were in place during the first Trump administration.

Those rules required 51 percent ownership of a business by a citizen or permanent resident, meaning a 49 percent ownership stake by a short- term resident, like a DACA recipient, was permissible if other requirements were met. It allowed a pathway for hardworking, documented persons to become entrepreneurs and give back to their communities.

Is this administration simply misrepresenting the rules and calling foul for no reason; or are they the ones in the wrong by rescinding a loan that was issued lawfully; or is this all just a manufactured narrative? We may never

know because, despite repeated requests, the Administrator hasn't shared any information.

On that note, if they have identified this as fraud or abuse, then there is a process in place to turn over these findings to the Office of Inspector General and other law enforcement for a full investigation. No such referral has occurred, and no SBA IG has yet been named after the illegal firing of Mike Ware, a respected watchdog praised by Democrats and Republicans alike.

We also keep hearing about the need to protect taxpayers' money and ensure SBA loans go to deserving small businesses. I don't disagree, but I remind my colleagues that some of the individuals they refer to as ``illegals,'' which in many cases means people with TPS or DACA status, do pay taxes. They contribute to Social Security. The previous 51 percent ownership rule recognized that and created a pathway for them to access some entrepreneurial assistance, but only as a minority partner with a permanent resident.

This rule codifies the new rule that 100 percent of the business must now be owned by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. That might sound reasonable until you hear the real-world consequences.

Businesses could be shut out of SBA lending because of a foreign investor with less than 2 percent ownership. A husband and wife could not get a loan because one of them is a European citizen with an ownership interest in the business. Despite their clear commitment to creating local jobs and investing in their community, under this bill, they are also being penalized.

The harm isn't limited to businessowners. The bill creates a new set of compliance burdens that SBA lenders are not equipped to handle. Banks will have to verify the citizenship status of every owner down to the last percentage point, something they have told us could expose them to legal risk under civil rights laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

We have also heard concerns that the information collected under this bill could be shared with immigration enforcement. This could turn the SBA from a resource for all small businesses into an enforcement arm of DHS. That is not what the SBA is for.

Finally, let me point out the double standard here. For years, Republicans have complained about regulations and reporting requirements being too burdensome for small businesses and lenders, but now they are ready to impose an incredibly complicated, mandatory, and invasive new compliance regime without offering any new resources to support it.

This bill is about scoring political points at the expense of immigrant entrepreneurs. It sends a message that some people, no matter how hard they work or how closely they follow the rules, do not deserve the same shot at success. We should be expanding opportunity, not closing it off.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and stand up for the small businesses that make our communities stronger, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if this is so easy, then let's bring 1071 back. The type of information that it is requiring and that it is imposing lenders to provide is at the very front end, while 1071 is voluntary at the end of a loan being approved, then we are not burdening small businesses and lenders today.

By the way, this bill likely violates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. SBA lenders have already told us that they are likely to pull back from lending not to violate ECOA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard supporters of this bill say it is about protecting taxpayer dollars and stopping fraud, but the facts just don't back that up. There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are getting loans they are not supposed to. In the one case Republicans like to cite, not prove, that has been provided, it is highly likely that DOGE and the current administration are confusing the rules that were in place at the time with the stricter 100 percent ownership requirement they imposed later.

That is what this bill is really doing. It targets small business owners who are here legally, people like DACA recipients, visa holders, and refugees; people who are building businesses, creating jobs, and following every rule.

Republicans also claim this bill is about accountability, when in reality it creates a mess for lenders. It forces them to track and verify the age and citizenship status of every single businessowner down to the last percentage point. It requires all of this information just to be considered for the loan, unlike the section 1071 rules which required voluntary reporting after the loan's origination. This bill makes compliance a requisite for obtaining a loan.

I have to ask, after all of the complaints we have heard over the years about section 1071, how do my colleagues justify this now? How do my colleagues justify imposing this regulatory regime against lenders and borrowers?

Right now small businesses are struggling. Tariffs are driving up the costs of goods. Supply chains are under pressure. Instead of giving entrepreneurs the tools they need to grow, this bill adds more barriers and more uncertainty. If it is to become law, it is going to hurt the very small businesses which it will be trying to help.

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

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

Section 1071 the borrower can decline after the loan. The lender cannot get information from a trade group.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to the bill, one from the Small Business Majority and another from UnidosUS.

June 5, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Roger Williams,

Chairman, Committee on Small Business,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nydia Velazquez,

Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Chairman Williams, Minority Leader

Jeffries and Ranking Member Velazquez: As a representative of

America's 34 million small businesses, Small Business

Majority writes to express our opposition to H.R. 2931, the

Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, and H.R. 2966,

the American Entrepreneurs First Act.

Amid an increasingly more difficult economic environment,

the federal government should do everything it can to meet

small businesses where they are, which is why H.R. 2931 is an

example of a policy proposal that would be ineffective at

best and harmful at worst. The bill, which would require the

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to relocate any

regional, district or local SBA office housed in a `sanctuary

jurisdiction', ignores the fact that millions of small

businesses are located in or near cities that could be

designated as a `sanctuary jurisdiction.' Moving offices

farther away from the small businesses they were intended to

support certainly would not facilitate SBA better servicing

these small firms. What's more, there is no evidence to even

suggest that a city's policy toward immigrants has any

relationship to its ability to effectively meet the needs of

local small businesses. With that in mind, we strongly

encourage members of the House of Representatives to ignore

distractions like H.R. 2931 and focus on policies that would

truly benefit America's entrepreneurs.

In addition to ongoing efforts to shutter regional offices,

with no detailed or communicated plans as to where those

offices will be relocated or when, SBA has also slashed its

workforce by 43%, further restricting the agency's ability to

meet the growing demands of today's small businesses. Recent

national polling found that 78% of small business owners are

concerned about cuts to the SBA and its programs. Nearly 8 in

10 small business owners report having used SBA programs for

their business.

Also up for consideration is H.R. 2966, the American

Entrepreneurs First Act, which doesn't live up to its name.

Some small businesses that are majority owned by Americans

have foreign investors, and under this bill those businesses

would be denied access to critical Small Business

Administration resources. What's more, this legislation

ignores the fact that immigrant communities are a vital hub

of entrepreneurial activity in the United States. Immigrants

who may not yet be citizens employ American citizens and pay

taxes to the United States government; they too deserve

access to Small Business Administration resources. Small

Business Majority strongly supports uplifting immigrant

communities working in good faith to obtain U.S. citizenship.

These bills will lead to less vibrant communities and fewer

Main Street business opportunities for many in search of the

American Dream. Congress should do all it can to support

America's job creators, not pick and choose winners within

the small business community based on nothing more than where

a small business owner was born.

We urge your office to oppose H.R. 2931 and H.R. 2966 as

both proposals undermine the

SBA's capacity to carry out its mission and strip resources

away from hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs.

Sincerely,

John Arensmeyer,

Founder & CEO, Small Business Majority.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that H.R. 2966 will not improve SBA lending or support small businesses. This bill creates new barriers, targets legally operating entrepreneurs, and burdens lenders with requirements they aren't equipped to meet. Small businesses are struggling.

This administration's trade policies have increased uncertainty and made it nearly impossible for many small firms to do business. The small businesses in my district and those that have reached out to my committee are not asking for this legislation. They want stability, and they want more support.

This bill risks making things worse by reducing access to capital for many small businesses that are following the rules. We should be working together to lift these businesses up, not passing laws to punish them.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and focus instead on solutions that will truly help American small businesses.

Let me say, they brought this bill to the floor without a single hearing, no expert witnesses, no nothing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material in the record on H.R. 2483.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act.

When the Committee on Energy and Commerce led the way on the original SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act 7 years ago under the leadership of Chairman Greg Walden, the opioid crisis looked different. Overdose deaths were largely driven by prescription and semisynthetic opioids, like oxycodone and heroin.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, government-enforced lockdowns hurt patients in recovery and sent more people into despair, increasing the amount of people taking illegal drugs for the first time.

Since then, the heartbreaking stories about the toll illicit fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances have on our communities have continued. The rate at which Americans are dying from fentanyl poisoning is just devastating.

In our first Health Committee hearing this Congress, my colleagues listened to the testimony of Ray Cullen, who lost his son Zach to fentanyl poisoning. Nobody should have to experience this pain.

Earlier this year, the House took a critical step to get illicit fentanyl off our streets in passing the HALT Fentanyl Act, which was led by my friend, Congressman Morgan Griffith.

I am proud today to lead the reauthorization of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. By passing this bill, my colleagues continue our work to help improve treatment and recovery opportunities, bolster prevention initiatives, and fight the fentanyl crisis.

This bill is about offering hope to those in despair, those battling substance use disorder, their families and loved ones, healthcare heroes, and first responders who need continued support to help save lives.

I thank Congresswoman Pettersen and all the Members who have supported this important bipartisan piece of legislation.

I am hopeful that by reauthorizing programs with proven success and increasing access to treatment, Congress can continue to address and prevent these tragic drug-related deaths and restore hope and healing to those who need it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I point out, as they have had efficiencies in HHS in this area, it has been reported to us that there are no material changes in the programs before us today, showing that the Trump administration has substance use disorder and drug addiction as a number one priority.

Mr. Chair, I don't understand the logic that the best way to send a message to the President that you support these programs is to vote ``no'' on the bill. I just don't understand that logic. I hope we can get bipartisan support. We will put the bill on the President's desk, and I believe the President will sign the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health, an important worker on this piece of legislation and my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), my good friend who is the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I want to point out that Medicaid reform specifically exempted people with substance use disorder from being defined as able-bodied for the purpose of the work requirement. It specifically exempted them. We understand that Medicaid is a big payer for people with substance use disorder recovery services, and our bill exempted them. That will continue.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I want to point out one more time that in Medicaid reform, people with substance use disorder and mental health issues are exempted from having to comply with the work requirement so that hardworking taxpayers who go to work will provide the categories we were just talking about today with Medicaid. They are not going to provide for the able-bodied. There is an exemption

from the able-bodied requirement for substance use disorder recovery and mental health.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), my great friend and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I will remind you that we spend about almost $700 billion in Medicaid. When this bill goes into effect, 10 years from now, we are going to spend $1.1 trillion in Medicaid. I just want to make sure that point is made.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), my good friend and a great leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), my good friend and very strong leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt), one of our freshman Members, not a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but he has been on the front lines of the opioid crisis in Topeka as attorney general, and it is great to have his expertise in the Congress.

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

Mr. Chair, this isn't a hollow exercise. This is our opportunity to say these programs are important to us. Article I of the Constitution clearly gives us legislative authority: All legislative authority will vest in the Congress of the United States.

We authorize these programs. I don't think the answer is to say we believe in these programs, therefore we are not going to vote to reauthorize them because we don't believe they are going to be carried out. It is our job to authorize them, to work the appropriations process, and then to do the oversight to make sure these are implemented.

If the White House and the President can do this more efficiently, I am all about doing it more efficiently, but our job is to ensure that the mission is accomplished. If they can do that with different agencies, we need to have that debate. I think that is important. It starts with authorizing the program, and in this case reauthorizing the program.

Mr. Chair, I just want you to know there are no reasons to vote against this in substance. The language of this bill that we have before us was negotiated by both the House and the Senate, with the Democratic leaders and the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate, so it was bipartisan and bicameral discussions. That is the text of the bill before us.

What we are here doing today, it is not a hollow move. That is not it at all. We are here today to say these are important to us. If there are discussions on what is important and what is not important, the first thing we need to do is come together as a House and say these issues are important to us as a House. Let's get this bill to the Senate and put it on the President's desk.

I strongly believe the President will sign this bill because he believes, as we all believe, that people are hurting. They are hurting with substance use disorder. You have the supply coming across the border that he is shutting down and trying to shut down, but we also have to deal with the demand side. We need not just to slow down the demand, which is important, but change people's lives because when they are suffering with substance use disorder, it is just chaotic on themselves, their families, in which they live and the friends that they have.

This truly changes people's lives. It is a bipartisan bill. Everything in it is bipartisan and has been discussed. I just encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill, reauthorize these provisions, fight to get them through the Senate, put them on the President's desk, and then fight for their authorization through the appropriations process, as well. I am committed to doing that, and I look forward to hopefully a bipartisan vote on this bill.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I really appreciate the hard work of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) on this issue. She is a leader in Congress on substance use disorder.

I actually didn't know the story of my friend from Colorado's mother. Certainly, when someone is touched by an issue, they certainly become passionate about it. I greatly appreciate her passion on the issue.

The section 1115 waivers are important to the Medicaid program. States are the laboratories for democracy. Section 1115 waivers provide key State flexibility to test new authorities and ideas in the Medicaid program.

In substance use disorder alone, 1115 waivers were pivotal in early efforts to lift the IMD exclusion, an obsolete edifice to the Medicaid program that undermines access to mental health care and substance use disorder care by only allowing for Medicaid to reimburse for care in- patient facilities with fewer than 16 beds.

Under President Trump's guidance, in 2018, States were able to use 1115 waivers to waive the IMD exclusion, expanding access to care as the opioid epidemic began to grow worse.

After 5 years of State experimentation with 1115 waivers to lift the IMD exclusion, Congress stepped in and ultimately lifted the IMD exclusion. We took on that initiative in 2023, alongside the rest of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. We were able to get that signed into law, even when the Senate blocked the rest of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, because it was important to get it done.

The 1115 waivers have been on the books for decades, and States have used them a multitude of ways to transform the Medicaid program. A key tenet of those waivers, though, is that they have to be budget neutral. This wasn't a problem when 1115 waivers were used to lift the IMD exclusion. States were clearly able to demonstrate how early access to care reduced emergency room services.

Nonetheless, the Biden administration in the use of 1115 waiver authorities put forth new guidance that allowed States to rely on so- called hypothetical expenditures that let States spend Medicaid dollars on services that were over budget and unrelated to the core functions of the Medicaid program.

Some examples of this included paying for air conditioning systems for beneficiaries and for providing payments for legal support for beneficiaries. This isn't to say that HVAC systems in a hot climate or legal supports aren't important or may have some potential relation to someone's health, but they fall far outside the scope of what Medicaid is intended for. They open the door for States to draw down Federal funds or for services that are oftentimes entirely funded by the States.

In 2023, as the then-subcommittee chairman for Energy and Commerce's Health Subcommittee, I raised concerns with that direction with the Biden administration as they were moving toward these waivers.

Specifically, in this CMS, I wrote:

``The committee is also concerned about the potential for fraud, waste, and abuse in calculation and application of States' budget neutrality limits under Section 1115 Medicaid waivers.''

As chairman of the full committee, those concerns remain. Madam Chair, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans began to take steps to address this. In the reconciliation bill that we passed, we included key language to require stricter adherence to the budget neutrality requirements for 1115 waivers.

It doesn't matter if the President is Democrat or Republican who is approving these waivers. It needs to be budget neutral. We need to be good stewards for programs like Medicaid and to make sure that it is spending in a fiscally responsible manner and that we aren't just writing blank checks to States who can spend money how they choose.

I will close by saying I greatly appreciate the leadership my friend from Colorado has shown. She is a leader in this House and in ensuring that we deal with as much as we possibly can in every way possible with substance use disorder. I believe we need to stick to the budget neutrality.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.