Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 566.

Section 426(a) of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act. House Resolution 566 states that it is in order to consider a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1: ``Without intervention of any point of order.''

Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426(a) that this rule may not be considered.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say this once again: We will not stand by and watch Trump and his billionaire friends destroy this country without putting up one hell of a fight.

Because this rule waives the point of order against unfunded mandates, it is not in order to consider it on the floor.

The bill Republicans are attempting to jam through the House today cuts nutritional assistance for moms and dads, kids, people with disabilities, veterans, and senior citizens. It goes after the most important people in our lives, our families, to fund massive tax breaks for the richest people in the world. I think that that is wrong, and I think it is immoral.

More than just a massive betrayal of the American people, this bill is also a massive, new unfunded mandate on States. Don't just take my word for it. The nonpartisan experts of the Congressional Budget Office said title I of the bill, the Agriculture Committee's portion of this awful bill, would impose intergovernmental mandates by requiring States, for the first time ever, to provide State funding for food assistance benefits, increasing the share of food assistance administrative costs paid by States and requiring State agencies to perform additional administrative duties. This massive, new unfunded mandate would cost States a whopping $19 billion each year.

Mr. Speaker, where the hell are States going to come up with this kind of money? They can't. What will happen is, people will get kicked off of food assistance, and they will go hungry.

State after State has written to Congress begging us not to pass this awful bill. They have made it very clear that if this bill goes through, States will be forced to cut benefits, kick eligible people off of food assistance entirely, or raise taxes to pay for this massive new bureaucracy that Republicans are creating in every State in this country.

The chairman of the Agriculture Committee's home State of Pennsylvania would have to come up with over $1 billion to cover the State's share of benefit costs. There is no State in this country who is able to take on this kind of massive, unfunded mandate.

We are talking about basic needs for people. It is a food assistance benefit of $2 per meal so people don't go hungry. By the way, that money not only lifts people out of poverty, it improves health and it uplifts local economies, too.

Hunger costs this country, and food assistance programs save us money. People who have enough food to eat are more productive at work. Kids who are not hungry are able to learn better at school. Seniors who take their medication on a full stomach are less likely to go to emergency rooms.

No American should go without food. This is a human rights issue. We live in the richest country on Earth for God's sake. Not a single kid in this country should go to bed hungry, not a single damn one, especially not when Republicans are giving millionaires and billionaires a big, fat tax break.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with my Republican colleagues? In this bill, they provide a $2 billion tax break for gun silencers, but they cut SNAP benefits for vulnerable families, which, by the way, is on average $2 per person per meal. Jesus Christ, what are you people thinking?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office confirming that there are unfunded mandates in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of my Republican colleagues have read this provision in the reconciliation bill. In fact, the Agriculture Committee never even did a hearing on it. Yet, billions and billions of dollars in new costs are going to be thrust upon States. States are going to have to decide whether to cut other programs in order to make sure that no one loses their nutrition benefits, or they are going to have to cut people off their nutrition benefits.

The SNAP benefit, on average, is about $2 per person per meal. That is it. You can't buy a damn cup of coffee in the Capitol with that. My Republican friends are obsessed with trying to throw people off of this benefit. I have no idea why.

Most of the people on the benefit are children and senior citizens. They include veterans. Many of them are working full time and can't afford to put food on the table. This benefit helps them provide for their families.

My Republican friends have basically gone on an attack on this most basic, effective program that is about food. You can live without a lot of things, but you can't live without food.

Mr. Speaker, for those Republicans who think it is okay to give Jeff Bezos a tax cut and, at the same time, cut food benefits for struggling families, let me say clearly that we don't share the same values.

Unloading billions of dollars in new costs on States, money they do not have, will force them to cut benefits and throw needy people off of SNAP. It is a rotten thing to do.

I believe there is a special place in hell for people who take food away from veterans, seniors, children, former foster youth, and hungry families. This is sick. This is disgusting.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this process is an abomination, legislative malpractice. Final text of this bill came out less than 24 hours ago. We met in committee an hour after it was posted, and now, we are here considering a rule that allows for only 1 hour of debate.

This bill is within the jurisdiction of 12 different committees. One hour is ridiculous. Every minute, we are finding out new things that were snuck into the bill, like a tax cut for whalers. Now, we are learning about a gambling tax.

Republican leadership and the White House are jamming this bill down our throats. For what? We are not on a deadline. There is no looming crisis.

We are here because Donald Trump wants a Fourth of July party to celebrate this garbage bill. He wants fireworks, flags, and cameras, not for this country, but for himself. He says to close your ears, close your eyes, and vote for this bill. Honestly, it sounds more like a cult than a Congress to me.

Some Republicans promised their voters no cuts to Medicaid and no new debt. Now, they are flipping faster than pancakes at a campaign breakfast. The House passed it hoping the Senate would kill it. The Senate passed it hoping the House would grow a spine.

Everyone is playing a game of legislative chicken, voting for a bad bill and thinking the other Chamber will be the one to fix it. This is nuts.

Trump says: ``Have fun, and Vote `YAY.' '' Have fun gutting Medicaid? Vote ``yea'' on taking away food from poor families? Are you serious?

This bill is catastrophic. It is not policy. It is punishment.

Let's talk facts. It slashes Medicaid, cuts Medicare, and dismantles the ACA. It shutters rural hospitals, closes nursing homes, and wipes out health centers. It takes food off kitchen tables, throws clean energy workers out of jobs, and spikes utility bills. Why? So billionaires and oil companies can

cash in. Big Oil gets handouts. Billionaires get tax breaks. Working families get scraps, if that.

Jeff Bezos just had a $50 million wedding in Venice, and they want to give him another tax break. Meanwhile, families making under $50,000 a year get less than a buck a day in tax cuts. You can't even buy a cup of coffee with that.

The cost? Over $3 trillion added to the debt and a $5 trillion debt ceiling raise brought to you by the very people who won't shut up about so-called fiscal responsibility.

This isn't tax reform to relieve the middle and working class. It is a robbery that will result in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich our country has ever seen.

Let's not lie to the American people. This is about taking from the most vulnerable to pay off the already powerful. It is about pleasing one man who is holding this Congress hostage with primary threats and social media tantrums.

This bill is cruel. It is cowardly. It is a betrayal of everything this country is supposed to stand for.

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

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

I want to alert all Members to something about this rule. It has a mistake in it.

Republicans have rushed this process from the very beginning to meet Trump's artificial July 4 deadline, and this rule is no exception.

We found an error in the rule at 2 a.m. after the Rules Committee reported the rule. This is going to sound a little in the weeds, but they forgot to do something called considering the previous question as ordered on their big ugly bill.

Now, let me put that in English. What that means is they won't have an escape hatch once they start debate on this bill. If they start it and they realize they don't have the votes, they still have to take the embarrassing vote. There are also other consequences, but this Speaker's timeout authority is the one Republican leadership is most afraid of.

Now, I expect they will try to fix this with an amendment, but I have a question for Members. If this Republican leadership cannot get a one- paragraph rule right, can we really trust them to get an 870-page bill right?

Not only are we going to find things that were sneaked into this bill, we are going to find massive mistakes that have unintended consequences for people and industries across this country.

This whole process has been lousy, and this rule is no exception.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of low energy on that side.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I know a Senator from North Carolina who disagrees with everything the gentleman just said, including a lot of hospitals in North Carolina that disagree with what he just said.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I read the bill, too. I want to know why Jeff Bezos and multimillionaires and multibillionaires are getting tax cuts.

Last night, I offered an amendment to let Trump's tax cuts expire only for people earning more than $1 billion a year. Every single Republican voted against it. What is that all about? Follow the money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, cult much? That gentleman's poster says it all. It is not about American families. It is about one big party for Trump. It is about swelling up his ego.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker Emerita.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentlewoman, if she doesn't have many speakers, maybe she can lend us some time. We have a ton.

Mr. Speaker, I say that because here in Congress, we measure how much people really believe in their position by whether they are willing to come and join their leaders on the House floor.

I count 4 Members on the Republican side, and we have over 75 here. If I were them, I wouldn't want to be associated with this bill either.

Mr. Speaker, I urge we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider amendment No. 156 offered by Leader Jeffries, which strikes all provisions that will cause millions of Americans to lose healthcare and food assistance.

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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio Cortez) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, if there are no other Republican Members willing to speak for this bill, we can send some Members over to you just to state the facts as to what is in this bill. Let's do the public a service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Olszewski).

Mr. Speaker, if you can't find a job, just enroll in a training program. That is hard to do when Republicans are cutting and gutting the training programs that exist in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Mr. Speaker, I feel the excitement on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Speaker, Democratic Leader Jeffries has an amendment to strike the devastating cuts to healthcare and SNAP, and I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Foushee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, are you sure you don't want to check with the gentlewoman from North Carolina just in case she changed her mind?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mfume) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) for the purpose of unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bynum) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fields) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Strickland) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, does one Republican Member have the power to block an amendment to protect Medicaid and SNAP?

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 566? Though the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor has the Congressional Budget Office identified any violation of the act.

The reason for this motion is plain and obvious. It is not a legitimate attempt to question consideration, but simply a dilatory tactic to further delay consideration of this historic legislation and to give the Democrats more time to mislead Americans.

We must dispense with this question of consideration so we can move the process forward and enact the agenda President Trump and the American people have demanded.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans stand ready to deliver H.R. 1 directly to the President's desk for his signature.

Late last year, the American people rallied en masse behind the Republican vision for a renewed Nation. It is a nation no longer blighted by the cataclysmic failures of the previous administration, and a nation primed and ready to enter the golden age.

One of the many strong reinforced byproducts of our Republican vision is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is one of the most consequential pieces of legislation that any party has ever passed and for good reason.

The provisions interwoven in this legislation are monumental. They are what the American people voted for in November: historic tax relief for working families; massive investments to secure our Nation's borders; capturing generational savings; and slashing waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs so that they may run more efficiently for those who truly need them.

Mr. Speaker, I could opine at length about the wins that Republicans have secured in this bill, wins that we have been highlighting to the American people for months. Meanwhile, our Democratic colleagues have resorted to fear-mongering and wailing from their bully pulpits in the hopes of deceiving the American people.

For months, we have heard Democrats claim that the sky was falling, that all hope is lost because H.R. 1 will bring about the end times, and a litany of other outlandish and absurd claims. They are so desperate to smear H.R. 1 and deny the American people the policies that the American people overwhelmingly voted for in November.

Let's again focus on what this bill accomplishes. It yields the single greatest cut in wasteful government spending in congressional history by slashing far more than a trillion dollars of bloat. It preserves the greatest battle-tested set of tax cuts for working families that our Nation has ever seen or our economy has ever realized. It doubles down on the border priorities of the most successful enforcement efforts by a President in our Nation's history. It realigns our economy in defense of American workers, American energy, American businesses, and American job creators to unleash the engines of our economy, raise the tide of our economic standards, and bring a new definition of American greatness to the world.

Perhaps the reason why Democrats are so desperate to smear this legislation is because they are caught in their own self-inflicted malaise of denial. Perhaps they still can't accept that Americans chose Republicans to lead the Nation instead of them.

That said, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are not distracted by that fear- mongering and doomsaying of those who want H.R. 1 to fail. The facts are on our side, and we have been cutting through the noise by bringing those facts to the American people for months.

So that the record is clear, a vote against this legislation is a vote to green-light the largest tax increase in American history being levied against everyday men and women, to decimate millions of jobs across America, and to kneecap the capabilities and readiness of the Nation's military. This is not fear-mongering like what our colleagues across the aisle have been engaging in. These are just facts.

Mr. Speaker, the pathway forward is crystal clear. The House must pass this rule and pass the Senate amendment to H.R. 1 so that more wins can be delivered to the American people. The American people deserve to keep winning, and to deny them that opportunity is a flagrant disservice.

This legislation is the embodiment of the America First agenda, and we would all do well to remember that. Failure at this critical juncture is not an option. This clock is ticking. The President and the American people are waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Speaker, I would say nice try to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner).

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

Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues continue to rail against commonsense community engagement requirements, which require able- bodied adults without an exemption to spend 20 hours per week working, volunteering, enrolling in school, or participating in a work development program.

Let's be perfectly clear. These work requirements apply only to able- bodied adults without young dependents who don't have a disqualifying condition.

Individuals who are exempt from these requirements include pregnant women, individuals under the age of 19 or over the age of 64, foster youth and former foster youth under the age of 26, members of Tribes, individuals who are considered medically frail, and individuals who are already in compliance with the work requirements under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

The list goes on, but our priority remains the same. It is to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and to strengthen and sustain Medicaid for those for whom the program was intended to serve: expectant mothers, children with disabilities, the poor, and the elderly.

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

Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate, and I do not yield for that request.

Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate. I do not yield for that request.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to consider H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The stakes for the American people could not be higher. We are rapidly approaching a fiscal cliff. If we do nothing, the Trump tax cuts, the most progrowth tax reforms in generations, will expire.

That means higher taxes on nearly every American. That means a gutted child tax credit. That means small businesses will lose the tools they need to survive and to thrive. That means less take-home pay for working families that have already been crushed by the Biden-era inflation.

This isn't some hypothetical scenario. This is the Democrats' game plan. They want to raise taxes. They want to punish success. They want more people dependent on government and fewer people building independent lives. Republicans will not let that happen.

With H.R. 1, we are stepping in to lock in the Trump tax cuts permanently and to provide targeted new relief to the workers and the families who keep this country running: seniors, tipped workers, and those putting in overtime to get ahead.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also takes a critical step to protect and strengthen Medicaid, a vital program for millions of Americans.

Let me be very clear about something: This isn't anything radical. We are restoring the same commonsense work requirements that President Bill Clinton signed into law in the 1990s, one of the most popular things he did.

Back then, a Democratic President worked with a Republican Congress to say that if you are able-bodied and adult without dependents and receiving government assistance, you should be expected to work, train, or volunteer and participate in the economy. It worked. Poverty dropped, employment rose, and millions of Americans moved from welfare to work and independence.

Democrats today have abandoned that model. They want permanent government dependency. They will oppose any form of accountability, and they will vilify anyone who dares to suggest that opportunity should come with responsibility. Republicans are standing up for what works and what is right.

We are saying Medicaid must remain a lifeline for the truly vulnerable: children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income parents.

However, for able-bodied adults without kids, yes, you should try to work, just like in the 1990s, just like under President Bill Clinton.

This isn't extreme. It is not partisan. It is proven policy that respects both taxpayers and lifts people up.

Mr. Speaker, this bill delivers economic relief, fiscal sanity, and basic fairness. It secures the future of our economy and our safety net.

Let's choose the path that has been tested and proven to work. Let's approve this rule. Let's pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and let's get this country back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Foxx) for her work on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in strong support of H.R. 1, President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we face a watershed moment for the American people. This Republican majority was given a clear mandate by the American people, which is the America First agenda. This bill is our opportunity to deliver on that agenda.

H.R. 1 stops the largest tax increase in U.S. history, while providing the largest tax cut for working-and middle-class families ever, with no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and tax breaks for seniors.

H.R. 1 protects the 87,000 Missouri farms and countless family-owned small businesses from double taxation by expanding the death tax exemption.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act reverses 4 long years of Biden's open- border policies with a generational investment in border security, including funding to complete phase 2 of the border wall.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act modernizes our Armed Forces for 21st century threats by properly funding our military and funding the Golden Dome.

H.R. 1 ends the progressive left's war on American energy by unleashing domestic oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy production. H.R. 1 lowers energy costs, ensuring reliable and stable energy sources. H.R. 1 renews not just energy independence but makes us energy dominant once again.

Finally, H.R. 1 restores fiscal sanity by cutting almost $2 trillion in Federal spending. It rescinds billions in green new scam funding. It eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse from numerous Federal programs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time for choosing. We can choose to side with the illegal aliens, unelected rogue bureaucrats, and fear-mongering from the America left or we can choose to side with the American people and deliver on the mandate that they gave us back in November.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put America first, support the rule, and pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

For the first time in history, this bill would force States to pay for part of SNAP benefits, and it would require States to increase their share of administrative costs.

This is an unfunded mandate, plain and simple.

Let's be clear. The costs are staggering, the consequences are devastating, and the cruelty is deeply disturbing.

This policy punishes those who can least afford it: seniors on a fixed income, veterans, and families already forced to choose between gas and groceries.

States will be stuck in a corner. They will cut benefits, cut eligibility, or cut public safety, education, housing, and mental health programs just to stay afloat.

This isn't just a budgeting decision. It is a values decision, and for what? All to take from the hungry and give it to the wealthy. To slash SNAP benefits just $6 per day hands a quarter-million-dollar tax break to the top 0.1 percent. That is not policy. That is plunder. The math doesn't lie.

In North Carolina, it is $400 million. That is more than the entire State budget for child development and early education. In Georgia, it is $500 million, double what the State spends on child welfare. In my State of Ohio, it is $300 million, four times the transportation budget.

My colleagues are writing checks that the government can't cash. When the money runs out, the food runs out. Children will go hungry. Seniors will skip meals. Veterans, working moms, and working dads will be turned down

and turned away all because of a vote taken here today.

This mandate isn't just unfunded. It is unfathomable.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this provision, reject this rule, and reject this betrayal. Don't reward the rich on the backs of hungry Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.