Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 113.

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

Mr. Chairman, the American people suffered through 4 years of lawlessness, incompetence, and habitual failure under Joe Biden and Democratic leadership, one self-inflicted disaster after another: border chaos, rampant crime, feckless foreign policy, spending-induced inflation that we haven't seen in a half a century, a crushing cost-of- living crisis, and the worst regressive tax on working families in this country.

In the historic election of 2024, our citizens gave us unified Republican leadership and an unambiguous and unequivocal message. They said that we want strong, competent leaders, commonsense policies, and a commitment to America and Americans first.

Mr. Chairman, for our part, from day one, Republicans have united and relentlessly delivered in reversing those failed Democratic policies, delivering on the American people's priorities, and restoring America's greatness and the American spirit along with it.

Mr. Chairman, we have been doing this in the face of unprecedented Democratic obstruction. They either didn't listen to the American people in the election of 2024, or worse: They didn't care.

Instead of humble self-reflection and change, the Democratic Party has doubled down on their radical agenda and has hastened their march to Democratic socialism. Their entire strategy has been to resist Republicans and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct the President at all fronts and at all costs, even if it hurts our great Nation, its success, and the safety and security of the American people, sadly.

Exhibit A: The Democrats shut the government down for the first time in history when we presented a clean CR to continue the funding of last year until we could work out an appropriations deal. They rejected it, and their demand was to repeal the safeguards that we put in to prevent illegals and ineligible people from draining the safety net that is there for vulnerable Americans.

Then, they shut Homeland Security down, and they held not only TSA agents and coastguardsmen hostage, but they held the American people and our security hostage for absurd and dangerous demands that would have returned our country back to the Biden border nightmare, along with endangering our hardworking and brave Border Patrol and ICE agents.

The Democrats have gone on time and time again with this unprecedented obstruction. Recently, they blocked the National Defense Authorization Act to protest President Trump and our troops' efforts to stop this radical terrorist regime from having nuclear weapons.

They blocked FISA, which is a critical tool for our intelligence agencies to stave off and thwart terrorist attacks and Chinese espionage and hacking into our critical infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on. Let me tell you what we have done as Republicans, relentlessly, every day, with the commitment to the people who sent us up here. In reconciliation 1.0, we prevented the largest tax hike in our Nation's history, 22 percent, which would have been on top of the 21 percent increase in prices they experienced from Biden inflation.

We gave permanent tax relief to working families and small businesses. We made the largest investment in rebuilding our military, restoring their spirit, peace through strength for the USA. We saved a record $1.6 trillion in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse that was robbing taxpayers and weakening the safety net for our most vulnerable.

Reconciliation 2.0, unfortunately, we had to burn a reconciliation and go at it again unilaterally, Republicans stopping the defunding of ICE and CBP. That is right. We didn't get a single Democratic vote to fund ICE and CBP, and the only way we turned Homeland Security back on is they wanted to cut them out of the equation. That is what we did with the second reconciliation.

Mr. Chairman, here we are with reconciliation 3.0, supporting our troops in their time of need with just baseline battlefield readiness, bullets and bombs to finish the job and to come home safely and victoriously; strengthening our food supply; and, ultimately, we want to safeguard the integrity of our elections.

We want to restore the American people's confidence because as the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence: ``There is no just government without the consent of the governed,'' and there is no legitimate consent and there is no functioning democracy if the American people have no confidence in this election.

Mr. Chairman, it is not just the President. It is not just MAGA Republicans. Nancy Pelosi, in 2017, said this: ``Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect our democracy . . . `'

Well, you know what, Mr. Chairman? I agree with Nancy Pelosi. We have a duty. We have a duty to safeguard our elections. We have a duty to restore confidence in what underpins the will of the people, their freedoms, our common defense, and the general welfare of every American in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage not just Republicans but my Democratic colleagues to join us in supporting our troops, safeguarding our elections, and saving America.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, as you heard from our chairman, while our Democrat colleagues are shutting down the Department of Homeland Security and blocking the National Defense Authorization Act in the Senate, we have our troops standing in the gap, risking their lives for the common defense. They need to be refueled. They need the replenishment. They need the resources to be successful. They need to know we are behind them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), our chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

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

You heard the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He is talking about

emergency support for our farmers and ranchers who, by no fault of their own, are being pummeled by drought, natural disasters of all kinds, diseases like the screwworm.

This will affect the food supply. We don't want to depend on China or any country. We don't want to beg any foreign country to feed our families. I thank him for his leadership, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), who is my friend and the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Let's not believe the hype, Mr. Chairman. Let's look at the stats from the nonpartisan CBO. The deficit per GDP has gone down by over 10 percent for the first time--because this continues to be their perpetual talking point. In 10 years we haven't seen the deficit to GDP go down.

Republicans came to this town, and we drained the swamp of waste, fraud, and abuse to the tune of $1.6 trillion. That is twice as much as this town has ever cut in the history of the United States of America.

It was Republicans who put forward the Fiscal Responsibility Act and, according to the nonpartisan CBO, saved $2 trillion. Then we put progrowth policies in that big, beautiful bill and unleashed American investment, which is up 10 percent; and growth, which is up. We had a 3.8 and 4.3 in the third and fourth quarter or second and third before the Democrats shut the government down. Wages are up. Inflation and interest are coming down. More money is in people's pockets.

I would say: Promises made, promises delivered.

Mr. Chair, I want to introduce to you the great chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).

Mr. Chair, interestingly enough, Chuck Schumer, Democratic leader in the Senate, agrees. In 2018, he was talking about Russian interference. It turned out to be a conspiracy and debunked. He said that they are actively trying to do it again. Russia is trying to do it again. We must wake up to this fact--these are his words: ``We won't be able as a nation to fight back against foreign interference in our elections if the Commander in Chief''--Donald Trump at the time-- ``doesn't even acknowledge that it is a real problem.''

I think this President has acknowledged it is a real problem, and I think the American people have acknowledged it is a real problem. I thank the gentleman for his leadership to restore confidence and integrity to the United States electoral system.

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

Mr. Chairman, here is the irony: My Democrat colleagues, every single one of them, voted for $200 billion for Ukraine, for their war that would have been prevented, quite frankly, if we had a strong, competent, Commander in Chief at the time. We didn't. It started. They have sent $200 billion without batting an eye and without giving a penny to offset it. Now they want to talk about offsets when we want to give our troops the money they need to finish the job, be safe, come home. We are proud of them. We stand with them. We are going to support them.

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

Mr. Chairman, while my Democratic colleagues are counting the pennies on this defense supplemental, remember, baseline battlefield readiness. That is it, just what they need to do their job. It is actually about $67 billion.

Meanwhile, the open-border policies of our Democrat colleagues have flooded our country with millions of illegals. According to NumbersUSA, that is $9,000 per illegal in taxpayer social services, to people who aren't here legally, aren't our citizens, and that is more than we spend on our most vulnerable for Medicaid.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), my dear friend and great vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, we gave the Democrats, our friends on the other side of the aisle, opportunity after opportunity multiple times to support what 83 percent of the American people support, which is photo identification to vote in elections in this country.

You need an ID to check in at a hotel and to fly on an airplane--in Mamdani's New York, you need it to shovel snow--but it is not important enough for the cornerstone of this democratic Republic.

The American people aren't fooled. We are not fooled. We are going to do this so that we can continue with this great country of ours and with the confidence of the American people in the outcome of the elections.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to be clear, when the Democrats had total control, they heaped taxes and regulations on our job creators. They attacked, with a whole- of-government force, against domestic energy producers. They waived work requirements for able-bodied adults. They allowed illegals onto our social safety net. They did give a tax break to green energy corporations. They gave tax subsidies to the tune of $800 billion, along with hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted stimulus checks.

Juxtapose that with 127 million Americans getting a doubled standard deduction, 40 million families getting an enhanced child tax credit, 35 million seniors getting the double deduction for seniors, an average of $7,500. Mr. Chair, 7.5 million filers got the no tax on tips, and 29 million filers got overtime breaks, on average over $3,000. By the way, wages are up.

That is what is happening because our policies are delivering for the American people and working families.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), my friend and another member of the Budget Committee from the Tar Heel State.

Mr. Chair, I mentioned earlier that the Republican Party is united and unrelenting in delivering for the American people. That doesn't happen without a fearless leader and the legend from Louisiana, my dear friend, Mr. Steve Scalise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I respect my friend from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but this false narrative is perpetuated every time Republicans actually go after the waste in this town and the fraud that is being perpetrated on the taxpayers and the vulnerable who need these programs. They start saying that we are kicking the vulnerable off and we are throwing them into the streets.

All I ask you to do is look to the nonpartisan CBO, once again, and I include this letter in the Record, Mr. Chairman.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2025.

Re Information Concerning Medicaid-Related Provisions in

Title IV of H.R. 1.

Hon. Jodey Arrington,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Brett Guthrie,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Arrington and Chairman Guthrie: You have

asked the Congressional Budget Office for information

concerning changes to insurance coverage that would occur

under H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as passed by

the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025. You asked

specifically about changes related to Medicaid under title

IV, Energy and Commerce.

CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions in

title IV would increase the number of people without health

insurance by 7.8 million in 2034 relative to baseline

projections under current law. Of that number:

About 4.8 million would be able-bodied adults between the

ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and who do not meet

the community engagement requirement in section 44141 for

participating in work-related activities at least 80 hours a

month.

About 1.4 million would be people who do not meet

citizenship and immigration status requirements for Medicaid

enrollment but who would be covered under current law in

programs funded by the states.

About 2.2 million would become uninsured because of other

provisions in H.R. 1, including provisions increasing the

frequency of verification of eligibility to enroll in

Medicaid or those that would lead states to change their

Medicaid enrollment requirements in response to federal

policy changes.

CBO estimates that the interactions among the policies

would, on net, reduce the number of people without health

insurance by 600,000 in 2034 relative to the sum of the

estimated effects of the individual policies because some

people would become uninsured under more than one policy.

You asked several questions about the number of people who

would be enrolled in Medicaid under the legislation and about

the number of people who would not have health insurance

under H.R. 1. You also asked about the effects on state

Medicaid spending under H.R. 1.

For the number of individuals estimated to be without

health insurance in 2034 as a result of the Medicaid policies

in H.R. 1, what share would be eligible for other health

insurance subsidies but would be estimated to not

participate?

CBO estimates that of the projected increase of 7.8 million

people without health insurance in 2034, 1.6 million would

have access to, but would not take up, other forms of

subsidized coverage, such as premium tax credits for

insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by

the Affordable Care Act or employment-based coverage; that

number also includes people who would remain eligible for

Medicaid but would not enroll.

For which provisions in H.R. 1 does CBO estimate that there

would be an increase in the number of people without health

insurance resulting from state discretion in the management

of enrollment within their own Medicaid programs? What does

CBO estimate would be the effect on the number of people

without health insurance under those policies?

CBO estimates that enacting several sections would reduce

resources available to states to fund their Medicaid programs

or state-funded insurance programs:

Section 44107 would eliminate the authority of the Centers

for Medicare & Medicaid Services to waive penalties for

payment errors and would reduce federal funding to states for

errors in eligibility determinations.

Section 44111 would reduce the federal matching rate for

people enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion of the

program provided in the Affordable Care Act from 90 percent

to 80 percent for any state that uses its own funds to

provide coverage to certain immigrants through state

programs.

Section 44132 would prevent states from increasing current

tax rates on providers and bar them from creating new tax

arrangements for providers.

Section 44134 would make additional changes to what

constitutes a permissible provider tax and would effectively

limit collections of those taxes in certain states.

CBO expects that in response to those provisions, states

would modify their Medicaid or state-funded insurance

programs to curtail their spending by reducing provider

payment rates, reducing the scope or amount of optional

services, and reducing Medicaid enrollment.

CBO estimates that state responses to those provisions

would increase the number of people without health insurance

by a total of 2.0 million in 2034.

Does CBO estimate that the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1

would result in a net decrease in state spending on the

Medicaid program, before accounting for how states respond to

the federal policy changes, and if so by how much?

CBO estimates that, if combined, enacting all of the

Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 would reduce the states' total

share of spending on Medicaid by $13.1 billion, on net, over

the 2025-2034 period. Some provisions would reduce state

spending, and some would increase it. CBO estimates that over

the 2025-2034 period, provisions that make changes to program

eligibility and enrollment processes, as well as some payment

changes, would cause states' spending to decline by $214.4

billion. Reductions in federal or other resources available

to state programs would cause states' spending to rise by

$201.3 billion.

What is the number of individuals whose citizenship,

nationality, or satisfactory immigration status is not

verified, but would be covered under current law in programs

funded by states?

CBO estimates that enacting section 44111 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 1.4 million

in 2034 because, in order to maintain the 90 percent federal

matching rate, most states would stop using state-only funds

to provide health insurance coverage to people who do not

meet citizenship and immigration status requirements for

Medicaid enrollment.

What are the changes in the number of uninsured people that

would be associated with provisions aimed at verifying

eligibility for the Medicaid program, specifically sections

44102 and 44108 of H.R. 1?

Section 44102 would prevent one part of what is termed the

Eligibility and Enrollment final rule from being implemented,

administered, or enforced through the end of 2034. That part

of the rule changes the way

that states process applications and renewals for coverage

under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

For example, the rule specifies that states can only conduct

eligibility determinations for people who are aged, blind,

and disabled once a year--less frequently than under some

states' prior practices. The rule also specifies that states

cannot require in-person interviews during eligibility

redeterminations for that group of enrollees. CBO expects

that enacting section 44102 of H.R. 1 would reduce enrollment

as states returned to earlier administrative practices.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44102 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 600,000 in

2034.

Section 44108 would require states to redetermine Medicaid

eligibility every six months, instead of once a year, for

some enrollees. CBO expects that enacting the section would

result in some people being removed from the program sooner

than would occur under current law.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44108 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in

2034.

In CBO's baseline, how many individuals are enrolled in

Medicaid in 2025 and how many are enrolled in 2034? How many

would be enrolled in 2034 under H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline projections, 85.0 million

people will be enrolled in Medicaid this year, rising to 90.0

million in 2034. CBO estimates that under H.R. 1, 79.5

million people would be enrolled in Medicaid in 2034--10.5

million fewer than under current-law projections.

In CBO's baseline, what is total federal Medicaid spending

in 2025 and in 2034? What would total federal Medicaid

spending be in each of those years accounting for the effects

of H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline, the agency estimates $655.9

billion in Medicaid spending in 2025, increasing to $985.7

billion by 2034. CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid

provisions of H.R. 1 would reduce Medicaid spending by $125.2

billion in 2034, to total $860.5 billion that year.

I hope this information is useful to you. Please contact me

if you have further questrons.

Sincerely,

Phillip L. Swagel,

Director.

Mr. Chairman, the only people who aren't on the Medicaid rolls today who were on them before were illegals in this country that Joe Biden and Democrats allowed to siphon money away from Americans, people who were ineligible, or people who were able to work but who refused to work for the generous support of hardworking taxpayers.

We stand on that proudly. We stand by it, and I believe the American people support us at every step of the way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), my friend from the Hoosier State and another proud member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my dear friend and another proud member of the House Budget Committee.

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

I want to make this quick because I want to say something about my ranking member. In case I don't have time, let me say it now: what a gentleman, what a statesman. This place would work a lot better if you had the tone, the commitment to civility and to just being constructive around here. When you can agree--we don't agree on this. He is impassioned. I am impassioned. What a good man. The people of Pennsylvania must be very proud of Brendan Boyle. I am.

We need to support our troops. This is emergency funding. We need to support our producers who give us food security. That is a national security issue. We do it every year.

We need to give the American people the confidence that this and every election going forward is fair and accurate. We need that for this great Republic to succeed and to thrive in the future.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my fellow Members of Congress to support this important piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1345, I call up the bill (S. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Madam Speaker, if Republicans today were not willing to use budget reconciliation and depart from appropriations in order to pass a funding bill that would restore funding to ICE and CBP, then what would happen is my Democrat colleagues would be able to achieve what many of them have held for a long time as their objective, and have publicly stated was their objective, and that is to defund immigration enforcement, border enforcement, and abolish ICE. That is effectively what would happen if Republicans didn't act using budget reconciliation to fund ICE and CBP.

That would send us back to the Dark Ages, to the 4 years of open borders and the unprecedented lawlessness and chaos and crime with people, crime, gangs, and drugs pouring into our communities, into our States throughout our entire country, jeopardizing the safety of the American people.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone at this point in this country that that is the stated or unstated goal of some of my colleagues. Certainly, it is the well-articulated and cited objective of the left.

Quite frankly, a lot of this shutdown and a lot of this obstruction is really the Democratic Party pandering to the left. But what would happen is the same thing that happened for 4 years when we had a Commander in Chief who refused to uphold his sacred oath to enforce the laws. He refused, with Democrat control of Congress and the White House, to enforce the laws and secure our southern border. Basically, he surrendered our sovereignty and safety to the paramilitary terrorist drug cartels on the other side of the border who were glad to make more money off of trafficking people than they did drugs. As a result, we had a complete meltdown in States like Texas who spent billions of dollars and were completely overwhelmed.

It is almost unfathomable today to think about it, Madam Speaker, because we have a daily apprehension number at about 196, but the average illegal crossing or apprehension under the Biden-Harris administration was over 5,000. I assure you, we would repeat that and it would be disastrous if we didn't do the right thing, if we didn't govern our great country, if we didn't open up the people's government and fund the important offices of ICE and CBP.

For 76 days, our Democrat colleagues held hostage the American people's safety and security. They held hostage the hardworking people at the Department of Homeland Security. It wasn't just ICE and CBP. We were completely dark at Homeland Security. We didn't have the safety protocols being administered by TSA. We didn't have our Coast Guardsmen keeping watch to prevent a terrorist attack at our ports. We didn't have CISA agents preventing an attack on our critical infrastructure, and, of course, we didn't have ICE and CBP functioning to enforce laws and to secure our border.

That is the dysfunction we have been dealing with, and we just said enough is enough.

We were sent here by the American people who gave President Trump an overwhelming victory. Every swing State, the popular vote, the electoral vote, gave us unified Republican leadership in Congress. The number one reason they did that was to restore the rule of law and to put the American people's safety and security first. That is exactly what we are doing today, in spite of the obstruction.

Listen, your granddad and my granddad taught us the same thing: If somebody tells you what they want to do and who they are, believe them.

For years, we have been hearing this incendiary and dangerous rhetoric that ICE needed to be defunded. Governor Tim Walz said that ICE officers are an actual threat. These are the people risking their lives to defend us and to protect us in our communities. He said that ICE was a threat to the public. Governor Pritzker said ICE was turning the country into Nazi, Germany. Chuck Schumer said ICE doesn't belong in our neighborhoods. Senator John Hickenlooper said that ICE was a reign of terror.

All this while the risks have increased because of the shutdown. We have an 8,000-percent increase in threats to the lives of our ICE agents and Border Patrol agents and a 1,300-percent increase in assaults. These are the dangerous games that Democrats are playing: to obstruct the President, so they can go brag as they pander to the left. Again, the reality is: It is a de facto defunding of law enforcement and abolishing of ICE.

We will prevent that today, because I am confident that my friends in the Republican Conference will do the right thing and put the American people and their safety first.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Those are my opening remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, but that is about as good of Washington obfuscation as I have ever heard.

We are talking about funding ICE and CBP. If we don't do it today, ICE and CBP doesn't exist, criminals are running around in our streets, and we don't make good on the promises the American people sent us here to do.

They want to talk about tax policy. By the way, they are the party that didn't lift a finger when the tax cuts were going to expire and cause over a $1,000 tax hike for every family in this country. It would have been a 22-percent tax hike--this, on the heels of a cost-of-living crisis that they created by their failed economic policies and their unbridled spending, the likes of which we haven't seen in one half a century.

We can go through tax policy and the consequences of the American people having more money in their pockets because of no tax on tips and overtime, seniors getting a double deduction who are on a fixed income, and people who have suffered from Joe Biden's unaffordability crisis. I am happy to go down the line on that. People have more money in their pockets. The economy is growing. Inflation is down. Interest rates are down. The American people were paying $1,000 a month more in their mortgage as a result of the failed policies of my Democratic colleagues.

Today, this isn't the debate. The debate is the safety of the American people and resourcing our brave, hardworking law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to keep us safe.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), our Judiciary Committee chairman.

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

Again, Madam Speaker, you are going to hear gas prices, tax policy, healthcare, ballrooms. You are not going to hear anything about what is happening as a result of my Democrats not supporting us funding ICE and CBP, because defunding ICE and CBP after the 4 years of chaos and lawlessness is just completely indefensible.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority leader of the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), my friend from the Keystone State and vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend, who is also a Budget Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), my friend and a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill), my friend, who is also a proud member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, if anybody is living in fear, it is because of the fear- mongering that we continue to hear from our Democratic colleagues, and it is no wonder. It starts at the top. The nominee, or the anointed Presidential nominee of the Democrats in the last Presidential election, Ms. Kamala Harris, compared ICE to the KKK. We heard references to the Gestapo, and a reign of terror is what we just heard. It is no wonder that there are people in the streets obstructing and putting at risk the lives of our law enforcement officers who are trying to clean up our neighborhoods from the deluge of gangbangers and criminals who have flooded cities and towns all across this great Nation.

It is a travesty to hear such denigrating terms and to see my colleagues in the United States House Chamber vilifying people who wear the uniform on behalf of all of us and our families.

As I said, assaults are up by 1,300 percent, death threats by 8,000 percent. It is a wonder more law enforcement officials and ICE agents haven't been hurt.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who is going to get hurt: lots of people across this land if ICE and CBP were defunded on account of not having willing Republicans to fund them fully, not just for 1 year but for 3 years, so we never end up here again being held hostage by shutdowns and defunding of our law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, we are attempting here in a Republican-only exercise to fund ICE and CBP at last year's operating budget plus inflation. That is all we are talking about.

Their position is that they want to zero it out. In fact, they already have. They refuse to fund ICE and CBP. They would effectively abolish it.

This is not a slush fund unless you are calling what is the normal and regular operating budget of our immigration enforcement and Border Patrol officers a slush fund. It is regular, normal funding, and we are going to do it not for 1 year but for 3 years, so that we don't end up here again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Gooden), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that budgets are statements of our priorities and our values. Repeatedly, President Biden would propose cuts to the Department of Homeland Security. The last year he was in office, in fact, Homeland Security was cut by 3.5 percent.

Remember, this is all while we had record numbers of illegal immigrants flooding into this country, record numbers of immigrants who were on the terrorist watch list, record numbers of criminals, record numbers of drugs killing Americans at record levels, about a plane load of Americans dying a week.

Meanwhile, my Democrat colleagues found time to give $800 billion in tax subsidies to green energy corporations. Think about that: Tax cuts for the rich, rich green energy corporations.

Tens of billions of dollars with a cell phone and a pen by Joe Biden, those moneys were given to illegal immigrants for healthcare that hardworking U.S. taxpayers funded.

According to NumbersUSA, we are spending about $9,000 per illegal immigrant in this country. Mr. Speaker, that is more than we spend on our most vulnerable U.S. citizens for Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), who is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true. We did put tens of billions of dollars in the first reconciliation bill because the Democrats' open-border policies absolutely wreaked havoc on the current system. It overwhelmed us.

My State spent $14 billion to do the job the Federal Government wouldn't do. We didn't have the infrastructure. We didn't have the boots on the ground. We didn't have the judicial process set up to take on the millions of people, over 10 million people, over 5 million of them released, not apprehended and held accountable, caught and released, so the system was overwhelmed.

We needed to infuse some capital to boost the infrastructure so we could seamlessly work through that. We are talking about regular operating budgets now and not what we had to put in for the system that was overwhelmed by the record numbers of illegal immigrants. We are talking about last year's budget plus inflation.

The bottom line is, my Democrat colleagues stand on the position of defunding immigration enforcement and effectively abolishing ICE.

I think that is an untenable position in this country. Only a few radicals hold that position. Most people know what we are up against and what these hardworking, brave people do for us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs), who is on the Homeland Security Committee here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is notable that not once has any reference been made by my Democrat colleagues to the victims of crimes perpetrated by criminal aliens on them and the loss, pain, and suffering of their families--not one time.

No, not once, have we heard, Mr. Speaker, any reference with respect, with honor and dignity, to the law enforcement officers who wear the uniform, who fight the fight to keep us safe, risking their lives to rid this country of the threats to our neighborhoods and our families-- not one time. We heard reign of terror. We heard gestapo. We hear all these things. Not one time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about last year's budget, plus inflation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the good book says: Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.

Our treasure as Republicans and our hearts, as the American people have reflected in this last and most historic election, is with the law-abiding citizens of this great Nation and the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend it every day.

This is regular budget, normal budgets, and this is the least we can do to support those folks who stand on that thin line to defend our sovereign borders and our safety.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democrat colleagues do not defund the ICE and Border Patrol.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remember a husband, father, brother, and son, Brett Cole Underwood.

Brett tragically lost his life on Friday, May 15, 2026. He was laid to rest on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, in the presence of his family and friends.

Brett was born to Melissa ``Missy'' Bross and Joe Bryan Underwood on January 9, 1997. He grew up in Clyde, Texas, and attended Clyde schools from kindergarten until his graduation in 2015. In high school, Brett excelled in sports, enjoyed spending time with his friends, and was blessed to meet Kalli Williams, the love of his life, his future wife, and the mother of his two boys, Bryson and Kooper.

He worked hard for his family as a lineman for Taylor Electric in Abilene. In his free time, Brett was an avid outdoorsman who loved to hunt and fish at any opportunity he had. He could fix anything, never minded getting his

hands dirty, and was always one of the first to volunteer and lend a helping hand.

Brett could make anyone laugh and never struggled to make a friend. It cannot be overstated how much he loved being a father to Bryson and Kooper. He worked hard to instill good values, great habits, and to teach them how to be good men. He led his family with a strong faith and an overwhelming amount of love. Brett was truly the salt of the earth.

Mr, Speaker, please join me in remembering the life of Brett and praying for his wife, Kalli, his boys, and all of his family and friends. He was loved beyond measure and will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. Con. Res 33 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here because my Democrat colleagues have shut the United States Government down, the Department of Homeland Security, for now 74 days. They have held the American people hostage and have imperiled the safety of every citizen of this country for their ridiculous and even dangerous demands.

They are not serious. We had a four-corners agreement between Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate. They reneged. If it weren't for President Trump's intervention, we would have the hardworking public servants at the Department of Homeland Security going 100 days without pay.

Ask me, Mr. Speaker, how many days my Democrat colleagues have gone without pay or how long they would tolerate going without pay.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports. This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis.

This is the moment we take the keys from the kids, we say no more of this nonsense, we open up the people's government, and we restore the safety and the security of the American people.

Now, you will hear my colleagues, no doubt, say: If we could just agree on some commonsense reforms, we would have opened up the Department of Homeland Security. We would have been glad to work with you.

But let's think about these commonsense reforms. To require this administration to get a judicial warrant to expel criminal aliens from our country, there is not a Democrat or Republican former Commander in Chief who would ever find that acceptable.

In fact, these criminal aliens have had their day in immigration court, and they have their orders to be expelled because they are not here with cause. They are here with threat to my family and to my community and to my great State of Texas and to this beloved country of ours. It is unacceptable.

They would effectively stop all deportations. But we had an election after 4 years of lawlessness and chaos at the southern border, crime, criminals, and all kinds of criminal elements and drugs that killed more people than the entire Vietnam war in 1 year.

This President was elected to restore law and order. Rule of law in this great civil society of ours has been an embarrassment for those 4 years. He has done it, and that is what the people sent us here to do. That is the mandate they gave us, along with unified Republican leadership.

There has been one wall of obstruction after another for this President and this administration. That is one example of their ridiculous, absurd, and unserious demands.

The other one is--I heard this at the Rules Committee, and I couldn't believe my ears. They called our law enforcement agents, who risk their lives to keep us safe--their families pray and

wait for their mom or dad to come home, wondering if something goes wrong and the bad guys win that day, and they never see their family member again. Yet, my Democrat colleague repeatedly referred to our honorable ICE and CBP agents as masked thugs.

When evil is called good, and good is called evil--do you remember that quote? Do you remember that admonition? These are the days.

Mr. Speaker, we have given 16 chances and all opportunities to vote to turn this government of the people back on and support our ICE and CBP agents, to protect our ports by funding our guardsmen, to protect the CISA agents to protect our critical infrastructure while cyberattacks are on the rise, and to resource our FEMA agency to be ready to respond to our citizens in a natural disaster. They said no 16 times. No. Here we are, demasking our agents and calling them masked thugs.

There is an 8,000-percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in death threats to these gentlemen and gentlewomen who wear the badge, who wear the uniform, and who protect the thin blue line, a 1,300-percent increase in assaults, and a 3,200-percent increase in vehicular assaults.

We know who they are. We have made great efforts to identify each agent so they would be held accountable if they did anything illegal or inappropriate.

We have cartel members who have bounties of tens of thousands of dollars on their heads. We have masked, leftist, radical, violent folks who are assaulting them in the streets while they are trying to do their dangerous jobs.

You want to know why we are here, Mr. Speaker? Do you want to know why we are here, American people? That is why we are here. We say enough is enough.

Today, we put forward this budget resolution with reconciliation instructions to fund the people's homeland security, to protect our citizens, and to do right by these hard-working, God-fearing public servants who go to work every day not knowing if they are going to come home.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and conveniently, some of my Democrat friends have had a bad case of amnesia. I am going to remind the American people that when Joe Biden and the Democrats had control of this town, this Chamber, Congress, and the White House, they took inflation from 1.4 percent all the way past 9 percent.

We had a 22-percent increase cumulative of prices of everyday goods that Americans depend on.

It was Joe Biden and the Democrats who lit the fuse on the inflationary firestorm that the American people, especially working Americans, suffered. The average inflation rate during the Joe Biden- Kamala Harris era was 5 percent.

Inflation is down. The average inflation under this President, President Trump, is 2.7 percent. Wages are up. Business investment is up, growth and GDP are up, and there is money in people's pockets, because had we relied on the Democrats, then we would have seen a $1,700-a-month tax hike on the American people. However, we said no tax on tips, no more tax on working people with respect to overtime or seniors on a fixed income.

I am very proud of what we did as one strategy to provide much-needed relief after the cost-of-living crisis that was caused by the unbridled spending and failed economic policies of my Democratic colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the American people to a great man and patriot. Lloyd Smucker is a dear friend and the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, instead of the absurd demands of asking for judicial warrants after immigration judges have ruled that these criminal aliens are not with cause, for heaven's sakes, in our country, we included body cameras, millions of dollars. The President reviewed protocols included and strengthened training programs.

Here is the root cause of what people saw on their TV sets at night when they saw the mayhem and they saw the chaos: It was lawless sanctuary cities, rogue leaders who incited violence against our law enforcement officers while they were doing a dangerous job to rid our country of criminal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, how in the world do we expect them to do this job when we have State and local leaders who refuse to cooperate, who thumb their noses at the rule of law, and who make things not only more difficult but more dangerous for the men and women in uniform who courageously protect us every day?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's play back the tape: 4 years, wide-open border flooding the zone, and by the zone I mean the entire country, crime, criminals, drugs, record number of people on the terrorist watch list, record number of people from countries of interest, record number of illegal immigrants dying in the desert, record number of humans trafficked to this country; record, record, record, open border, disaster.

Now, after this mess, when we have to get the brave men and women to go clean up the streets from the criminals that roam in the great cities of this country and threaten our citizens, they want to call them what I heard in Rules Committee, masked thugs. That is what they are calling our law enforcement officers.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised because that is the party that wanted to defund the police. That is the party with the battle cry, ``Defund ICE.'' That is the party which, at the top of their ticket in the last Presidential election, had a Presidential nominee who compared ICE to the KKK, and her Vice President compared them to the gestapo.

No, no, sir, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised, not surprised that now that they created this self-inflicted disaster and mess, and our brave ICE officers are trying to clean it up, that they would want to impede them and insult them, but they only insult law-abiding American citizens, I assure you that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell), my dear friend from the Tar Heel State and a member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a note on cost: When the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they spent a record $12 trillion. Now, $5 trillion of that is because of the record interest rate hikes that were associated with an almost half-century high inflation. Combined, we are talking about, again, almost $12 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, what did we get for that? What did the American people, the shareholders, get for that? What return did our citizens get for that ``investment''? They got green energy subsidies to corporations, which were a disaster for our energy economy. It made the prices of gas and electricity for our consumers skyrocket.

The American people got tens of thousands of IRS agents. They expanded the IRS by $80 billion because that is what they thought the American people needed after a 22-percent increase in prices. They bailed out student loan programs, schools that wouldn't open, and the union pension fund. It was one bailout after another. It is hard to keep up with it.

If you go back and look at the executive order from President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris at the time, they actually provided healthcare at the cost of taxpayers to people in this country illegally, and we wonder why we had record numbers of illegal immigrants pouring into this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend from the Buckeye State and the House's chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Van Epps).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just, again, setting the record straight for the American people, the only moneys we are spending are moneys that the Democrats in the House and Senate agreed with us to spend to operate the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and CBP. Then, they reneged on it. They went back on their word, and they shut the Department of Homeland Security down for over 70 days.

All we are doing is using reconciliation, a budgetary tool, to fund ICE and CBP because they want to defund ICE and CBP.

I mean, you hear it in their rhetoric. I mentioned the masked thugs and the comparison to the KKK. They are talking about protecting the illegal immigrant, but you haven't heard a word about Laken Riley and her family. You haven't heard anything about Jocelyn Nungaray and her family or the thousands upon thousands of American citizens whose lives are forever changed because of the harm that was perpetrated upon them from an illegal, criminal alien who was allowed into this country with impunity because our President at the time was derelict in his duty to uphold the laws of the land because he refused to provide for the common defense. When Texas and other States tried to protect their citizens, they were harassed and obstructed at every turn.

What choice do we have: go back to the open border and a sanctuary Nation for criminal aliens? That is not acceptable to Republicans, and that is not acceptable to the people in the popular vote, in the electoral vote, or in every swing State. They sent us here to put America first and the American people first and to restore law and order.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I remind my colleagues and friend that the average gas price under Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership was over $5 per gallon. Under President Trump, it is just a little over $3 per gallon.

He talks about cost, but if you look at the CBO, which is a nonpartisan scorekeeper, they would tell you that in the first 6 months of this fiscal year, compared to the last 6 months of the last fiscal year, the deficit has actually gone down for the first time in almost a decade by $138 billion.

That is not me telling you that. That is not conjecture on the part of either party. It is the watchdog, scorekeeper, nonpartisan, telling you that when we held the line to control spending on the discretionary side for the last 4 years, we have saved almost $500 billion. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is big and beautiful because we protected tax dollars, and we preserved the safety nets for American citizens who need them and depend on them.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the CBO about the Medicaid coverage impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress

Washington, DC, June 24, 2025.

Re Information Concerning Medicaid-Related Provisions in

Title IV of H.R. 1.

Hon. Jodey Arrington,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Brett Guthrie,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Arrington and Chairman Guthrie: You have

asked the Congressional Budget Office for information

concerning changes to insurance coverage that would occur

under H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as passed by

the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025. You asked

specifically about changes related to Medicaid under title

IV, Energy and Commerce.

CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions in

title IV would increase the number of people without health

insurance by 7.8 million in 2034 relative to baseline

projections under current law. Of that number:

About 4.8 million would be able-bodied adults between the

ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and who do not meet

the community engagement requirement in section 44141 for

participating in work-related activities at least 80 hours a

month.

About 1.4 million would be people who do not meet

citizenship and immigration status requirements for Medicaid

enrollment but who would be covered under current law in

programs funded by the states.

About 2.2 million would become uninsured because of other

provisions in H.R. 1. including provisions increasing the

frequency of verification of eligibility to enroll in

Medicaid or those that would lead states to change their

Medicaid enrollment requirements in response to federal

policy changes.

CBO estimates that the interactions among the policies

would, on net, reduce the number of people without health

insurance by 600,000 in 2034 relative to the sum of the

estimated effects of the individual policies because some

people would become uninsured under more than one policy.

You asked several questions about the number of people who

would be enrolled in Medicaid under the legislation and about

the number of people who would not have health insurance

under H.R. 1. You also asked about the effects on state

Medicaid spending under H.R. 1.

For the number of individuals estimated to be without

health insurance in 2034 as a result of the Medicaid policies

in H.R. 1, what share would be eligible for other health

insurance subsidies but would be estimated to not

participate?

CBO estimates that of the projected increase of 7.8 million

people without health insurance in 2034, 1.6 million would

have access to, but would not take up, other forms of

subsidized coverage, such as premium tax credits for

insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by

the Affordable Care Act or employment-based coverage; that

number also includes people who would remain eligible for

Medicaid but would not enroll.

For which provisions in H.R. 1 does CBO estimate that there

would be an increase in the number of people without health

insurance resulting from state discretion in the management

of enrollment within their own Medicaid programs? What does

CBO estimate would be the effect on the number of people

without health insurance under those policies?

CBO estimates that enacting several sections would reduce

resources available to states to fund their Medicaid programs

or state-funded insurance programs:

Section 44107 would eliminate the authority of the Centers

for Medicare & Medicaid Services to waive penalties for

payment errors and would reduce federal funding to states for

errors in eligibility determinations.

Section 44111 would reduce the federal matching rate for

people enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion of the

program provided in the Affordable Care Act from 90 percent

to 80 percent for any state that uses its own funds to

provide coverage to certain immigrants through state

programs.

Section 44132 would prevent states from increasing current

tax rates on providers and bar them from creating new tax

arrangements for providers.

Section 44134 would make additional changes to what

constitutes a permissible provider tax and would effectively

limit collections of those taxes in certain states.

CBO expects that in response to those provisions, states

would modify their Medicaid or state-funded insurance

programs to curtail their spending by reducing provider

payment rates, reducing the scope or amount of optional

services, and reducing Medicaid enrollment.

CBO estimates that state responses to those provisions

would increase the number of people without health insurance

by a total of 2.0 million in 2034.

Does CBO estimate that the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1

would result in a net decrease in state spending on the

Medicaid program, before accounting for how states respond to

the federal policy changes, and if so by how much?

CBO estimates that, if combined, enacting all of the

Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 would reduce the states' total

share of spending on Medicaid by $13.1 billion, on net. over

the 2025-2034 period. Some provisions would reduce state

spending, and some would increase it. CBO estimates that over

the 2025-2034 period, provisions that make changes to program

eligibility and enrollment processes, as well as some payment

changes, would cause states' spending to decline by $214.4

billion. Reductions in federal or other resources available

to state programs would cause states' spending to rise by

$201.3 billion.

What is the number of individuals whose citizenship,

nationality, or satisfactory immigration status is not

verifIed, but would be covered under current law in programs

funded by states?

CBO estimates that enacting section 44111 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 1.4 million

in 2034 because, in order to maintain the 90 percent federal

matching rate, most states would stop using state-only funds

to provide health insurance coverage to people who do not

meet citizenship and immigration status requirements for

Medicaid enrollment.

What are the changes in the number of uninsured people that

would be associated with provisions aimed at verifying

eligibility for the Medicaid program, specifically sections

44102 and 44108 of H.R. 1?

Section 44102 would prevent one part of what is termed the

Eligibility and Enrollment final rule from being implemented,

administered, or enforced through the end of 2034. That part

of the rule changes the way that states process applications

and renewals for coverage under Medicaid and the Children's

Health Insurance Program. For example, the rule specifies

that states can only conduct eligibility determinations for

people who are aged, blind, and disabled once a year--less

frequently than under some states' prior practices. The rule

also specifies that states cannot require in-person

interviews during eligibility redeterminations for that group

of enrollees. CBO expects that enacting section 44102 of H.R.

1 would reduce enrollment as states returned to earlier

administrative practices.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44102 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 600,000 in

2034.

Section 44108 would require states to redetermine Medicaid

eligibility every six months, instead of once a year, for

some enrollees. CBO expects that enacting the section would

result in some people being removed from the program sooner

than would occur under current law.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44108 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in

2034.

In CBO's baseline, how many individuals are enrolled in

Medicaid in 2025 and how many are enrolled in 2034? How many

would be enrolled in 2034 under H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline projections, 85.0 million

people will be enrolled in Medicaid this year, rising to 90.0

million in 2034. CBO estimates that under H.R. 1, 79.5

million people would be enrolled in Medicaid in 2034--10.5

million fewer than under current-law projections.

In CBO's baseline, what is total federal Medicaid spending

in 2025 and in 2034? What would total federal Medicaid

spending be in each of those years accounting for the effects

of H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline, the agency estimates $655.9

billion in Medicaid spending in 2025, increasing to $985.7

billion by 2034. CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid

provisions of H.R. 1 would reduce Medicaid spending by $125.2

billion in 2034, to total $860.5 billion that year.

I hope this information is useful to you. Please contact me

if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Phillip L. Swagel,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the letter says? Let me summarize. The millions of people who are no longer on Medicaid or SNAP are people who don't qualify to be on there. They are people who are in this country illegally, and they were people who refused to work even though they are able to work. Hardworking taxpayers are willing to support their fellow Americans, but it is a social compact, and there is a responsibility. That is what we did as Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people sent us here to do.

We can talk about the cost. Deficits are coming down. There is more money in people's pockets. Safety nets are being restored, protected, and preserved for the American citizens who depend on them. We are protecting tax dollars, and we are looking out for our kids and future vulnerable Americans who need these programs that are unsustainable because my Democratic colleagues haven't lifted a finger to help us root out waste and fraud.

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

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

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

Unleash chaos. Think about that. Ask the American people what they believe about unleashed chaos, millions upon millions of people flooding our country. The Biden administration released 5-plus million people into our streets and into our neighborhoods, record number of criminals, record number of terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, I think the chaos that was unleashed was from the Biden administration and the Democrats opening up our border and throwing complete caution, rule of law, and the security of the American people to the wind, and we have suffered greatly as a country.

We are trying to fix it. We are trying to be the adults. We are trying to fund the government. We are trying to support our ICE agents and all those at the Department of Homeland Security that are protecting our ports and our critical infrastructure. They are doing their job for the country they love, and we are preventing them from getting a paycheck.

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

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

I heard from my Democratic friend about rising to support the vulnerable in this country who need healthcare. Well, let's just face the harsh facts. I know it is difficult for my Democratic colleagues because they created this monster, but ObamaCare since its inception has doubled premiums, doubled deductibles. It has made healthcare anything but affordable.

And then Joe Biden writes an executive order to allow illegal immigrants to avail themselves of social services, namely, healthcare, when American people are standing and waiting in line getting sicker at hospitals and other healthcare providers.

I think it is unacceptable.

This is the most generous country in the world when it comes to immigrants, Mr. Speaker. We are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We are going to protect the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and classmate from Arizona for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let's pause for a brief moment of intellectual honesty. Both parties have failed. This institution has failed. We have failed our country.

We have jeopardized our economy, our security, and our leadership in the world. Worst of all, we have compromised on our children's future and the blessing of their inheritance of freedom and opportunity.

We have failed. That is why we are talking about a constitutional amendment to impose fiscal responsibility on a body politic that has not done that, that has not mustered the political will to do that.

We have a national debt per GDP that exceeds World War II levels of debt, an annual deficit that is larger than both the defense and nondefense discretionary budgets, with 50 cents or greater on every dollar that we borrow up to $2 trillion going to service our interest payments.

Half of what we borrow, a trillion dollars, is more than what we spend on defense. Then, there is this ominous forecast by CBO that even at $39 trillion today, where we are teetering on a potential sovereign debt crisis, we will add $180 trillion to the national debt in the 30- year out. If that is not unacceptable to everybody, I don't know what is.

If we can't concede to the fact that this body politic does not have the political will to address it, to rein in the spending that is driving this unsustainable debt trajectory that will bankrupt our country and our children's future, then we must support this forcing mechanism. Force us to do what the American people have to do. Force us to do what State and local governments do.

Here is another stunning, and startling for some, but for all a sobering fact: We won't even get a simple majority vote today.

What shall we do? We should look to Article V of the Constitution, where the sovereign States and we the people can petition their government for another path to amend the Constitution. Guess what. They have done that.

Mr. Speaker, they had the requisite applications to have an Article V convention of the States, to rein in us, the knuckleheads that refuse to accept that it is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. It is an institutional problem that persists and will destroy the greatest Nation in human history.

Let's look to the States, and let's call that convention like we should have done in the 1970s and 1980s. Let's let them rein us in, restore fiscal sanity in their Nation's Capital, and reverse the curse that looms large over this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Wisconsin for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a better example of political expediency than my Democrat colleagues opposing a voter ID law on the grounds of States' rights.

First, the Constitution is clear. Rules for running elections have been delegated to the States. But in that same provision, the Constitution says Congress may at any time alter the process. I certainly think our Founding Fathers would support strengthening the integrity of our elections.

Democrats know this, Mr. Speaker. They must think the American people, though, have forgotten about their for the politicians act in the 117th Congress, where they basically codified a COVID-era and fraud-ridden election law. They included, ironically, prohibiting voter ID essentially. It also included ballot harvesting, promoting mass voting by mail, and taking taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns.

Let's be clear. Democrats believe Congress has the power to ban voter ID but not the power to require it. This shouldn't be controversial. Requiring proof of citizenship to register and a valid voter ID is as common sense as it gets.

Mr. Speaker, American elections are for American citizens. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the SAVE America Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats fought Republicans to require voter ID to protect the integrity of our elections, the cornerstone of our democratic Republic. Now they stand here today on the floor of the people's house, fighting the President in his effort to protect the lives of the American people against what is the most imminent threat and the number one cause of accidental deaths and drug overdoses.

We know where the drugs are coming from, pouring into our country and our communities, killing our friends, killing our families. I can't think of a greater security concern than this. The President has effectively and appropriately promoted and defended America's economic and security interests by the use of tariffs.

Today, Mr. Speaker, as a result, we have a lower trade deficit than we have had since 2009. By the way, the top 20 economies in the world that we do business with had twice the tariffs on our products, three times the tariffs when you measure agriculture products, and the deficit is going down. We have quadrupled revenue to strengthen America's balance sheet and pay down the tax on our children, which is the deficit. We have gone from 6.3 percent to 5.9, and exports are at an all-time high.

Now, what is the issue here? It is not about 301, unfair trade practices, although there are plenty of grievances against our northern neighbor in that regard. This isn't about USMCA. The USMCA products flowing from Canada to the United States are exempt. Eighty-five percent of the products, we are not talking about that. It is not about 232.

This is about one particular authority that this Congress empowered our commander-in-chief with to deal with unusual threats outside of the U.S. that would impact our national security, our foreign policy, and our economy.

Now, I can't think of anything more unusual, and I can't think of a bigger threat than a chemical warfare waged against the United States of America. Any President worth his salt, any commander-in-chief, would be derelict in their duty if they didn't use every tool at their disposal to stop it.

For my President to expect our neighbor from the north to have the same vigilance and the same urgency as he has because of the American people's mandate to stop this madness and protect our children, God bless him. God bless him.

For my colleagues to run to the floor, to raise their hands, and to scream foul that this President is somehow using tariffs in a way that has nothing to do with our interest, to talk about food security, we could go down the list. We wouldn't have food insecurity if we didn't have a cost of living crisis where the fuse was lit by unbridled spending. We could go down the list. Yes, we are doing something about that. We are bringing interest rates down. We are bringing real wages up. We are also preserving food stamps so they are not being defrauded or being spent on people here illegally.

Mr. Chairman, I would love to keep debating all day long. God bless America, and go West Texas.

Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues--maybe not all of them, but what I just heard--gave a complete mischaracterization of the program integrity measures that Republicans put in the big, beautiful bill. While the fraud, waste, and abuse is on display for all Americans, not only in Minnesota, but all across this country, we find it unacceptable. We believe that one of our first responsibilities here in the people's House is to steward the people's sacred treasure.

We put financial controls, anti-fraud measures, and, again, program integrity reforms so that people who need these safety net programs can avail themselves. They will not be drained anymore by people who are illegally in this country, ineligible, or who are able-bodied adults who just simply refuse to work. That is all. I mean, I think that is, as we say, an 80-20 issue in this country.

No, people aren't starving and being thrown into the streets with no support who need it. We are protecting and preserving not only the tax dollar, but these important critical safety net services for the American people who are eligible.

I am grateful for that leadership from the President and from my Republican colleagues. I can't imagine that most Democrats throughout this country actually support us protecting their tax dollars, too.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true west Texas giant and American hero, Mr. J.L. Stevens of Big Spring, USA, a World War II veteran who just turned 100 years old this past week. He is a living monument to the grit, courage, quiet humility, and service that define both west Texas and America's Greatest Generation.

In 1943, at just 17 years old, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman enlisted in the United States Navy, serving as a gunner's mate aboard the USS Hambleton, where he directly engaged the enemy on D-day while supporting the Allied invasion of Normandy. Despite suffering combat injuries in Europe, Mr. Stevens continued his service, which concluded in 1945 in the Pacific theater, where he personally witnessed the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender in Tokyo Harbor, bringing World War II to its official end.

After the war, Mr. Stevens returned to his home in west Texas, where he worked as a carpenter, helping to build the firehouse there in Big Spring and the city's original VA hospital.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. J.L. Stevens represents the very best of west Texas in his heroic service to our country and a lifetime of hard work, faith, and devotion to his family, his community, and this great country of ours. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him a happy 100th birthday and thanking him for a legacy of service that will long endure.

Mr. Stevens, here is to many more. God bless you, and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts talked about not seeing the Republican bill. There was a bipartisan provision in there that would lower premiums by 11 percent per the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget office. This is a provision that the Democrats all supported. They know we have to make the ObamaCare market work. It doesn't work today. The facts belie that: double premiums, double deductibles, one out of five claims rejected, limited choice. It has failed. That experiment has failed.

The only game in town that has actually lowered costs of healthcare, reduced premiums is what Republicans passed out of the House. There was not a single Democrat vote to join us.

Here is what I can't understand for the life of me, and I have some good friends over there, and I am not mad. I am miffed that Democrats would all talk about affordability in healthcare and bring to this Chamber the idea, the notion that Congress take a COVID-era program that Democrats all designed to expire when COVID was over, that every watchdog group has said is loaded with fraud and waste--as the chairman said, Social Security numbers from tens of thousands of dead people--it is siphoning money out of the taxpayers' pockets, away from the vulnerable, and enriching insurance companies.

There are millions of ineligible people, billions of dollars of fraud, and people are watching what is going on in the country, especially in Minnesota. How could my colleagues across the aisle, in good faith, call this affordable healthcare and stewardship of the sacred treasure of our fellow Americans?

Republicans have a plan. It works. It is not perfect. There are some things Congress could work together on. But for the love of God and country, please, it is intellectually dishonest to tell the American people that this COVID-era, fraud-ridden program is somehow going to make healthcare affordable any more than the underlying bill itself, ObamaCare, which everyone knows hasn't.

I said it the last time, I will say it again: Ronald Reagan was spot on. Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem. This is a case study for that. America needs less mandates, less taxes, less regulations, and people need more freedom, more choices, more competition.

Republicans are willing to work with Democrats, but this is beyond the pale, and it is audacious to call it affordable healthcare. I am amazed. I am surprised. I encourage my colleagues to roundly, soundly stand firm and reject it, and no Republican should ever support this. They didn't support ObamaCare when it was designed. They shouldn't support doubling down on a failed policy, and I encourage them to not begin now.

Mr. Speaker, let me simplify the debate today for the American people.

Republicans are bringing forward reforms that will actually lower the cost of care. According to CBO, which is the gold standard for my Democratic colleagues, it will reduce premiums by 11 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the only other time premiums have gone down since ObamaCare was enacted was when Republicans actually advanced reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; namely, rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. That lowered the cost of care.

We continue to bail out the unaffordable care act and actually make it more affordable, along with other policies that provide the Federal assistance to the people, not insurance agencies, and give the private market more competition and transparency so that people have more choice. That is our plan, and it lowers costs for everybody.

The Democrats are trying to put forward an extension of a COVID-era, fraud-ridden subsidy that has proven time and again--GAO, CBO, all the watchdogs say it is fraught with tens of billions of dollars of fraud. Tens of thousands of Social Security numbers from dead people have been used to siphon money away from this program.

Millions of people, according to CBO, are ineligibly on the program, and the answer from the Democrats is to perpetuate this fraud bag, which is a completely egregious and reckless thing to do as stewards of tax dollars. This is not to mention that it is propping up the underlying program that, year after year, has raised premiums and deductibles two times--it has doubled premiums and deductibles since ObamaCare has been enacted.

We have fewer choices. Things are worse.

As Ronald Reagan said so beautifully, so aptly, in this moment, I can't think of any better words: ``Government is not the solution . . .'' here. Democrats all have proven that. ``Government is the problem,'' and we have the solution that actually delivers the affordability to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, as we say in west Texas: ``Sun's up. Guns up.'' Our Texas Tech Red Raiders have gone through this football season, guns ablazing, and have taken the Big 12 by storm. They posted a historic 11-win regular season with an average victory margin of more than 35 points and their best year since 2008.

Now, after securing their outright Big 12 championship, the Red Raiders are knocking on the door of their first-ever national championship.

I congratulate Coach Joey McGuire, his tremendous staff, and the outstanding student athletes at Texas Tech, all of whom represent the spirit of west Texas: tenacious, relentless, and 100 percent class and character.

Mr. Speaker, Texas Tech, I would argue, is America's team. It is a Main Street university in middle America made up of mostly kids from working families. It is a heartland culture that reflects our Nation's traditional faith and family values.

Like our pioneering fathers who braved the harsh elements to settle the Great Plains of west Texas, Red Raiders know how to work, how to fight, and never quit. They don't expect anybody to give them anything. They don't waste time complaining about being underrated or underestimated.

They know that respect is earned and not given. They know it is not about pleasing the crowd or the pundits. It is about giving their best to each other, to themselves, and to their university that they love.

I am proud to be a Red Raider. I am honored to represent Texas Tech in Congress. I am fired up for the country to know more about west Texas, the food, fuel, fiber, and football capital of the world.

Mr. Speaker, as for me and my house, we will be in Miami on New Year's Day with a lot of proud and rowdy Red Raiders cheering on America's team to win it all.

Guns up. Go, Red Raiders. Let's win that national championship.

Mr. Speaker, what a joy and honor it is to hear the voice of my older brother leading the people's House in prayer this morning, continuing the sacred tradition since 1789 of calling on Almighty God to consecrate our service for the good of the American people.

Dr. Yancey Cook Arrington is an eighth-generation Texan who, for over 25 years, has served as the teaching pastor at Clear Creek Community Church in the bay area of Houston.

He is joined today in the Chamber gallery by his lovely wife, Jennefer. They are proud parents of my three nephews, Thatcher, Haddon, and Beckett.

Mr. Speaker, I am eternally grateful for my brother's spiritual influence over the years and have always been inspired by his unwavering devotion to God's Word, to God's people, and to God's only begotten Son, Jesus, our Lord.

Thanks be to God for men like Yancey, pastors and preachers throughout these United States, who have dedicated their lives to reminding us that America is great because God is good, and only--and only--if we continue to trust in Him, the sovereign and eternal source of that goodness, will America continue to be great.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the ranking member talk about China's need for U.S. energy, thank God it is that way and not the other way around.

If we followed the green new manifesto, with the regulatory assault on U.S. energy, and kept throwing hundreds of billions of dollars in distorting Green New Deal energy subsidies, that is exactly what would happen, we would wake up and be dependent on China for yet one more critical product.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand alongside Chairman Guthrie and my fellow west Texan, August Pfluger, in support of the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act. America is the world's top exporter of LNG, a vital pillar of both our economic strength and national security.

In an effort to placate the radical left, which I think was primarily the motivation, the Biden administration, with its whole-of-government assault on American energy, froze new LNG export permits with no economic, environmental, or national security justification. That reckless decision threatened billions of U.S. investments, undermined our allies, and harmed energy-producing regions like west Texas.

Thankfully, we now have a President in the White House who is committed to doing the right thing for the country, for our producers and consumers, and committed to making American energy great again, not weaponizing

this authority for purely ideological purposes.

This bill removes politics from the export permit process and secures America's position as the world's energy superpower. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and prevent future administrations from threatening America's energy dominance. I thank the chairman again for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats rejecting a clean CR, shutting the government down, creating all of the havoc, the pain and suffering for our fellow Americans is so obviously disingenuous.

They never vote against clean CRs. For 4 years under Biden, you all didn't reject one clean CR. Chuck Schumer in 44 years never rejected a clean CR.

Mr. Speaker, what is it about? They say policy. They put forward a proposal, Mr. Chairman. They said it is about healthcare, healthcare for illegals. They repeal work requirements for able-bodied adults. That is an 80/20 issue in this country. They put forward a spending bill of $1.5 trillion. That is twice the discretionary budget.

Mr. Chairman, they are spending more money than we have ever spent outside of COVID. That is their counterproposal. It is not only disingenuous. It is unserious.

What is it about? It is about politics. It is about resisting and fighting and undermining Donald Trump. Here is the deal: They are not fighting and resisting Donald Trump. They are undermining the will of the American people that gave Trump the Presidency.

They undermine the will of the people who overwhelmingly elected President Trump and gave him the mandate of the America First agenda. They are not resisting us. They are posturing and placating the radical left. They are holding back what the American people wanted and that was a new direction for this country.