▶ 0:00:00We've worked diligently to meet this target by ending wasteful Green New Deal style spending, supporting the rapid innovation of American industry and federal agencies, and eliminating the waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid that jeopardizes care for millions of women, children, people with disabilities, and elderly Americans.
▶ 0:00:19To ensure American energy dominance, we will secure our energy infrastructure by taking the steps to refill our strategic petroleum reserve, which strengthens our energy security and supports our national security. In order to support the abundant energy production that will be necessary to secure our grid and in order to increase revenue, we will expand the use of user fees to help streamline the sighting and permitting of new oil, gas, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen pipelines.
▶ 0:00:48We can save 172 billion over the next 10 years by repealing the burdensome Biden Harris administration regulations and over a hundred billion by eliminating the EV mandates impo imposed by the vehicle emission and cafe standards that have failed to serve the American taxpayers. And through investments to modernize the Department of Commerce, we can integrate AI systems to make the department more secure and effective to protect the integrity of this project.
▶ 0:01:15And we're implementing guardrails that protect against state level AI laws that could jeopardize our technological leadership. Our legislation will raise 88 billion of new revenue through a historic agreement reauthorizing the FCC Spectrum Auction Authority or protecting US national security. The Biden inflation has left Americans struggling to access affordable health care. The issue has been exacerbated by the decisions of left-leaning state governments to spend dollars on illegal immigrants.
▶ 0:01:44We make no apologies for prioritizing Americans in need over illegal immigrants and those who are capable but choose not to work. Our priority remains the same. Strengthen and sustain Medicaid for those whom the program was intended to serve. Expectant mothers, children, people with disabilities, and the elderly.
▶ 0:02:05We are prepared to stop the billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program by beginning to reign in the loopholes by ensuring states have the flexibility to remove ineligible recipients from their roles and removing beneficiaries who are enrolled in multiple states. These are all common sense policies that will return taxpayer dollars to middle class families. Medicaid was created to protect health care for Americans who otherwise could not support themselves.
▶ 0:02:32But Democrats expanded the program far beyond this core mission. That's why we are establishing common sense work requirements for capable but not working adults in the expansion population. Let me be clear. These work requirements would only apply to able-bodied adults without dependence who don't have a disqualifying condition. Encourage them to reenter the workforce and regain independence. All of this is part of our effort to strengthen Medicaid for the people that need it most.
▶ 0:03:01When President Trump delivered his second inaugural address, he promised a revolution of common sense that would launch a generation of growth, prosperity, and health. This reconciliation bill is critical to that promise the president and congressional Republicans made to the American people. Today, we bring before the committee a package that unleashes American energy dominance, advances innovation, and protects access to care for our most vulnerable.
▶ 0:03:27Each of these is a core part of our effort to respspark the American dream and ensure our country will always be the land of opportunity. I have no doubt that we'll have some robust discussions today about these proposals. These discussions are important and I look forward to using this time to address the issues that matter most to the American families we serve. So, I thank you all for your hard work as we continue our work to serve the American people. I kn I now yield five minutes to the ranking member, my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Palone.
▶ 0:03:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me um The chair The committee will come to The chair the the chair will advise the audience that disruption of a congressional business is a violation of law and is a criminal offense.
▶ 0:04:29Please come to order. The chair advises the audience that violations will not be tolerated and the violators will be removed from the room. It may be subject to arrest. You have an empty chair and most important markup.
▶ 0:05:09Rather you Michael Westing.
▶ 0:05:47Committee will come to order. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for his five-minute opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I um I do want to say that you I think hopefully everyone understands that these demonstrations are the people feel very strongly because they know they're losing their health care and the cruelty that comes from the Republican proposal that makes them lose their health care and their health insurance.
▶ 0:06:11But I would just ask that uh to the police, I don't know if they're in the room, that uh we not arrest people if possible because many of them are disabled and I don't want to see them further hurt uh with their disability be in the process of being arrested. But for months now, President Trump and congressional Republicans promised the American people they would not cut Medicaid benefits or strip away people's healthcare.
▶ 0:06:36In February, President Trump said, and I'm quoting, "Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched." House Speaker Johnson doubled down on that promise, stating, and again I'm quoting, "The White House has made a commitment. The president has said over and over, we're not going to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. We've made that same commitment." Now, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, those are promises that Republicans made to the American people, and it's clear that they have broken that promise. And I just want to reference on Sunday night, Mr.
▶ 0:07:05chairman in a Wall Street Journal interview, you actually said that medic that the Republican plan to trim Medicaid spending, you were commenting on the Republican plan to trim Medicaid spending, and you said, and I quote, "We're going to go as far as we can go to get 218 votes." Well, I think the bottom line is you're going pretty far here in either trimming or cutting, however you want to call it, you refer to it as trimming Medicaid. You don't have to take my word for it.
▶ 0:07:33The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office own analysis shows that at least 13.7 million Americans will lose their healthc care coverage as a result of Trump and Congressional Republicans action. The Medicaid and Affordable Care Act cuts included in the Energy and Commerce bill will make up at least 8.6 million of that total number.
▶ 0:07:52So 8.6 six from this bill alone will lose their Medicaid coverage and another five because it's obvious from the reconciliation bill that you're not going to uh reauthorize uh the uh the assistance if you will uh for those who are on the Affordable Care Act in the marketplace and so you add another five million and you by the end of the year will have over 15 million Americans who lose their Medicaid. So you can call it a trim, you can call it a cut, call it whatever you want.
▶ 0:08:22The bottom line is these people are going to lose their Medicaid. That's why we have so many people. That's why there's so many people here today demonstrating. Now, let me be clear. This is not a moderate bill. I've heard you and others say this is a moderate bill. It is not focused on cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, Republicans are intentionally taking health care away from millions of Americans so they can give giant tax breaks to the ultra rich who frankly don't need them. Medicaid is a life-saving program that 80 million Americans count on every day.
▶ 0:08:52It provides health care to one in three Americans and nearly half of all children in the United States. It covers close to half of all births and it's the largest source of funding for long-term care for seniors and people living with disabilities. With this bill, Republicans are essentially telling millions of Americans, gotcha, no more health care for you. I looked at this and it's very it's like as if someone who was disabled walked in the room and I said, "Gee, rather can I help you?" It's like, "How can I make sure that you don't access Medicaid?
▶ 0:09:21You don't access healthcare." Well, I'll say that uh maybe you can't fill out the red tape and the paperwork, but I'll make you do it once a month, and if you miss that, you're not going to get your not going to get your health insurance. Well, if you want to sign up for the Affordable Care Act because you didn't fill out the paperwork for Medicaid, then you're not going to be eligible for the Affordable Care Act because we won't let you do that. So, everything is being done to make it possible that people get kicked off so you can save money by not financing the healthcare.
▶ 0:09:51Now, a lot of us are going to talk about individuals today, and I would like to talk about my individual from my district. Her name is Lauren, and she has a daughter named Donnie. uh who is disabled. And Lauren is concerned about how devastating Medicaid cuts would be for people with disabilities.
▶ 0:10:08She has said, and I'm quoting, "Without programs like Medicaid that help them get out of bed in the morning, they will literally be stuck or worse out in the community unsafe and victimized." Lauren worries that cuts to Medicaid will take away her daughter's life. And she says that Danny doesn't deserve that. That's uh Lauren on the left, and this is Danny, her daughter on the right. And Lauren is right. Danny doesn't deserve this. And that's why Democrats will fight this cruel bill.
▶ 0:10:34Cruelty is the point that will strip health care away from millions of Americans just so that Republicans can give their their their very wealthy friends uh and large corporations a tax break. It isn't right. It's cruel. We shouldn't be taking away health care from all these Americans. And with that, I yield back. Thank you. Uh the gentleman yields back. And the chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules all members opening states statements will be will be made part of the record. Are there furthering further opening statements?
▶ 0:11:06See none on the republic. Gentle lady from Colorado for our purpose. You seek recognition. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to make an opening statement. I now recognize a gentle lady from Colorado for three minutes for an opening statement. For months, Republicans have insisted that they would not cut Medicaid in order to give tax cuts to billionaires. But here they are today with a bill that would do irreparable damage to Medicaid and the millions of Americans it supports.
▶ 0:11:32This agenda will kick at least 13.7 million people off of healthc care coverage. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Medicaid helps our friends and neighbors live healthy, productive lives. It's for new moms and kids who need extra attention to their health. It's for working families and people just trying to make it. And it is for people who are here like my constituent and Denver city councilman Chris Hines who's here today. Chris, raise your hand up. Chris relies on Medicaid.
▶ 0:12:02Chris was in a crash in 2008 which left him paralyzed from the chest down and in the nomenclature of the federal government, totally and permanently disabled. But Chris is wired to be a doer. He got coverage through Medicaid. And because of the care and security it provided him, he had the freedom to go out and get work.
▶ 0:12:24Chris was elected to the Denver City Council in 2019 and reelected in 2023, and he serves many of my same constituents with distinction. He said to me, "Without Medicaid, he simply would not be able to work, let alone serve his city and country in the way he does. It gives him the medical, professional, and financial freedom to take a risk and make the choices that are best for him. Chris was never looking for a handout. And Medicaid isn't a handout.
▶ 0:12:55It's not a giveaway. Medicaid is the healthc care coverage that lets millions of people live their lives. And here's the thing, eligibility for CIRS is optional for states. So that's what's threatened as states tighten their belts in response to the Republicans misguided legislation. If you vote to put this legislation forward today, you're voting to take freedom and security away from people like Chris. You're going to get more people dependent on the state, not less.
▶ 0:13:25You're going to get more people sick, not healthier. and you're going to kill jobs and investment in every single one of our communities at a time when we're already staring down a recession thanks to Donald Trump. And you will do it to give a tax cut to rich people who just want to be richer. Now, you're going to hear a lot of misinformation from the other side of the aisle. For example, that that um that that people who are who are undocumented are on Medicaid. That's false.
▶ 0:13:55federal money does not go in Medicaid to people. You're going to find you're going to hear that so many people are um are are just sitting around and they need to work. The truth is only 8% of Medicaid recipients are in that work requirement and most of them in that 8% can't find work or are retired. So, let's be real. This is disgraceful. Americans aren't going to to go with it.
▶ 0:14:23And if you pass this, over 13 million people are going to lose their healthcare. I yield back. May the gentle lady yields back an opening statement. Gentleman from North Carolina, you're recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all the folks who've joined us here today in the public. And I want to send her one very clear message. Um, you're being lied to.
▶ 0:14:48Uh, the other side is telling you that a lot of things about this legislation, I'm not sure they've read this legislation. Let me tell you what Republicans are concerned about. Let me tell you what I am concerned about. I got a letter from Melissa from Burlington, North Carolina. She said, "I depend on Medicaid because I need medication for, and I won't list her specific disease. I cannot work as a substitute teacher due to osteoarthritis in both feet, making standing and frequent walking very painful. Having Medicaid is a blessing.
▶ 0:15:18I'm here today to fight for Melissa from Burlington. Christine from Robbins, North Carolina, wrote me and said, "The only person on Medicaid in my house is my special needs son. Without the Medicaid waiver, CAP, we would be homeless. I'm fighting for Christine Robbins." Jennifer from Greensboro, North Carolina, wrote me and said, "We have a disabled daughter." Again, I'll leave out her condition.
▶ 0:15:41Um, but Medicaid has helped our family tremendously by giving us the opportunity to give her the care she deserves. We are fighting for that child. Cara from Moore County, North Carolina, wrote me and said, "I know a lot of families that have children with rare diseases and conditions who rely on Medicaid. My family is just one of many. My son, who's now six years old, has a rare disease. Medicaid has changed my son's life and the life of my family.
▶ 0:16:09He has been able to receive crucial therapies which will keep him mobile and provide him with independence. I am fighting for that little six-year-old boy who lives in Moore County, North Carolina in my district. That is what this is all about. We just heard the other side say there are no illegals receiving Medicaid benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 1.4 million illegals are getting in line ahead of the six-year-old little boy in my district who deserves Medicaid. and the system is going broke.
▶ 0:16:40And that means that the vulnerable among us are going to lose their coverage if we listen to the other side. We're here to fight for the vulnerable. We're here to make sure that Medicaid is strong and secure now and in future so that Melissa from Burlington and her family can get what they deserve. That's what this is about, folks. This is not about one side doesn't want people to get care. One side wants illegal immigrants. 1.4 4 million according to the Congressional Budget Office.
▶ 0:17:10They want them to get care for the six-year-old boy in my district. And that's why we're here. And I'm I'm tired of being lectured to. It's probably going to be a long hearing where we're going to be lectured to, but don't believe the lies. Look at the facts. Read the bill. We are standing up and fighting for people. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further opening statements? Gentle lady from Illinois recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you.
▶ 0:17:49There we go. I want you to meet Santiago. He is a constituent of mine and he relies on social security. want to tell you he is 11 years old and without the social security that he needs he his life would not be worth living. And I say to my Republican colleagues, is that your intention?
▶ 0:18:19Do you want Santiago not to have the life that he needs? I don't understand you. Without that, without that Santiago would be not here anymore. Do you want him to die? I don't think so.
▶ 0:18:44And so, I am asking you please that we have to make sure that his Medicaid is available to him. want to just say that we are the richest country in the world at the richest moment in history.
▶ 0:19:04Can't we afford to take care of our families that are living on the edge whose parents would be without money if they did not have the social security that they need? I don't understand. I don't understand where you are coming from. This is life or death.
▶ 0:19:31Santiago's life and death are on your shoulder. And I just want to say that it is time now to understand to make sure that the funding is available. We have to save social security. You can do that.
▶ 0:19:54You can make the decision now instead of giving more money to the Americans. That's what will happen. Otherwise, it we will be helping the rich get richer and the poor their lives are at stake. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle yields back is seek an opening statement. Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr.
▶ 0:20:24Joyce is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, and thank you for holding this markup today. In November, the American people sent a clearcut message that they were done with rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in our government programs that drain taxpayer dollars for wasteful programs. This legislation that we are marking up here today is the first step towards that agenda that we promise to deliver for the American people.
▶ 0:20:52This legislation that we are marking up today does not address any changes to social security. For to for far too long, illegal immigrants and able-bodied Americans who can return to the workforce have been draining funds from the lowincome who need that Medicaid, from pregnant women who rely on Medicaid, from children who rely on Medicaid, from the elderly who rely on Medicaid.
▶ 0:21:19What we are marking up today is the opportunity to secure Medicaid for those that Medicaid is intended. The abuse ends now. We are not addressing Social Security. We are addressing making sure that the Medicaid funds are ablebodied individuals are removed from those Medicaid sources. This bill includes critical legislation that will stabilize that.
▶ 0:21:48It's an important message that should not be lost on anyone. I support this and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Anyone seeking recognition? The gentle lady from California is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This committee yields immense power when it comes to reconciliation. And in the past, we've used that power to deliver real results. We expanded healthcare through the Affordable Care Act. We rescued the economy during COVID.
▶ 0:22:18We lowered drug costs. We made bold investments in clean energy and climate action through the inflation reduction act. tangible positive impact. But that's not what we're doing today. Today, my Republican colleagues are trying to ram through a bill that will slash hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. Let's be honest about what's happening. No matter what Republicans say, there's no if about it. Benefits will be cut. And I've seen this playbook before.
▶ 0:22:4715 years ago in this room, we debated and passed the Affordable Care Act. I'll never forget the passionate advocates who filled this room then and how Republicans looked them in the eyes and voted against a bill that would provide them life-saving health care. Then I watched as Republicans tried again and again to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
▶ 0:23:08And I fought back every time and I fight back just as hard today because Republicans choose to callously ignore the facts but the impact in each of our communities are real and plain to say to see. Cuts to Medicaid mean denying care to the most vulnerable amongst us, seniors and nursing homes, cancer patients, people with disabilities, and kids. Kids here like Sam. Sam is 13 years old.
▶ 0:23:35He has Down syndrome, autism, and a severe speech disorder. And thanks to Medicaid, Sam is living a safe, supported, and dignified life. Medicaid covers his inhome supportive services so Sam can live at home with his family and not in an institution. It provides Sam with services to help him build toward greater independence. Sam's Sam's m mom said it best. Dis disability rights are human rights.
▶ 0:24:04Medicaid is what allows Sam to live a life of dignity with his rights intact. If this bill passes, those rights will be rolled back. The support that helps millions of families like Sam's will be ripped away. Today, we will hear Republicans try to defend their bill. They'll tell us their cruel policies exempt kids like Sam and pretend that they're reinvesting in services to support them. But that's simply not true.
▶ 0:24:32This bill cuts around $800 billion from healthc care safety net. It rips massive holes in states budgets that are near impossible to fill. It sets devious paperwork traps to force families like Sam's to jump through hoops to help to get coverage. The math is clear. $800 billion gouged out of our health care system means $800 billion less care to go around.
▶ 0:24:58With this bill, Republicans are choosing to rip away health care and abandon the American people. all to pay for temporary tax cuts for the wealthy and to keep fueling corporate greed that's making life harder for everyday Americans. I'm here to fight for these Americans and I'll be here as long as it takes. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The chair recognized anyone on the Republican side seeking recognition. None. The gentle lady from Florida. Gentle lady from Florida. You're recognized for three minutes for an opening statement.
▶ 0:25:33me. Uh Tony McLuren is a spirited seven-year-old from Wesley Chapel, Florida, a part of the world that uh my colleagues Gus Berakus and Laurel Lee know very well north of Tampa. He is an athletic kid. He uh loves to play and watch football with his father Ronnie. He loves math and playing video games. He is sweet and respectful. Uh but last December, his mother noticed that Tony didn't have the same energy.
▶ 0:25:59And on the morning of his football championship banquet, she took him to the emergency room where after a number of blood tests, he was diagnosed with leukemia. Um, since then, Tony has been in and out of St.
▶ 0:26:14Joseph's Hospital Children's Hospital for chemotherapy where he will be ungoing ongoing um undergoing treatment for the next two Pauline, his mom is a fifth grade teacher and she had to quit her job uh when Tony was diagnosed. Uh now it is a real struggle for them to pay their bills on dad Ronnie's electrician's salary.
▶ 0:26:40When Pauline was forced to quit her job, Tony uh and to take care of Tony, the family lost their health insurance that was tied to her mother's teaching employer. But thankfully, St. Joseph's helped them enroll in Medicaid, which covers the whole family and helps uh provide all of the chemotherapy that they need. Pauline feels hopeless, scared, and uneasy about the prospect of losing Medicaid.
▶ 0:27:08She said, "It's not like I have a second option. Medicaid is the second option." U Medicaid ensures one out of every three children diagnosed with cancer in the United States. And without consistent Medicaid coverage, some children with cancer likely will die. Even a gap in coverage uh or costly red tape requirements will cost lives.
▶ 0:27:34Studies have shown that children who experience interruptions in health coverage before during their cancer diagnosis are less likely to survive. There is a new worry though for Pauline and Tony and the family. See, the priority of the president and Republicans in Congress is is to give a massive tax giveaway to Elon Musk and billionaires that's going to be paid for by Medicaid cuts. It's outrageous.
▶ 0:28:02And at a time of so uncertainty driven by what the president has done and Elon Musk's heartless actions, when the cost of living is so high, when cancer research is under attack, the last thing a parent with a child diagnosed with cancer needs is to worry about affordable health care. Musk already t torpedoed a bipartisan piece of legislation at the end of the year that would have helped children diagnosed with cancer uh by speeding development of new drugs and treatments.
▶ 0:28:30Does he and all of his billionaire buddies really need uh more in their bank accounts while kids and the vulnerable and families across this country have to deal with with them ripping coverage away? Don't be the committee that makes it more difficult for our neighbors to get medical care for children with cancer. Be the committee that supports children like Tony affordable consistent time so Tony can return to the sport a fulfilled life.
▶ 0:28:59And I and I want to remind my my colleagues on the on the committee that the House rules committee rules to refer to people by name. So my friend from Florida, my colleague from Florida, congressperson friend from Florida, but calling each other by individual names is not in accordance with House rules. So I appreciate that. And the gentleman from New Jersey wants a couple of seconds to introduce a friend. Well, I'll say my friend from New Jersey or colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, is here. Thank you for being here. and I know how sincerely you are concerned about what's happening to Medicaid.
▶ 0:29:30Thank you. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, gentle lady will state or parliamentary. I believe under the rules you can mention someone's name, you just can't address them personally. So you could say you could say for example um so and so Mr. Villa Rockas of Florida, this person's in his district, but you can't address him individually. There's nothing in the rules that says you can't address people by name, that you can't say their names.
▶ 0:29:59Gentle gentleman from our rules person. Yeah, we we had this discussion on the floor just a few weeks ago and uh you if you're in the middle of a debate, you cannot address the individual by name. That's correct. You cannot you cannot address your remarks to them by name, but you can say someone's name, which is all that Mr. In that case, in that case, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, was being me mentioned by name based on policies that he advocated. I don't I was not there, so I can't I understand.
▶ 0:30:29I was and it was it was I objected and we get we'll get a ruling from the parliamentaritarium, but you can't the gentleman's correct you cannot address you cannot address somebody by name. You have to address your remarks to the chair, but you can mention another member per a member me member of Congress's name. There's nothing in the rules that say you have to say my friend from Florida or my friend from Colorado. There's nothing in the rules. We'll take that advice under the parliamentarian and we'll give you a ruling when we get that from the parliamentarian.
▶ 0:31:00Are there any Republican members seeking I guess we'll have another Hawaiian member. We recognize Mr. Shatz here. Senator Shatz is here as well. So, so thank you. So, the any Oh, okay. And and Senator Smith is here as well. Thank you. So, is is in the Senator Ton, excuse me, take out the senators in the room. My Congressman, sorry, my friend from New York. I just Are you are you seek recognition? Yes, sir.
▶ 0:31:28You're recognized for three minutes for opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here today fighting for people like Noel and Nathan, proudly fighting for them. They're constituents of mine who are raising their family in Albany, New York. Their 12-year-old daughter, Isa, has a rare genetic disorder and has received health care through Medicaid for almost eight years because of her disabilities.
▶ 0:31:52Through Medicaid, Isla is in a program where she has self-directed care, which means she has a budget for a caregiver, classes, respit care, and more to best support Isla and her family. Noel and Nathan shared with me that one of their first reactions when they heard about Republicans plans was fear of how it could impact Isa's care. In Noel's words, Medicaid changed our life. I can't imagine what our life would be like without Medicaid.
▶ 0:32:19It is not only the direct impact it has on Isa's quality of life, but our entire family's quality of life. I know our story is just one of millions of families who would be devastated by the loss of Medicaid. Nathan added, "On the human level, it has been life-changing for us. On an economic level, it allows us to work.
▶ 0:32:39To lose it would be awful, not only for our family, but also for the people we serve through our work." They explained to me that when you have a child with complex medical needs and disabilities, you are constantly navigating systems to advocate for your child in education settings, in healthcare settings, and in dealing with insurance. Noel described how as a parent of a child with disabilities, you're often pushing through all the red tape for your child's need to be respected.
▶ 0:33:07Let's not add more red tape for this family. Noel has described how Medicaid provides Nathan and her with a breath of relief of thinking about these supports for Isla as she gets older and enters adulthood. Noel shared a friend's sentiment that Isa doesn't need to change for the world. The world needs to change for Isa. I could not agree more.
▶ 0:33:29Noel asked members of this committee to rethink these devastating cuts and instead provide respect and provide dignity for families and individuals living with disabilities. On behalf of Isa and her family and families like hers across my district, across New York State, and across our great nation, I demand that we reverse course on all cuts to Medicaid and additional red tape that would hurt so many people.
▶ 0:33:53With that, let's say no to lining the pockets of billionaires and yes to providing access, affordable health care via Medicaid for so many. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. The gentleman yields back. And I want to say I appreciate the my colleagues concerns and we share them. Every example that has been mentioned are the people we're trying to strengthen Medicaid for, not one of them will lose coverage under our bill unless they are able-bodied workers or or they're in the country without a legal uh presence.
▶ 0:34:21So is uh there's no one on the Republican side. A gentle lady from New York. My colleague from New York is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to begin by sharing my story of my constituent David. This is David, one of the many faces of Medicaid. David is a 55year-old Brooklyn resident who's been living with congestive heart failure since 2016.
▶ 0:34:49Once a full-time worker, his diagnosis sadly forced him to stop working and rely solely on Medicaid for his health care. His condition was so severe that during his first visit to the hospital, he remained admitted for nearly a full Medicaid covers all aspects of his medical needs including the daily medications he has to take, regular cardiac monitoring and
▶ 0:35:20hospitalbased care. That extended hospitalization was entirely covered by Medicaid and it saved his life. He was able to receive this life-saving cure at Sun Sunni Downstate. And some of our constituents are here from Sunni Downstate in our today. A vital hospital in my district that also heavily relies on Medicaid dollars to provide high quality care to their patients.
▶ 0:35:48Just like most healthc care institutions across this nation, from rural to urban areas, the medical team there provided him with consistent and high quality care in a community-based setting. Without Medicaid, David would lose access to his medications to his physicians who have managed his condition for nearly a year. David clearly said, "If Medicaid is cut, I will have no way to afford my care. No medication, no followup, no hospital.
▶ 0:36:17Without Medicaid, I die prematurely. David's story is a powerful example of how essential Medicaid is. It's not just policy, but it's a lifeline for Americans in my district and across the nation. So, let's be crystal clear about what's happening here. We are being asked to sit in this room today and pretend that gutting Medicaid is somehow a necessary evil and a tough decision made in the name of fiscal responsibility. But it's not.
▶ 0:36:44It's a political choice that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are choosing to make. It's a choice that disproportionately targets low-income communities, communities of colors, immigrants, and workingclass families. It's a choice that will impact hospital systems, especially in New York, that are still trying to recover from the devastating impacts of CO 19.
▶ 0:37:06It's a choice that will strip away lifesaving health care for 17.3 million Americans, nearly 7 million or one in three New Yorkers who rely on this program. Make no mistake, this Medicaid cut would hit Republicans and Republican red states the hardest. For months, House Republicans have lied about their plans to cut nearly one trillion from Medicaid.
▶ 0:37:31And now, the nonpartisan budget, Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that their plan will kick millions of people off their healthcare. The only winner in the Republican budget scheme are billionaire donors. And once again, cruelty is the point. With that, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Is anyone seeking recognition for an opening statement of the Republicans? Seeing none, the doc gentleman from California is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:37:59Chairman, and I want to thank all the people in the audience here today as well. As we move through this markup today, I implore my colleagues to not lose sight of why we are all here. to represent our districts, to pass legislation to better our nation, to protect and improve the lives of our constituents.
▶ 0:38:23And make no mistake, the policies in this big, ugly bill do the exact opposite. If this bill became law, it would devastate the healthc care infrastructure my and all of your constituents rely on. It would strip healthc care coverage from millions of our most vulnerable citizens.
▶ 0:38:44And over 42% of my constituents rely on Medicaid or medical in California for their health insurance, including over 60% of children. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the policies in this bill would lead to at least 13.7 million people losing their coverage. But this fight isn't about numbers. This is about real people. So, let's hear from one of those whose lives are on the line.
▶ 0:39:13I would like to share the story of a young constituent of mine, Victoria. Here is Victoria's story in her own words. Quote, "As a resident of the Imperial Valley, a low-income, rural, and undererved region, medical or Medicaid is one of the only ways I've been able to access medical services. Medical is the only thing protecting me from the challenges and consequences that come from needing crucial medical services.
▶ 0:39:40As a graduate student, I cannot afford to leave the country or incur a financial burden just to take care of my health. I sadly I feel lucky to be a young woman uh because I cannot imagine how much worse potential cuts to healthc care funding could adversely impact our most vulnerable. Healthcare is non-negoti negotiable and I refuse to risk my or my loved ones lives over budget savings.
▶ 0:40:05I am also not alone in this as my friends and family and about 90% of Planned Parenthood's patients in California rely on medical. Our state's version of Medicaid to afford reproductive health care. I along with more than 72 million Americans rely on Medicaid for health care, including essential reproductive health services like birth control, wellness exams, STI tests and treatment, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and more.
▶ 0:40:35These services and our health deserve to be a financial priority. So, I urge you to defend Medicaid and our well-being. Victoria is not alone, and I urge my colleagues to keep her story and the stories of so many other Americans, including your own constituents, in mind as you consider the legislation before you today. It's simple choice.
▶ 0:40:55Strip healthc care coverage from our nation's vulnerable in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy billionaires like Elon Musk, or protect the constituents you swore note to, protect, and do not cut Medicaid and take healthcare away. Thank you, and I yield back. Gentlemen, Thomas, gentleman yields back. Gentleman from the other gentleman from California is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement.
▶ 0:41:25Thanks. Thank you. Jesus is one of my constituents from San Diego. Uh his mother was tragically hit by a car, leaving her disabled. uh he manages her medications, he feeds her, he bathes her, he takes her to doctor's appointments, and he helps her with physical therapy. But if these Medicaid effects take cut, this work, this very hard work will not meet the so-called work requirements Republicans want to impose.
▶ 0:41:50Jesus and his family would have likely have to move out of their home, live separated, and they will likely lose their healthcare. Mr. Mr. Chairman, this committee has no jurisdiction over taxes, but let's be honest with the American people, taxes are the real reason we're here. Over in the Ways and Means Committee, they are marking up what will be one of the most expensive tax bills in American history.
▶ 0:42:12When Republicans originally passed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they designed many of the individual and some business tax provisions to expire this year because back then, Republicans knew making the tax cuts permanent would cost the United States trillions of dollars in revenue we desperately need to pay our expenses. Making those tax cuts permanent now is no less costly. Yes, that's what we're being asked to we're asked to do today.
▶ 0:42:37The budget committee instructed the Ways and Means Committee to cut taxes by $4.5 trillion and it has asked our committee to come up with $880 billion in cuts to make up the shortfall. That's it. That's what this is about. Now, to do that, the bill before us will decimate Medicaid, which provides health insurance annually, to nearly 72 million people nationwide in every congressional district across the country. Cutting health coverage for our most vulnerable neighbors will not make America healthier. It will make us sicker.
▶ 0:43:07You know, at home, I hear from people concerned about the national debt and deficits, and they say to me, "Hey, Scott, we have to make cuts to address the deficit." But that is not what's happening here. Because Republicans will continue to run $2 trillion annual deficits, and we will see the national grow debt grow from 36 to 38 to 40 to 42 trillion. And they will vote for a $5 trillion increase in the debt limit to make this borrowing possible.
▶ 0:43:34Even though many of them swore a blood oath that they'd never vote to increase the debt, they will enact a budget that will increase the uh according to the committee for a responsible federal budget will increase the federal debt by $37 trillion over the next 30 years. So don't buy the fiscal responsibility act. Republicans are proposing these painful cuts to programs that help everyday Americans, not to lower our debt, but just so President Trump can follow through on his campaign promise to donors.
▶ 0:44:03Remember when he said to his to his donors, he quote, I said, "You're rich as hell, and I'm going to cut your taxes." When the government borrows more, inflation goes up. Working people suffer at the grocery store. They pay for more for utilities. Now, we're adding uh taking away their healthcare. This is the wrong thing to do. And I urge my colleagues, vote no. I yield back. Thank the gentleman yields back. And uh chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Michigan for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:44:29I actually have to say that my young man from Michigan and his parents decided that they want to drive in today because they cared so much. So, please meet George who I met this morning who was full of energy and my office somehow survived. But welcome, George. Welcome, Here's a letter I got from his mom.
▶ 0:44:59Our son George is six and has Down syndrome. We adopted him at three weeks old. Losing Medicaid would our family. Absolutely destroy us. We've been very lucky until now because of Medicaid. It's been very instrumental for our family's ability to survive. My husband and I both primarily do gig work. both employed full-time, but we don't have workplace insurance. It's not super reliable for the kinds of jobs we do.
▶ 0:45:28So, we have marketplace insurance. It's a huge fear that we'd lose Medicaid because it's necessary for our famil family's lives. The disability world, our community is really worried about cuts to Medicaid. The general narrative right now is one of terror. It's a death sentence to cut Medicaid. It's intrinsically and undeniably tied to disability rights and justice in our country.
▶ 0:45:55If we're not serving our most vulnerable children, what are we even doing as a country? You're leaving families with no options and putting us in an impossible position. It's so obvious that they don't care about disabled people or poor people. So, they cared strongly enough to come. I met them as the governor and I uh traveled Michigan talking to people.
▶ 0:46:20There was a poll this week that shows 83% of the people in Michigan support Medicaid. 2.6 million people get their health insurance through Medicaid in Michigan, representing approximately one in four Michiganers. Medicaid provides coverage for 38% of births in Michigan, two in five children, three in five nursing home residents, and three in eight working age adults with disabilities.
▶ 0:46:50And I want to say to my colleagues, Michigan's Medic program is efficient with per enrolly costs among the 10 lowest in the country. And to all my colleagues who say you're cutting waste and fraud, Medicaid is 22% more coste effective than any private insurance plan. We have to protect George and other children and seniors and nursing homes and people with disabilities.
▶ 0:47:18And please don't say you're not going to hurt them because many things in this bill are a backdoor way of doing so. I yield back. Mr. Chair, gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized three minutes for an opening statement. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh for months, literally months. Different point of order. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's a gentle gentleman from Texas is Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, I I just want to respond. Look, I I have a young daughter and I I would be fearful. No, would you start?
▶ 0:47:48I'm sorry. You're Mr. VC was from Texas, too. So, I just want to clarify. I was recognizing Mr. Krenshaw, so I have to say his name. It's all right. Mr. Krenshaw is recognized for five minutes. Sorry. Some might say there's too many Texans, but I don't think there's enough. I mean, it's it's a at least we could agree on that, Mr. VC. Um, look, I just to just to respond here, I mean, look, I I have a young daughter and if she was on Medicaid and and uh and we were at risk of taking that away from her, I would share that fear.
▶ 0:48:18The the problem with this narrative is that there's no reason to have that fear. I think the crime here is scaring someone like George. No, you don't. Because because I'm Well, I'm sorry. I am sorry that Here's my apology to you. I am sorry that people lied to you. I am sorry that so many people in the media and on the left have lied to you about what's in this bill.
▶ 0:48:48George, I want to tell you, you have nothing to worry about. Your Medicaid is not going anywhere. I'm sorry if they flew all the way here from Michigan. I'm sorry for that. That's not fair for people to be lied to and to be scared on purpose for political reasons. Read the bill.
▶ 0:49:14I know it hasn't been out that long and I know it's complicated stuff, but over the next uh 24 to 28 hours, we're going to go through it all and uh I just want to say to George and his family, you're going to go home feeling a lot better. Thank you. Yield back. Gentlemen yields back. The chair recognizes the other gentleman from Texas, Mr. Vzy. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh thank you very much. You are going to hear a lot uh about lies.
▶ 0:49:45Let me tell you who the biggest liar of them all is. That is Donald Trump. Yes. Donald Trump promised he wouldn't touch Medicaid. That was a lie. My Republican colleagues, my MAGA colleagues swore up and down that they wouldn't touch Medicaid. It was a lie. Objection. Now, hold on a second, Mr. Chairman. Everybody over here has been hollering and about lying and now all of a sudden they're objected. All right, gentlemen. Come on now. What? Come on now.
▶ 0:50:13The objection is the reference president of the United States now in relationship to lying which is in violence rules. They've been hollering about lying the whole time and now I get into my spiel and then they want to make an objection about it. Come on, chairman. Lying generally is acceptable. Lying specifically is not. Come on now. Come on now. All right. All right. The also so legit. All right. And they've been calling us liars this whole time. Can I Can I resume, Mr. Chairman? Just one second.
▶ 0:50:49All we're saying is is is members of members of Congress, members of the Senate, and the president are in in our speech in our debate is is uh protected from insult. So, we should not use the word lying and so forth. Moving forward. I get it. I've heard it said before. You guys have been saying the whole hearing. You guys have been saying the word lying the whole hearing. Excuse me. It's not generally ridiculous. Your pointman let's chairman not use the t word lying as we saw each other.
▶ 0:51:18I'm just saying in general I'm Mr. Chairman. A point of order. Just just point of order. Gentleman's recognized for a point of order. I have a question for you Mr. Chairman. In your opening remarks, you talked about Joe Biden. That's right. So, can you explain to me the difference there? Okay. I said I talked about the Biden Harris policies. I didn't say Biden Harris lied to the American people. I didn't say that. I didn't say anything like that. So, your your members have called us liars in the last 15 minutes.
▶ 0:51:46I've asked I've asked everybody to suspend on the on the word line. We will we will go forward. And so, Mr. Vis, you're recognized to continue unless My friend know you're recognized to continue, but let's let's try not to use the You're right. I I admit the word line has been used. It's been brought now as a as a a point of order has been made on that. So let's let's all suspend using the word line for each other. So Mr. Visa, you're recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:52:14So Donald Trump, my Republican MAGA colleague, stop capping. Stop capping to the American public. This is a betrayal. Republicans are butchering Medicaid uh and the Affordable Care Act and they're carving it up so billionaires, so literally billionaires like Musk and Bezos and the others can have a tax break. So the good old boys can have a tax break and the people that are out there struggling uh cannot have Medicaid. Uh it's terrible.
▶ 0:52:44Uh it's arson and Republicans are the arsonists. And who are the targets? The targets are children. And the targets are mothers. The targets are seniors. The targets are people with disabilities. The targets are hardworking Americans. And again, $884 billion. Think about that. Those are the three people that I just talked about, those billionaires. It's so they can have a tax cut.
▶ 0:53:08And it's so people like Carla, uh, who is a cancer survivor that lives in near the district that I represent. Uh, and Carla wants to tell you her story. She's someone whose life was saved by Medicaid. Uh, but I'd rather have Carla share her story. Carla, can you share your story? Yes. Thank you, Congressman. My name is Carla Pro and I am a seven-year lung cancer survivor and a World War II veteran who I know.
▶ 0:53:37You can't play a recording on a It's not a recording. It's a live call. Mr. Chairman, we not we don't allow other people to testify in your diagnosed. So, Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Carla, that that's not Mr. Chairman. Gentleman sus. We'll suspend. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman can proceed. Mr. Chairman, these are Can can Carla be heard or not?
▶ 0:54:03What the rules do not allow someone to speak in your opening time. I'm sorry. She cannot be. She's not That's not in with the rules. Well, I I Carla, I apologize that they won't hear from you. I don't know why they didn't want to hear from you because um the rules. You're you're you're you're their people. They're you're the you're the people that help them get elected and they want to cut you off. And I don't understand why they want to cut you off. I don't understand why they're afraid to hear from you.
▶ 0:54:32Uh and I'm not sure why now all of a sudden they want to ignore voices like Carla. They also probably want to ignore voices like Virginia uh who lives in Miss Camik's district. She has multiple distrophe. She relies on Medicaid for her home health care. She told us that during a lapse in her coverage, she considered calling 911 just so she could get in and out of bed. These are the type of people that they're betraying. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more stories to tell.
▶ 0:55:01There's a lot more where that came from, but I'm out of time. This is sad that we are doing this to the most vulnerable people in our country. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there any one on the Republican side seeking recognition? Seeing none, the gentle lady from Illinois is recognized for three minutes for opening statement. It's a shame that the conversation about threats to Medicaid continues. These are dark times in our country. So, let's be clear about what today's markup is and isn't about.
▶ 0:55:32This isn't about reducing fraud, waste, or abuse. None of us want fraud, waste, or abuse. Yet my Republic, this is about ripping health care away from working families, children, seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, and pregnant women.
▶ 0:55:48Yet my Republican colleagues dismiss and I would say even laugh because I've seen it today over our concerns over 800 billion dollars in Medicaid cuts as a misunderstanding just targeting waste, fraud, and abuse. But you don't just gut the largest insurer of lowincome Americans without real harm. Call it what it is. Abandonment, disinvestment, and pure disregard for human life.
▶ 0:56:17Let me share with you one of my faces of Medicaid. Larabida, a hospital in my district takes care of kids who have complex chronic medical conditions. 90% of their patients are covered by Medicaid. One of those kids is Cairo. When Cairo was 2 years old, his mother found him nearly unresponsive at daycare. After rushing him to the hospital, they found bleeding in his brain. He needed a breathing tube, a tube for feeding and a shunt to drain fluid from his brain.
▶ 0:56:47He was extremely sick. They discovered he had a genetic condition that leads to abnormal blood vessel connections. After spending a month and a half in the pediatric intensive care unit, his medical expenses reached $2.5 million. As a mother and grandmother myself, let me tell you, a parent will pay any cost to save their child. But as the richest country in the world, no loving parent should experience crippling medical debt to treat their child.
▶ 0:57:17Both of his parents worked full-time to support their family of five. But because Cairo was under six years old when his genetic condition was discovered, he and his siblings could stay on Medicaid. With Medicaid, he receives 24-hour care, including inhome nursing, which allows his parents to continue working full-time. His mom said that if he would not if it were not for Medicaid, he would not be here today.
▶ 0:57:43When he arrived at Laabida, he was on a ventilator support, had little mobility, and could not speak. Now he is completely off the ventilator and can walk. Medicaid is a lifeline for him, for his families, and for millions of Americans across this country. In my district alone, over 300,000 of my constituents would be at risk of losing their health care, more than any other district in Illinois. In Illinois, 3.4 million people are covered by Medicaid.
▶ 0:58:12When Illinois implemented Medicaid expansion, the uninsured rate dropped by 44% between 2013 and 2015. These demonstrate the significance of Medicaid for Illinoisans. These are not just numbers. These are real people that will suffer. Thank you. Thanks. The gentle lady yields back. And is there any Republican side? Seeing none, the gentle lady from California is recognized for five, excuse me, three minutes for an opening statement. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:58:39Under the cover of night, House Republicans proposed the largest Medicaid cuts in history. All to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. They hope the American people won't notice until it's too late. And today in this hearing, we should be starting with talking about Medicaid and the healthcare. For months, Republicans told the American people that their budget would not cut Medicaid. That is not true. And today, they continue to say it. Don't believe it.
▶ 0:59:08For months, Republicans hid the truth from their constituents and refused to do town halls. If you will not stand up, if Republicans will not stand up, Democrats will. Today, we are joined by Sasha. Sasha, please stand. Sasha is a constituent who came from New Jersey 7th district represented by Congressman Tom Kaine. She was born with cereable pausy and the right side of her body doesn't function due to a stroke she had in her mother's womb.
▶ 0:59:39Since she was seven years old, Sasha has suffered from seizures. Her her mother, Lana, who is also here, quit her job to care for Sasha. Without Medicaid, Sasha would not have the resources to access treatment, medications, or doctor visits to help her healthy be healthy and independent. Thanks to Medicaid, Sasha has thrived as a college student and a Special Olympics athlete. Sasha shares, and I quote, "Medicaid is not just a health care program.
▶ 1:00:07It's a foundation that allows me to be an active member of society. It helps me develop independence, and one day I hope to contribute back to my community and support my mother. Without Medicaid, I fear that people like me, people who rely on these services for their health, independence, and dignity, will be left behind." End quote. Yet, this monstrous Republican budget leaves millions of people behind. This bill cuts Medicaid, plain and simple.
▶ 1:00:32And it also attacks Medicare, the children's health insurance program, and the health insurance marketplace. It kicks at least 13.7 million Americans off of Medicaid, and the health insurance marketplace. Under this bill, Sasha could lose everything. Sasha and Lana could be buried in red tape, forced to navigate burdensome paperwork, and eligibility checks.
▶ 1:00:55The services Sasha relies on, transportational, personal care, community-based support, could be first on the chopping block when states are forced to absorb Medicaid cuts. Who here is standing up for Sasha and millions of people like her? Sasha has asked Congress, please think about individuals like me when making decisions about the future of Medicaid. We cannot afford to lose the essential support that Medicaid provides.
▶ 1:01:20I respectfully ask you to stand against any cuts to this program and instead protect it so that people like me can continue to live and thrive in our community." End quote. Democrats stand with you, Sasha, in opposing any Medicaid cuts. We need just four Republicans to join us. I hope we can find them and I hope one is your Congress member. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 1:01:43Welcome, Any Republicans seeking recognition? none, oh, gentle lady from You're on I was looking to my right. Gentle lady from North Dakota is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:02:05I'm one of the newest members on this committee and I came here to Washington to help solve problems and try to make government work for the people of our country, especially citizens who need it the most. People like the disabled, elderly, pregnant moms. I've been shocked to learn some very disappointing things about Medicaid since I came here. These are the dirty little secrets that many won't talk about, but I want to share some of those.
▶ 1:02:31Did do you know that able-bodied participants in Medicaid expansion receive nine times as much federal money as disabled participants in the traditional population? Nine times. The CBO estimates that 4.8 million able-bodied Americans will lose their Medicaid coverage simply because they don't want to volunteer, work, or go to school for 20 hours a week. 4.8 million.
▶ 1:02:59Federal Medicaid spending will grow 25% under this program over the course of the next 10 years. 25% it will grow.
▶ 1:03:34I just want to say to the audience, it's important that you're all here and participate. We want you here. You're part of the process. We want you to be here, but we we have to proceed and the rules of the house and the law that if if you're disruptive, you'll be removed and you're subject to arrest. I'm not I don't make that decision. the capital police does, but so let's all participate and work together and um I will the gentle lady from North Dakota is rec will continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:04:02Federal Medicaid spending will grow 25% over the next 10 years under the program we're considering today. It will grow 25%. 1.4 million illegal immigrants are receiving Medicaid coverage today, which takes away funding from the disabled, senior citizens, and pregnant women. The federal government pays for 1.6 million people on Medicaid roles in two different states. That's fraud.
▶ 1:04:28Precious dollars in Medicaid are being pocketed by pharmacy benefit managers who keep a portion of the amount they're being paid for prescription drugs. That's not fair. F valuable dollars are being diverted to pay for gender transition surgeries for minors.
▶ 1:04:43Valuable do dollars for Medicaid are being spent on people who are Valuable dollars for Medicaid are being stolen by cyber criminals who steal Medicaid numbers for deceased doctors and continue to claim payments on their behalf. Valuable dollars for Medicaid are being spent on people who do not meet the very eligibility requirements established by the Democrats in this room. You know what I think is cruel?
▶ 1:05:10I think it's cruel to continue defending a program that is not sustainable. I think it's cruel to not accept some very reasonable reforms that are intended to make this program stronger for the very people it was designed to help. Those are the things we're considering here. We want to make this program better, stronger, more sustainable and more targeted to the folks who it's intended to help. Many of the people in this room and those lining the halls.
▶ 1:05:39That's the truth of what we're doing here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I lead back. Mr. Chairman, lady yields back and the gentleman from point of inquiry. Parliamentary. Yes. That's your parliamentary inquir. Um well, it's not parliamentary, but there members are leaving for whatever reason asked to be removed because they were speaking, but they're empty chairs.
▶ 1:05:59As those that are leaving are made to leave, can we allow other people who are in the audience to come in and fill these empty chairs who came from very far places to participate? As they leave, can we invite others to come in? I believe they're allowing people in as they leave. I I haven't seen Let me inquire as as one of the individuals that came to test. I believe they're trying to I will find out and we and we will address that. So, let me find out. I don't know from here.
▶ 1:06:27We'll I'll have somebody look into that and get an answer back to you. Thank you. So, the gentleman from Florida g my good friend from Florida is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, chairman. It's Ebenezer Scrooge's day at the capital today. taking health care from the poor to fund tax cuts for the rich. I'm sure Scrooge would think this is a very fine plan. A very fine plan indeed.
▶ 1:06:53Of course, he's a billionaire hedge fund manager and he's thrilled about paying even less in taxes. We have a few perspectives to guide us. First, it's my favorite. The ghost of Congress passed the 115th Congress. You all may remember that. where former GOP Congressman Jacob Marley, a frontliner, reminds you how he lost his seat as well as 20 other Republicans because you went after Obamacare, kidare, and Medicaid. 20 seats lost and the majority.
▶ 1:07:23Then, of course, there's the ghost of Congress president. The Kratchet family, of course, is on Medicaid. They have a disabled child, Tiny Tim. There's Ebenezer's beloved Fanny. She's on the ACA, 63 years old. And then Fred Scrooge. He thinks he's fine because he gets his health care through the employer. But we know what's going to happen in the future. You pass this terrible bill and you cut 715 billion dollars from the program. You can't just cut that and not have people lose health insurance.
▶ 1:07:54We know for a fact 13.7 million Americans will lose health insurance, including the Crotcha family. Of course, D Tiny Tim dies in this scenario. Fanny finds out how Obamacare increases by 10,000. And of course, Fred Scrooge is shocked that his employer based health care went up by 25% because people are flooding the emergency room because they're sick and they're uninsured. Of course, this is not some fairy tale.
▶ 1:08:21In real life, back in my district in Florida's 9inth, these are the kids from McCoy Elementary. Half the kids in my district are on Medicaid. They're on Kidare. It's a wildly popular program. You can't cut 715 billion dollars from Medicaid, and then not have this affect our kids.
▶ 1:08:46And then I got to go to Providence Assisted Living, a nursing home in my district. I met George. He's a veteran. He's partially in a 25% of the seniors in this assisted living facility get their coverage Medicaid. Don't be a Scrooge.
▶ 1:09:11Don't vote for this terrible bill that's going to cut Medicaid, cut kidare, cut nursing home care, all to fund tax cuts for the rich and powerful. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. any gentleman from Alabama is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:09:30Um, it's interesting the tactics that are being used here that all of us have stated for the record that the people who are legally eligible for Medicaid are not going to lose their Medicaid. We've all got family members, friends, we've got people in our districts. We all know these stories, people that are depending on Medicaid. and you will not lose your Medicaid. Many of the people who've spoken out here and had to be removed, they're not going to lose their Medicaid.
▶ 1:10:00The interesting thing is not you will not be here. Mr. Chairman, gentleman will suspend. I want you to be heard.
▶ 1:10:30So, let's wait till the gentleman is recognized. It's unfortunate that that people are so enraged by the misinformation that they've been given. It's it it's a commentary on this commentary on this Congress and how we treat people. But, uh, one of my, uh, colleagues on the other side of the aisle pointed out that there was no waste or fraud. CMS reported that between 2015 and 2024, there was $543 billion in proper payments.
▶ 1:11:00I want the record to show that that's $543 billion that could have gone to people who need Medicaid coverage, Mr. Chairman, who need medicine, who need treatment. There's over 700,000 people in traditional Medicaid that are on waiting list because particularly in the expansion states because they're being pushed aside because they don't get the high match that the able-bodied adults who choose not to work.
▶ 1:11:26And by the way, the col one of my colleagues said that only 8% of able-bodied adults are not working. Well, if 92% are working, what's your problem with work requirements? I mean, if they're already working, there's no problem there. I didn't refer to anybody by name. So you don't get a chance to interrupt. Okay. I didn't refer to anybody. Then you refer to your state. So here's the issue. We're trying to save Medicaid. It's interesting people are holding up signs. Save our Medicaid.
▶ 1:11:55That's exactly what we're trying to do. I I said that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported this between 2015 and 2024. 543 billion in improper payments. That's waste and fraud. That's abuse of the people who need Medicaid. And there are other reports out there that indicate it may be over a trillion dollars. So what we're trying to do is make Medicaid work for the people who are supposed to get it. That's it.
▶ 1:12:26I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Then gentle lady from Washington, gentle ladies Washington is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh thank you to the people here in the audience today. I'm here to tell the story of Isa, this four-year-old that you see in this picture. Isa's the daughter of Jason and Vanessa.
▶ 1:12:53She was born at Kittitas Valley Healthc Care Critical Access Rural Hospital in Ellensburg, Washington, situated just east of the Cascade Mountains. She was born in March of 2021. Jason told me that he had the incredible honory of telling Vanessa, "It's a girl." But their joy was interrupted by silence. Isa wasn't crying. She wasn't moving. She was pale. The room became a flurry of urgent action. Nurses whisked her away.
▶ 1:13:23Alarms were triggered. Within minutes, labor and delivery room was full of people who were responding. Ia was breathing, but her oxygen levels were critically low. During delivery, she had transfused nearly 40% of her blood volume back to her mother, and she did not have enough blood to stay alive on her own. So, KVH sprang into action.
▶ 1:13:46They coordinated a transfer for higher level care and reached out to Seattle Children's Hospital, which accepted her, of course, and dispatched a helicopter. But as is often the case in rural environments, nature had the final say. The helicopter was turned forced to turn back due to weather conditions over the mountain pass. And undeterred, KVH made different arrangements. A fixedwing aircraft was dispatched from Spokane.
▶ 1:14:16Meanwhile, the hospital coordinated EMS transport to get the air crew and their equipment from the plane to the hospital. and they all arrived with one mission to save Isla. Today she is four years old. She is happy and healthy and this story is a testament to what rural healthc care can do when it is resourced, when it is staffed, and when it is supported. It is also a reminder of how close Jason and Vanessa came to a very different ending.
▶ 1:14:46Without this rural critical access hospital, Isla might not be here today. The same is true for countless other families in similar communities across America. There is no other hospital in the region that they that they could have made it to in time. It is not uncommon for people in our community to deliver a baby on the way to the hospital. And that is how far apart health care services are in my district and many of my Republican colleagues district.
▶ 1:15:17Cutting Medicaid will close rural hospitals. Every child deserves the chance to live and every family deserves access to that care. That is why we must preserve Medicaid because without that support, rural hospitals will close and access will not be available to patients. I yield back. Gentle lady yields. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for an opening statement?
▶ 1:15:53Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It may be easy to sit here in Washington without having to face the people who will feel the impact of a bill that will strip millions of Americans of their healthc care coverage. Easy because you don't have to look at them in the eyes or hear their stories. Let's open the doors and allow the American people who have stood in line fill the open seats first and foremost. In the meantime, let me share just one story from my district.
▶ 1:16:22This is a photo of Philillip, a resident of Haveril, Massachusetts. Philip has a disability, but that hasn't stopped him from giving back. Whether volunteering with Meals on Wheels, training uh service dogs, or caring for animals at a sanctuary, he does all this because of Medicaid. Medicaid funds the programs that help Philip gain skills, stay engaged, and remain independent. Medicaid isn't just a health care program.
▶ 1:16:49It's a foundation for independence for people with disabilities like Philip who want to live their lives with dignity. In Philip's case, Medicaid funds opportunity works and community works, a program that helps folks build job skills, engage in volunteer work, and participate meaningfully in society. These initiatives don't just keep Philip busy, they give him purpose. They help him grow, contribute to, and connect with his community. But here's why I'm telling Philip's story.
▶ 1:17:18This bill, this quote unquote big, beautiful bill, as Donald Trump has described it, will slash the federal Medicaid funding that Phillips program depends on. And I know my Republican colleagues will say that states should make up for it. But they know that's not possible. They know that when funds are cut, it's initiatives like these that are always first on the chopping block. So what then happens to Philillip? He loses a lot more than a routine.
▶ 1:17:45He loses access to his community, his sense of contribution, and his independence. Mr. Chairman, Philillip and millions of Americans across our country like him are not fat to be trimmed or waste to be rooted out by disingenuous politicians in Washington. They're hardworking Americans trying to live their lives with dignity and make their communities better. There are constituents, they need you to vote no on this bill. They need you to protect Medicaid.
▶ 1:18:14Protect the independence of me Americans with disabilities. And if you can't do that, at least have the courage to look at the American people, people like Phillip in the eyes while you take it away. I yield back. The general lady yields. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for an opening statement? The gentle lady from Texas is recognized for her three minutes. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:18:42Like my Democratic colleagues who've spoken before me, I am deeply concerned about the bill that we are considering today. A bill that's going to make life harder and not better. A bill that's going to make things more expensive, not less expensive, for all Americans, especially their health care, if they can get it at all. And it's not just me. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that this bill will take away health care from nearly 14 million Americans.
▶ 1:19:10And those are people who rely Medicaid. People like Ricky, who lives just down the road from me in Texas City in the 14th Congressional District of Ricky is one of the 4.5 million or so Americans who rely on Medicaid to live life on his own. But the wait was years long.
▶ 1:19:36And this bill will make the wait longer for people like him if they can get that assistance at all. I want to share the life-changing impact that Medicaid home healthcare meant. In his words, I was on the waiting list for home and community based services for five years. and I used to live in several large facilities. Once my name came up on the waiting list, I called everybody to let them know that my name came up on the waiting list. That's when I got to move in on my own.
▶ 1:20:05This was my very first time living on my own. When my staff came in that next morning, she asked me what I wanted to eat. So I scratched my head and said, "So you mean to tell me that I get to choose what I want to eat?" And she said, "Yeah." And so I had two boiled eggs and two pieces of toast that I wanted and all those other facilities I couldn't choose.
▶ 1:20:34As Americans, we have chosen to invest in our country. We have chosen to create programs to help our neighbors and further progress and make practical improvements from roads and bridges and infrastructure to education and health care and scientific research. These are our choices and we do these things because they are essential to liberty and freedom and to life in America.
▶ 1:20:59We chose to create Medicaid and we chose to expand Medicaid access in the Affordable Care Act and we should be proud of what we have done. Medicaid makes it possible for so many Americans to live lives of meaning with dignity. It matters. It matters for Ricky and it matters for all of us. And this hearing, this budget begs the question, who are we? What kind of society do we want to be?
▶ 1:21:25And today, the House Republicans answer in this bill is that we want to be one that takes away health care from people like Ricky to give tax cuts to people like Elon Musk. That's not my answer. and it shouldn't be any of our answer. And we are able today to talk about why. And I hope that by the time we're done debating this bill, we can all agree that we can do better by and for the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. The general lady yields. Does anyone else wish to be recognized?
▶ 1:21:55The general lady from New York is recognized for her three minutes and an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. 13.7 million people. 13.7 million Americans will be cut off from their health care and made completely uninsurable by the bill that Republicans are presenting today.
▶ 1:22:20You know, there's a lot that I've been hearing and I've been listening to my Republican counterparts here today and what they've been saying about this bill and the math is not adding up. They're trying to convince people that they are cutting millions of undocumented people from payroll, from from Medicare, acting as though this is what's going to save it.
▶ 1:22:42Even by even if you believe everything that Republicans have said today, one they they are identifying 1 million un their claim, which I dispute, but if you believe them, their claim is that 1 million undocumented people are on Medicaid. So, why are they trying to 13.7 million Americans off their healthcare?
▶ 1:23:03By the Republicans own Energy and Commerce tweet this morning, their claim is 7.6 million people are somehow ineligible for health care. So, why are they cutting 13.7 million Americans off their healthcare? They've asked us to read this bill, and we have. This bill bans the people that they kick off of Medicaid from even buying their own insurance from the Affordable Care Act exchange.
▶ 1:23:34So once you are kicked off Medicaid, you then can't even buy your own health insurance. It increases costs for people who they deem eligible and who are low income and forces them to pay even more. And if you have a private insurer, don't worry. you're getting screwed over, too, because your health care premiums are going to skyrocket from the disaster that is happening from this bill.
▶ 1:23:59We've done assessments because if you live in a rural community, you're going to be hurt, too. In New York, 23, 25% of people are on Medicaid in this area of upstate New York. Westfield Memorial Hospital will be at at risk of closure. UPMC uh Shaoqua is at risk of closure. Skyler Hospital at risk of closure. California 23 where 46% of people are on Medicaid.
▶ 1:24:30Redlands Community Hospital at risk of closure if this passes. Victor Valley Global Medical Center, Lomalinda University Medical Center, all at risk of closure. Colorado 8 24% of people in this community are on Medicaid and Plat Valley Medical Center will be at risk of closure if these cuts pass. Who do you believe the people who are trying to cut this?
▶ 1:24:57Not, by the way, to cut from quote unquote undeserving people to give to deserving people, but they are cutting these Medicaid uh care and these Medicaid dollars to pay for tax cuts for Elon Elon Musk and billionaires. So, this money isn't even going towards funding better care for people who are eligible.
▶ 1:25:19This money is going and we are cutting money and healthcare from people and families who are suffering to pay for tax cuts for the rich. It is a crime happening in front of the American public right now for an open statement. Mr. Chairman, I seek to be recognized. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
▶ 1:25:46Chairman, when 13.7 million Americans lose access to health care, 13.7 million Americans don't stop getting sick. What happens instead is losing access to primary and preventative care. They actually require more health care and they visit the emergency room and they get care that takes longer and is less comprehensive. And here's what that means for everyday Americans, middle class and working class, including those who get access to health insurance through their employer.
▶ 1:26:16It means that their health insurance premiums are going to go up because when hospitals provide care to people through the emergency rooms, they have to cross subsidize that by raising the cost that they charge to commercial payers. So, it won't just be the 13.7 million Americans who were kicked off health coverage who have to pay more out of pocket to get healthare. It's going to be all Americans who have health insurance who will pay more in health insurance premiums. This after Donald Trump and Republicans promised that they were going to come in and lower prices.
▶ 1:26:47Down the road, the middle class and the working class are going to be paying more in taxes and through inflation because of the 7 trillion in debt that Republicans are adding with this tax cut giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. And those Americans who do end up needing Medicaid are now going to find that it cannot meet their needs. My constituent Ethan Wang was critically injured while swimming in the ocean when he was studying abroad in March 2019.
▶ 1:27:16The spinal cord injury left him paralyzed, needing immediate life-saving surgeries abroad, followed by a medical evacuation back to his home in Then inexplicably, Ethan's dad, Willis, suffered a major stroke just two years later. He also now has disabilities, but continues to work as best he can. I'm not sure if he meets the Republicans definition of work, but he is working as best as he can.
▶ 1:27:39All of this was possible because of Ethan and Willis's determination and support from the personal care attendant program operated through the Massachusetts Medicaid program known as Mass Health. When these cuts roll down onto the states though, the PCA as well as other flexible programming will be under threat. The PCA, which allows people with disabilities to stay in their homes. They do not have to stay in expensive institutions, may conn.
▶ 1:28:05Ethan's and Willis's family never thought that they would depend on mass health, nor did they seek to, nor did they want uh or ask for a handout. They had an accident. They got sick and they needed access to health care. The Weighing family is a dual professional household in Newton with three healthy boys. Nobody knows when they will need to rely on Medicaid, but when they do, they need it to be strong and sound so that it can be a reliable system for families when they need it mo most. Ethan's mom says it best.
▶ 1:28:35Quote, "We all live on the razor's edge of health, and when you need assistance from the state, you see the world and our social safety net through fresh eyes. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect Medicaid and the life-saving programs that it supports. I yield back. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've heard so much today. We've been said that Democrats can't say the word lie. Only Republicans can say lie.
▶ 1:29:03So, I'm going to say under this plan, the Republicans are misleading the American people. The plan is to impose $715 billion dollars in Medicaid cuts, which will result in millions of Americans losing their health care, destroy our hospitals, and close the nursing homes our parents and grandparents rely on, while blowing up the state's budget, including of my home state of Louisiana.
▶ 1:29:30reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich in the form massive tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy. These cuts will put elderly, the disabled, and our children at risk. Also, they can give trillions of dollars in tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations. Simply put, this is cruel, inhumane, and wrong.
▶ 1:29:57Republicans need to know that these are not just numbers on paper. These decisions that you make will affect people's real lives and the consequences that will hurt them. Medicaid plays a crucial role in providing life-saving care to millions of Americans in Louisiana. And it's essential that we overcome this notion that it's all fraud, fraud, waste, and abuse.
▶ 1:30:27We all want to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. This is not the way to do it. There is not enough waste, fraud, and abuse to support 880 billion dollars in cuts. This is massive. And we're misleading the American people when we tell them, "Go home. You won't be hurt." This program makes it harder for people to access health care. Smok and mirror. You can call it whatever you want.
▶ 1:30:57But don't take it from me. Hear directly from my constituents. Katie Corkran and her son Connor Corkran, who will be here with us later today. Connor John Corkin was born 18 years ago with a congenital brain foration. His parents are shocked at the news that his of his diagnosis. His mother Katie pregnancy was uneventful.
▶ 1:31:24At 6 weeks old, Connor's parents were told that his brain malfformation was so significant that he would need one-on-one care for the rest of his life. He's blind, developmentally delayed, and has poor muscle tone. was fed through a tube, had numerous types of seizures every day, had an underdeveloped pituitary gland, needed hormone replacement medication, had an immune deficiency disorder, and is Koi is a law enforcement officer, and Katie is a special education
▶ 1:31:55teacher. Spent most of their time with Connor at Children's Hospital in New Orleans as their son's seizure and illness turned into life-threatening events. After nearly a decade of being on a waiting list for a home and community based disability waiver, Connor was given an emergency opportunity of a waiver now waiver. This a real person. My friends, let's fight for the people, not for Trump and Musk. The gentleman's time has expired.
▶ 1:32:22The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for his opening statement. Thank you, chairman. I just want to uh welcome Sasha here. Uh we're from different parts of New Jersey, but it's great to have you here. Oh, Rarington. I'm from Jersey City, and I appreciate you coming here and um and sharing your story with us because so many people from across New Jersey and across the country have shared their story, and it's so important that we listen to those stories as we make the decisions that we have to make here today.
▶ 1:32:50I brought someone from my district who couldn't be here in person, but they're here. Uh this is Belinda and her son, Kabir. Um her son receives home health care funded by Medicaid. He has since he was 13 years old. Um since then his home health aid. Um Antinet has been like his second mother. Thanks to the services that Antinet provides, Belinda is able to work and help provide for her two children.
▶ 1:33:19In addition to helping with basic needs, Antinet takes Kabir for walks on beautiful days and chats with him about his interest. Belinda says, "My greatest joy is seeing Kabir smile and knowing he is in good hands." And if you look at the face of Belinda, that's a mother's love in those eyes. And if you look at her son Kabir, that's a smile of someone who's well taken care of. And we know that the conversation we should be having is how can we do more for all of you? For your mom, Sasha.
▶ 1:33:50That's the conversation we should be having today. said, "We're talking about 13.7 million people losing their health care coverage and not a single dollar in savings that the Republicans are talking about is going to be reinvested in this program. So, we're not going to make it easier for you to continue to have access not just to Medicaid today as we know it, but to a better version of it." That's the conversation that Democrats want to be having. How do we improve health care, whether it's Medicaid, ACA, Medicare?
▶ 1:34:18That's the conversation that we should be having because unlike our friends across the aisle, we have town halls and no one says health care is too affordable. No one says health care in this country is too accessible. We have too much of it. Not one person in any of our town halls has said that. So what are we doing here today to make it harder for 13.7 million people to get access to healthcare? to make it harder on your family.
▶ 1:34:45Sasha, I agree with you and I just hope that people across the aisle listen to you because we need to make healthc care better in this country. We can work on Medicaid, but if the work that we're going to do on it is going to save money, let's reinvest it in other health care programs, not give tax cuts to the people that don't need it, not to the people that don't need it. That's why this approach by the Republican party is so misguided.
▶ 1:35:12That's why we know that when they're running for office, they say they won't touch Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. But today, we know that we are cutting Medicaid and 13.7 million people like yourself will suffer and that is entirely unacceptable. Thank you so much for being here and I hope I get to see you after we're done uh today. Thank you. The the gentleman yields.
▶ 1:35:36The gentleman from California is recognized for three minutes for his opening Thank you, Mr. Chair. These indefensible cuts are more than just numbers on a page. These are real people, our constituents who are going to be harmed. People like Mark and Heidi and their son, 42-year-old son, Corey. When Corey was just three years old, he was diagnosed with a disabling form of autism.
▶ 1:36:02Every day, Corey needs help with basic functions like brushing his teeth, bathing, dressing, using the restroom, and cooking. He has some language skills, but is very limited in his ability to communicate. On weekdays, he lives in a group home, which is only made possible due to Medicaid reimbursements. On weekends, he goes home to his parents who provide him with roundthe-clock care. Corey is exactly the type of person who this essential safety net program was designed to help.
▶ 1:36:31I met Cory's father, Mark, at a recent town hall when he shared his family story with the over 400 attendees. Mark's story out to me. He spoke about how detrimental Medicaid cuts would be to his son's dignity and his family's ability to care for their son. Mark asked me to share his story so that the public understands what the real life impact of Republican cuts to Medicaid will be. Here's Mark in his own words. Quote, "My wife and I are in our mid70s.
▶ 1:37:00What will happen to our son if we're not there and these cuts to Medicaid go through? My son is 100% disabled. He'll never be able to work. The other five guys in his group home can't speak. Some of them don't have parents. It's going to be devastating what's going to happen to these people. End quote. This isn't efficiency. It's utter cruelty to fund tax cuts for billionaires.
▶ 1:37:25People think, please think about these people like Corey in your districts, in these families across America before voting to kick 13.7 million people off of their insurance. And if you do vote to gut Medicaid, I hope you're prepared to go home and look your constituents in the eye and tell them why. I yield back. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:37:49The decision here is about cutting health care or cutting taxes for the super wealthy. That is the assignment. That was the assignment that the president and the speaker gave uh to this committee. They said find 800 900 trillion dollars billion dollars so that we can fund all of the tax cuts particularly those for the the wealthiest people in the country.
▶ 1:38:18And to do so, and I appreciate the the chairman's honesty, he said, "We're going to focus on uh cutting health care uh for the people who don't need it as much or or said differently, we're we we want to make sure that we're only giving healthcare to the people who need it the most." Who does not need health care? Who who who here or in this country doesn't need health care? or the speaker saying it's only going to be for people with quote unquote real disabilities.
▶ 1:38:49That's what the speaker said last night. So, they're not going to try to figure out how to make this more efficient. What they're doing is they're going to make decisions about who gets healthare, who has real disabilities based on how much money they can save. Here's how they're cutting. They're going to increase the cost for low-income people to go see a doctor. They're going to uh have all of this red tape and paperwork to make it impossible for people who are eligible to get the healthcare. That's what happened in Georgia and Arkansas and Alabama.
▶ 1:39:18They're going to cut subsidies uh for folks who are receiving it as part of the ACA. 5 million people are going to lose their healthcare because of it. They're going to shift the cost to states and then they're going to sell the states you cannot raise money to cover the cost uh through an additional provider tax. So they're handing them the ball and then tying both hands behind their backs. So I have a constituent Aaliyah who gets her healthcare in Ohio.
▶ 1:39:49Yes, she may lose her health care because Ohio can no longer pay for all of the care that she needs. They're going to end retroactive Medicaid for nursing homes. They're going to uh uh reduce the minimum number of nurses in nursing homes. These are all the ways that they're getting to the savings. Uh not at all to do with waste, fraud, and abuse. One of my colleagues said cyber criminals is big issue. Absolutely. Cyber criminals is a big issue.
▶ 1:40:17If you go to the GAO reports, they list all of these examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. None of which is in this bill. None of which is in this bill. All of all of this waste, fraud, and abuse is right here. Uh we could take it up, including tackling cyber criminals. Here's here's the numbers.
▶ 1:40:36If you want to not cut healthcare for millions of people, take the top or wage earners, go from 37 to 39.7%, that's 250 billion, take the corporate rate uh tax rate back to 28, that's $1.3 trillion. add the minimum the billionaire minimum tax that that's uh 500 billion right there. That's$ two trillion dollars you can invest it in expanding Medicaid. That is what Americans need.
▶ 1:41:04Otherwise, this is morally bankrupt, politically disastrous, and it will be deadly for those who are going to lose their coverage. And I yield back. Gentleman's time is expired. The gentle lady from Virginia, you're recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So today we are here with a mandate from congressional Republicans to squeeze our nation's finances into a framework that requires devastating cuts. And these cuts are not just a line item on a piece of paper. They impact people's lives.
▶ 1:41:33Our friends, our family, our neighbors, our constituents. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that they're only trying to strengthen But what they don't tell you is that this bill we take up today effectively guts the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid. It kicks 13.7 million people off of their health insurance. It raises health care costs for everybody else.
▶ 1:41:58It shifts Medicaid costs to the states as they are struggling to fill holes in their budgets caused by other funding freezes, workforce cuts, and budget This bill handcuffs the state's ability to fund their share of Medicaid. It will further stress an already stressed and underfunded provider network, especially in rural areas. And for what? To fund tax cuts for the wealthiest few.
▶ 1:42:26And as a result, millions of people will suffer. People like my constituent Jessica, who was born with her umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck, restricting oxygen and causing brain damage. Now 36 years old, Jessica reads at a prek level due to the intellectual impairment resulting from her traumatic birth.
▶ 1:42:52Jessica and her family rely on Medicaid to pay the bills for her doctor's appointments, and a Medicaid waiver allows her family to care for Jessica in their home. As her sister wrote to me, "We love her, and we want to take care of her. We didn't want Jessica to end up in a group home. She has only known family caring for her. And yes, I'm paid a salary to keep my sister at home, her home, and take care of her.
▶ 1:43:21But it is not a handout. Families like mine aren't asking for handouts. We're asking for help that allows us to provide the best care possible to lighten our loads. Mr. Chairman, my Democratic colleagues and I have shared stories with you today about our constituents, the faces of Medicaid. On their own, each is a powerful testament to the importance of Medicaid.
▶ 1:43:47But together they are a glimpse into the kaleidoscope of nearly 80 million Americans across the country whose health care is in the crosshairs of the cuts in this bill we will take up today. All to give tax breaks to a sliver of the wealthy wealthiest Americans. I urge my colleagues to keep these constituents, these stories in mind as you rush to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest few in America.
▶ 1:44:17I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Yes. I have some gentlemen opening statements. Oh, you do. So the there any further opening statement? The chair recognizes gentle lady from Indiana for three minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh today we've unfortunately heard a lot of fear-mongering and misleading claims from our colleagues. So let's be absolutely clear uh for the Americans who truly need them.
▶ 1:44:47This budget does not cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security benefits for the Americans who truly need them. We are strengthening and protecting Medicaid for pregnant women, children, individuals with disabilities, low-income seniors, and vulnerable families. These Americans will continue to have access to the care they need and deserve. What we are doing is eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse because safeguarding taxpayer dollars is not heartless. It's responsible.
▶ 1:45:18We're ending free health care for illegal immigrants, stopping payments made on behalf of deceased individuals or duplicate enroles, and halting federal reimbursements for transgender surgeries on minors. It's not slashing care. It's restoring integrity and ensuring Medicaid works for the people it was meant to serve. And don't just take it from us.
▶ 1:45:41Even the New York Times published an article this week titled uh even even the New York Times published an article this week that stated that the Democrats 13.7 million claim or 13.7 million uh people losing Medicaid claim is false, is inaccurate. When the New York Times is calling out the Democrats for their exaggerating and misleading information, it's time to stop the scare tactics.
▶ 1:46:10This budget reflects our commitment to preserving these essential programs for future generations while also demanding muchneeded accountability in the system. The American people want health care that is accessible, affordable, and honest. And that's what we're trying to deliver. So, let's stick to the facts. Under our plan, 1.4 million illegal immigrants will no longer get coverage. So, the very people that the uh my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to protect will be protected.
▶ 1:46:384.8 8 million able-bodied adults choosing not to work or volunteer uh in their communities will be affected. 1.2 million recipients who are not eligible will no longer receive coverage. That is because we want to protect these programs for the very people that have been mentioned today by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We stand with them to protect the program for those people. But the status quo cannot continue.
▶ 1:47:07We cannot continue to keep spending 90% of every dollar on able-bodied adults choosing not to work and only spending 70% of every dollar on the vulnerable traditional people, the able the uh disabled, children, pregnant women and seniors. It is not right. We are trying to fix it and I urge my colleagues to stop the scare tactics. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Mr.
▶ 1:47:34Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place into the record section 401 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that was passed in 1996 that's titled aliens who are not qualified aliens ineligible for federal public benefits which says that people if they're here illegal are not illegally are not eligible for Medicaid. General the without objection so ordered. Anybody else seeking recognition for a opening statement?
▶ 1:48:04Gentle lady from Florida. You are recognized for three minutes without objection. So order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh and thank you to all my colleagues. This is going to be a very very long uh well possibly 36 hours. With that in mind, I think it's just important to lay out that we've heard a lot today in the last few hours that is not rooted in reality because the facts tell a much different story.
▶ 1:48:33The posters that our colleagues on the left have have held up are touching the stories. They they're very emotional. And I agree that we want to protect those most vulnerable. As a pregnant woman, I want to make sure that pregnant women, expectant mothers have access to resources around the country. Unfortunately, that's not is that's not happening in in this situation.
▶ 1:49:00You know, I don't want to say that they're lying, but not a single person in those posters is going to be impacted by this legislation. Not one. Not one. And I encourage you to read the bill if you don't believe me. The facts are in black and white. I heard from one of my colleagues that there's just not enough waste, fraud, and abuse to reform the programs to to shore up resources.
▶ 1:49:25Well, I guess math is a problem because I see 7.6 million different waste, fraud, and abuse cases. 1.4 million illegals that are currently on the rolls. 1.4 1.2 2 million individuals who are ineligible, an ineligibility definition that they created. The left made that definition.
▶ 1:49:50And by their own definition, these individuals, 1.2 million of them, are ineligible for the program. And let us not forget the 4.8 million able-bodied adults, healthy adults that choose not to work. They have no children. They have no dependence. they choose not to work. That's 7.6 million individuals and not one of those were on those posters.
▶ 1:50:18We all agree we want to protect those most vulnerable in our communities. We want to protect the disabled. We want to protect pregnant women. We should not be diverting resources to those who make the choice not to work. That is something we can all agree on. So, I I think the facts tell a much different story than the fiction that is playing out.
▶ 1:50:39And we would all be in a better position to shore up these programs and protect them if we could just realize that there is fundamental flaws in the arguments of my colleagues on the left. So, for the next 36 hours, we will continue to point out the flaws in their arguments. It's rooted in emotion, and that gets clicks. But right now, we have 7.6 6 million individuals who should never be on this program.
▶ 1:51:07They're ineligible by their own definitions, by their own standards, or they're in this country illegally, or they make the choice not to work. For those that need it most, we are protecting and fighting for them. That is what we are doing here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a document um from the Congressional Budget Office that estimates this the 13.7 million that are going to be kicked off of Medicaid.
▶ 1:51:33Since there's all these allegations that people are going to be kicked off, I'd like to enter this fact document into the record. Gentle lady is uh without objection. Mr. Chairman, could I reserve an objection? Is that I'm just curious what that analysis is of. Is that of the actual bill before us today or is that something else? This is um an email from the Congressional Budget Office um from Sunday, May 11th at 10:34 p.m. after y'all uh put out your uh text in the dark of night.
▶ 1:52:03We have a chance to review that and then we'll accept it once we review it unless there's an issue. My understanding is that is not of the bill we're discussing today. It is. We'll make it, Mr. Chair. We'll review and get back with you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yep. Gentleman from South Carolina. You're recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Chair, I just have a unanimous consent to enter into the record an article dated 2 days after their letter from the New York Times that says that there are 13.7 million people their claim is bogus.
▶ 1:52:32I request unanimous consent to enter that into the record. Mr. Chair, without objection ordered. Mr. Chair, point of order. Point of order. Who say point of order? If I just because I think the math is really important. I just the point of order on the New York Times. The the New York Times didn't say there wasn't going to be 13.7 million people losing their healthcare. They said in this particular bill it is what? Somebody help me here.
▶ 1:53:047.6. So I just wanted just want to do the math. 7.6 8.6 + 5 is what? Somebody help me with the math. 8.6 + 5 is what? just take your order. I understand understand your point. No, I just it's important for people to appreciate that if you take the two numbers. Thank you. Is there any other seeking recognition for it's his time? It's your time. Gentleman from you were just gentleman from South Carolina.
▶ 1:53:34You're recognized for three. Just wanted to do your unanimous consent request. What pers gentleman from V Virginia seeking recognition. Gentleman's recognized. I yield to the to the gentleman from Kentucky. All right. Thank you. I just want to address some of the earlier comments and and what my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have brought up or are or issues with people that are that have are struggling and we get that and that's who we want to protect. We have a lot of people in the audience in that situation. That's who we want to protect.
▶ 1:54:04So the coverage laws that was discussed come from able-bodied adults choosing not to work. When I say that, the bill says you're exempted from the work requirement if you're an Indian or an urban Indian. If you're a California Indian, if you're eligible as an Indian for the Indian Health Service, you're exempted from the work requirement. If you're a parent, guardian, or caretaker relative of a disabled individual or dependent child, this is the bill. You are exempted from the work requirement.
▶ 1:54:33If you are a veteran with a disability rated as total under section 115, you are exempted from the work requirement. If you are medically frail or otherwise has special medical needs, including an individual who is blind or disabled as defined by section 1614 with a substance use disorder, you're not subject to the work requirement. With a disabling mental disorder, you're not subject to the work requirement.
▶ 1:55:00with a physical, intellectual, or developmental disability that significantly impairs their ability to perform one or more activities of daily living, you're not subject to the work requirement. With a serious or complex medical condition, you're not subject to the work requirement or subject to the approval of the secretary, any other medical condition identified by the state that is not otherwise identified under this clause. So, all of the groups that I just read are are exempted from the work requirement.
▶ 1:55:28The other are we do have people that are not legal status on Medicaid. CBO has scored that. There's some estimate that future people will not have coverage. I think that's 200,000 because of growth that is unrealized. That's an estimate on the future, not people currently receiving benefits. In the other are recipients getting benefits who are just not eligible based on the criteria that the other side of the aisle voted on during the Affordable Care Act.
▶ 1:55:55So if they don't meet the criteria that they established and the other five million that was brought up that's in another jurisdiction is from a program that that in the IRA expanded premium tax credits that they had sunset as they spent money on other issues. They could have extended that longer so this wouldn't be expiring this year but that was a decision that that you make within the budget that you have and so uh that was a decision made by by the other side.
▶ 1:56:22So, I just want to be clear that that we are focusing on the people that all the one list I just read that are truly struggling, the most vulnerable, and we want Medicaid to work for them. And so, the coverage loss, as I said, people who are choosing not to work, and I just read you the exceptions, people that are are not legally eligible to be on Medicaid based on the criteria that was set previous Congresses and and in the Affordable Care Act.
▶ 1:56:52and also the people that are not here as illegal status. That's the the bulk of that number. So, I appreciate the time and I yield back to my friend from Virginia. Mr. you backent times expired. Well, you have another motion. Unanimous consent. Unanimous consent request. Gentle say unanimous requ gentle lady. I'm sorry.
▶ 1:57:12I'm going to offer for the record uh uh release yesterday from the center for children and families from Georgetown University McCort School of Public Policy um a researcher there that has been has worked for for many many years Joan Aler um just says in part work requirements are included in this bill as expected as I've said many times work requirements don't achieve their intended purpose which proponents claim is to support work but they are very successful essful
▶ 1:57:43in causing eligible people who are working or should be exempt to lose. We just accept it or are we going to read it? Mr. Chairman, we're going to accept it. I want to make sure that everyone gets the bottom line here. I'll say it again. But they are very successful in causing eligible people who are working or should be exempt to lose. All right. Thank you. That's a unanimous request. There's any objection. Without objection, so ordered. Seeing no other recognition for opening have a motion.
▶ 1:58:10The the gentleman has a motion. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to make a motion. Gentleman's recognized. Now that we finally seen the bill text that Republicans have been working on in secret for weeks, it's clear that all this bill does take away health care for millions of Americans in order to pay for giant tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations. And that's not what the American people want.
▶ 1:58:35Whether they're Democrats, Republicans, or independents, they've all voiced opposition to cutting or as you said, trimming Medicaid. And therefore, for that reason, for those reasons, I move that the committee adjourn and that we not consider these additional changes, cuts or trim, however you rephrase it, to Medicaid. I move that the committee adjourn. The motion to journ is not debatable. If there's no there's no discussion, therefore, all those in favor say I. I. All the post say no. No.
▶ 1:59:03In the record, the gentleman asked for a recorded vote and the clerk will call the robe. Mr. Lada. Mr. La votes no. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Barakus, no. Mr. Baracus votes no. Mr. Hudson, no. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia, no. Mr. Mr. Cardo, Georgia votes no.
▶ 1:59:34Mr. Palmer, Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:00:05Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture. Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger. Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kamik. Mrs. Kamik votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:00:34Obernolulti Mr. Obernolulti votes no. Mr. James Mr. James votes no. Mr. Ben Mr. Ben votes no. Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry Mr. Fry votes no. Lee Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy Mr.
▶ 2:01:04Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kaine Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Roelly. Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorek Mrs. Fedoric votes no. Mr. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Dette. Hi.
▶ 2:01:34Miss Dette votes I. Miss Shakowski. I. Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss. Massouie. I. Miss Massie votes I. Miss Caster. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss Clark. Miss Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr.
▶ 2:02:05Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vzy votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly votes I. Miss. Badon. Miss. Badon. votes I. Mr. Sodto, Mr. Sodto votes I. Miss Shrier. Miss Shrier votes I. Miss Treyan.
▶ 2:02:36Miss Trean votes I. Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss Okaziocortez. Miss Okaziocortez votes I. Mr. Oenclaus. Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez, Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes I.
▶ 2:03:07Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Ms. Mlen. M. Mlen votes I. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Is anyone seeking recognition to answer the roll call on the Republican side? Seeing none, any on the Democrat side? Seeing none, the clerk will Chairman Guthrie, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 29 nos.
▶ 2:03:36So, the motion fails. So, we will proceed to Before we do, I just want to say I was coming in the door just a little while ago and I met a young lady who's here on her birthday and she said, you can wave your hand. You said, "Is this important enough to you? you're here on your birthday, so thank you for being here. I won't say what birthday unless you want to say because you told me, but I won't say. But anyway, thank you for being here. So, we're going to do these in four committee prints. We learned from uh during the bill back better when we had 16 committee prints. We're only doing four today. And so, we'll do these in four different sections.
▶ 2:04:05So, the the chair calls up the committee print subtitle a energy and ask the clerk to report. Title 4 energy and commerce subtitle a energy. Without objection, reading of the committee print is dispensed with and the committee print will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Is there discussion or amendments to subtitle A? The gentleman has recognized for let's say okay for what purpose the gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition?
▶ 2:04:36Move to strike the last word underlying bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we passed the Inflation Reduction Act three years ago, Congress took a massive step towards lowering energy bills for American families. It was all about affordability, trying to lower prices. But if this bill passes today, we'll wipe out all of that progress by rescending programs that are lowering energy costs and helping to build clean energy manufacturing here in America.
▶ 2:05:04Also, Republicans can give tax cuts to billionaires. And I have to stress, Mr. Chairman, one of my biggest concerns is that when President Trump ran, he said, and he said it on inauguration day, I'm just going to lower prices. I'm going to make things more affordable. So many things in this bill uh do just the opposite. Whether it's in the health care sphere, the energy sphere, the environmental sphere, whatever the whatever it is, it's all about raising prices for the little guy, so we can give tax breaks to the wealthy.
▶ 2:05:35But not content to gut the inflation reduction act, which I already mentioned, Republicans are now going even further by creating a mockery of our environmental laws by allowing big oil and gas to simply bribe government agencies to acquire permits free of scrutiny.
▶ 2:05:51It sets up what I call a pay-to-play scheme for fossil energy permitting that allows polluters to pay $10 million to the Trump administration to obtain pipeline permits and ignore environmental laws while clean energy gets left behind. Now, I'm not mentioning the others. I think the figure is a million dollars for LG and so on. But the bottom line is you pay and then you don't have to worry about the environmental laws.
▶ 2:06:18In the case of an LG, you don't have to worry about the national security laws. In other words, when we when we allowed um LG exports, they're supposed to be reviewed to see not only what the environmental implications might be, but whether or not it's going to raise oil prices. And we know that often times exporting of LG does raise oil prices here in the United States. But that's all gone. You just pay your fee, million dollars, 10 million for pipelines, and you don't have to worry about any environmental scrutiny.
▶ 2:06:48Now, I will tell you, there are people on my side of the aisle who would like to see permitting reform, right? Uh want to put forward a permitting reform program, you can. But that's not what's going on here. This isn't about permitting reform. This is just about saying you just pay your million, your 10 million, whatever, and you don't have to worry about the permits at all. We'll just give it to you. We'll just give you the permit. This is a complete dismantling of our energy permitting infrastructure in America.
▶ 2:07:17Vital protections for the public interest, clean water, clean air, and not just environmental concerns, also to make sure that oil prices don't go up. So, states would lose any say in energy infrastructure within their borders. And courts would not be able to address any further violations of our weakened laws. This is an end goal of Republicans. one set of rules for you, another set of rules for them and their billionaire buddies. Simply put, it's a disaster.
▶ 2:07:45And like so many other things that we're going to be discussing in this bill today, tonight, and tomorrow, all it does is raise prices on the little guy. All for what purpose? So you can give more tax breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk, large corporate interests, and so they don't have to pay their fair share of the tax burden. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge obviously opposition to the energy uh section and I yield back. Thank the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr.
▶ 2:08:15Peters, the gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes of discussion on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized. Last Congress, my Republican colleagues were insistent that we should have an all of the- above energy policy, one that leveraged our natural resources, unleashed American innovation, and cut through uh bureaucratic red tape.
▶ 2:08:36So, I'm confused that we are considering a reconciliation bill that picks winners and losers, and elevates expensive, outdated, and efficient sources like coal over cheap Americanmade energy like solar, wind, and storage. Why does this bill expedite permitting for natural gas pipelines, an undeniably important component of our energy system while completely ignoring transmission lines without which we would not be able to meet a single kilowatt of energy demand?
▶ 2:09:05Why does this bill provide government-backed insurance to coal plants? As the president of the United States single-handedly kills hundreds, if not thousands of clean energy jobs across the country by illegally targeting targeting projects, some of them already permitted and weaponizing the permitting process.
▶ 2:09:24This entire Congress, my Republican colleagues have focused not inappropriately on on our need to build base load power to meet energy demand from data centers, manufacturing, and AI, but when they have an opportunity to ensure this base load power can move from where it's generated to where it will be used. My Republican colleagues have not only chosen to ignore this problem, but are rescending funds to make it easier to build out the energy infrastructure we need we need to reduce costs and keep the lights on.
▶ 2:09:54We need to face reality. We can't build anything in America anymore. North America has built about 7 gawatts of interreional transmission since 2014 with less of half of that in the United States. In that same time frame, South America has built 22 gigawatts, Europe 44, and China has built 260 gawatt.
▶ 2:10:15While there there's a growing bipartisan coalition for for permitting reform, whether it's forest management, electric transmission, or building housing, I have reached across the aisle consistently and found success in moving solutions forward. And many of us have voiced our desire to work in a bipartisan way to make en America more energy dominant. Uh, and now's the time to put our money where our mouth is and focus on durable common sense and all of the above policies that provide certainty for industry and consumers.
▶ 2:10:45But this bill doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that moment. It isn't real permitting reform. It doesn't make us energy dominant. And it only makes things more uncertain for industry, for Americans, and for our future. So instead of making it easier to build everything, once again, we are cutting off our feet in the race to energy resilience. This is the definition of picking winners and losers and it is not the way we will receive a resilient energy abundant future.
▶ 2:11:12We need to turn our attention to bipartisan solutions that are comprehensive and cover everything. This ain't it. Ain't it? And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Anyone on the Republican seeking recognition for discussion on the bill? Anyone? Anyone on the Democrat side seeking recognition to speak on the bill? Deb, did you want to speak? Or the committee print, I should say. You want to speak on the bill committee print or Okay, seeing none, are there any amendments?
▶ 2:11:42Oh, gentle lady from Florida is recognized for amendment at that. Gentle lady from Florida. Uh, the clerk will do you have the amendment? Do you annotize the say the amendment? The lady, please specify the amendment. Amendment to HCON res 14. It is 62 VC2. Could you repeat that in mind? 62 VC2.
▶ 2:12:1262 VC. The clerk will report amendment offered by Miss Caster. Without objection, the read of amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady from Florida is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for for everyone that noticed a very quick shift uh away from healthc care discussion to energy, I think that's intentional.
▶ 2:12:35It's it's part of the intention of uh releasing the details of a bill that rips your healthc care away on a late on a Sunday night on Mother's Day, rushing it to committee without any hearing. They're trying to do this really quick and we're in rather than in the light of day uh discuss Medicaid in front of everyone and and health care uh we're going to switch to energy. But the message is exactly the same. And this is going to impact everyone too.
▶ 2:13:06And you better hold on to your wallets because they're coming after your electric bills too to pay for a massive tax giveaway to billionaires like Elon Musk and the wealthy and the well-connected. Uh because let's face it, American families are being financially squeezed right now. Uh but unfortunately, Republicans want to make it worse through higher utility bills.
▶ 2:13:32I know that Americans are very concerned about rising energy co cost, but the Trump administration now is making it worse. Utility companies in at least 19 states have hiked rates uh as much as $40 per month just since the Trump administration began because of so much of their chaos and confusion across the agencies.
▶ 2:13:56In five months now into this Congress, the Republicans have not brought forth a single bill to lower energy costs for hardworking American families. Instead, what they're offering today is a handout to big oil companies and polluters. Um, and the impact will be to raise your electric bill.
▶ 2:14:18They also, when you dig into this bill, they're gutting clean air protections, clean water protections, all to fund their massive tax giveaway to billionaires. This is in stark contrast to what Democrats did a few years ago. We actually focused on consumers and on your bottom line. We passed energy rebates.
▶ 2:14:40We funded help for workingclass Americans to to pay their heating bills or in my neck of the woods their their AC bills. So what my amendment today says um rather than uh rather than strike right at the heart of what you're doing, let's just analyze what's going on here. If you say, Mr. Chairman, uh that this is going to be so good for consumers, you'll pass my amendment.
▶ 2:15:09It will delay any provisions in this bill from taking effect until the Energy Information Administration studies the impact of the bill and the actions taken so far on the Trump administration so that we can ensure what you say. You say, "Oh, this is going to lower electric bills." Nothing in here really proves that. We're all very skeptical because time and time again, you side with big oil CEOs and electric utilities and polluters.
▶ 2:15:39I mean, right now, just look at what's what's happened in our when we were in charge, we passed home energy rebates. The bill they have on the floor today will take away the training grants that helps make that possible back home. 49 states across the country have applied for those Department of Energy rebates that will help workingclass uh Americans save on their electric bill. But now they want to rip those away by not allowing that to happen.
▶ 2:16:06In Florida, my home state, we're supposed to receive my neighbors across the state are supposed to receive about 346 million to help. Wouldn't that help a lot of people uh save on their electric bills, buy food and groceries, afford the the rising cost of living, maybe some of the tariff induced price increases? But no, there the uh Trump administration, Elon Musk with that chainsaw has said, "No, we're not going to let those monies flow to hardworking people.
▶ 2:16:35Instead, we're going to create greater chaos." Uh, Democrats also thought it was important to help with transmission across the country. Building those big transmission lines is a an incredible undertaking. As Mr. Peters has pointed out, it helps lower electric bills. So, you know what they do in this bill? They take away the funds that would help transmission lines uh get constructed. You know why they're doing this?
▶ 2:17:03Is because right now the cost of cleaner, cheaper energy is very affordable. solar, wind, battery storage. It's created a lot of jobs across the country. The big oil companies don't like it. So, they're willing to say to you, you you get to pay more while they get a gift and they get a pass. And this helps them in their calculation for their big tax giveaway to billionaires.
▶ 2:17:33So, you're getting hit a couple times. You're getting hit on your healthcare. you're getting hit on your electric bills. When you look out uh across the decades ahead, if you have kids or grandkids, it's going to be a lot hotter. We could use those en we could use those energy rebates for our AC bills. Uh but this bill uh moving forward is going to cost everybody a lot. So, I'll yield back, but I'm not I'm not finished discussing this because people need to know about this.
▶ 2:18:02You can't rush a bill like this with such a large impact through without people understanding what it means to them. I'll yield back. Thanks. The gentle lady yields back. The chair recognized gentleman from Ohio for five minutes to discuss the amendment. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a section to the subtitle relating to the impacts on energy costs requiring the Energy Information Administration to certify energy costs won't increase.
▶ 2:18:31The best way to lower energy prices is expand use of America's abundant energy resources, gas, oil, coal, hydro power that provide affordable, reliable power and fuels and not limit those resources in a forced transition to expensive renewable energy as the IRA sought to do. The way to lower electricity prices is ensure more supply, not less.
▶ 2:18:57To ensure more generating resources that stay on regardless of the weather, the savings and fees in the subtitle will increase energy, not limit it. It will increase the kind of energy we need to lower prices and provide for our communities. This amendment would forall this effort and Mr. Chairman, I would urge our members to reject the amendment and I yield back. Gentleman yields back as a further discussion of the Gentle lady from New York is recognized for five minutes to discuss the amendment.
▶ 2:19:27Thank you. Uh I move to strike the last word. Lady's recognized. And uh I you know Representative Caster's amendment I think is a pretty common sense proposal. It is ensuring that none of the partisan provisions being discussed today should be implemented until we can understand their impacts on monthly energy costs.
▶ 2:19:47Right now, everyday Americans are experiencing absolute explosions in their monthly energy bills, particularly under uh the Trump administration. In fact, residents in New York City have their electrical bills that are spiking to over $500 a month for a onebedroom apartment just from this January to February.
▶ 2:20:14And for some of the folks saying that um you know by quote unquote unleashing gas uh we can lower these costs. This bill that we're that we are marking up today would actually increase gas exports for by fasttracking the permitting of new gas exports.
▶ 2:20:34And for folks who make this kind of energy independence argument that we need to drill oil and gas so that we're using American oil and gas, American oil and gas isn't going to American households with some of these provisions. In fact, electricity markets across the US, while they remain uh heavily reliant on gas, fasttracking these exports means that there's going to be less gas available for Americans because we're shipping it abroad.
▶ 2:21:03And when global prices rise, domestic gas suppliers are either priced out or forced to pay the higher international market rates. And so what uh the the the amendment that we have before us is merely asking us to conduct a study on how this on how the bill will impact monthly energy costs. If the Republican claim is that it's going to lower monthly energy costs, wouldn't we want to know that?
▶ 2:21:33And I suspect that this study would show that energy costs would actually spike under this Republican proposal. And perhaps that's uh the the source of some of the opposition and heartburn around finding out what impact this is going to have on people. Um and with that, I yield back. Thank you. Thank you. The gentle lady yields back. Is there any recognition on the Republican side to speak? Any further discussion? Any further discussion on the Democrat side? Gentle lady from New York. the other gentle lady from New York. You're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 2:22:03Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to yield to the gentle lady from Florida. Gentle lady is well. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding the time. You know, colleagues, um on the day after it became news that uh the president was likely to accept a 747 Boeing jet from another country.
▶ 2:22:26Uh we have the congressional version right here of kind of that payforplay uh grifting that's going on and it's right here in the bill uh because of here's what they have planned in in this bill. It's another big giveaway uh for a one-time fee of $1 million.
▶ 2:22:47This bill would authorize the Department of Energy to approve liqufied natural gas export terminals regardless of the negative impacts on the people who live nearby uh and on your electric bill. But they didn't stop there. Get this.
▶ 2:23:05For $10 million, companies can bypass permitting processes, clean air, clean water, things like that, and any judicial review for their natural gas or other pipelines. I mean, this is this is not how things work in the United States of America. I know that the current administration is not fond of the rule of law.
▶ 2:23:31I guess they're trying to change the law to benefit their uh the big oil companies. And they do this even though it's going to cost consumers so much more. Now contrast that. This will really tell you where priorities differ.
▶ 2:23:47Contrast that with what uh Elon Musk uh has done to take a chainsaw to firing the entire staff of the lowincome home energy assistance program, which helps almost six million households in America warm and cool their homes.
▶ 2:24:08That's separate even from the the energy rebates I was talking My neighbors in Florida will lose over $100 million this year because of that at a time we're paying more on our electric bills because utilities even they they get to add on when we have hurricanes and storms. So we're already facing higher costs because of damage from hurricane hurricanes Helen and Milton.
▶ 2:24:35And now now this uh just yesterday the Trump administration proposed to illegally ignore Congress and C court rulings by revoking energy and water efficiency standards for more than a dozen appliances. This would take the United States back to decades old standards or eliminate them entirely, drastically costing consumers and business businesses.
▶ 2:24:58And as we sit here, the Ways and Means Committee is marking up a bill that will make life harder for millions of American families. They're simply trying to make their homes more efficient. They might be trying to install solar or batteries. And remember, this is a difference in priorities. They do that to give a massive tax cut to the wealthy and the well-connected while you pay more.
▶ 2:25:25I also want to echo a point that ranking member Palone made. All Congress, Republicans have held hearings where we've heard from uh people in the electric industry, grid operators, utility leaders. Uh they all said that repealing a lot of these tax incentives for cleaner, cheaper energy would be catastrophic. Take one tiny little example.
▶ 2:25:51Republicans want to make it easier to send natural gas overseas while making all other sources of energy, via wind, solar, batteries, or even nuclear energy, more expensive. Well, sending all natural gas overseas, as Representative Okaziocortez pointed out, will increase prices here in America. Uh, but we won't have any alternative then if they send gas overseas uh to fuel our electric system.
▶ 2:26:19because they will have gutted every other option causing power bills to explode. When you have less energy coming onto the grid, your energy prices go up. That's not fair. So, just imagine that story. 340 million times more as costs explode for everyone across the country. That's what this bill does. It doesn't do anything to lower your electric bill.
▶ 2:26:44if we're serious about addressing this problem that the very least adopt my amendment. Show your math. No one has to call each other. You're misleading. You're not. Just agree to do the analysis so the people can understand what's happening to their electric bills and why. I y I urge uh support of my amendment and yield back. I yield back, M. Gentle lady from New York yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Georgia. purpose.
▶ 2:27:13You seek Uh Mr. Chairman, I don't know how it is. Uh you we talk about different states. Uh my state of Georgia has been named 12 years in a row is the best state in the country to do business in or to relocate your business and it's growing very rapidly.
▶ 2:27:30Uh right now, uh just doing a little research, uh New York uh is paying uh about 26.2 2 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. It's the 59. It's 59% higher than the national average. Uh in my home state of Georgia is is somewhere between 8 and 10 cents depending on the uh demand.
▶ 2:27:57uh in Georgia uh 2022 and 23 gasoline was fluctuating somewhat, but uh many times it got as high as $4 a gallon. Today, I just looked it up, it's $2.88 a gallon, and that's in less than like 90 days.
▶ 2:28:21And I will say that we have uh I mean that's you know under the new uh guidelines that we that it many of these we're codifying in the law in this energy policy we passed in the last Congress uh u house bill uh one which was an all-out energy uh solution uh all energy uh I have the largest clean energy facility
▶ 2:28:51uh in the country in my district plant Vogle and even with the substantial capital cost of that we're still at 8 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour. So uh I don't I don't know where these numbers are coming from but I can tell you costs are decreasing rapidly uh because you cannot reduce costs if you don't have competition. It will not work. You can't regulate it. You can't.
▶ 2:29:21It It just does not work economically. And what we're seeing is a large supply meeting demand. If demand exceeds supply, the cost is going up. That is exactly what we're trying to do in this legislation. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentleman from Florida. What purpose? You seek recognition or you recognize. I speak on the amendment. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:29:45I am I support this amendment and oppose the jobk killing energy costraising provisions in the underlying reconciliation bill. Uh we see first an attempt in this section to defund the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing provisions in 50142. You know, Florida now has the second most electric vehicles in the nation.
▶ 2:30:11And according to CNBC, in 2024, 20% of all new car sales were electric vehicles and hybrids. That's a giant figure. And it reminds us that slowly but surely, or maybe faster than folks even realize, that American consumers are switching over to hybrids and electrics in an increasing rate.
▶ 2:30:41And by the way, this advanced technology vehicle manufacturing credit has been a boom for the South. South Carolina Volkswagens making electric vehicles. AESC battery manufacturing in South Carolina. BMW EV and B battery module manufacturing. A Redwood Materials battery recycling in Georgia. Hyundai May 2022.
▶ 2:31:09Hyundai Reville's plan for a $5.54 billion facility dedicated to electric vehicles and battery manufacturing plants will create 8,100 jobs. North Carolina, Toyota, an electric vehicle plant. Toyota's investing 3.79 billion to establish a battery factory in North Carolina. All these things happened after the inflation reduction act was passed and is helping to make sure that we remain competitive.
▶ 2:31:38We want to avoid uh China dumping cheap EVs on our market. We ban them from coming in and we boost our domestic manufacturing and these provisions help with that. And I do want to mention, you know, gas is down a little bit uh because President Trump tanked the economy. Uh that's why demand is down. So if if that's the plan, tank the economy so that gas is cheaper, that's you know, that's a pretty extreme measure there. Uh this is a bad deal for the South.
▶ 2:32:07uh whether it's consumers in Florida or whether it's all these highpaying jobs going to all these southern states, this is a job killer. In addition, adding in defunding of interstate transmission lines.
▶ 2:32:21Gosh, I've heard from both sides of the aisle how often this is critical so some states can focus more on energy production, whether it's nuclear, whether it's natural gas, whether it's renewables, and make sure that that energy could be more efficiently spread across the United States. So why in the world would you defund the interstate transmission lines? That makes no sense. That will raise energy prices.
▶ 2:32:48It'll prevent efficiencies in the market and for different states to specialize in new types of energy, whether it is modular or nuclear, whether it's renewable like solar or green hydrogen that's being formulated in Florida, and then add in the cuts to energy efficient appliances. You know, I was born in the late 70s. This program has been around since I was a little kid. why we would have some of these efforts to encourage people to continue to buy energy efficient appliances.
▶ 2:33:16The manufacturers like it, the retailers like it, and most importantly, American families like it, and you don't have to buy it. This is just an incentive for folks if they want to use uh and be want to use energy efficient appliances, want to do their part household by household.
▶ 2:33:32Uh this is about the freedom to be able to use less energy and to be able to be more efficient and protect our environment and so cutting these popular provisions are unpopular job killing and of course are going to raise energy costs and I yield back chairman gentleman yields back. Is there discussion of the amendment on the Republican side there discussion amendment on the Democrat side? Seeing no further discussion the vote occurs on the amendment.
▶ 2:34:00Uh gentleman has asked for a roll call vote and the uh and the clerk will call the role. Mr. La, no. Mr. La votes no. Mr. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Billis, Mr. Barakus votes no. Mr. Hudson, Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:34:29Carter of Georgia, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Krenshaw Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Mr. Allen. Mr.
▶ 2:34:59Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger. Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kamik. Mrs. Mrs. Kamik votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:35:30Obernoli, Mr. Obernoli votes no. Mr. James, Mr. James votes no. Mr. Benz, Mr. Ben votes no. Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Mr. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
▶ 2:36:00Mr. Kane Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Roelly. Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorek. Mrs. Fedor votes no. Mr. Palone. Mr. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:36:29Deette votes I. Miss Shakowski I. Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Masouie. Miss Mass Masui votes I. Miss Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss. Clark. Miss. Clark votes I. Mr. Mr. Ruiz Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr.
▶ 2:36:58Peters Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy Mr. Vzy votes I. Miss Kelly Miss Kelly votes I. Miss Badagon. Miss Bagon votes I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes I. Miss Shrier. Miss Shrier votes I. Miss Treyenne. Miss Treyenne votes I.
▶ 2:37:29Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss Aassiocortez. Mr. Okassiocortez votes I. Oenclaus. Mr. Okenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Menendez votes I. Mr. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman. Mr.
▶ 2:37:59Lansman votes I. Ms. Mlen. Ms. Mlen votes I. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded. Mr. Carter votes no. Mr. Palmer is not Mr. Palmer votes no. See none, the clerk will report.
▶ 2:38:34Chairman Guthrie, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 30 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further Gentle lady from New York. U Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk labeled 97 AU7. And if I can reserve a point of order, Mr. Chair, point of order is being reserved. The clerk, Do you have the amendment? The clerk? Yes. Mr. Chairman, could the gentle lady please repeat the amendment? Sure. It's 97 AU7.
▶ 2:39:23Amendment offered by Miss Okasio Cortez, page 29, beginning on line six, strike one. Add at the end the following. Without objection, the reading of amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady from New York is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this is an amendment that I hope uh we can all be able to support today in terms of uh it at its core being an anti-corruption amendment.
▶ 2:39:50In my time here in Congress, I have uh participated in investigations of large corporations that have poisoned communities across the country. uh whether it was Deote and 3M that dumped PAS in communities where uh so many women and families dealt with uh dealt with uh reproductive cancers.
▶ 2:40:13uh whether it was um other kinds of of pipelines, it near and cited near uh populated communities that then leaked toxic chemicals into water supplies at and even in Flint, Michigan, where we saw so many children that experienced um developmental delays uh due to exposure to lead.
▶ 2:40:37A lot of times these communities were poisoned due to large corporations that were exploiting corrupt loopholes in the law uh in order to poison the most vulnerable communities in America. And I deeply fear that there is a loophole and similar provision in this bill.
▶ 2:40:58Uh, this bill allows gas companies to pay $1 million in order for their project to bypass the traditional permitting process to be just simply deemed in the public interest. In fact, this bill also allows natural gas pipeline projects to pay a fee of $10 million to cut the line and also bypass the normal permitting process.
▶ 2:41:22Now, I think that it's a bipartisan priority for both of us, for all of us to uh try to tackle permitting reform, but allowing massive corporations to simply cut a check to bypass the very real reasons that permitting exists in the first place poses a deep and grave danger to people across the country. In fact, in New York, there was something called a Northeast Supply Enhancement Project.
▶ 2:41:52It was a gas pipeline that would have involved putting 17 miles of pipeline in New York State's waterways before surfacing in Queens. A gas pipeline in waterways. The state determined that the pipeline would have significant water quality impacts and would and could potentially contaminate contaminate the state's waters with toxins like mercury.
▶ 2:42:18Mercury is a toxic metal that can cause a range of health problems from neurological uh issues to kidney damage. And so as this project moved through the permitting process, environmental experts as well as energy and financial experts all agreed that the project was too dangerous to But this bill would have allowed Williams Companies, the corporation behind this pipeline, to simply ignore and bypass
▶ 2:42:48all of that and just pay a fee in order to put gas pipelines and sight them near highly sensitive water supplies. And this isn't something that's just a risk here in New York. H it is a risk across the country. And again, I I I do believe that it's important that we discuss permitting reform, but to allow all of this to be bypassed completely is profoundly dangerous.
▶ 2:43:16That's why today I am introducing this amendment that requires that the inspector general of the Department of Energy certify that the bill will not result in increased risks of corruption that jeopardize the integrity of our permitting process. Our permitting processes rely on inputs from energy experts, medical experts, and from environmental experts from as well as local communities who bear the brunt of these impacts.
▶ 2:43:44But we cannot allow polluters to bribe their way around processes. We have seen families in Flint torn apart. We have seen army and naval bases expo families and communities around army army and naval bases exposed to PAS that have had their lives torn apart. We cannot fasttrack corruption that that allows massive corporations to put people's lives at risk. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 2:44:14The gentle lady yields back. Is there discussion on the amendment? Mr. Chairman, gentleman from Ohio are recognized for discussion of the amendment. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh move strike the last word. Hman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not necessary. All the federal permitting processes will remain intact under these provisions.
▶ 2:44:33The language explicitly requires each federal, state, interstate, or tribal agency to review the application for the relevant federal authorizations prior to approval. Projections utilizing projects utilizing this process must comply with the underlining statutes including anti-corruption standards. If projects violate the law, FK maintains its ability to revoke permits and license it has issued.
▶ 2:45:02If there are violations of the terms and conditions of the permits and Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment not be adopted. Will you uh yelled? Yield, Mr. Chairman. So, thanks a lot. So I I went to school on the Hudson River. We've talked about that. Other than the Commonwealth of Kentucky, probably one of the most beautiful spots in America and and we want to protect that, too. And and the the local amend the local laws and and state laws have to be followed even with this process. We wanted to make sure.
▶ 2:45:29So the reason I said that when I was there in the 80s, you couldn't swim in the you couldn't swim in the Hudson River because of what corporate America had done. Some unknowing. They just didn't realize the laws in the PL or didn't we didn't know the science that we know now. But we want to make sure it's protected and and we feel that this does do that. And so I will yield back to my friend from Ohio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time. Is there further discussion? The gentle lady from Florida and then Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:45:58I want to thank uh Representative Okaziocortez for offering this very important amendment. It it simply says that uh this will not go into effect until the inspector general of the department of energy certifies that this will not result in an increased risk of corruption or paytoplay. Although I do note that remember Donald Trump and Elon Musk fired the inspector general at the Department of Energy.
▶ 2:46:23Uh so they're already taking the cops off the beat and and what the Republicans want to do in this bill will make it worse. uh this pay-to-play scheme they want to jam through through this reconciliation bill will simply sell out local communities back home to the higher spinner all to plate uh big oil companies and and their uh billionaire friends.
▶ 2:46:49Now I represent a Gulf Coast district uh in the Tampa Bay area. We're still reeling from the damage of hurricanes Helen and Milton, but you know, we really haven't gotten over the BP Deep Water Horizon blowout of some years ago where the pollution just spewed out from uh that uh Deep Water well for months. Do you remember on TV? It just kept going and going.
▶ 2:47:16So, that seriously impacted the ability of small businesses to to lure tourists. we haven't industrialized our coastline. Um, so the damage was real. Uh, and we're getting over we're just kind of recovering from the environmental economic damage. So now you want to say that neighbors across the Gulf Coast who know how dangerous these types of energy infrastructure projects are that we aren't going to have a say in it.
▶ 2:47:46uh because this would force those Gulf Coast communities to host dangerous polluting liqufied natural gas export facilities. And since Mr. Chairman, you were going back in time, you know, before I arrived in Congress and in public service, I was an environmental attorney. And what I learned is that it's very important to have the community engagement upfront. It helps you address problems.
▶ 2:48:13oftentimes it helps the infrastructure uh problem u facility be permitted. You get buyin from the local community, right? There might be jobs, there might be other benefits, but maybe not. But you have to give them their say and their due process. It seems like everything right now is about not recognizing due process for anyone. And this would strip away the ability of local communities to have a say when you have a new polluting plant running through your own backyard.
▶ 2:48:43It would gut the normal judicial review by severely limiting who can who can challenge it. All of this without even studying whether or not the facilities and those pipelines are in the public interest. And we know that Republicans are scared to do these analysis. Why? Because there was analysis done at the end of the year by the Department of Energy that talked about liqufied natural gas exports.
▶ 2:49:08They said that analysis said by the Department of Energy that if we export more of our gas rather than using it here at home, our electric bills will go Plus, it will drastically worsen climate pollution that is warming the Gulf waters and supercharging these storms that also have a significant impact on the bottom lines of the families I represent.
▶ 2:49:32And our energy committee subcommittee in this committee has heard over and over again from energy developers of all kinds. They need certainty to make long-term event investments. They need independent regular regulators who can fairly make these assessments about whether or not these projects are in the public interest. So this bill is totally radical. Just strips away any of that certainty. Uh particularly as the president works to make energy regulators less independent.
▶ 2:50:00You know, there are significant environmental harms and health issues when you are trying to ram in a gas export polluting facility. Uh but here now this may not be a goldplated 747, but for just a small fee, big oil companies can bribe the Trump administration to get whatever they want.
▶ 2:50:23This bill would make Republicans unfortunately complicit in the blatant corruption and insider dealing that we've unfortunately come to expect from this administration. This this bill doesn't create a two-track system. It completely alters the way that we review polluting projects in America. Instead of focusing reform, Republicans are just attempting to abolish all permitting. Do it through the back door.
▶ 2:50:52Grease the skids does nothing to lower energy costs for hardworking families. So please support her good amendment. Thanks. The gentle lady yields back. The chair recognized gentle lady from Iowa for five minutes just for discussion the amendment. Thank you Mr. Chair Celindra. Gentle lady yields back. I yield back. Okay. Gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentle lady from California.
▶ 2:51:22gentle lady from Washington asked earlier. Gentle lady from Washington's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. You're next or after Celindra Celindra the Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I strike the last word to support Representative Okasio Cortez's amendment because this bill currently seeks to completely bypass protections for communities and land owners.
▶ 2:51:50And these pay-to-play provisions, put not just a thumb, but an entire arm, maybe a body on the scale favoring oil and gas. It's giant corporations like Shell, BP, Chevron. They're the ones that have the wherewithal to pay to bypass all, let me repeat that, all permitting requirements.
▶ 2:52:13This bill is more of the drill baby drill agenda that we hear every week from our Republican Um, look, I'm all for streamlining permitting for energy projects to address demand and energy infrastructure has real impacts on our communities. But there's ways to streamline permitting and get new energy resources online without sidelining solar, wind, nuclear, hydropower, or h or hydrogen projects.
▶ 2:52:43Uh, our Senate friends made serious progress on a bipartisan bill to do just that the last Congress. But this committee wouldn't bring it up for a hearing. Streamlining permitting is key if we're going to meet energy demands, but clean power shouldn't have should have, excuse me, clean power should have the same opportunity as oil and gas, and we shouldn't be disregarding important environmental protections.
▶ 2:53:13So, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back. Would the gentleoman yield to me? Yeah. Oh, yes. Absolutely. Thank you. You know, I just I just wanted to point out on this amendment that, you know, gentleoman from New York, Kaiser Cortez, talked about LG in particular.
▶ 2:53:33And I'm just reading the LG section where it says an application to export natural gas right from the United States, a non-refundable charge of a million dollars. And for purposes this section this section such a non-refundable charge of a million dollars and I'm quoting was imposed and collected shall be deemed to be in the public interest and such an application shall be granted without modification or delay. Now I heard Mr.
▶ 2:54:00Lattis say there was still some review but this is not there's no review. In other words, they think that because this says if you pay the million that means that the payment of the fee is the public interest, right? So rather than review this to see whether or not it's going to raise natural gas prices or whether it has any kind of environmental implications in the for the public interest, that's what the review are for.
▶ 2:54:28This says that you pay the million dollars and that check is in the public interest and therefore you don't have to do anything and there's no further review whatsoever. So I mean I I can't think of anything that's more of a paytoplay than that. It's it's unbelievable. Well, I I'll yield back to the gentleoman. Gentle lady yields back. Is there any further discussion on the Republican side? The gentle lady from California is recognized for five minutes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:54:58I just want to speak in support of this amendment. Gentle's recognized. Thank you. Um given the uh that is at play with this administration right now, there could be nothing more important than doing everything we can to stop the corruption, stop the pay and play. I mean, you're talking about an administration that came in and fired inspector generals.
▶ 2:55:22We've heard today that this Medicaid, these Medicaid cuts to millions of people are about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet the inspector general that was supposed to be overseeing the waist front abuse and Medicaid was also fired.
▶ 2:55:43So in the interest of talking Medicaid and what's at stake, my constituents Brian wrote to me and said, "Dear Congresswoman, my name is Brian Gutierrez. I'm one of your constituents living with spine obifa, a lifelong disability that has shaped every part of my journey, but has not defined my potential. I'm writing to share how Medicaid has been the foundation of my survival, my independence, and my in my ability to thrive.
▶ 2:56:11For me and millions like me, Medicaid is not just a safety net. It's the reason we are alive and moving forward. From childhood through adulthood, Medicaid has covered the surgeries, specialist care, mobility equipment, and ongoing treatments that my condition requires. With Medicaid, I have access to prosthetics and leg braces that allow me to move through the world with dignity.
▶ 2:56:34With Medicaid, I can see the doctors and therapists who help me manage the complex and evolving nature of spinobipida. These supports don't just keep me stable, they give me the freedom to live and work and advocate and participate fully in my community. In April 2024, I was diagnosed with earlystage correct cancer. A terrifying moment that could have changed everything.
▶ 2:57:01Because of Medicaid, I received timely and expert care, including a successful endoscopy resection that helped me avoid more invasive treatment. Today, I am in remission. That outcome was only possible because I had access to specialist, procedures, and follow-up care without delay or denial. Medicaid gave me a fighting chance, and I took it. Medicaid also supports the inhome supportive services, the IHS program, which is vital to my daily life.
▶ 2:57:30My mother is my primary care caregiver and an IHSS worker, providing the personal care I need to remain safely and independently at home. IHS is not just about convenience. It's about dignity, autonomy, and the ability to be part of my community instead of being isolated in an institution. Medicaid's investments in programs like IHS strengthens families, sustains caregiving, and keeps people like me, where we belong, at home, and in control of our lives.
▶ 2:57:59This story is not mine alone. Roughly 55% of adults with spinoipida rely on Medicaid. In California, nearly three million people with disabilities depend on it. Medicaid is the backbone of our health care system and and a lifeline for many with disabilities, including seniors and working-class families. But that lifeline is now under attack.
▶ 2:58:23The proposed Republican budget resolution includes devastating $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which currently operates with 650 billion in federal funding. These cuts would decimate the program, eliminating or reducing essential services, ending I ending IHS for countless families, forcing people out of their homes, and taking away health care from those who need it most. For many of us, these cuts are not abstract numbers.
▶ 2:58:53They are the difference between stability and crisis, between life and death. I'm healthy today because Medicaid stood by me. I'm thriving because I've had consistent, reliable access to the care I need. Medicaid makes independence possible. It makes survival possible. It makes dignity possible. Any threat to Medicaid is a threat to our lives. Thank you for your time and your leadership.
▶ 2:59:18Sincerely, Brian Gutierrez, constituent spinoipida advocate and Medicaid recipient. And again, how is this related to the amendment? Well, inspector generals can help save money. Inspector Generals can help uh get out the waste, the fraud, and the abuse. If my colleagues cared about that so much, they would have spoken up when the inspector general that oversees Medicaid was fired. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 2:59:47you just remind the committee, I understand at the end you made a connection to the underlying amendment, but the the subject to the bill or the amendment is is what we're debating today. So, I'll remind the committee of that. The um Mr. Chairman, I believe that it's directly related. It was about inspector generals and about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. And I think that there is a relationship with corruption and paytoplay with what's in the bill. Thank you.
▶ 3:00:15So the chair will now recognize was it the gentle lady from Texas? Any any Republican side? So the gentle lady from Texas is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um and I have a couple of questions about the amendment. So, I hope that somebody will be able to um help me out. Uh but I guess let me preface my questions by saying that um I saw these provisions obviously like many other people uh for the first time in the last 36 hours.
▶ 3:00:43And uh I think everybody in here knows I support permitting reform. I have supported permitting reform. It is critically important to uh people in my community in Houston. And we've been talking about permitting reform for years. Um I I just double checked with Mr. Peters, this is the first he's been working on it tirelessly. I feel like every hearing we have, Mr. Peters says we need to do permitting reform and I'm right behind him. Um, this is the first time I've ever heard you can just pay $10 million and get a permit. You can just pay a million dollars and get a permit.
▶ 3:01:13You can just pay all this money and you'll be deemed uh acceptable. This is not a proposal we've been talking about and frankly it's pretty surprising to me. Um, now I think we should do our job and do permitting reform and there are a lot of great ideas that we need to be exploring.
▶ 3:01:29I think everybody here hopefully by now knows I also support LG exports and um, in fact, I've had a bill for the last two congresses to deem in our national interest to export LG to our NATO allies and to Ukraine. I have begged this committee to take that bill up because I think it is critically important.
▶ 3:01:50Um, and I took issue with the uh the time of the review uh in the last administration because I thought that that was in our national interest and I continue to think uh that supporting Ukraine and our NATO allies uh through exporting uh US LNG is a very good idea.
▶ 3:02:06So, I'm just surprised to see all these provisions in the bill and um and so I want I want to know if maybe council can clear up the question from the earlier set of questions about whether what I read in the summary from the memorandum from the majority says that once the fee is paid under section 412 upon the application collection of the fee the secretary of energy shall deem the application in the public interest for national gas exports.
▶ 3:02:35I support natural gas exports, but is that in fact the case that there is no other review? Um, is that also the case with the um with the other pipeline permitting that you just pay the fee and that's it? Can council answer that question? I congresswoman I think it's following fk review for both of those provisions.
▶ 3:03:01So it's not automatically deemed in the public interest as defined in the majority memo here. The depends on which the the public interest is for a department of energy determination and then FK would continue or review the normal uh NEP review and environmental reviews for any construction associated with the project. Okay.
▶ 3:03:26So the payment of the $1 million deems the application in the public interest at DOE. That's the extent of their review according to this amendment. Yeah. Under the natural Yes. And then it would go over to FK for the normal FK process. So if you paid a million dollars to say export natural gas to to a nonfree trade, right, to a non-free trade country like Iran, you just pay a million dollars. It's in the national interest.
▶ 3:03:55or China, right? I mean, that's you pay the fee and it's deemed in the national interest. I think I think there's some limits with sanction. If there's sanctions, it wouldn't apply. Is that in the bill text? No, that that's current law. I'm sorry, Congressman. Yeah, that's current current law. And where is that covered in the bill text? It doesn't it doesn't this does not affect the current law.
▶ 3:04:20This is just providing for for f for the natural gas how it's treated under the natural gas act under section three. Okay. Well, I think there's still uh because this proposal that's shown up in the last 36 hours has kind of come out of left field. Uh I feel like maybe we need to get to the bottom of some of these questions about what in fact it means to pay this and this is why this amendment is a good idea uh to make sure that we really vet this and understand it.
▶ 3:04:45The other question I have for council is in terms of the payments, the million-doll user fee, the $10 million user fee, are there provisions included for how these fees can be paid? Could, for example, um can you pay these with uh with uh I mean, I think it I think it would be how fees are paid now under current
▶ 3:05:17Okay. So, it doesn't exclude Trumpcoin as a form of payment. The the text doesn't make that distinction. Okay. Well, let's think about that. I see I've gone over my five minutes, so Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back, but I do hope that we'll continue to assess this and vote in favor of this uh amendment. Thank you. Gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? We stand on the Republican on the Dem. Gentleman from California, you're recognized for five minutes for discussion of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:05:42I just it does occur to me that as an environmental lawyer, um it would have been pretty easy just to say, "Oh, you just paid $10 million and you're over this going to put more lawyers out of work than AI." I think um anyway, with that, I would like to yield to the gentleoman from uh New York, Miss Kaiser Cortez. Thank you. I just want us to be clear about the provision ahead of us in front of us right now.
▶ 3:06:07There are plenty of things that seek uh that need a permit whether it's solar energy, wind energy, gas, oil. If you want to construct something big, you need to go through a process of review to seek a permit. This bill says to oil and gas to fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel companies only.
▶ 3:06:32You can pay money when health care experts, environmental experts are saying if you place a pipeline here through this community, people will get cancer. People could get reproductive uh cancers. People could be poisoned. People could be exposed to mercury, lead, there could be grave health and environmental factors.
▶ 3:06:59And an oil and company can pay $10 million to wave all of that away to be deemed quote in the public interest. Even if that pipeline is not shown to increase to to lower energy costs, even if that pipeline is shown to to uh increase health or environmental risk factors.
▶ 3:07:25And what this amendment does, the only thing this amendment is asking us to do is to say, can the ex inspector general, the watchdog of the department of energy, certify that corruption risks are not increasing to jeopardize the integrity of the permitting process? This amendment isn't even changing that underlying very disturbing provision.
▶ 3:07:52This is saying, can we certify that there's not a risk of corruption here? And I'm finding that the opposition to this is not really being stated. Um, additionally, I think also to the ranking members point in just just the fact of paying $10 million makes it automatically in the public interest alone.
▶ 3:08:18And what happens when that $10 million in the public interest then starts to run up against real environmental health and other risk factors? Which preva which public interest prevails? The check and uh um I want to you know I'm I'm interested in the ranking members thoughts uh in reading these provisions on the bill. So I'm happy to yield uh to you if you have any thoughts on that, Mr. Palum. Well, it it literally says I mean I've never heard anything like it.
▶ 3:08:45so outrageous that the non-refundable charge shall be deemed in the public interest. So, I don't know how you can read that other than to say that actually paying the fee satisfies the public interest criteria. So, I've never seen that in any piece of legislation in my life where in other words, what they're saying is it's in the public interest for you to pay. It's in the public interest for you to give us a million dollars. That's the public interest.
▶ 3:09:15So, and will the ranking member yield back? So, we're hearing here right now that this bill has carved out a specific industry, not any not anyone seeking permitting reform, a specific industry, just oil and gas to just pay to bypass all of the guard rails, all of the safety, all of of any of the rules and guidelines to site anything responsibly.
▶ 3:09:44and um you can just pay money to bypass any concerns around around health risks and for some reason there's no corruption risk there. I mean I I spent six years on the oversight committee taking on corporate corruption, taking on governmental corruption, including on bipartisan on a bipartisan basis. I too have never seen anything like this ever.
▶ 3:10:10I sat on the natural resources committee saw and heard testimony from tons of people whether it was from mining whether it's from any other kinds of exposures kids with developmental disabilities that can never be uh and all we are asking for is a certification that risks of corruption will not increase from the inspector general under the Trump administration's own department of energy. That's the only thing that's up here today. Thank you and I yield back. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Gentleman from California yields back.
▶ 3:10:40Is there further discussion on the Republican side? See none on the side. A gentle lady from Massachusetts is recognized to speak on the amendment. I yield to the congresswoman from Texas. Uh thank you so much uh for yielding. And I just have a thought because as as my colleague from New York was talking, I thought, well, I represent a lot of people who who work in this business. And to me, it also feels like it could be a shakeddown of the people in that business. Everyone around here talks about how much money they have, so we'll just make them pay a lot more to get consideration of their permit.
▶ 3:11:10If you don't pay the fee, you're in trouble. Well, that's not fair to folks either. So, I think it's really important. I also think for my friends on the other side of the aisle, we should easily agree that we can certify that we should vote for this amendment, make sure that we have vetted this concept thoroughly so that it doesn't hurt our constituents across the board in every state. And I also think that this is such a risky proposal. You know, this is headed to the courts. You know, there's huge litigation risk here.
▶ 3:11:38And so, I don't know that anybody's going to take advantage of this anyway. I don't I don't know anybody asking for this sort of system. But certainly to me, in the opposite, I mean, on the other side, it kind of feels like a shakeddown of the folks who do this work. And you shouldn't have to pay $10 million to get a permit when it is in the when it is in our national interest. you shouldn't have to pay a million dollars to get your permits reviewed. And I think that, you know, there's more than one way to look at this.
▶ 3:12:06And I think it's really important that we make sure that we're not that we are not uh penalizing people who are participants throughout this um throughout the industry. And I think that it's important that we make sure for the American people um that there is no risk of corruption here.
▶ 3:12:24Certainly uh coming up in this way for the first time uh raises a lot of red flags that I think should give everybody on both sides of the aisle on this committee pause before moving forward to put in this legislation. And with that, I will yield back to the gentleoman from Massachusetts. I yield back. Gentle lady yields. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Yeah. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 3:12:47Just a question for the for council in reading this or write putting together. Appreciating the fact that somebody's going to spend $10 million to get something that they wouldn't otherwise get. Can you confirm that the language is written in a way that there is no risk of corruption?
▶ 3:13:17I don't I don't think that's I think that's a policy judgment for the for the members. So there there is a policy question here. Is that fair to say this is a policy question? the question that is a policy question not for council to answer. So this so we are debating a policy question. Yes. Oh, thank you. I yield back.
▶ 3:13:50uh, Mr. Carter is recognized. I move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Council. Council. Can I Can I ask you a question, sir? Yes. Yes, sir. Presumably, a person pays this enormous fee, $10 million, whatever, whatever it is, so they don't they can bypass permitting. Correct. That is not correct, sir. What is correct? So that under the language the the fee is paid and the application there's two steps.
▶ 3:14:17The application is deemed in the public interest for the purposes of export and then the process begins for fk to review the construction of the facility and and all everything associated with the facility and the actual operation of the facility. That is where environmental and other considerations come in and this does not affect that.
▶ 3:14:39So, is this not giving an unfair advantage to those who can afford to pay 10 million versus those who can't? Because it it sounds like if you have enough money, you can bypass the rules and pay to play. That doesn't sound like a leveled playing field to me. So, so help me understand what happens to the person that can Let me answer the question. You're doing all kind of facial gestures. Yeah. No, I'm going to read this to Tom. Sorry, sir.
▶ 3:15:11The person that can stroke a check for 10 million versus the person who can't. Why is that fair just because this person has more money? Yeah, that is not a technical question that it's not a technical question that the council needs to address. I think it's technical. Why is it? I'm trying to determine the difference between someone who can pay 10 million and someone who can't. And that's pretty technical as far as I'm concerned.
▶ 3:15:34I want to know if operator A has 10 and operator B doesn't, but they have the same widgets, why are they not being treated equally? The the way the sort of the way that the text is written is the secretary shall by rule impose and collect for each application to export natural gas from the United States to a foreign country which there is not in effect a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade and natural gas etc
▶ 3:16:04etc shall then be deemed in the any applicant to a a nonfree trade for export to a non-free trade company will pay the fee. So this amendment merely says that we want to have the Trump administration not some nefarious or some makebelieve person but an inspector general that works for this administration.
▶ 3:16:31You know we talk a lot about waste fraud abuse and making sure that we have provisions to root them out to make sure these things are not being done in a nefarious way. This amendment merely says, "Let's put a belt and suspenders to make sure that we're checking those boxes." Your your smirk is really It's a little distracting because I'm asking you a legitimate question and you're I'm not serving.
▶ 3:17:02Okay. I'm sorry. I interpreted as a smirk. So, I if it wasn't a smirk, so be it. Um, so help me understand people that are that are relying on, as it's been mentioned over and over again, these issues of environmental. Listen, I'm from Louisiana. I understand the importance of oil exploration. I also understand that we should reform our permitting, but we should not do so in a way that it looks feels like a paytoplay.
▶ 3:17:28If you can write a big check, you can expedite. So what's the difference? I'll go again between the person who can and the person who can't. Just to check. I I can refer you to the text in that of the provision. Sir, I I I've read the text and we we we're we're all speaking and asking questions that presumably you are equipped to answer.
▶ 3:17:58And this amendment is being rejected. And I I still have not found the basis of why. Some will say it's not necessary because we already have X and Y. Well, why would a belt suspenders and a safety net not be appropriate to protect the American people? Sir, I think that I mean I think that's a a policy question for the members to discuss. I yield. Gentleman yields. The gentleman from Texas is Thank you. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 3:18:30I think we can end with the pearl clutching. What we're talking about is a user fee. We all seem to be comfortable with user fees when it comes to the FDA. That's all this is. There are no laws being changed. No policies being changed. All of the laws that still govern permitting must be followed. That's all that's happening here. And we're I keep hearing the word corruption.
▶ 3:18:55Now, depending on how you mean the word corruption and how this somehow opens the door for more of it, I'm not sure. But I might remind everyone that there's already laws preventing corruption, however you mean that word. There's no reason that those laws would be changed given this new user fee. Uh, I would also point out the hypocrisy from many of my colleagues talking about money just being thrown out the door.
▶ 3:19:22Last time we went through this exercise, the reconciliation of the inflation reduction act, hundreds of billions of dollars went to third party nos, which supposedly doled out that money to clean energy projects. Money we'll never really know where it went. And the inspector general from the EPA sat in front of this committee and told us he had no way of knowing where that was going.
▶ 3:19:49That sounds a lot to me like Maybe that's what we should be investigating. I yield back. The gentleman yields. The gentle lady from Virginia is recognized. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. Gentle lady's recognized. So, let's be clear.
▶ 3:20:11This is not a user fee because when you pay a user fee, you still have to go through all of the regulatory approvals required for your project. That's that's not what the bill does.
▶ 3:20:25reading the memo in section 410002, it says, "Notwithstanding any requirements or statutory obligations under federal and state law, including citing environmental and safety reviews and permitting.
▶ 3:20:48Section 410002 requires an requires an application for a certificate of crossing to include a $50,000 payment and directs FK to issue the certificate.
▶ 3:21:02When you read the actual text of the bill, it says on page 4, line 111, the commission shall upon payment of the fee in the amount of $50,000 by a person requesting a certificate of crossing issue such certificate. So, let's be clear, that's not a user fee. That is you pay $50,000, you get your permit. Period.
▶ 3:21:29notwithstanding any provision of federal or state law. So you're also saying like that's not a user fee. Okay, that is we are cutting out and this isn't even permitting reform. This is you pay $50,000, you get your FK permit for this particular project. No if or but that is not ambiguous. That is clear as crystal.
▶ 3:21:59which is not the definition of a user fee, which is not even permitting reform other than to say if you got the money, you get it. I yield back. Gentle lady yields. A gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm a little disappointed in and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for not actually reading the Natural Gas Act. Y'all know better.
▶ 3:22:24you you know when you read the Natural Gas Act that let's just talk about the the permitting review first off. It doesn't skip a permitting review. Y'all know this. There's no skipping of this. LG export applications will still go through and they they will always go through a rigorous process through FIRK and section three of the natural gas act is very explicit on this.
▶ 3:22:54So it is false when you say that it's not going to go through a process. It does. It will go through a process. It will always go through a process. That's current law. So this argument that it's not going to go through is completely false. The FK process includes a rigorous environmental review including NEPA that will still be adhered to.
▶ 3:23:18So once again, we've got for everybody in the audience out here, lies about this process. Objection. Objection. He used the word lies again. It's a double standard. Mr. Chairman, move to take his complete. I'm going to move to take his words down that are that are not true. Mr. Chairman, I think you should not recognized. Ma'am, you're not Let me I would like to take his words down. The You set out the rules not to use that word on the Democratic side.
▶ 3:23:48Bring back the chairman. This man just violated what the chairman we're not following the rules of the chair. Mr. Chairman, I strike move to strike and take down his words. Mr. Chairman, we're going to suspend. It's ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, can I just say something? Yes. We had a sort of unwritten agreement, but no one was going to use the word lie. So, if we could just continue with that. I know Mr. August maybe wasn't here when that happened.
▶ 3:24:14Well, I what I'm asking you is that rather than take down words, we just agree that from now on we're not going to use the word lie. I don't know if August was here when we agreed to that. That that was the agreement that we would not refer use the word lie anymore during the markup. So, if that's okay with everyone, let's just continue. No more use of the word. Mr. Chairman, can we agree to tell the truth today? You can use disdain, just not use the word lie. That was the agreement.
▶ 3:24:44All right. If you don't want to go by the agreement, then we're going to have to go back to taking down the words. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank you. Let's talk about the public interest. Let's talk about what's in the public interest again, if you read the Natural Gas Act, section three is very explicit in the public interest and it assumes that if you're not on a terror watch list, that if you're not Iran, Russia, Venezuela, uh or um one of the countries
▶ 3:25:14that has been deemed to not be in the public interest that it assumes that the Secretary of Energy will automatically approve improve the export of LG to non-FTA countries. That's already the assumption. And what we saw in the last four years was that there was only one administration who didn't think it was in the public interest, which is why LG exports were paused.
▶ 3:25:41Only one administration in the history of the Natural Gas Act without explanation that paused LG So, it is disappointing to see that we're not actually dealing in facts because the Natural Gas Act is very explicit on both the ability to permit with a user fee as well as being in the public interest. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will deal in truth. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
▶ 3:26:12Sure. I I'm curious as to hearing everything that that you've put forward. Um why is it and what is the rationale if there is support for what you all would deem a user fee etc. Why only single out oil and gas companies to have access? I think I'm the wrong person to ask it. You can ask the chairman on that question. We're all voting on the bill. I presume you'd be supportive.
▶ 3:26:42to to presume you support the provision. I'll take my time back to to to have a gerine conversation and and debate on this particular issue. I wanted to address two points and that was the public interest and that was also on on how the process works to be permitted. So, I'm sure that we will get into that debate.
▶ 3:27:03And by the way, um to the gentle lady from New York, I'd like to invite you to come and West Texas. I love West Texas. I'd be happy to go. Come see how safe this process is. Come see how environmentally secure it is. There there are members on your side of the aisle who who have come and and seen it.
▶ 3:27:27I want to invite you to come out there and see what's happening that I think would alleviate a lot of these concerns. And on the issue of corruption, I I associate myself with my colleague from Texas, Mr. Krenshaw on the fact that um the this is a process that is taking in revenue to the federal government with something that is already deemed to be in the public interest in a process that will
▶ 3:27:57go through the full environmental review in a way that will be expeditious and will add more money to the Treasury. I'm glad that my side of the aisle has thought of this and I'll yield back. Gentleman yields. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to yield my time to the gentleoman from Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask council a question.
▶ 3:28:24Um did you write the majority memorandum for this um markup? I I mean I as staff I did contribute to the memorandum. Okay. Um well as council you can answer this. What does notwithstanding any requirements or statutory obligations under federal and state law mean?
▶ 3:28:53When a court can you identify which page number or you're referencing? I am on two of the majority memorandum. I'm sorry. Page three. Page three. Under section 410002, the very first sentence says notwithstanding any requirements or statutory obligation under federal and law. Is it the interpretation?
▶ 3:29:21I don't know if you wrote this part and if this you're not the right person to answer this question then please point me to the right person but is it the understanding of the person that wrote that sentence that it is accurate ma'am I maybe refer go to the legislative text okay let's do that on page four Line
▶ 3:29:5211, the commission shall. What does shall mean? It shall collect a fee. And if a statute of Congress passed says shall then doesn't that mean as the memo says notwithstanding any other requirements shall will happen once you
▶ 3:30:22do what the statute says once you pay fee the commission shall issue the certificate. Doesn't that mean notwithstanding any requirement or statutory obligation under federal and state law? I think we'll refer to what the the statutory text says.
▶ 3:30:47So the commission shall upon payment of a fee in the amount of $50,000 by a person requesting a certificate of crossing issue such persons issue to such person such certificate of crossing. So do you disagree with what the majority memorandum says section 410002 will do based on the statutory text? I'm I just I I just stick to the text.
▶ 3:31:16I don't I don't want to comment on the on the memorandum. Okay. Well, I I got a law degree from the University of Virginia that I paid a whole lot of money for and it is my interpretation that this is accurate. Shall mean shall and notwithstanding any requirement or statutory obligation under federal or state law means exactly that and that is how a court will interpret it no matter what my non-awyer colleagues on the other side of the aisle think. I yield Gentle lady yields. Mr.
▶ 3:31:46Chair, I yield back. Gentleman yields. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. Uh, the gentleman requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the Mr. La. No. Mr. La votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith votes no. Barakus Mr.
▶ 3:32:16Baracus votes no. Mr. Hudson Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter Georgia. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:32:48Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulier Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Mrs. Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger votes no Mrs.
▶ 3:33:15Miller Meeks Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no Mrs. Kamik Mr. Obernolulti Mr. Obernolulti votes no Mr. James Mr. James votes no Mr. Bence Mr. Ben votes no Mrs. Houchen. Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:33:44Fry Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Roelly. Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans Mr. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no.
▶ 3:34:14Mrs. Fedorch. Mrs. Fedorch votes no. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Gette. Hi. Mr. Gette votes I. Miss Shakowski. I. Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsui. I. Miss Matsui votes I. Miss Caster. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko I shall vote yes. Mr. Tonko votes I.
▶ 3:34:45Miss Clark I. Miss Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy. Mr. VZY votes I. Miss Kelly. Miss Kelly votes I. Miss Bagon. Miss Bagon votes I.
▶ 3:35:16Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes I. Miss Shrier. Miss Shrier votes I. Miss Treyan. Miss Trean votes I. Miss. Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss. Okassiocortez. Miss Okassiocortez votes I. Mr. Oenclaus Mr. Okenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr.
▶ 3:35:45Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Menendez votes I. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Miss. Mlullen votes I. How is Mr. Carter recorded? Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes no. How is Mr. Carter recorded? Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded.
▶ 3:36:17How is Mr. Palmer? Mr. Carter of Georgia no. Mr. Palmer is not recorded. Mr. Palmer votes no. Does anyone else seek to be recognized? to be recorded. The clerk will report the result. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 28 nos. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:36:46Are there any further Mr. Close has an amendment. For what purpose does a gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the Mr. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman please specify his amendment? Uh, sorry. Energy_14 UK301. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman please repeat that? Sorry.
▶ 3:37:11Uh, 14 UK301. Amendment offered by Mr. talking at the appropriate place. Insert the following section protecting American. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, may I have reserve an objection?
▶ 3:37:42Gentleman reserves. Without objection, the reading the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment would prevent this act from taking effect until the administration returns the tariff levels on energy products to their levels on January 19th of this year. This week's tariff announcements shouldn't fool anyone. President Trump creates uncertainty and havoc by raising tariffs and then claims victory when he lowers the tariffs that he himself put in place.
▶ 3:38:12All this does is extend uncertainty for another 90 days. First, there were no tariffs on energy. Then the president slapped a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico. Then we decided, oh wait, it should be 10%. Then actually we decided to comply with our trade agreement with them. So energy tariffs with them were at zero. But wait, now we put reciprocal tariffs with rates varying for every country on the entire world. So nobody knew what the energy tariffs were. And then there was the 25% tariff on top of all that for steel and aluminum.
▶ 3:38:42It got so disastrous for business that the grid operators from New England and New York had to file emergency petitions at FK because they weren't sure if there even was a tariff on Canadian electricity and if so, how much it was and whose responsibility it was to collect it. We've heard repeatedly from our Republican colleagues that American quote energy dominance is the goal of this administration and that this committee is pursuing an all of the- above energy strategy. But it's all talk.
▶ 3:39:06This administration's actions, whether increasing prices for American consumers through tariffs or proposing a bill like the one we are considering today, will have the opposite effect, American energy scarcity and dependence. Tariffs on key components for new energy construction like steel is chilling investment in new projects. We will not be able to meet future rising demand from electrification and AI data centers if we our ability to build out energy generation and transmission.
▶ 3:39:31The policies in this bill, like gutting the loan programs office that has, as of last September, financed a $ 44 billion portfolio of energy products, projects, and advanced technology manufacturing facilities will further raise prices for consumers and limit our ability to build out nuclear, geothermal, and other sources of energy to meet future demand. We can be not we cannot have energy dominance when tariffs combined with these policies are going to accelerate rising energy costs and utility bills for our constituents.
▶ 3:40:01Industry needs certainty and predictability to make the kinds of long-term investments the energy sector requires. What are they getting instead? In the words of one business owner, quote, "I have never felt more uncertainty about our business in my entire 40 plus year career." That was the owner of an energy company whose survey responses were published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in late March. Another one wrote, quote, "This is not energy dominance.
▶ 3:40:29Returning tariffs to January 19th levels will lower the cost of energy inputs, lower energy costs to consumers, and provide the market stability necessary to invest in a true all of the- above energy strategy, not one where the administration and congressional Republicans are picking winners and losers. Congress can put a stop to this reckless economic policy whenever Speaker Johnson decides to stand up for our Article One responsibilities. He has shown no interest in doing so and actually has actively sought to silence debate on the issue. And so, this committee must take action.
▶ 3:40:57If you want lower energy prices, this amendment is for you. If you want more investment in American energy, this amendment is for you. If you want us to be able to beat China in the AI race, this amendment is for you. The only reason you should oppose this amendment is if you don't want any of those things. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh strike the last word. So recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
▶ 3:41:26Chairman, this amendment adds a new section relating to tariffs. This is not pertinent to the underlying purpose of this legislation and I therefore urge the rejection of the amendment. Gentleman yields. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last. I'd like to officially welcome Katie Corkin and her son Connor. They traveled all the way from Louisiana to Washington DC to be with us here today in this committee room.
▶ 3:41:56They braved great odds to travel, to be here, to leave their lives in Louisiana. They're here because they're proof that Medicaid means life. When Connor was first diagnosed, his physicians warned his parents that his life was extremely fragile and that there was a high chance he would not survive childhood.
▶ 3:42:17He was blind, developmentally delayed, had poor muscle tone, was fed through a tube, had numerous types of seizures every day, had an underdeveloped pituitary gland, and needed hormone replacement medications, had an immune deficiency disorder, and was non-verbal. Medicaid funding in waiverss like the new opportunities waiver now grants that Connor received in Louisiana have been and continue to be the lifeline for him and his family.
▶ 3:42:47It provides him with the quality tailored care that he needs at home 247 and in his community. I invited Kater and Connor and their family to DC because America needs to know what and when you talk about cutting Medicaid funding who you're hurting the faces, the real people, not just names on paper, but real people. You're hurting your neighbors, the people you go to church with, the people you shop with.
▶ 3:43:17You could be hurting your own future family members. It is but by the grace of God that this could have been any of us. It could have been any of us. Just so happened it's the Corkans. These cuts aren't just numbers. We're all one birth away from our own Connor. These are policy decisions that will have lifealtering consequences for families like Connor and Katie's.
▶ 3:43:39when you take away their theirs and millions of others medicate away tonight in this committee when we do this when everyone's gone home late at night remember the people that are here now and the people that have gone back home are the ones that you're hurting I urge you to please take a long look at these individuals look at their families look into their stories and don't simply tell them go home it's going to be fine this is not going to impact you when we know that there's no way that we're going to come up to
▶ 3:44:09$715 million. And it's not going to hurt everyday Americans. Yes, it will. And we owe it to them to look in their faces and tell them the truth. That's what we're attempting to do. God bless you for your incredible advocacy. Thank you for braving the the time and the challenge of moving with your entire family to be here. Coy, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for supporting your family.
▶ 3:44:38We will continue to work on your behalf. And I urge all my members to imprint in their faces, in their brains, young Connor. And remember, he's not able to fight for himself for himself, but we are able to fight for him. God bless you. And I yield back. Gentle. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from te the gentleman from Texas is recognized. Mr.
▶ 3:45:07Chairman of Mood Strike, last word. So recognized. Um, you know, one of the things that I wanted to bring light to and talk a lot about this tariff deal is the small businesses because no one's really talking about the small businesses when it comes to these tariffs. There's been a lot of talk about how much this is going to cost car manufacturers and big a and other people, but no one's really talking about the the the small business owner.
▶ 3:45:34And there was one gentleman that was featured in the Wall Street Journal that said that he was going to have to pay a $9,000 fee for a $5,500 order. There have been small businesses that have employed five people and they've had to lay off one uh business that have employed 20 people and they've had to lay off three or four. Businesses saying they're not going to be able to get merchandise in.
▶ 3:45:56uh and it's going to really put a strain on them and it's going to be hard on them and it's going to put uh a lot of downward pressure on the economy and uh I wanted to be clear uh this is about protecting American consumers the option slice amendment that I'm talking on here uh and ensuring that the bill does not worsen uh the burden they're already feeling from high energy costs uh if this legislation is truly about affordability then it cannot ignore the reality that tariffs especially those imposed without
▶ 3:46:26coordination or strategic rationale uh can raise prices on everything from natural gas to solar panels to the critical minerals we need uh for energy technologies and for national defense. Uh this amendment uh ensures that we are not handing out giveaways or pushing regulatory changes at the expense of American families. Uh all while tariffs and uh liberation day also known as liquidation day quietly drives up cost. Uh we need a baseline level of economic honesty here.
▶ 3:46:57If we're going to overhaul parts of our energy system, let's at least ensure we are not doing it under artificial price distortions that make uh it it cost uh to real Americans. Uh this isn't about this is absolutely not about partisanship. It's about accountability and economic realism.
▶ 3:47:16If Republicans want to argue that their energy provisions are good for consumers, then they should not have a problem making sure that those policies don't kick in while import tariffs are artificially uh inflating uh prices. Uh let's help these small business owners out that are really taking it to the teeth. Man, they are they are hurting. Um I urge my colleagues to make sure that this common sense amendment uh passes.
▶ 3:47:41Let's make sure that this bill uh does what it claims and doesn't become another backdoor subsidy scheme while families in Texas uh and across the country uh foot uh the bill during uh the chaos caused by these tariffs. Thank you, Mr. Would you? I I I yield the uh I'd like to yield time to Mr. Carter from Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beasy. In my haste in introducing the Cochrans, I did not recognize Cooper uh the big brother who's here to support his brother um or little brother. Big brother, little brother.
▶ 3:48:12Little brother here to support his big brother along with the family. Cooper, thank you for for your your being here as well. Thank you. I yield, Mr. Chairman. I back. The gentleman yields. A gentleman from California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we're seeing here today is a travesty. Republicans ran on inflation. They promised to bring down costs for American families, but now once in office, they're pushing policies that will do the exact opposite.
▶ 3:48:42Policies that will raise the cost of living for working Americans across the country. It's wrong. It's obscene. And it's a slap in the face to the families we're here to serve. An estimate just last month found that Trump's tariffs would cost the average household near nearly $5,000 every single year. That's not a rounding error. That's groceries, utility bills, gas in the tank, medication for a child with asthma. That's $5,000 a year taken straight out of a workingclass family's pocket.
▶ 3:49:12And you want to talk about unpredictability. These tariffs are completely chaotic. As my colleague, Mr. Ashen Claus, pointed out, one day they're on, the next they're off. One product is hit, another isn't. You've got some energy imports exempt from tariffs under USMCA, others slapped with a 10% rate, and the rest subject to whatever so-called reciprocal rate another country decides.
▶ 3:49:37On top of that, we're talking about a blanket 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, key inputs for nearly every single clean energy pro project in the country. This isn't strategy. It's whiplash economic policy. It's confusing and it's a green light for corporations to jack up prices whether tariffs are in effect or not. That's what happens when you create uncertainty. Corporations hedge their bets. And guess who pays the price?
▶ 3:50:06The consumer, working families every time. And what does this mean in practice? It means gas prices go up, electricity bills go up, the cost of heating and cooling in your homes goes up. That's not theory. That's reality. It's especially real in places like my district in the desert where utility bills already stretch family budgets thin and extreme heat is a matter of life and death. This bill doesn't fix the problem. It makes it worse.
▶ 3:50:34It adds more instability to an already volatile situation. And it does it at the expense of American families. And while our Republican colleagues are doubling down on tariffs and make life more expensive, they're also gutting the very programs that would help bring costs down and build a stronger, more resilient economy. Programs that actually put America first, that create jobs, that move us toward energy independence.
▶ 3:51:00Let's talk about one of those programs, the Department of Energy Loans Programs Office, the LPO. This is the smartest strategic investment in American workers, American innovation, and American energy. Since its founding, the LPO has supported over 38 billion in loans. It helped create more than 70,000 jobs and back transformative projects like Tesla's first electric vehicle factory and Ford's advanced battery facilities. These are jobs that stay in America.
▶ 3:51:30These are technologies that keep us competitive on the global stage. In my district in the Imperial County, the LPO is playing a key role in turning the region into lithium valley. This region sits at top uh of the fifth largest known lithium reserve in the world. And the LPO is helping unlock that potential not with fossil fuels or pollution, but with cutting edge clean energy technologies. This is about more than just the economy in my district.
▶ 3:51:59It's about national security. It's about positioning the US as a global leader in the battery supply chain, ensuring the batteries that power our electrical vehicles and store our renewable energy are made right here at home. We are reducing our dependence on foreign adversaries like China. We are building the infrastructure for the clean energy economy of the future and we're doing it with American workers, American resources, and American ingenuity.
▶ 3:52:27That's what America first should mean. But instead of doubling down on programs like the LPO, Republicans are trying to defund them. And if they succeed, we risk losing over $80 billion in pending clean energy projects across the country. These are projects that create jobs, that stabilize our energy grid, that reduce costs in the long term, that help rural communities like those in Imperial County work to build a clean energy economy with dignity and opportunity.
▶ 3:52:55Let's be clear, cutting this funding doesn't just stall progress. It sends a message that we're stepping back, that we're seating leadership to others like China. And that's not something I'm willing to accept for my district, for California, or for this country. So, I strongly support Mr. Ashen Claus's amendment because we need transparency. We need consistency. We need economic policies that work for American families, not against them. Let's stop playing the political games with tariffs that are hurting people.
▶ 3:53:24Let's invest in our future in clean energy and innovation, in job creation. Let's make lithium valley the beating heart of America's energy future and ensure that promises we make to our constituents are promises we keep. I yield back. The gentleman yields. If there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. The gentleman, the ranking member requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. La. No. Mr. La votes no.
▶ 3:53:55Mr. Griffith. Mr. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Billerus Mr. Baracus votes no. Mr. Hudson Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:54:23Palmer votes no. Mr. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulier.
▶ 3:54:53Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks Mrs. Kamik no Mrs. Kamik votes no. Obernulti Mr. Obernolulti votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:55:24James. Mr. James votes no. Mr. Ben Mr. Ben votes no. Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee. Miss. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kain Mr.
▶ 3:55:54Roelly Mr. Roelly votes no Mr. Evans Mr. Evans votes no Mr. Goldman Mr. Goldman votes no Mrs. Fedorek Mr. Fedorch votes no. Mr. Palone Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Get Mr. Get votes I. Miss Shakowski I. Miss Shakowski votes I.
▶ 3:56:24Miss Matsui I. Miss Matsuie votes I. Miss Caster I. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss. Clark. Miss. Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I.
▶ 3:56:54Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vzy votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly. Votes. I. Miss. Badon. Miss. Badon. Votes. I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto. Votes. I. Miss. Shrier. Miss. Shrier. Votes. I. Miss. Miss Treyanne votes I. Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes I.
▶ 3:57:24Miss Okaziocortez. Mr. Okasiocortez votes I. Mr. Oenclaus. Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Menendez votes I. Mr. Mullen Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman Mr. Lansman votes I.
▶ 3:57:55Miss Mlullen M. Mlen votes I. Chairman Chairman Guthrie votes no. Is Mr. Weber recorded? Mr. Weber is not How's Dr. Miller Meeks recorded? Dr. Miller Meeks is not recorded. Miss Miller Meeks votes no. Is there anyone else who wish to be recognized to The clerk will report.
▶ 3:58:32Mr. Chairman, on that vote there were 24 eyes and 29 nos. The nos have it. The motion is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Env3. Sorry, the gentleman repeat. I apologize. Next title. I apologize. You can go to this title.
▶ 3:59:04I move that the committee do now approve and agree to transmit to the House Committee on the Budget Subtitle A, Budget Reconciliation, Legislative Recommendations Relating to Energy. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. La. Mr. La votes I. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Billis.
▶ 3:59:35Mr. Billis votes I. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes I. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn votes I. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes I. Mr. Joyce I. Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber.
▶ 4:00:06Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Allen I. Mr. Allen votes I. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes I. Mr. Fulier. Mr. Fulture votes I. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes I. Mrs. Harshburgger, Mrs. Miller Meeks, Mrs. Miller Meeks, votes I. Mrs.
▶ 4:00:36Kamik, I Mrs. Kamik votes I. Mr. Obernulti, Mr. Obernulti votes I. Mr. James, Mr. James votes I. Mr. Bence, Mr. Ben votes I. Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Miss Hchin votes I. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes I. Miss Lee.
▶ 4:01:05Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Roelly. Mr. Roelly votes I. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes I. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes I. Mrs. Fedorch I. Mrs. Fedorek votes I. Mr. Palone.
▶ 4:01:35Mr. Palone votes no. Miss Dette. Miss Dette votes no. Miss Shakowski no. Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsui. No. Miss Matsui votes no. Miss Caster no. Miss Caster votes no. Mr. Tonko, no. Mr. Tonko votes no. Miss Clark, Miss Clark, votes no. Mr.
▶ 4:02:05Ruiz, Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters, Mr. Peters votes no. Mrs. Dingle, Mrs. Dingle votes no. Mr. Vzy, Mr. Vzy votes no. Miss Kelly, no. Miss Kelly votes no. Miss Bagon Miss Bagon votes no. Mr. Sodto. Mr.
▶ 4:02:35Sodto votes no. Miss Shrier no. Miss Shrier votes no. Miss Treyan. Miss Treyan votes no. Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Okasio Cortez. Miss Okaziocortez votes no. Mr. Oenclaus, no. Mr. Oenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana, no. Mr.
▶ 4:03:04Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Mendez, no. Mr. Mendez votes no. Mr. Mullen, no. Mr. Mullen votes no. Mr. Lansman, no. Mr. Lansman votes no. M. Mlen. M. Mlen votes no. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes I. How is Mr. Carter of Georgia recorded? Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded.
▶ 4:03:35I. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes I. How is Mr. Palmer recorded? Mr. Palmer is not Mr. Palmer votes I. How was Dr. Harshburgger recorded? Mrs. Harshburgger is not recorded. Mrs. Harshburgger votes I. Is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized to vote? The clerk will report.
▶ 4:04:09Mr. Chairman, on that vote there were 29 eyes and 24 nos. The eyes have it. The motion is agreed to. The chair calls up committee print subtitle B environment and asks the clerk to report title four
▶ 4:04:40energy and commerce subtitle B environment. Without objection, the reading of the committee print is dispensed with and the committee print will be open for amendment at any point ordered. Is there discussion or amendments to subtitle B? For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition? Uh, Mr. Chairman to strike the last word on the subtitle. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you.
▶ 4:05:03Subtitle B is a radical proposal that would gut critical environmental protections and programs harming the health and welfare of all Americans. This print seeks to both repeal and resin unobligated funds for every environmental protection agency program included in the inflation reduction act.
▶ 4:05:22Republicans also proposed to repeal clean vehicle standards finalized by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, jeopardizing air quality and domestic manufacturing, giving a leg up to the fossil fuel industry. And none of this is a surprise to anybody. The bill continues the Republican political obsession with dismantling the inflation reduction act.
▶ 4:05:44And since the law was enacted, they have targeted these climate, clean energy, and public health programs with countless sham hearings and so-called oversight activities. And they've tried to repeal, reprogram, and claw back these funds in the bill, bill after bill, I should say, considered by the House. What's striking is that most, if not all of the IRA funds have already been invested in communities across the country, both red and blue states, and they're working.
▶ 4:06:12So today, they're now attempting to undermine landmark programs that hold polluters accountable as well. And programs like the greenhouse gas reduction fund, the environmental justice block grants, the methane emissions and waste reduction incentive program, the climate pollution reduction grants, the clean ports program, the clean heavy duty vehicles including school buses. All of these now are being undermined by this committee print section B.
▶ 4:06:39And when Congress passed the IRA, we made a critical and historic down payment toward a stable climate and shared economic opportunity powered by Americanmade clean energy because we want to create a clean future for all. But this bill proposes to throw that all away by eliminating the environmental protections that keep families and communities safe while doing absolutely nothing to lower energy costs. The same I want to I'll repeat this all night, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:07:06And the fact of the matter is that Republicans promised, President Trump promised that on day one he was going to reduce prices, make things more affordable. And there's nothing in here, everything that they do in this print and the rest of the prints tonight and the rest of the section tonight simply makes things more expensive, not more affordable. And all this is in the service of providing tax breaks for billionaires, for large corporate interests. That's why they're doing it. And I think it's outrageous.
▶ 4:07:34And so I urge my colleagues to oppose this print this section as well. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields. Does anyone seek recognition to speak on the underlying bill? Mr. Tonka is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. So recognized. Thank you. I was proud to serve as the environment subcommittee chair when the historic investments being targeted today were enacted into law.
▶ 4:07:58They were an important down payment to reduce pollution while helping us uh usher in America's next great manufacturing renaissance. So I read the chairman's Wall Street Journal op-ed with great interest. And regarding the Energy and Environment subtitles, he suggested that this proposal is targeting the most reckless parts of the Inflation Reduction Act and that it is ending an agenda that quote favors wokeness over sensible policy. Well, with all due respect, this is complete nonsense.
▶ 4:08:28And when the American people hear about the specific funding being cut, they will agree. So maybe someone from the majority can explain which of these programs are reckless and too woke. Is it the $12 million in unobligated funds to reduce air pollution in schools? You don't need to be a climate activist crony, to use the chairman's phrase, to want to send your children to a safe and yet healthy learning environment. How about DOE money to train contractors that retrofit people's homes?
▶ 4:08:57Do only radical environmentalists want the people coming into their homes to work on electric wiring to be properly trained? Of course not. What about money to upgrade our ports with the latest and greatest technologies? Now, we all know that thanks to President Trump's tariffs, there's a lot less activity at our ports these days. But looking long term, I know many members of this committee want to see their local ports modernized and the people that live near those ports to have less exposure to harmful air pollution.
▶ 4:09:26Majority is scrging around to save $3 million for the implementation of the AIM Act, which was signed into law by President Trump with strong support from American manufacturers. $3 million is a small price to pay to make certain that American companies lead the world in next generation refrigerant technologies and Chinese companies aren't able to illegally dump their highly polluting products into the US. These are just a few examples.
▶ 4:09:54There are plenty more common sense investments being targeted today that are creating American jobs and deploying new technologies that will indeed reduce pollution. And when you start to list them out, you can really see how ridiculous this proposal is. So the question becomes, if this subtitle results in the recision of funds to reduce air pollution at schools and the other things I mentioned, why on earth would the Republicans be doing it?
▶ 4:10:20Well, for one, we know that these funds will be used to partially offset yet another round of tax cuts, the benefits of which will overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest. We also know the energy subtitle includes unconscionable giveaways to the fossil fuel industry that will allow them to build whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of how many state governments have concerns, how many land owners may lose their properties, or how much environmental damage might be caused.
▶ 4:10:49These provisions don't exist in a vacuum. President Trump is doing everything possible to stop federal scientific efforts to further our understanding of climate change and its consequences. But burying our heads in the sand will not change the basic facts that are changing climate is already having tremendous impacts to our national security, our economy, our property values, our insurance rates, and so much more that is resulting in increasing costs for everyday Americans.
▶ 4:11:16History will judge us for having known so much and having done so little to mitigate the worst consequences of climate change. And future generations will save their harshest judgments for those who have actively sought to take us backwards. All so that fossil fuel executives continue to reap major profits and billionaires, yep, get their tax cuts.
▶ 4:11:37Let's reject these cuts, which will result in more air pollution and public health harms at a time when Republicans are simultaneously causing nearly 14 million Americans, many of the most vulnerable Americans, to lose their health insurance. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Gentleman yields. The gentleman from California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:11:58You know in our environment subcommittee I have often said that air pollution uh is harming uh many communities. Uh in fact uh the science have shown that individuals who live in high air polluted communities live on average 10 years less than individuals who do not live in air polluted communities.
▶ 4:12:27Children in communities that suffer from high air pollution have higher rates of asthma. Seniors have higher rates of emergency department visits due to COPD and inhyma exacerbations due to poor air quality in their communities.
▶ 4:12:50And all along uh we've been hearing their altruism about protecting children and seniors uh from these horrendous Medicaid cuts. And this is one example about how those exact same populations are going to get hurt by this bill. For example, cutting federal funding for clean air in schools will put even more children at risks.
▶ 4:13:17Uh, cutting funding for air monitors will prevent school districts and others from adjusting their schedules to protect children. Uh, the science is clear. Students exposed to air pollution perform worse on tests and have lower attendance. Clean air is not just a health issue. It's an education issue and an equity issue.
▶ 4:13:44I have treated children in our communities struggling to breathe, missing school, and ending up in the emergency department just because of the air that they breathe every day. Programs like cowshape were making real progress, upgrading outdated ventilation systems, filtering out dust and pesticides, and giving our kids a fair shot at a healthy education.
▶ 4:14:13These are the programs we should be funding, not cutting. We have a duty to stand up for these children. Cutting air quality investments at schools hurts their health, their education, and their future. And we must protect and expand this funding, not eliminate it. Every child deserves to breathe clean air at school.
▶ 4:14:36You know, but in Imperial County where I represent and the Coachella Valley where I represent, I grew up, our students are learning in some of the most polluted air in the country. In Imperial County, over 20% of children suffer from asthma, the highest rate of childhood asthma in the state of California. more than double the national average. In some schools in the Coachella Valley, that number is as high as one in four children.
▶ 4:15:07My district has some of the highest asthma related hospitalization rates in the entire state, but yet you want to resend these fundings. You care about children, but you want to take away the fundings to help them breathe clean air. You want to take care of children, but you're causing an exacerbation of asthma in their childhood.
▶ 4:15:34You're ruining their ability to learn in school by taking away the programs and the fundings for them to have their air monitors and create good practices around the area to protect them from air pollution. So, I support the amendment and I urge all my colleagues for the sake of the children in schools and their ability to learn in a healthy environment to support that amendment as well.
▶ 4:16:04And I yield back. The gentleman yields. The gentle lady from Michigan is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm I'm not going to offer an amendment, but I want to just say that what this bill does is creating total chaos for the auto industry in repealing EPA's emission standards for light and medium duty vehicles and NITS's corporate average fuel economy standards. What the domestic auto industry needs now more than anything is certainty.
▶ 4:16:33My priority is to protect American jobs, maintain our competitive edge in automotive manufacturing, and ensure the United States leads in technology in innovation, and that we secede our leadership to nobody. Our policies must reflect the realities on the ground, prioritize consumer choice, and offer a practical, ambitious path forward. We need harmonized emissions and fuel economy standards.
▶ 4:17:01And we must preserve the inflation reductions IRA the IRA's tax incentives to remain globally competitive. People can't afford vehicles these days. It's an issue. A sustainable and unified regulatory approach is crucial for supporting innovation and long-term competitiveness in a global marketplace. And we need to be the leaders in the global marketplace.
▶ 4:17:27To remain competitive, the US must align with the global shift towards hybrids, electric vehicles, and down the road, who off knows what other technology. Here's a fact. The global marketplace wants EVs. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let China beat us in that market. And if we're going to lead, we got to produce them here.
▶ 4:17:47At the same time, our policies must meet the needs of American consumers and workers, ensuring that the transition to cleaner vehicles, supports US jobs and domestic manufacturing. And we're competing with China that subsidizes its manufacturing, manipulates its currency, and uses slave labor. We need to bring all stakeholders to they want to put us out of business and then take over. Well, we cannot let them do it.
▶ 4:18:13And it's our job as policy makers to support our domestic industry. We need to bring all the stakeholders to the table and find consensus on how to support a strong, stable auto industry that keeps a US at the forefront of mobility, innovation, and advanced manufacturing, which by the way, you also took that out just for the record.
▶ 4:18:35The administration should be working with labor, manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, environmental groups, and consumers to create achievable rules that support a range of technologies. Going to remind everybody, I know some of you are young, some of us are a little more seasoned. In the 70s, this industry lost a decade of competitiveness to Japan because we weren't ready with the small car market when gas prices went up.
▶ 4:19:03We need to innovate, adapt, and build vehicles competitively here at home. The global marketplace demands EVs and hybrids, and stakeholders need certainty that federal federal regulations will remain consistent as we transition to cleaner vehicles. And my colleague talked about the asthma in California. The auto industry's become a pingpong ball for everybody. And I it's not fair to remain leaders in global auto manufacturing.
▶ 4:19:31We need clear and consistent government policies. Policies that provide certainty, not chaos and uncertainty. This means investing in advanced manufacturing, securing domestic battery supply chains, and protecting the historic EV investments under the IRA. Repealing these standards just creates utter and total confusion. The future of the auto industry must be shaped in America and driven by American workers.
▶ 4:19:58I'm committed to working with everybody to make this happen, but this is not the way to do it in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose repealing EPA's emission standards and Nitsa's cafe standards. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. General Lady yields. The chair recognizes the ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say we have a special uh Senate guest.
▶ 4:20:22She's I I would I I have to be careful because I have my senator here, but the fact that she served for many years on this committee makes her very special more than the other senators. And that's of course Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester. Thank you for being here. And of course, she's concerned about Medicaid. That's why she's here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any amendments being offered to subtitle B?
▶ 4:20:50Chair recognizes a gentleman from amendment EVGN3. The clerk will report the amendment. Could you please repeat that amendment? Yes. Amendment ENV GN3.
▶ 4:21:20Amendment offered by Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Page eight, line one, strike repeal. And without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak in support of his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For more than 50 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has provided grants that both protect our constituents public health and enhance their environment.
▶ 4:21:42This is especially true for the environmental climate justice block grant program, which provides valuable funding that serves community centers, environmental rehabilitation projects, and public health revitalization initiatives that simply wouldn't be otherwise. These projects are providing environmental and public health benefits in Democratic and Republican districts alike.
▶ 4:22:06However, in this bill, Republicans ruthlessly claw back these grants and eliminate this program. For example, in my dear friend, representative who has a name just like mine in a district in Georgia, the city of Savannah has taken years to develop the 100% Savannah initiative, a collaborative between the city government, and community members to improve public health, increase economic opportunities, and ensure access to
▶ 4:22:36critical HVAC services for low-income residents. This initiative is in direct response to the devastating impacts of natural disasters such as hurricanes, flooding, and extreme heat. The city of Savannah sought federal sought federal assistance and received an environmental justice grant from the EPA to provide affordable and accessible HVAC services to make sure community members would have AC on those 90 plus degree summer days that we often have
▶ 4:23:06in the south. This grant would have also provided critical workforce training it to increase the local supply of electricians and skilled workers to uplift Savannah's economy. But Republicans are trying to get rid of this program entirely. Let me be clear. Residents in Savannah may die from dangerous heat waves without access to credible HVAC systems. all.
▶ 4:23:31So, Republicans give taxi rich people big big big tax breaks. We can't afford this. This is nothing new. Republicans have been attacking these grants in in messaging bills, oversight hearings, and harassing letters to grant recipients for years with false claims of fraud. They're chomping at the bit to steal the funds from poor communities to line the pockets of big money donors. They're stealing people's health care while making people sicker.
▶ 4:24:02So my amendment will simply ensure environmental and climate just justice block grants projects that improve health outcomes in lowincome communities do not lose critical funding under this bill. If Republicans can truly prioritize their constituents, they should easily agree with me that this funding is valuable and must be protected. I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and support this amendment.
▶ 4:24:28As we know, this has been very helpful to my colleague in Georgia who bears my name, Carter. Buddy, this has been good. Let's keep it. I yield. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes a gentleman from Virginia for five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, the problem with all these amendments are is we're getting into big fights over the language.
▶ 4:24:50Gentleman's amendment says that u it can't the unobligated amounts rescended under section A may not include amounts awarded to eligible entity for a grant used for protecting public health, improving health outcomes, or reducing the overall health impacts of environmental stressors for low-income households.
▶ 4:25:07The problem is is that a lot of these a lot of these things are used in areas where you look at one measure and you say, "Well, that helps the public out health outcome." But you look at another measure like when they shut down the coal industry in large measure, not completely, but in large measure in my district, public health outcomes got worse because people had less money. And the number one factor for determining health outcomes is whether or not folks have income. When they don't have income, their public health suffers.
▶ 4:25:37So it I don't know how you would ever determine I mean the stated purpose might be for these different reasons but in reality often times the stated purpose purpose is not what actually happens on the ground or in the field. I mean I recall having discussions with the Obama EPA administrator about some of the coal regulations they were putting into place which they would argue was for public health which put a lot of my people out of work.
▶ 4:26:06And when I also raised the issue that it would raise the cost of electricity in my region, which at one time in my lifetime was the third lowest in the country and now is is extremely high. The answer was, well, we have programs to take care of those people who can't afford the electricity, but that affected health. They couldn't argue it didn't affect health, but they didn't include that in their analysis when they passed those regulations. So, I I think we could get into arguments about this that would last all night.
▶ 4:26:36Wait, we're probably going to do that anyway. But notwithstanding that, I would hope that the folks uh on the committee would vote this amendment down. Uh I understand the gentleman is offering it with good intentions, but what we're trying to do is to make sure that our policies go forward that make sense. And I'm not sure a lot of these programs do that.
▶ 4:26:57and and I'm sure that the gentleman and we won't get into it now, but the gentleman from Alabama um would be happy to talk about some of the things that he's uncovering on the oversight investigation subcommittee. And with that, asking everybody to vote no, I yield back.
▶ 4:27:16The committee will stand in recess until 15 minutes after the last votes on the Who
▶ 5:22:29spoke? Okay. All right. The committee will come to order. I believe the last uh one to speak on the amendment was a gentleman from Virginia. So that opens up to a Democrat. Um Oh, yeah. Be recognized. And I believe the gentle lady from California. Well, I have two. The gentle lady from Northern California would like to be recognized for to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in support of the amendment.
▶ 5:22:59Gentle lady from Northern California is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I've long been a believer in the power of local action. When communities can address their own needs, they can create meaningful lasting change. And there was a time when the Republican party shared that view.
▶ 5:23:16So, I find it bitterly ironic to see Republicans on this committee reaching into the pockets of local communities across this country and stealing local funding to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The community change grants were created to support local community efforts to reduce pollution and enhance resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities most affected by extreme weather, flooding, and heat waves.
▶ 5:23:45These aren't abstract ones and zeros on a federal balance sheet. Much of this funding has already been awarded to local community organizations where it is already supporting projects on the ground. But President Trump and Elon Musk have illegally frozen these funds, preventing community organizations from accessing their funding so that Republicans here today could unlawfully claw back this legally and rightfully awarded funding.
▶ 5:24:15I know because I have a community change grant in my district. La Familia Counseling Center received $18.5 million to build a community resilience center and a new public park and install cost-saving energy upgrades in community homes while also providing workforce training to community members.
▶ 5:24:36La Familia has already started construction on this project and has drowned down some of the awarded funding, but the Trump EPA prevented Laafamilia from further accessing that funding despite signing a contract legally obligating EPA to provide the funding. And it's not just my district. Republicans are also stealing money from their own communities.
▶ 5:25:00$576 million in community change grants went to Republican congressional districts and to states represented here in this room. $40 million went to Georgia, $18 million to Ohio, 69 millions to Texas, $60 million to Virginia. These are your communities that you're taking from.
▶ 5:25:23Rescending community change grants as this bill does with strip funding from communities in over half of the states represented by my Republican colleagues on this committee. I urge my colleagues to support these important projects in your states and vote yes on this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time. Gentle lady yields back. Is there any member on the Republican side seeking recognition? Seeing none, the gentle lady from Southern California is recognized for five minutes to speak on the Thank you, Mr.
▶ 5:25:53Oh, I'm sorry. We have another S. I think she had a recognition next. Do Do you want to go? You want your shoes? I think she had for recognition that I'll go the other Southern California. So, good. So, the gentle lady is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word in support of the amendment. Um, at the same time, House Republicans try to strip health care from millions of Americans. their budget will pollute our air and our water. Um, one of my colleagues asked if we had gone through and we looked at the bill or we had read the bill.
▶ 5:26:23Um, there is a provision in the bill for those of you who I know are waiting for more Medicaid conversation. Um, there's a provision in the bill that will repeal and resend funding to address air pollution at schools. I mean, think about this for a second. there is a repeal and they're going to try to take away money uh that will go to help address air pollution at schools. I mean, we're talking about kids.
▶ 5:26:52We're talking about children. They do not care about the air pollution at schools and that your children are inhaling and are being harmed from. So, just think about that when you think about healthcare and Medicaid. They don't care about that either. Okay.
▶ 5:27:11If we're going to go after kids at schools and saying, "No, you it's okay for you to have dirty air, um, which by the way is going to lead to health problems, and which by the way is going to lead to more asthma and respiratory illnesses. It's going to cost us all more money. Um, but I want to speak uh about this amendment that uh my colleague has. It also means cuts to clean energy and clean water investments that reduce pollution in our communities.
▶ 5:27:41This harms public health. One program Republicans eliminate in this bill is the environmental and climate justice block grants. Last fall, the EPA announced hundreds of grants for local projects. Here are just some of the projects that were announced in Michigan. in Benton Harbor.
▶ 5:28:00A $20 million grant to Benton Harbor in Michigan to fund energy efficiency upgrades for low-income households to save them money and a re renovation of the city's community center. This is in Michigan 4 and Representative Huena's district. Just think about that. There's money for low-income folks to help save them money. This administration promised on day one to bring down prices. yet they're undoing the very things they're going to help people save money.
▶ 5:28:30The Trump EPA has already tried to cancel it, this project, which the mayor said would be a huge blow to the community. This bill doubles down and cancels that program. Uh the next program is in uh the speaker's own district, Speaker Johnson's district. Even Speaker Johnson applied for these grants and for this money to go to his district as he should.
▶ 5:28:54But even in that district, uh, he supported the city of Menden and Louisiana Tech University's application titled, and I'm quoting, "Empowering communities with innovative solutions to reduce pollution, build climate resilience, and improve public health project." End quote. So, we looked up the proposed project.
▶ 5:29:13It would provide, or I should say after Republicans cut this program, it would have provided, and I'm quoting, cutting edge water treatment processes to monitor and reduce pollutants in drinking water and wastewater. Another project uh is clean water in rural California. This is another Republican district, California 5, where California uh can relate to the need for clean water in our state.
▶ 5:29:40The community water center was awarded an EPA grant to provide clean water infrastructure for the rural lowincome communities of Paharo and Sunny Messa and Springfield. Representative Mcccleintok represents this area. Without this project, they will continue to drink unsafe water. Their grant has been held in limbo by the EPA administrator, Lee Zeldon. Now, the environmental justice program that supports it is cancelled by this bill.
▶ 5:30:10So, if Republicans went through each project that's funded through the climate and environmental justice block grants, I think they would find it hard to uh cut every single one of these. And that's because they're not really interested. They're just looking for places to cut. Why? To give tax breaks to billionaires. That's why we're here.
▶ 5:30:32We're looking for places to cut, whether it's health care, whether it is dollars to address air pollution, uh, to give tax breaks to the rich. Um, the truth is that Republican cuts will make our communities less healthy, and the cuts will lead to higher rates of cancer, to asthma, and hospitalization.
▶ 5:30:54Even worse, they are tied to a bill with the largest Medicaid cut in history, which will make it more expensive for Americans to get treated for the harm caused by pollution. That's wrong. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican cuts to clean energy and environmental justice programs. And I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The chair recognizes any Republican members seeking recognition. Gentleman from California, you seek recognition to speak on the amendment. Thank you.
▶ 5:31:20I uh speak out in support of this amendment which is against cutting grants to improve environmental health in lowincome communities. There has been a repeated attempt by this Republic Congress to harm low-income communities in order to give tax breaks to mil to billionaires. Republicans are trying to cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Justice Programs that protect our most vulnerable communities. Let me be clear.
▶ 5:31:50Gutting these programs will harm the health and well-being of millions of Americans, especially those living in lowincome neighborhoods, communities of color, tribal lands, and rural areas like the ones I represent in California's 25th district, and the ones that many Republicans on this committee represent. These programs are not abstract bureaucracies. They are lifelines.
▶ 5:32:15When you cut funding for the EPA, you cut the very people and tools responsible for monitoring air quality, cleaning up toxic waste sites, and enforcing laws that prevent polluters from poisoning our communities. When you defund environmental justice initiatives, you silence the voices of lowincome and rural communities that have long been ignored and overburdened by pollution.
▶ 5:32:40communities that already face higher rates of asthma, cancer, birth effects, and chronic disease due to environmental exposures. In the eastern Coachella Valley, I represent families who live near illegal dumping grounds and outdated water systems. I represent children who struggle to breathe because of unpaved roads and constant dust and pollution from semi-truckss on nearby interstates. We have asthma hospitalization rates amongst the highest in the state.
▶ 5:33:10We need more investments in clean energy, not less. These programs matter. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice helps frontline communities access grants to replace diesel trucks, pave roads, remove hazardous waste, and monitor industrial pollution. It provides the science, technical support, and accountability that these neighborhoods need to fight back against a systemic injustice.
▶ 5:33:38Slashing these resources would deepen health disparities, increase economic hardship, and send a clear message that some lives and some communities matter less. We cannot allow that to happen. Defunding the EPA and environmental justice programs would also weaken enforcement of landmark laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
▶ 5:34:02It would embolden polluters, reduce transparency, and shift the burden of proof onto already overburdened families who are too often forced to choose between clear clean air and a place to live. This is not fiscal responsibility. It's a moral failure. Every dollar we cut from these programs today will cost us many more in health care expenses, lost productivity, and environmental cleanup down the road. But more importantly, it will cost us lives.
▶ 5:34:33I came to Congress to be a voice for the voiceless. As a doctor, I believe in treating root causes, not just symptoms. And the root causes of environmental justice are systemic disinvestments, policy neglect, and political indifference. Just like this bill, we must reject any budget that tries to balance the books by sacrificing the health of poor communities.
▶ 5:34:57Instead, we should be expanding investments in environmental justice, strengthening community-led initiatives, and ensuring that all Americans, no matter their income, race, or zip code, have the right to breathe clean air, have the right to drink safe water, and live free from toxic exposure. So, I urge my colleagues to protect and fully fund the EPA and environmental justice program.
▶ 5:35:25Let's stand on the side of health, fairness, and dignity for all. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there any one seeking recognition to speak on the amendment? The gentleman from New Jersey seeks recognition. He's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank my colleague um Mr. Carter for for offering this amendment. You know, often when we talk about environmental justice, our friends across the aisle roll their eyes. They scoff at the idea of what is environmental injustice?
▶ 5:35:54It's not a thing. We don't need to talk about it. So, I want to just add a little context to it. Environmental justice initiatives are lifelines for communities that are a higher risk of adverse health impacts from exposure to pollution and other environmental challenges. So, in my district, the Ironbound section of Newark, 25% of children living there suffer from asthma. That's three times the state average. And it isn't just their health that suffers.
▶ 5:36:22When we talk about environmental justice, we're talking about children's education. Asthma is the leading cause of absenteeism in schoolage children. Which is why it's so obscene that today Republicans want to cut funding that would address air pollution at schools. I would just ask the American people like what part of addressing air pollution at schools is controversial. I don't think there's anything controversial about, and this is not just Democratic states or blue states.
▶ 5:36:52When we talk about environmental justice, we're talking about mining related pollution in Appalachia. We're talking about water crisises in Alabama and Michigan. We're talking about overburned communities that exist across the country and across party lines. So, speaking about across party lines, another one of our Republican colleagues from Oregon has a district that has been awarded multiple grants at risk from this reconciliation bill that would be saved by my amendment. You're welcome.
▶ 5:37:19First is the Columbia Gorge Early Learning and Resilience Center located right outside of Portland in a rural low-income community of the Dolls, Oregon. This grant-f funded project would renovate a 70-year-old school building into a community center that protects public health and provides valuable resources for local residents. That sounds like a home run project to me.
▶ 5:37:43The center would provide child care for up to 200 children, create an on-site learning laboratory, and provide vocational scholarships for students to pursue careers in fields such as engineering or agriculture. That's fantastic. But the same party that claims to be the party of families wants to shut down a grant that would help some of those families with child care. The irony is staggering.
▶ 5:38:06This is all while also creating a renewable energypowered refuge that will protect our most vulnerable residents during extreme weather events like wildfires and winter storms. When the lights go out and the community needs critical heat and services, Republicans turn the other way, even at the risk of their own constituents lives. Unfortunately, the $20 million EPA grant to carry out this valuable mission was unjustly and illegally terminated last month.
▶ 5:38:35Similarly, another grant in Oregon, the Chillo Quinn Community Resilience Hub and Municipal Center would have remediated a Brownfield site into an emergency shelter, municipal space, and community education center. We all sat here weeks ago and touted the Brownfields program as a bipartisan program and yet here we are trying to cut the funding for a Brownfield site that would serve as a critical community hub in a Republican district.
▶ 5:39:04The center would also provide training and education opportunities for a a population that lives in a rural and historically underserved area. The project was awarded a $16.3 million EPA environmental justice grant. Great job getting that for your community, but it was also illegally and arbitrarily canled last month. Now, like that congressman from Oregon want to get rid of the program entirely.
▶ 5:39:34To me, the conclusion is clear. Republicans are willing to withhold nearly $40 million from one congressional district alone from his own constituents to give tax breaks to those who need them the least. So in addition to healthcare, we're not just talking about Democratic environmental priorities. We're talking about cutting funding for programs that will impact districts across the country. And that's why everyone should support this amendment to ensure that you bring those dollars home to your district.
▶ 5:40:05Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you. The gentleman yields back and I will recognize myself to speak on the amendment and yield to my good friend from Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I just want to point out that these provisions that we're talking about only apply as far as this bill is concerned to the unobligated balances. So, if a grant was already given um as far as this bill is concerned, then that would still be going forward. So, yield back to me. So everyone that was listed if the grants have been awarded as projects or not.
▶ 5:40:34If the grant has already is has already been granted and the money is obligated then this then our language does not affect that. Will the gentleman General Yes. After my time. Yes, I'll yield. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify.
▶ 5:40:48I understand uh the statement to be that uh this this particular legislation doesn't deal with the already obligated funds, but isn't it true that the administration is rescending the grants and um pulling back the money from the projects like my colleague from New Jersey was just explaining. I know that there have been grants um under various programs in my community. One for example uh to help build sidewalks and tree canopy.
▶ 5:41:16It is amazing to think about in my district there is a a 17 degree difference in the temperature during the summer between uh the poorest neighborhoods and the wealthiest and they have no trees. They have no tree kidney.
▶ 5:41:29which is great program to try to build sidewalks, put in trees and address some of these challenges that it gets real hot in Houston and uh this is really important program but I know the funds for that have been revoked and so is the statement that this won't do anything to those but there are still these grants being revoked or are we trying to preserve those grants in this legislation and just the already obligated funds? Are are we protecting those in this?
▶ 5:41:55Well, this legislation does not does not take does not close the grants on any obligated funds and that the executive actions. Well, my understand I'll yield to my friend from Virginia if you'd like to answer that. I'm happy to to say that. Let me Virginia and I'll yield to you. I don't know what the u I don't know what the administration is doing per se to the specific uh grants that were mentioned, but I would say that this amendment specifically talks about the unobligated amounts as well.
▶ 5:42:24So that whether it be the bill or the amendment, this this action that we take does not impact that action that may or may not be going on in the administration. I know it's it's confusing for folks back home as well to understand that not administration does not always tell us everything they're doing because they're doing so many things. Will the gentleman yield briefly while address I'll second while yeah I don't have the floor.
▶ 5:42:53I'm I've I've been yielded time so I have to finish and then I yield back sir to the chair. And so um I um I can't speak for the administration on this. That's a whole different ballgame. But what we're debating tonight is the bill in front of us. And what we're debating right now is the amendment. Neither the bill in front of us nor the amendment deal with the issues that the gentleman previously raised.
▶ 5:43:20And so that's why I ask folks to vote no on the amendment and yes on the bill. Thank you. Gentleman from Louisiana, I'll yield to you. Um and and and I'm happy to have an opportunity to address that because those comments are not exactly correct. If the administrator Zeldon is successful in terminating these critical grant programs in his misguided attempt to gut the agency, these grants will be subject to recision. It's very clear. So the notion that it's been awarded, it's not going to be impacted. That's a little disingenuous.
▶ 5:43:50So I want to clear that up for the record. I yield. Thank you. I'll yield. But to back to the gentleman from Virginia, you want to Okay. I will I will You want to speak, M gentleman from Virginia? Yeah. Go ahead. And what I would say, Mr.
▶ 5:44:03Chairman, is is that that may be true for a future recision, but we can't we can't resend uh expenditures that have already been obligated and for purposes of this reconciliation, we can't look at the crystal ball and decide what might happen in the future. Mr. Chairman, will you yield? Let me let him finish and see. So, I I would just have to say, Mr.
▶ 5:44:27chairman that that you know if you wanted to game it out three or four steps the gentleman may be correct at some point we might have this again for a different recision but as of tonight as of right now that money is not available to us because it's been obligated if it's been if it is unobligated at the time of passage then we have then that might be a different story but as of right now that's not the case 20 seconds 20 seconds so I'm so happy to hear Mr.
▶ 5:44:56Griffin say that money that has been appropriated can't be taken back. Would you be willing to say that to the Trump administration who is cutting money that this Congress has appropriated all over the country and and if what you say is correct and I'd love to see that enforced across the board. We know that isn't the truth. My time has expired and I you'll back my time. Is there any discussion on the re I had to Republican say any on the Democrat side? Seeing none, there's on the amendment.
▶ 5:45:28Oh, here's a hand. I'm excuse me. I'm sorry. I didn't see. Gentle lady from Virginia is recognized for five minutes. Yeah, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. Thank you. I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding. So, I mean, but part of this is is to be fair about looking back in terms of where we had gone previously and the things that we were able to do in prior congresses that have that have benefited so many Americans across the country in blue and red districts. And you're seeing the administration illegally again cancel those grants.
▶ 5:45:58And so now this bill is a continuation of the administration's priorities to gut all funding that would go to environmental justice initiatives across the country. Now, you may say, "Well, you're from New Jersey, so of care, of course you care about environmental justice." I do.
▶ 5:46:12But when you see that money had gone out to places as far as Oregon and rural, lowincome places, you would say to yourself, why are we going to cut potential funding that we could have go to benefit rural, suburban, urban districts across the country and create healthier outcomes for all Americans. And so, this bill is a continuation of all the harm that this administration has done. That's what we are voting on. That is correct. And what my amendment does is say, let's just stop the harm. Let's just stop the harm.
▶ 5:46:43Why are we going to continue to target communities and not provide them with the resources that they need to create healthier outcomes for their residents, including their most vulnerable? Right? Because in addition to the amendment that Mr. Carter offered, there's also the fact that you all want to cut funding for air pollution at schools or to study and prevent air pollution at schools. So, there's a lot of good that we can do together. This bill does none of that.
▶ 5:47:09It's a continuation of this administration's harmful approach to gutting programs that create healthier outcomes for all Americans again in rural, suburban, urban areas, blue and red districts. That's the reason to support this amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. car's amendment so we can get on back on track and start doing things that will benefit all of our constituents. With that, I yield back to my colleague from Virginia. If there's any time, I'll take a yield.
▶ 5:47:40Um, well, I wanted to use some of it, but go ahead. Um, I just want to I know this bill is also not just about taking the unappropriated balances, but repealing the program altogether that was supposed to be open at least through 2026.
▶ 5:48:00And I know the Trump administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like the word environmental justice, but what environmental justice is designed to do is recognize there are communities in this country, white, black, mostly lowincome, urban, and where projects mostly energy projects were put in place with no input from from the community.
▶ 5:48:31In some communities like Charles City County in my district, they've got two pipelines. They had two natural gas companies that were supposed to come through and by the time the community found out about it, they were so far down the path, there was little they could do to fix it. That has been happening for probably over a century. And these are the same communities that have some of the poorest health outcomes in the country.
▶ 5:48:56And what the environmental justice grants were designed to do is say, "We recognize that the public policy made to put all of these facilities in communities where the people didn't have the resources to fight back or even know it was happening and therefore have higher incidences of asthma and cancer and many other things. We're going to invest in those communities." And what this bill effectively does is says, "I'm sorry.
▶ 5:49:24We screwed you for centuries and we're going to keep screwing you going forward." And that's not justice. And and that's one area where people in my district and people in my colleague from Virginia's district agree on with the Mountain Valley pipeline was we want a say in what comes in our communities.
▶ 5:49:49And when things are in our communities that hurt our health, we want some sort of mitigation. And some of these grants went to Southwest Virginia to help mitigate that. And some of them went to my district to mitigate that. And we should want to help address centuries of injustice in this country that harmed the very people who didn't have the power to fight back and stop it.
▶ 5:50:19That's what we're trying to do on their behalf. And this this bill guts this program altogether. I yield Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amend. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to the representative from Virginia, Mr. I thank the gentleman. A couple of things that have come up. One, the amendment deals with the unobligated amounts.
▶ 5:50:45So, when people say things about, well, the future, this amendment doesn't do that. And that's what we're debating is this amendment. It doesn't do that. says the unobligated amounts rescended under section A may not include amounts used for etc etc the public health improving health outcomes and I addressed that before we left etc. And then I've heard a lot of discussion about the the schools and the programs.
▶ 5:51:13And the problem is is that thus far all of that money has gone into not schools. It's gone into think tanks to study what they might do someday if we appropriate additional money that would then go to the schools. So is it really all that valuable?
▶ 5:51:34because I will tell you that if we really wanted to go in that direction as as the chairman of the committee knows, we could probably just get um our former colleague from West Virginia to tell us all about it because he studied it for years. We don't need to spend millions of dollars. He can tell you what you need to be doing in the schools if that's what the intent is.
▶ 5:51:55Instead, we spent all this money or we spent a lot of money on that and we're just getting back the unobligated balances in in um and that's what this amendment deals with and I understand that. But if the intent was to go elsewhere, that's not what this amendment says and it's not what this amendment does and I thank the gentleman and I yield my time back to the gentleman from Florida. I I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Further discussion on the amendment.
▶ 5:52:23Seeing on the Democrat side, the gentleman from Alabama is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I I try to listen uh attentively to what my colleagues say and and um try to learn some things. And one of the things that I find interesting is that air quality has improved dramatically.
▶ 5:52:48I might encourage you to look at the EPA data on this u to show how much air quality has improved yet asthma rates have gone up and I I understand the concerns about it. My brother has struggled with asthma u but I'm not sure that you can draw a direct line between u air quality and and an increase in asthma. There may be other factors involved here.
▶ 5:53:15lowquality uh, trees, a number of of other environmental factors. I mean, you can look this up yourself if you if you want to. U, I've heard members try to insinuate that asthma is caused by pollution and the research indicates that they we really don't know what causes it. Could be a number of factors.
▶ 5:53:40The other thing is I keep hearing them talk about environmental justice and sometimes that I grew up in a very rural area. My dad had about an eighth grade education. We um literally the first house I lived in didn't have indoor plumbing. Uh so I I kind of get how it is to live in a rural area and not have a whole lot.
▶ 5:54:05Uh but I think sometimes environmental justice is is really a way to keep poor people poor. Uh in Pimroke Township, for instance, in Illinois, uh the environmental justice crowd were insistent that they not get a natural gas pipeline. That was that uh township in Illinois was 80% African-American.
▶ 5:54:28Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other civil rights leaders went to that city to help them get a natural gas pipeline because they needed uh opportunities. There were they wanted to to to give uh the people who live in that town a chance to get better jobs and they needed a natural gas pipeline.
▶ 5:54:49And I I'm happy to uh announce that uh Reverend Jackson and and the others who were engaged in that effort were successful in helping them get a natural pipeline. So I think there's a lot of ways to look at this. I think we don't need to be discounting the progress that we've made in in air quality.
▶ 5:55:09I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which was combustion engineering and their environmental systems division, making the very equipment that uh has benefited our air quality, the precipitators, the flu gas um that those are the very things that that our technology and our economy has allowed us to to have.
▶ 5:55:33But at the same uh we're trying to to create opportunity for people to have a good job, to live in better housing, to uh eat better, to get better education. And I just think there's a balance here.
▶ 5:55:48Uh we all want clean air, we want clean water, we want healthy kids, but we also want to provide opportunities for the parents to be able to get a good job, to help their kids get a good education, to be able to live live in in a clean environment. And I think um I think we kind of get to the extremes on this and we need we need to take a more sensible scientific view of things. Uh Mr. Chairman, I yel back. Thank you.
▶ 5:56:18The gentleman yields back. Is there any discussion? The gentle lady from Illinois is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to yield my time to the gentleman from Louisiana. Thank Thank you, ma'am. Did I hear the member say that environmental justice is a way to keep poor people poor? My god.
▶ 5:56:45Environmental justice is a way to keep alive, to give people the opportunity and have the audacity to want to breathe clean air and drink clean water and to live in an environment where yes, they can eat and they can have a job, but they can also live.
▶ 5:57:05We can talk about the the the the back and forth all day long about an amendment, but to suggest that somehow rather and then to invoke Reverend Jesse Jackson or El Sharpton that somehow because these people went into rural areas and fought for people's right to have environmental justice to somehow defame the title of environmental justice to make it somehow a bad heard that people
▶ 5:57:35are being kept in poverty. No, we want people to be enriched. I've always said coexistence, communities and industry coexisting, but only when we have healthy communities where people can breathe clean air and drink clean water, have the opportunity to work and live and not be subject to rather it's cancer or any other ailment that may come from
▶ 5:58:06prolonged access or exposure to Yes, environmental justice. It's not a bad word. It's a word we should all adopt. It's a word that we should all fight for because who doesn't want people to be able to live their long lives. To think that somehow we know better from than those people who live in the community. Oh, we're just trying they're just trying to keep you poor. No, we're trying to keep them healthy and keep them alive.
▶ 5:58:37I'm offended by that comment. I'm offended to suggest that because Reverend Jackson or Reverend Sharpton went in to fight and I and others in this day who goes out every day to fight for the American people and for the people of Louisiana to be able to coexist and to have clean water and clean air. Environmental justice is something that everyone should be concerned about. Even those people who run the plants have to have healthy people to operate the apparatus.
▶ 5:59:08Environmental justice is not a way of keeping people poor. Environmental justice is a way of keeping people alive and we should continue in this particular of this committ committee with so many doctors maybe it's not asthma but there's certainly breathing conditions and there's some that would argue doctors alike scientists alike that would argue that yes while there may be some instances where asthma has gone down there are instances where asthma has gone up sometime it's tied
▶ 5:59:38to the chemical plant sometime it isn't but we know that there people that have died. We know that there people who are sick. We know that there people have conditions that they track back. Listen, we can do better. Air scrubbers, air monitors, working with the community. Many of the the the plants in my in my state have worked with us and continue to work with us. Some are not. Some are violators and they don't always step up to do what they're supposed to do.
▶ 6:00:04But in this committee, we should always endeavor to make sure that people understand the importance of providing clean air, clean water. And that is done by having environmental justice in places where we've historically had injustice. I yield. Gentle lady from Illinois. Gentleman yield. Gentle lady from Oh, you I think I I think you had one minute when they we reset the clock when you yielded. So, well, we'll recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for You can give me two chairman. Yeah.
▶ 6:00:35I just want to just the remainder of your time. Thank you, chairman. I I I appreciate the my colleague uh for for yielding, but you know, just to for the American people to understand how hard the Republicans are spinning right now on every single issue, you've heard co you've heard Republicans say that we're cutting funding because it only goes towards studying what's happening at schools and not actually doing anything. Then you also hear Republicans saying it's not conclusive that pollution causes asthma.
▶ 6:01:03Well, if it's not conclusive, then maybe it's an issue we need to study. If it's issue we need to study, then maybe we should appropriate money to study those things. Or we can listen to doctors here on the Democratic side who say that air pollution definitely contributes to asthma, which I think most Americans would agree with, which therefore we can move forward with the funding that we've already appropriated and not resend it from all the communities that are looking for us to act to make our communities healthier, especially for our children. With that, I yield back to my colleague.
▶ 6:01:33Gentle lady from Illinois yields back. I guess yields back. Gentle lady yields back. Any anyone on the Republican side seeking recognition on the speak on the amendment? Anyone the gentle lady from Washington is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I didn't anticipate speaking on this particular amendment. But I think it just I finally understand why it is that there is so much uh opposition to the notion of environmental justice from my Republican colleagues.
▶ 6:02:02And I think we just heard it from the same person who said follow the science. I mean, if you look at the science, if you bother to look for it, it is well established that pollution is a contributing factor toward asthma, that heavy metals are a contributing factor, a major cause of brain damage. And so, you know, maybe if you don't look for it and you don't understand that there's a relationship, that's why you oppose this whole notion.
▶ 6:02:29And I just want to put a finer point on this, which is that today we're going to be talking a little bit later about how my Republican colleagues want to strip Medicaid away from 13.7 million Americans in order to give a gigantic tax cut to Elon Musk and other And the same people who are suffering from pollution causing chronic diseases are the same ones who also rely on Medicaid who will then end up in the emergency room with a bad asthma
▶ 6:02:59attack that will cost so much money it'll make you wait in line when you're having a heart attack and it hurts everybody. So, I want you to think again about standing up for people who live in polluted areas. And I want you to think really hard about what it means to take Medicaid away from 13.7 million Americans. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Is there any recognition on the Republican side?
▶ 6:03:29Any more on the Democrat side? Seeing none, there's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call vote has been requested and I the the and the clerk will call the role. Mr. La. Mr. La votes no. Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Mr. Billis votes no. Mr.
▶ 6:04:00Hudson Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber.
▶ 6:04:31Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks Mrs.
▶ 6:05:01Kamik Mr. Mr. Obernolulti Mr. Obernulti votes no. Mr. James Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bence Mr. Ben votes no. Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr.
▶ 6:05:31Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kane Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Roelly, no. Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorek. Mrs. Fedorch votes no. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Mr.
▶ 6:06:01Gette, hi. Mr. Gette, votes I. Miss Shakowski, I. Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsui, I. Miss Mass Matsui votes I. Miss Caster. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss Clark. Miss Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I.
▶ 6:06:32Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vzy votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly. Votes. I. Miss. Badigan. Miss. Badagon. Votes. I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto. Votes. I. Miss. Miss Shrier votes I.
▶ 6:07:01Miss Treyan. Miss Treyan votes I. Miss Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss Okasiocortez. Miss Okaziocortez votes I. Mr. Oenclaus. Mr. Oenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Mullen. Mr.
▶ 6:07:31Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Miss. Mlen. Miss. Mlen votes I. Chairman Guthrie. No. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Anyone seeking how is Miss Dr. Miller Meeks recorded? Dr. Miller Meeks is not Dr. Miller Meeks votes no. Anyone else on the Republican side seeking recognition on the Democrat side? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
▶ 6:08:05Chairman Guthrie, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 28 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments? What purpose? Gentle lady from Michigan seek recognition. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk labeled environment 59.
▶ 6:08:32The clerk will report environment 59 amendment offered by Mrs. Dingle. Add at the end the section. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:08:49My amendment says that the section of this bill that repeals the greenhouse gas reduction fund, section 42103, cannot take effect unless the comproller general certifies to Congress that doing so will not increase costs for consumers.
▶ 6:09:10I helped create the greenhouse greenhouse gas reduction fund through the inflation reduction act because I believe we have a moral obligation and a real economic opportunity to invest in clean energy especially in communities that have long been left behind. This doesn't have to be a partisan fight.
▶ 6:09:33It was designed to leverage private capital, create good paying jobs, and make clean energy financing accessible for everyone in every state and every district. If my Republican colleagues believe gutting this program won't hurt working families or raise their energy bills, then they should have no problem supporting this amendment. I want to be clear about what's happening here.
▶ 6:10:00The greenhouse gas reduction fund is being targeted for purely political reasons. Many of my Republican colleagues have been trying to dismantle this program since the day it was signed into law. They've tried unsuccessfully to pass bills to repeal it three separate times. They've tried to kill it in the appropriations process.
▶ 6:10:23and they've used this committee to hold hearing after hearing and waste time attacking a program that will produce results. I want to be really clear. No one has found any waste, fraud, or abuse. There has been no evidence.
▶ 6:10:45And believe me, if there were any, I would be the first person calling for But instead of facts, what we've seen is a coordinated campaign to undermine a program that's set to bolster domestic supply chains, create jobs, and lower energy bills for hardworking Americans. Let's talk about what repealing this program really means.
▶ 6:11:10It means walking away from 40,000 additional jobs per year, nearly 11,000 in manufacturing and almost 9,000 in construction. It means giving up $20 billion in wages for American workers. It means higher energy bills, and that's the reality.
▶ 6:11:32The current unobligated balance of this fund is about $19 million, which is a minuscule amount compared to the scale of the full program. That money is there to support basic administrative functions, and pulling it back only further undermines implementation. We've seen that the Trump administration's EPA freeze funds and launch baseless investigations into the program.
▶ 6:11:59They've been motivated efforts designed to undercut investments that are already putting people to work, reducing emissions and cutting energy costs. If Republicans have their way, they'll turn their backs on an estimated $65 billion in new investment flowing into our economy. That's what dismantling this program means. I don't think we should be okay with that, and I don't think our constituents should be either.
▶ 6:12:28Therefore, I'm asking my colleagues to do the responsible thing and support this amendment. We should be working to try to make this program succeed, not betting against it and pulling the rug out under it. Thank you and I yield Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And this is one of those where you just can't make some of this stuff up.
▶ 6:12:59You just can't. So, we got word that, you know, that this money was in in flux or in jeopardy of somehow. And one of the groups that got money was the Appalachin Community Capital headquartered in Christiansburg, Virginia. Well, when news of this broke and I got word of it, I happened to be in Christiansburg. My daughter lives up there and u it's in my district.
▶ 6:13:29So I looked the address up and went by because this organization, Appalachin Community Capital, and this was a couple of weeks ago, so maybe things have changed since then, but previously had only received 2.8 million in federal funds, and then on the way out the door, the Biden administration sent them 500 million. Now, previously they've gotten 2.8 million.
▶ 6:13:58All of a sudden, they're getting 500 million. So, I thought, well, this must be a big operation in my district. So, I went by to check on it. There's no indication that they're actually there. Now, there is a financial institution there. There is. And I suspect that there's a cubicle or maybe even there's an employee and employee. The building is not big enough to house too many people.
▶ 6:14:25and the other institution is there and I'm assuming they must share space but it could just be a dropbox but there was no signage. If I didn't have the address I wouldn't have known they were even there and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and thinking there might be there but there wasn't a sign.
▶ 6:14:48And in fact, when I didn't see a sign outside, I thought, well, maybe we ought to check and see if there's a sign on the door that we can't see from the parking lot. Nope. No signage whatsoever. So, people question why we're questioning some of this stuff. And and I can tell you from personal experience, I wish there was $500 million coming into my district.
▶ 6:15:15I mean, the CEO lives in Washington DC of this particular organization, but you'd think if they had a $500 million footprint in my district, there'd be something to show signs of it. Now, they've done a little bit of work in the past, and I'm not saying that they don't have some validity. I'm just saying to go from 2.8 8 million in federal money.
▶ 6:15:40Their total revenues I think were 4.1 previously in a previous year million to suddenly going to 500 million. And then you take what many of us saw online where an employee of one of the agencies is saying that they were trying to get the money out the door. So it was kind of like throwing gold bars off the Titanic. it.
▶ 6:16:06It'd be fine if I saw that $500 million gold bar landing actually landing in my district, but I got no no evidence that it actually has landed there or that the group even has the ability in all fairness, I'm not convinced the group has the ability to parcel out $500 million. And so that's why I have concerns on this one.
▶ 6:16:29And and while you know the comp controller general may or may not be able to certify that this would not increase costs for consumers, I'm not sure where all that money's going and I'm not sure what they're doing. And I think what we ought to be doing is being good stewards of the taxpayers money and we ought to have more accountability.
▶ 6:16:48And I know and and that's why they probably can't say a lot about it, but I know that well and I'm on the subcommittee, but I know that Oversight Investigations is currently looking into this, but it is of concern. And this is why we're trying to get back some of this money because there may have been in a haste of the change of political winds just to get the money out the door to some harbor somewhere. Whether it actually is going to do any good or not, it's hard to say.
▶ 6:17:18The intent may very well be good. But we all know that the road is sometimes paved with good intent and goes to destinations that we don't want to go to. And I am worried about that. And so I think that we should vote no on this amendment. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Is there a moment?
▶ 6:17:48Mr. Gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes. Hey, Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I express my support for Miss Dingle's amendment. There is a sad reality faced by many Americans, and this dynamic existed long before COVID, President Biden, or the enactment of the inflation reduction act. For far too many people, energy affordability is a tremendous hardship.
▶ 6:18:13In 2020, during President Trump's first term, the US Energy Information Administration found that more than a quarter of US households reported having difficulty paying their energy bills. Millions of people forego food and medicine to pay energy bills. President Trump campaigned on reducing energy costs by one half within his first 18 months in office. And in the first few months of his administration, we have been going in the wrong direction.
▶ 6:18:40Initial analysis has found that since President Trump's re-election, utility rates have begun to increase across our country. And the lowincome home energy affordity pro affordability program or lie helps over 1 million New Yorkers pay their utility bills each year. So anyone serving in the House from New York should keep that in mind as we address this bill. But for that sake, all people across this great country should pay attention to what lie means in their individual state.
▶ 6:19:09It has um since uh with the president's budget has had HHS staffing terminated uh and been targeted for complete elimination by the president's budget. We shouldn't be doing anything else that risks putting Americans under greater financial stress or eliminating the tools already available to alleviate their cost of living challenges.
▶ 6:19:33And Miss Dingle's amendment would do just that, ensuring that GGRF funds are only rescended if the independent controller uh controller general certifies the loss of those funds will not increase costs on hardworking Americans. The greenhouse gas reduction fund was designed to help the families that are struggling the most with their bills.
▶ 6:19:53It provides 27 billion in federal assistance with the expectation that the nonprofit recipients would leverage private capital to allow each federal dollar to maximize its impact. Some of the early investments from the program include improving energy savings and affordable housing, enabling a university to deploy solar panels, and helping tribal communities develop energy projects on their lands.
▶ 6:20:16Recent analysis from the University of New Hampshire estimated that GGRF investments will result in some 52 billion in energy cost savings to consumers over the next 20 years and generate enough electricity from the new solar projects to power up to 2.2 million homes each year.
▶ 6:20:34Now, we know our electricity system desperately needs to grow and have and having localized generation through community and rooftop solar helps alleviate some of the demands for new large-scale infrastructure which can be difficult to permit and to build. All but a small amount of administrative funding has been obligated. So, I question whether this underlying provision has anything but an incidental budgetary impact anyway.
▶ 6:20:59But unfortunately, this program has become a political football with funding being illegally frozen by EPA and grant recipients being forced into the courts to get the federal government to uphold its end of the contracts. Today, Republicans are doubling down on the Trump EPA's efforts to withhold funding that is meant to benefit hardworking Americans. That is strictly unacceptable.
▶ 6:21:22And at the very least, we should be confident of the consequences of rescending any GGRF funds before allowing this profision provision to move forward. You know, this again is an opportunity to line the pockets of billionaires at the expense of affordability of utility costs for the great many of us. I urge the members to support the amendment. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Move the strike and last word.
▶ 6:21:52You know, Mr. Chairman, not to be outdone by my colleague from Virginia, I can do you one better. You want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. The only thing worse than the IRA itself was the Biden administration's implementation of it. That administration created a level of waste, fraud, and abuse that we've never seen before, never witnessed before.
▶ 6:22:18In fact, when you talk about what it actually did, let's talk about the whole picture. The IRA prevented provided EPA approximately a hundred billion dollars in supplemental appropriations. A billion. For comparison, over the past 10 years, EPA's annual budget ranged from about 8.2 billion to 10.1 billion.
▶ 6:22:40In my own state, my home state of Georgia, the Biden EPA handed billion to power forward communities, a coalition formed by failed gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams in April of 2024 under the greenhouse gas reduction fund. Now, get this, and this is where I'm outdoing my colleague from Virginia.
▶ 6:23:08Power Forward Communities received this money even though it was founded just months earlier in late 2023. and never managed anywhere near the grant dollar figure. In fact, it reported just $100. That's right, folks. We went from $100 to $2 billion. Reported just $100 in total revenue during his first three months in organization.
▶ 6:23:36Now, if that's not waste, fraud, and abuse, I mean, this is the poster child for waste, fraud, and So, with all due respect to my colleague from Virginia, and he brings up a great example, I got an even better one. Do they have I I you know, that's a good question. You know, Mr.
▶ 6:23:58Chairman, seriously, giving billions of dollars to favored organizations to help finance preferred energy resources and technologies is not an appropriate use of taxpayers funding. This is waste, fraud, and abuse. and I yield back. Will the gentleman yield? J. I yield. My understanding, Mr. Carter, is that there was $31 billion that went to Georgia and transportation and clean energy investments.
▶ 6:24:22I'm wondering if you feel the whole $ 31 billion that went to your state was fraud, waste, and abuse or only the projects that you did not like. The projects that I did not like? Yeah. Well, you could we answer the topline question. Do you believe that all $31 billion that went to Georgia in transportation and clean energy investments represent fraud, waste, and Is it I'm sorry. Was that in this program? Part of the IRA part of the No, no, no.
▶ 6:24:51Was it in the greenhouse gas reduction? I I recalled you saying the IRA and and what a mismanagement of the IRA occurred under the prior administration if I if I recall correctly. Yes, you you recall correctly. But I'm speaking specifically now about the greenhouse gas re reduction fund that tried to give Stacy Abrams, a failed gubinatorial candidate in Georgia, $2 billion when that organization had only been formed three months before and had revenues of $100.
▶ 6:25:21$100. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I stand in support of this amendment. Uh, the green uh gas uh reduction fund needs to uh continue.
▶ 6:25:45They provide not only uh exceptional investments for uh clean energy that will help reduce uh these gas emissions. Um, but they also bolster local economies and they help create jobs.
▶ 6:26:04Uh the GGRF provides 27 billion to finance projects that cut greenhouse gas emissions, many of which focus on solar energy installation for low-income homes, energy efficiency retrofits like better insulation, efficient lighting and smart HVAC systems, electrification of buildings and transportation.
▶ 6:26:28And these initiatives not only reduce emissions but also lower utility bills and increase energy independence for communities that have historically lacked access to clean energy. In fact, uh more than half of all clean energy projects that have moved forward since the passage of the clean energy investments are in districts represented by House Republicans. 417 clean energy projects in total located in 152 congressional districts across the country.
▶ 6:26:59Projects in these districts will create 210 uh,710 jobs, a majority of the national total and generate more than 199.89 billion in investments. In fact, in uh in Texas, uh there's 22 projects that 18,657 jobs, investing 10 over $10.4 billion.
▶ 6:27:26In Georgia, there's 29 uh projects creating 17,551 jobs uh with uh over $4 billion in investments in Southern Cal South Carolina, 32 projects, 14,192 jobs, over 11.5 billion dollars. In fact, uh in Georgia 1, my good friend Rep.
▶ 6:27:51Buddy Carter's district, there's nine projects, 7.8 8 billion dollar 7,300 jobs. Now, I don't think that's waste. I don't think that's abuse for the good men and women in Georgia 1 who are employed by these clean energy projects.
▶ 6:28:10I want to fight for them too so that they can enjoy uh their livelihoods, fighting for uh uh in an industry that is not only providing for their families but also helping keep our environment clean. Uh helping reduce uh greenhouse gas emissions, helping to uh prolong people's lives by reducing pollution.
▶ 6:28:38uh helping to keep uh kids in schools uh in a healthy environment. So that's one of the many reasons why we should keep the green house gas uh reduction fund um stable. With that I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there Mr. gentleman from Alabama.
▶ 6:29:07I'm sorry. Recognize gentle lady from California. Five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to the uh 500 million from the um Appalachian Community Capital. I think if somebody brought up in committee a um a project in my district that I didn't know anything about, I probably would be a little embarrassed, too. Um, so let me tell you why.
▶ 6:29:35When you go to check to see what big operation is happening for million, there wasn't a big operation. Let me tell you why. Because this is a green bank. It's a bank. So when you go to Wells Fargo and you look at the building, you don't say like, "Oh, wait a minute. They got a billion dollars, but it's not really happening because it's just a building. So, this is actually a bank.
▶ 6:30:05It's specifically um a green bank for rural America. This is trying to make sure rural America is including included in creating these jobs. And this in particular, uh, $500 million from the EPA is, uh, that the green bank was going to use to leverage private capital to finance an estimated 1.6 billion into 2,000 new energy projects that was going to create 13,000
▶ 6:30:35jobs, good jobs, and reducing up to 850,000 tons of harmful pollution annually. So again, this was part of the public private partnership that was going to go to help clean up air pollution. But as we know, our colleagues across the aisle, they don't even care about kids in schools getting dirty air. They're trying to ripple that part of it, too.
▶ 6:30:58So I can understand why somebody would that they don't support it, therefore I'm going to repeal it. Uh but what's really uh sad is that this is actually an investment in thousands of jobs. It's an investment in new energy projects. And again, um if somebody uh doesn't like how dollars are spent or they want to make sure there's accountability, there is that oversight ability to do that.
▶ 6:31:28But just to say, well, I showed up and there wasn't this big operation happening there. Um to to me is a little given that this is a green bank and they were in the business to work together with public and private partnerships to create these clean energy jobs and to um and create jobs. And this is this is the party who who says, "Hey, what about our people?
▶ 6:31:56What about people that are working in in dirty fossil fuel jobs?" And you don't include them. You try to include people. You try to create jobs and they're just saying, "No, no, no. We're just not going to do it." Uh so with that I want to yield to um my colleague Debbie Dingle. I just would like to build great respect for both of my colleagues but neither of you has proven any waste, abuse or fraud.
▶ 6:32:21And I also want to say to you that this is nonsense just because you didn't like the candidate for G governor in Georgia. She's not the CEO. She's an advisor. She never received any money and has never personally gained from this pro funding. There is no proven waste, fraud or abuse. That money has been frozen from the grant because the EPA administrator came in and froze the dollars.
▶ 6:32:50But your region has a long history of being and producing energy projects. They're trying to help and create new projects. And I get that you don't like the program, but I think you got to be very careful about throwing around the words waste, abuse, and fraud unless you can document it. And if you can document it, I'll be right there with you screaming. Yield back. Um, do you want the rest of them? Okay, I yield back.
▶ 6:33:20Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize gentleman from Texas, Mr. Krenshaw, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last And just want to respond to a few few issues taken up. You know, it was said by one of my colleagues that environmental justice keeps people down. It was said by another that environmental justice saves their lives.
▶ 6:33:40I mean, I got to say environmental justice is fundamentally about changing our energy infrastructure drastically, which therefore changes our our ability prosper. And justice to me means prosperity. I want to see people of all color and all walks of life prospering. I would invite you to my district. It's very diverse. My neighborhood is very diverse. You might be surprised that I'm probably a minority in my neighborhood. You know where most of those people work? Yeah.
▶ 6:34:10The energy sector and they're living great, comfortable, middle class lives. My neighbors are wonderful and they work for the energy sector. I want to take that away from them. I'm not sure there's any justice in that. Now, I want to talk about a few things. we're going to we're going to discuss throughout uh this this particular provision and I think the uh I can't say lies but I think falsehoods that are going to be said. Let's talk about the Biden tailpipe rule. Let's talk about the methane tax. So my colleagues will say that EVs are getting cheaper.
▶ 6:34:40They'll save drivers money and they'll reduce carbon emissions. Here's reality. In 2022, sticker price data show new EV cost is at least 20,000 more dollars than comparable gas cars. Reality. Volvo's own life cycle study found its C40 EV is 70% more carbon intensive to build than the gas powered XC40. And you have to drive it 68,000 m before those emissions even break even.
▶ 6:35:04Reality manufacturing one EV battery means digging up 500,000 lbs of rock and soil in order to get the critical minerals inside. reality EPO's EPA's own modern owned records show modern gas cars already 99% cleaner when it comes to criteria pollutants than their 1960 models. That's pretty now the methane tax.
▶ 6:35:31Democrats will say we need to cut the methane uh we need to have a methane tax or fee in order to cut emissions. But here's the reality. Since 2005, the US became the world's top natural gas producer and cut our total emissions by 18%. Outperforming every other major economy. Reality. America now delivers 25% of global natural gas supply with cleaner tech and tighter standards than places like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China.
▶ 6:36:00Proof a tax is not required for progress. Reality. This fee is nothing but a backdoor tax on domestic production. It kills jobs. It hikes household energy bills. And it seeds market share to dirtier foreign gas producers. Again, there's no justice in that. Again, visit my neighborhood. Here's the bottom line. Democrats are selling slogans. We're delivering receipts.
▶ 6:36:25Regulations that jack up costs, truckers, and and tax clean US gas are not going to save the planets. They're just going to sink Americans. There's no justice in doing that. So, please let's vote common sense and let's scrap these rules and be on with it. I yield. Sorry. I yield to uh Mr. Morgan Griffith. He yields to me, but we're going to freeze the clock for a minute so that a special guest can be introduced. Mr.
▶ 6:36:55Mr. Ranking member, thank you. I just want to mention our Democratic leader, Hakeim Jeff, is here because of his concern over Medicaid. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And now turning the clock back on. Um, thank you for yielding to me.
▶ 6:37:15I would just say to my colleagues uh when I when I talked about the institution in Christiansburg, Virginia and in Appalachia, I referenced that it was a financial institution and what was there at the building was a financial institution, which is why I believe I said that at the time. It's just it was just struck me as odd that an organization that received $500 million did not have the ability to put a taped sign on the door. I don't care if it was paper. It wasn't anything.
▶ 6:37:44nothing that indicated that's where they were located and I thought it was odd when that was their registered office and where they were supposedly getting the money and and I just questioned the whole uh deal. I don't know the answers at this time.
▶ 6:37:59I don't have the information I would say to my colleagues as to what's going on, but it raises lots of questions when the most federal money you've ever received in a single year before was 2.8 8 million and the most you've ever had in a single year on according to your records is 4.1 million and all of a sudden you receive 500 million. That was the point. The huge increase in the expenditure or the money being being sent there was raises all kinds of questions in my mind.
▶ 6:38:28And with that, I will yield back and now recognize the gentleman from Florida for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. billion. That was the cost of extreme weather events last year for the United States. There were 27 billion extreme weather events last year. When you count in the economic damages, it was 500 billion. The whole IRA over 10 years is less than that.
▶ 6:38:59And that was the cost to us last year. And so we know greenhouse c gases make hurricanes more extreme. So why would you want to end a fund that tries to reduce that? Hurricanes have been beating the heck out of the south from Florida to North Carolina, Louisiana to eastern Texas.
▶ 6:39:22And as far as I could tell, the plan is for you all to increase greenhouse gases and energy efficiency programs and resiliency programs and eliminate FEMA. I just don't know that that makes much sense when we're dealing with over $182 billion in damages last year. And God help us as we face another hurricane season this year. We need to be planning for these things in advance and we shouldn't be rejecting funds for our districts that are going to help us with long-term projects.
▶ 6:39:50A lot of these are new institutions that are trying to help to help both households and businesses and the like. And and I think that's where oversight comes in. Rather than just simply rejecting it, looking at how we can make these things better better to reduce our to improve our energy efficiency, reduce our greenhouse gases, work to reform and improve FEMA, and do something to help out with the hurricanes that are hitting the southeast every year. Will the gentleman yield?
▶ 6:40:21Sure. Um I just want to um uh bring up a a point uh to one of my colleagues from Texas who just spoke. He was in here the last time. He wanted to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse and was talking uh about EVs and you know how they cost all this money to make and basically how they're waste. Well, I would gather that the Republicans should put in a provision to take all that money back from Elon Musk.
▶ 6:40:49Uh, of course they're not going to do that because that's their best friend right now. Um, and and and just to remind my colleagues across the aisle, in February of this year, it was this president in this administration that was going to commit waste, fraud, and abuse and corruption, I would add, by the conflicts of interest in giving Mr. Musk a $400 million contract to buy his EV cyber trucks.
▶ 6:41:18And by the way, I heard no Republicans then talking about waste, fraud, and abuse. I see no initiative to take all that money back from him. Why? Because they are deathly afraid of him. Because that is why we're here.
▶ 6:41:33We're here to find money to cut to just give more money to the billionaires and the billionaire's friends who bought this election because that's what this is about and that's what the American people should take is they're looking for places to cut healthcare. They're looking for money to take back on projects that will go to clean up air pollution and air pollution in schools and ports ports and to invest in clean energy that's going to create jobs.
▶ 6:42:03It's to give those people money. So, let's stop the front of waste, fraud, and abuse. Because if you're only going to speak out when it's convenient or in this case, you won't speak out when it's your new friend or somebody who bought the president's election. Uh I just think it's quite rich to hear this conversation and not point that out. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 6:42:33Will you yield to your time? Does the gentleman yield back? Yes, I yield to Representative Menendez. I appreciate my colleague yielding. I just want to add on to my uh colleague um from California's remarks. Uh we also have to remember there was a showcase of electric vehicles at the White House. Um so I guess the president has poor judgment and what makes a good automobile because they were just everywhere. It was I mean it was a spectacle.
▶ 6:43:00So either the president has poor decision-making because as our colleague from Texas said, apparently EVs are just a waste of money and not worth producing. Uh it sounds like a little uh family conversation that the White House should have with their special employee Elon Musk, but at least you won't be um uh told that you will be uh how should I say this?
▶ 6:43:25Uh for drive, you will not be charged or uh followed for trying to hurt the stock price of Tesla. Uh, so at least you guys have that going for you even though you don't believe that EVs are good. And with that, I yield back. And I yield back. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady from North Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:43:50Um, it's, as I said earlier, I'm one of the newest members of this committee and I came here to try to make a difference and make government work better for people. I spent uh the previous 12 years as a utility regulator and the last few minutes of this hearing has been a lot of talk about how to keep energy costs low for the citizens of this country and my colleagues uh I hope to be friends over the course of the next few years
▶ 6:44:21uh on the Democrat side have put forward one methodology of doing that and that is by supporting all these government programs programs to help keys keep keep costs low. I know a little bit about keeping energy costs low. In my job, that was our role was determining what the rates were going to be for the customers in my state for electricity and gas service. And North Dakota has among the lowest rates in the whole country.
▶ 6:44:48In fact, the last couple years, we had the actual lowest rates in the country. I've watched other states pursue this approach in different ways and uh some like the Democrats uh to my left are suggesting by setting arbitrary deadlines for carbon-f free electricity and then having to have replace existing resources that are providing the power and the customers have to pay for that.
▶ 6:45:17Then you replace them with taxpayer funded weather dependent resources that don't work all the time. So you have to have backup generation. Customers have to pay for that too. That gets baked into the rates. Then you have to build the transmission lines to get to the new generation resources. Customers have to pay for that too. All goes into the bills.
▶ 6:45:41And then you have to the the cost gets so high that you have to provide rebates to the customers who can't afford them to help afford the rates that you've created by all your policies. And then you might even bake into those rates incentives for others who can afford it, usually the wealthier customers to buy solar geothermal energy efficient appliances, all these sorts of things.
▶ 6:46:10You bake those into the rates as well. And then you wonder, why are energy costs getting so high? And then you have to turn to the government to provide money so people can afford their energy costs. Or you could take the approach that my state takes and we have the lowest energy costs in the country and you can select your resources based on the cost of them and the reliability of You can let technology, not arbitrary
▶ 6:46:41deadlines, determine how quickly you replace things, what resources you use, and base that on costs. You can reduce the regulatory burdens for energy production and help encourage more production because more supply usually reduces costs. You can create a business climate that growth where people want to come, where people want to invest. That helps bring more resources and reduce costs.
▶ 6:47:10You can have low tax rates which also helps increase investment in your state, reducing costs for all the people who have to pay them. And at the same time, you can do all those things and have the highest reliability in the country. Th this is not a difference of who cares more about the people of this country. It's a difference in philosophy. We have a genuine different approach.
▶ 6:47:40And in what I just laid out when it relates to energy policy, it's proven that the Republican approach to trying to increase demand, reduce the regulatory b burden, and bring more energy to the fold is going to reduce rates and have a huge positive impact for the c citizens of this country, the rateayers of all classes, especially the people on limited incomes. Mr.
▶ 6:48:10Chairman, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady from Uh well, thank you so much. Um and I uh I just want to add a little bit to this to this conversation and agree something my colleague from Florida just said uh that I was thinking about in response to something that my uh friend from West Virginia said earlier. Um Mr. Sodto, if I can use your name, Mr.
▶ 6:48:37photo uh mentioned that it would be great for us to conduct oversight and I really I couldn't agree more and I was thinking about um the comments from my colleague from West Virginia who said look I saw this grant I was thrilled I drove over there which I think is a great thing to do um and check things out um and and I think that it's important we should ask questions and I think in this committee we should be asking more questions there's nothing wrong with asking questions I wish we would ask more
▶ 6:49:08questions about what this administration is doing to these programs to these grants. But I understand there are some new things that were rolled out from the Inflation Reduction Act, from Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We had so many new grants coming our way. We we created a whole position in a monthly newsletter to inform our community about all these grants rolling out. So, it's it's good to ask questions.
▶ 6:49:32And I want to preface my comments with this because um you can't believe everything you you read on the internet. I think we all know that and it is probably bears repeating. You can't believe everything you read on the internet. But I was really interested in the story we were hearing from our colleague from West Virginia. So I looked up the Appalachin Community Capital Bank Community Capital just to see what it is. And I just want to correct a couple things in the record. Again, it's on the internet.
▶ 6:49:56We can verify this more later, but it says Appalachin Community Capital is a community development financial institution, a CDFI lending intermediary that raises capital for its members to fund small businesses in rural communities in Appalachia. ACC has over 35 members that collectively manage more than $2 billion in assets supporting economic development.
▶ 6:50:21And I looked a little bit further and again this is just on their website and on the map for the green bank for rural America. It operates in 582 counties in Appalachia including in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. It looks like from the map, not every county, but across those states. And their mission and and they say it here is that they are investing in coal impacted communities for the benefit of the entire country. And they say when coal impacted communities succeed, the rest of the country is made stronger.
▶ 6:50:51And that's why these investments like the ones from the Green Bank for Royal America are critical in leveling the economic playing field. So this is the application they made to um the Biden administration. This is what funded that $500 million grant that our colleague was talking about. Um, I think it absolutely makes sense to ask these questions, but I also think we should look at their answers and not just look at the physical building and see that there's not a lot there.
▶ 6:51:19Um, as I said before, I hope we'll do more of that with the grants we're seeing rescended. Um, because I mentioned one in my community already, but there were more. There are more under this program that are being rescended. And as I understand it, we're only talking about the unallocated funds there. But if they cancel those grants, they're going to go back into the unallocated pot. And so we're going to lose the the money that our communities are already expecting. And so, um, I think we could have a few more oversight hearings. I can't wait.
▶ 6:51:47I'm on the oversight subcommittee on this committee. And I think that's absolutely something that we as members of Congress should do. Too often in the last 100 plus days, we as members of Congress have seated our authority to the White House and to this administration, told them, some of our members have told them that's okay. They don't have to spend the money we appropriated because that's just advisory. That's not the law. Well, we all know it's the law. We debate it. We vote on it. We send it to the Senate. They pass it. We send it to the president. President signs it into law.
▶ 6:52:17And yet, we're saying we don't have to you don't have to follow that. That's okay. You don't have to fund these grants. you can, you know, do whatever you want. And even in that sort of CR that wasn't really a CR, um, gave the White House tremendous authority. We shouldn't be seating that authority. That's not what we were sent here to do. This is a separate branch of the government. It's the first branch. I think everybody here knows and should remember, article one branch of government.
▶ 6:52:43We make the laws and the executive is there to make sure that they are executed. And so, let's get back to that. Let's exercise our oversight authority. Let's exercise our legislative authority. Let's do permitting reform. Let's do the stuff that we know we can, should, and must do for the people that we represent. And let's go back to conducting oversight over this administration. It's raised a lot of questions in the last 100 days, and we are best positioned to get those answers. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 6:53:13Chairman. I yield back. Gentle yields back. Do I see anyone on the Republican side? If not, recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Peters. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Excuse me. Well, someone mentioned methane, so I had to weigh in um when they say that. I I um my colleague from Texas, who shall not be named, I guess. Um my disappoint I'm disappointed to see the majority eliminate funding for small businesses to save money, reduce their pollution, keep our air and water clean.
▶ 6:53:43I'm also disappointed to see them effectively kick the can down the road on implementing a common sense methane regulation that we passed in the inflation reduction act. Um, let's be clear, reducing fugitive emissions from oil and gas operations is one of the fastest and most effective ways to protect public health and keep America's energy sector sector globally competitive. Methane is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential more than 80 times higher than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.
▶ 6:54:12Even small leaks can erase the tremendous benefits of burning gas uh as compared to coal with respect to carbon dioxide or other dirty sources. Unfortunately, methane regulations have been caught in a cycle of constant change. The Obama administration passed rules. Trump administration repealed the rules.
▶ 6:54:31The Biden administration uh p uh uh uh took office, worked to reinstate safeguards, establish a marketbased approach uh methane to feed to waste reduction and and to drive innovation. And now we're looking at that being repealed as well. Um let's be first let's be clear about what the methane fee and what it's not. It's not a tax on energy production. It only t targets the largest polluters.
▶ 6:54:56These are the polluters, people who are emitting, and is designed to encourage companies to capture more methane rather than venting or leaking it. It's a smart targeted approach that incentivizes modernization and efficiency. The methane fee also demonstrates to consumers who want clean gas and our global competitors that American natural gas is the cleanest and most efficient on the market. Um, not addressing this would only hurt the American industry by injecting regulatory uncertainty into the market.
▶ 6:55:24Back and forth, back and forth, making us less competitive in an international market that increasingly values cleaner gas as a customer matter. So, many of the biggest energy companies support strong methane rules and urge us not to repeal these um these common sense rules because they know reducing waste and consistency of regulation over time makes business sense.
▶ 6:55:46A recision of these funds and elimination of the methane fee would undercut the responsible producers who've invested in cutting edge methane detection and capture technologies to make their businesses cleaner and more efficient. So let's also not forget the impact on consumers. When methane is wasted, there's revenue lost and ultimately that that translates into higher costs for American families.
▶ 6:56:07The bill before us today would only incentivi incentivize outdated practices that contribute to pollution and energy waste, drive up long-term costs, and expose consumers and companies to price uncertainty. Eliminating federal support for compliance, moving the goalpost a decade down the road, doesn't solve problems, it creates them. It's apparently it's increasingly apparent that America American liqufied natural gas exports, particularly to our allies, depend on strong policies to address methane pollution.
▶ 6:56:36The only viable solution, in my view, is bipartisan legislation that gets this out of administrative rulemaking, acknowledges the reality, and commits to industry standards that ensure the cleanest, most efficient natural gas production. We need long-term solutions and investing in monitoring and compliance uh to reduce unnecessary methane emissions is critical. So, I urge my colleagues to stand with responsible energy producers and American consumers. We can't afford to be short-sighted.
▶ 6:57:02Let's keep America competitive, protect our environment, ensure affordable energy for all. And this bill takes us in the wrong direction on methane. So, I urge you to oppose it. And I yield back. Would the gentleman yield to me for a minute? Yeah. Yeah. yield to the I I just want to remind everybody that, you know, this was a program that was put together with industry and they and it was done so that they were actually allocated funding so they could upgrade their facilities and have less uh methane emissions.
▶ 6:57:32Um and the the only reason for the fee was if it was sort of a penalty if they didn't upgrade and use the funding that we were giving them to actually improve the situation and it was done with industry. Um you know at the time there were really no objections to the program. It makes absolutely no sense to repeal this to repeal the funding to postpone the fee and whatever is being done here. Um everybody liked it but I guess that doesn't matter. But I just wanted to make that point.
▶ 6:58:02I yield back to the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Plone. I would also just say, you know, it was the head of Exxon, the head of Shener, the major companies that said, "Please don't please don't reverse these rules because we need certainty in order to make investments." So, I think we're going in the wrong direction for the environment, but also for American business and competitiveness. Uh, and I'm sorry about that. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does anyone on the Republican side? Mr. Uh the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
▶ 6:58:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've gone all over the place with this discussion on this amendment. Um in regard to the um Green New Deal Bank and the 20 billion that was sent out in the last few weeks of the Biden administration. My colleagues have mentioned a couple of the more egregious examples. Uh there's another one. The revenue for the climate united fund was $550,000, Mr.
▶ 6:58:59Chairman, in 2023, but they got almost seven billion dollars. Now, let me put that in perspective. That's 12 almost 13% 13 times, not percent, 13 times more than their revenue in 2023. In the case of uh the Appalachian Community Capital, that was 178% increase.
▶ 6:59:22I mean, now I'm not a banker, but I I've had to deal with the bank, and you have to put up collateral if you get a loan. And and one of my colleagues uh across the aisle mentioned that this was a bank. Uh but it was administered by the EPA. And as far as I know, now I could be wrong, but I don't know of any bankers. I don't know that they set up a bank and operated under uh the rules of a bank.
▶ 6:59:49uh their their their capital requirements, collateral requirements in order to get a loan. And generally, a loan of that size would require somewhere north of 70% collateral. So, I'm I'm not making any accusations against anybody, but I think it it it should raise some serious concerns for oversight here and and and we're going to do that.
▶ 7:00:10I could go on down the list of of some of these just unheard of amounts of money going to organizations that it's questionable whether or not they have the capacity to do that. Then we we got into u extreme weather. Uh I I pulled up I you know I like to study these things and and I pulled up some information here and the u I think it's the last report from the international intergovernmental panel on climate change.
▶ 7:00:39Um it's uh their annual report number six and and and it says there is low confidence in most reported multi-deadal to centennial trends in tropical cyclone frequency or intensity metrics. So again you can't say that we've got more hurricanes or that they're more intense over the long trend. You have to look at the whole trend.
▶ 7:01:07Uh the other thing point that I I want to raise here is um my colleague I think some of my colleagues might have misunderstood when I mentioned Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton uh and what they were doing in Pinroke Township in Illinois. They were not arguing for environmental justice. They were arguing for a ga natural gas pipeline for that community which they were successful in getting and and the community was very uh grateful for that.
▶ 7:01:36The other thing I want to talk about though is the inflation reduction act. Um, now I know there's certain words that we can't use, but that was clearly mistitled. Uh, that was never an inflation reduction act.
▶ 7:01:51Uh the claims were made um that it would reduce federal deficits by around 300 billion over a 10-year period, but that um actually resulted in 1.9 trillion being added to the federal deficit and increased inflation.
▶ 7:02:12And even some of the people on the left admit that this bill was mistitled and that the projections were clearly inaccurate. But I think when you say that it's going to reduce federal deficits by 300 billion and you miss it by 2.2 billion, it raises some serious questions about uh the credibility of the people making those projections. And I again, you know, I'm going to be very careful in the words that I choose to use here.
▶ 7:02:40We've we've heard some fairly reckless words being thrown around here that uh that I just think that we need to take a long hard look at it. And I'd like to enter this into the record. This is uh an article that that lays out some of the problems with the IRA. With that, if without objection, will gentleman yield? Uh well, without objection. I I'll yield to the gentleman. I think gentlemen, I agree with you.
▶ 7:03:10The IRA was a travesty. All these EVs that they wanted to spend all this money on, all these subsidies. But good news is there was a survey out the other day that said 90% of all EVs are still on the highways today and the other 10% made it home safely. I yield back. I yield. Gentleman yields. Recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes. Uh thank you, chairman.
▶ 7:03:39I uh I speak in support of the amendment, but also since we're back on the subject of the inflation reduction act. Um there's a couple of thoughts I just want to share with the committee. The IRA brought um billions of dollars to states across the country.
▶ 7:03:56Some of the top states for new clean energy jobs following the IRA are Georgia, South Carolina, Nevada, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and North Carolina. Carolina car Carolina. Yet, my Republican colleagues have shared their view consistently that the IRA's investments in American workers are a slush fund. It's been said that it was a travesty. Um, that's probably why every Republican voted against the IRA.
▶ 7:04:26But over a hundred billion dollars in IRA funds have gone to Republican districts to generate clean, green, goodaying jobs. So to any of my colleagues across the aisle who represent districts that have received IRA funding, if those funds were wasteful, tell me why your districts accepted them. Tell me why you all were at the ribbon cutings.
▶ 7:04:52And I'm sure because you all strike me more as Facebook people and Instagram people, it was probably on your Facebook page that you were there at the ribbon cutting that was funded by IRA money. So finally, let me ask you this because it's now getting late. So we should probably be honest with each other. If those funds were wasteful, why not just give them back? Y'all are trying to, you know, plug a huge hole by cutting health care to the American people. Just give us the money back. It was wasteful. You didn't vote for it. Your districts probably don't. I'm not going to yield. Maybe in a second.
▶ 7:05:23But if those projects were wasteful, if it was a travesty, then why are you holding that money in your district? You should be ashamed of it. You should want to give it back to the federal government so we can plug the hole that you're currently trying to plug with cuts to Medicaid, the ACA, taking health care away for millions of people, uh so you could fund tax cuts for those who absolutely do not need it. And um at the end of the day, the federal government gets some dollars back. That's helpful.
▶ 7:05:53And you can tape together the ribbons for the next ribbon cutting that you won't have because we're not passing anything here. And this administration cuts all the programs that we've previously passed. So you can just put that in a closet for when Democrats are back in the majority. Thank you. Gentlemen, yield. thank you. Um I I just want to make just a quick comment.
▶ 7:06:16Um, one of my Republican colleagues on this committee from the state of Georgia, who will uh be unnamed, even came to me and said, "Hey, would you help us on this? This is IRA money. I want a company in my district to get more money. So, how about we go in and fix some of the IRA so companies in my district can get it, too." So, what my colleague just brought up is so true.
▶ 7:06:44It's them going to the ribbon cutings, them taking the dollars when they want, and then just saying, "Hey, uh, let's repeal everything else now, by the way, because we need to find money for the billionaires and our friends to to give them tax cuts." So, it's happening right on this committee, and the hypocrisy is just so big. Uh, but since we can't name names, we won't do that anymore. Okay, with that, I yield back to Mr. Mendez.
▶ 7:07:14Gen gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Ohio. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield uh my time to the chair. Thank you very much. So, this is one of those subjects where I I think about my mother. My mother was a civics teacher. The role of a congressperson has two different hats, probably more than that, but two major hats they wear.
▶ 7:07:39One is decide if legislation is good and if that legislation is something they ought to vote for. And the second hat and that's the one where all the Republicans voted against a particular bill that was previously mentioned. And the second role is that of an ombbudsman.
▶ 7:07:55Once the bill is passed and signed into law and as long as it is still the law of the land, it is also the obligation of a congressman to advocate for their district to get the money even if they didn't agree with the money in the first place to get the money for their district. So, it is always very confusing and I actually wrote a column which if y'all want it just let me know. We'll send it to you. wrote a column on this explaining that there are two roles to a congressional person.
▶ 7:08:26one is the legislation, but once passed, even if you disagreed with the underlying purpose, if there's something in that legislation that can benefit your district or that you think ought to come to your district, whether you agreed with the underlying principle or not, whether you think the money should be spent or not, you have an obligation as ombbudsman role of congressman to advocate for your district and do everything you can to bring those resources to your district because the money's going to get spent somewhere.
▶ 7:08:55fair and if it's going to be spent in one of 435 districts, you want to see that you get your fair share. And that's why you sometimes get these disagreements where you voted against the legislation, but you advocate for your district after the legislation is passed.
▶ 7:09:14That does not mean that you you seed the ability on future legislation to act the legislator role and still oppose the spending of that money. And here endeth the civics's lesson. And I will yield if she wants the time to Miss Houchin of Indiana if she would like the remainder of my time or you can wait and get your own time. Uh Mr. Chairman, I was going to yield to the gentleman uh Mr. Palmer. All right. I yield to Mr. Palmer then. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 7:09:44Chairman. You know, we just keep hearing all this talk about tax cuts for billionaires and and all that stuff. And you know, my colleagues have forgotten two very important things. One, the vast majority of the tax cuts went to middle class Americans. And if this tax cut expires, they're going to be the hardest hit.
▶ 7:10:05Now, you I know there's some math challenge over over there, but u that's That's a problem that we can try to work through. But the other point I want to make is that when it comes to who billionaires support, in the last election, there were 135 that were actively involved, uh, six uh, 83 of them supported u, the Democratic candidate, Miss Harris. 61.5%.
▶ 7:10:35Uh, 53 52 supported the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump. That's that's 37.5%. So, and then among the millionaires, it was 57% supported Democratic candidates.
▶ 7:10:53So, I, you know, I really think when it comes to the ratios and who's being backed by billionaires and millionaires, I think that's a a bigger problem for uh my colleagues across the aisle. And I'll I'll be happy to get the information on how the tax cuts impacted the middle class uh by uh income brackets and I'll share that a little bit later. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 7:11:23Uh the gentleman yields back and I yield back. And now recognize you all have anybody anybody on the Democrat side wishing to speak? Seeing none, anyone on the Republican side wishing to speak? Seeing none, we'll now move to the measure. A roll call vote has been requested. If we'll take a roll call vote on the amendment by the gentle lady from Michigan. Mr. La. No. Mr. La votes no. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr.
▶ 7:11:53Griffith votes no. Mr. Mr. Billacus votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Palmer Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn Mr. Krenshaw. Mr.
▶ 7:12:23Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger votes no.
▶ 7:12:54Mrs. Miller Meeks Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kamik Mrs. Kamik votes no. Mr. Mr. Obernolulti Mr. Obernulti votes no Mr. James Mr. James votes no Mr. Bence Mr. Bence votes no Mrs. Hchin no Mrs. Hchin votes no Mr. Fry Mr.
▶ 7:13:23Fry votes no Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no Mr. Langworthy no Mr. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kane, Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Roelly, Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans, Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Mr.
▶ 7:13:53Fedorch votes no. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes I. M. Dat. Miss Deette votes I. Miss Shakowski I. Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsui. Miss Matsoule votes I. Miss Caster. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss. Clark. Miss.
▶ 7:14:23Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vy votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly. Votes. I. Miss. Baragon. Miss. Baragon. Votes. I. Mr. Sodto. I Mr. Sodto votes I.
▶ 7:14:53Miss. Shrier. Miss. Shrier. Votes. I. Miss. Fletcher Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss Okasiocortez Miss Okasiocortez votes I. Okenclaus Mr. Okenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Mendez votes I.
▶ 7:15:24Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman Mr. Lansman votes I. M. Mlen. Mlen votes I. Chairman Guthrie Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Krenshaw Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Is there anyone else?
▶ 7:15:54Seeing anybody on Democrat side. All right, clerk will report the role. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 23 eyes and 29 nos. fails. Any additional amendments to this particular title? We have one from the gentleman from New Jersey. Will the clerk will the gentleman help the clerk figure out which amendment that is? Sure. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 7:16:23My amendment is titled Environment 49. 49. Yes, Environment_49, an amendment offered by Mr. Mr.
▶ 7:16:52Mendez, strike section 42106. I would say dispense with the reading of the amendment, but that is the amendment. So, uh, Mr. Mendez is recognized. The gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak today in support of my amendment that would strike the section of this bill that repeals and resends funding for reducing air pollution at schools.
▶ 7:17:17We have an administration that claims to be promoting an agenda that will make our nation healthier and serve American families. But the bill we're marking up today does the opposite. It threatens bare minimum protections to keep our families healthy and safe. As a father and a legislator, there is nothing more important to me than protecting our nation's children. When parents send their kids to school, the last thing that they should be worried about is the air in their classroom.
▶ 7:17:46air in their children's classrooms, making their children sick. But indoor air pollutants pose serious health risks. Coughing, inflammation, allergic reactions, and respiratory illnesses. Those risks aren't just bad for children's health. They also affect educational outcomes. Nearly one in 13 American school children has asthma, which is a leading cause of chronic disease related school absenteeism. Breathing poor quality air at school makes that absenteeism worse.
▶ 7:18:16One study found a significant decline in children's English and math scores for every increase in particulate matter in their schools air. Democrats recognize that this is completely unacceptable. That's why the IRA created tools to address this challenge. The program Republicans are trying to eliminate in this bill helps reduce air pollution in schools.
▶ 7:18:39It helps school districts build resiliency and renovate buildings so children breathe cleaner, better quality air, something we should want for all of our children. Republicans vote against the authorization for this program three years ago and they're doubling down on it now. Today, they want to eliminate that program and claw back funding that Congress already set aside for it.
▶ 7:19:01So, I'd like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to explain to me and to the American people how gutting a program to reduce air pollution in schools is addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. How is it making the air our children breathe how is, excuse me, how is making the air our children breathe dirtier promoting government efficiency? How is making children sick supporting American families? This issue should be common sense. It should be straightforward.
▶ 7:19:31It should be bipartisan. Children's health, the air that they breathe for eight hours per day, 5 days per week, should be non-negotiable. Unfortunately, this administration, Republicans are abandoning their responsibilities to protect America's families and America's school children. I urge all my colleagues to continue to protect air quality in our schools and support my amendment. It says have three minutes and I'm here in N New Jersey. Today my daughter Olivia had a dance recital.
▶ 7:20:00Uh my wife told me it went very well. Uh which means that she gets all of her talent from her mom. So with that, let's keep her and all of her classmates and all your kids and neighbors schools air clean. Thank you and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for the five minutes. Uh we previously argued about uh this section in a previous amendment. Um I think we covered it fairly well. I'm glad that Olivia's recital went well.
▶ 7:20:28It's one of the things that folks back home don't always realize is that we have families, too. And no matter which side of the aisle you're on, you're missing something. And uh it's not always easy. And sometimes your kids uh are okay with it and sometimes they aren't. But I hope that she's all right with you you being here tonight. I do think what we're doing is important even when we don't agree. Uh I did I will repeat some of what I said before in that no schools are actually losing any money.
▶ 7:20:58Most of this or all of this money went to planning organizations and folks trying to figure out things and that data is already out there. So I didn't have any problem with this and it's kind of one of those deals where it's all hat and no cattle. I yield back. Anyone else wish to be recognized on the Democrat side? the ranking member of the environment subcommittee, Mr. Tonko. Five minutes.
▶ 7:21:28Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I speak in support of Representative Menendez's uh amendment. Um, you know, it's been suggested that these funds, some initially 50 million in total, won't actually be helping our schools. Uh, it may even be down to about 12 million now that's uh remaining in the account. But look, if we look at, we can easily imagine that many of our schools need an environmental shot in the arm.
▶ 7:21:56And um while 50 million won't solve that problem, there's opportunity, ample opportunity that would allow EPA to provide technical assistance and develop uh best practices so that facility managers could uh put together a plan of action. We're looking for efficiency. um this is a great way to do it.
▶ 7:22:19Have planners put together the plan that makes most sense that can enable them to then go forward and um can take the next steps to find the resources to implement those plans. These well-informed decisions would do a lot to improve our schools. And you know, we look at we look at the science of uh of clean schools and making certain that children's experiences are as best as they can be.
▶ 7:22:47Uh air quality has been looked at from many many samplings and studies out there. There's ample evidence that improving schools indoor air quality dramatically improves students academic performance. It enables them to raise those test scores and uh reduce the amount of sick days um that keep them from attending school.
▶ 7:23:11And at least one study estimated that um with the um high quality air purifiers in the classroom, we uh can see a reduction of class size. It's equivalent to a reduction of class size by some 30%. So there's great stuff we can do here. this scraping away the amount of money from this fund away from our children um I think is really neglectful. But I get it.
▶ 7:23:40You're looking to scrape all sorts of dollars together to amass that total you need to line the pockets of billionaires. But why does that have to come at the expense of our children? Why does it have to come at the expense of uh 13.7 million uh individuals who um will be knocked off the uh Medicaid opportunity? So with that, I yield back um and encourage everyone to support this amendment. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 7:24:11Do I see anyone on the Republican side wishes to speak? Seeing no hands, I now turn to the gentleman from California for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um This is one of those cruel attempts by Republicans to cut funding for schools in need in order to find the funds
▶ 7:24:41to give billions of dollars to billionaires. I support this amendment to prevent that from happening. Uh we need to keep the funding for schools to address pollution.
▶ 7:24:58I mentioned earlier in my previous remarks how pollution does in fact affect students learning capacity and it also affects their days in school. In other words, there's more missed days in school. And in fact, it's hard to study and learn when you have frequent asthma exacerbations and can't uh breathe.
▶ 7:25:27So, let me tell you a story about how this funding is important. Back in October of 2019, there was a mulch fire in an industry called the Sun Valley Recycling Center in Thermal, California, right next to a uh set of schools.
▶ 7:25:48Uh this industry, this company, uh was not following industry standards and there was a fire that polluted the air. And you know, these mulch fires, you can't just go in and turn them off. They simmer and they last and this one lasted for several weeks. Uh and there was reported about 25 students from Desert Mirage High School.
▶ 7:26:12They reported smoke related health issues with 14 uh visiting the emergency department for respiratory problems. In the middle school and the uh elementary school there uh they were evacuated due to proximity to the fire and smoke exposure. evacuated alongside all the other students.
▶ 7:26:32Uh this uh was a serious problem in a very underresourced uh school district and because of this they applied for funding and received air monitors because if it's not a fire because uh this is not an is isolated incident uh fires like these are becoming all too common in the eastern Coachella Valley a region already burdened by some of the worst air quality in the nation and time time and again
▶ 7:27:03its students, many of them from low-income farmworker families are hit the hardest. So when smoke from fires or the dust from the surrounding salt and sea fills the air, students experience severe asthma flare-ups and respiratory distress, lost instructional time due to school closures or health related absences, stress, fear, and a sense of being unheard as their neighborhoods and classrooms become zones of environmental And that fire wasn't just an environmental event.
▶ 7:27:33It was an educational and a public health emergency. And it underscored the urgent need for investments in clean air infrastructure in and around schools like high efficiency HVAC systems, realtime air quality monitoring, and stronger land use protections to keep hazardous operations away from residentials and school zones. My colleague says that he's cleared his conscience because this money does not take away these funds.
▶ 7:28:01This money rescends future potential grants to address high schools like Desert Mirage High School and other high schools throughout our nations and throughout our members districts that suffer from similar environmental hazards and toxins and and air pollution. And this fund will help those schools, but they want to make those funds not available for those students. And that's just wrong. It's morally wrong. It's the wrong policy.
▶ 7:28:31It's only going to increase costs, increase emergency department visits, decrease students uh aptitude in school and um and so I urge everybody to please vote for this amendment, protect this funding for the schools that need them to protect their students uh um air quality uh so they can continue going to school in a healthy environment, get the grades and uh and live a healthy, productive life.
▶ 7:29:00With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Do I see anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none, there has been a roll call requested and we would require a roll call. Thank you. Let's go ahead and vote on the Mr. La. Mr. Lada votes no. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Mr. Barakus.
▶ 7:29:31Mr. Barakus votes no. Mr. Hudson Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr.
▶ 7:30:00Joyce Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no Mr. Allen Mr. Allen votes no Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no Mr. Fulture Mr. Fulture votes no Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no Mrs. Mrs. Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs.
▶ 7:30:29Miller Meeks Ms. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Chemik Mrs. Chemik votes no. Mr. Obernolulti Mr. Oberoni votes no. Mr. James Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bence Mr. Bence votes no. Mrs. Hen Mr. Fry Mr.
▶ 7:30:58Fry votes no. Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Ruly Mr. Evans Mr.
▶ 7:31:27Evans votes no Mr. Goldman Mr. Goldman votes no Mrs. Fedorek Mrs. Fedorek votes no Mr. Palone Mr. Palone votes I Mr. Digette. Mr. to get votes I. Miss Shakowski I Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsui I Miss Matsui votes I.
▶ 7:31:55Miss Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss Clark. Miss Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz I. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vzy votes I. Miss.
▶ 7:32:29Kelly. Miss Paragon. Miss Paragon. Votes. I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto. Votes. I. Miss. Shrier. Miss. Shrier. Votes. I, Miss Trean. Miss Trean votes I, Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes I, Miss Okasiocortez. Miss Okaziocortez votes I. Oenclaus. Mr.
▶ 7:32:58Oenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Mullen Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Ms. Mlen Miss. Mlen votes I. Chairman Guthrie.
▶ 7:33:25Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce is not recorded. Mr. Joyce votes no. Gentle lady from Indiana. Miss Hchin. Mrs. Mrs. Houchin no.
▶ 7:33:53We have anybody else on the Republican side? Anybody on the Democrat side? All right. Seeing none, the clerk will report the role. Mr. Mr. Chairman, on that vote there were 23 eyes's and 28 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any additional amendments? Seeing none, I will turn the chair over to the chair.
▶ 7:34:32You want a roll call? Roll call. I figured you did. All right. If there's no further discussion, um, okay, there's no further discussion. No further amendments. All right. I move that the committee do now approve and agree to transmit the House Committee to the House Committee on the budget, subtitle B, budget reconciliation, legislative recommendations relating to environment. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 7:35:03Mr. La. I Mr. La votes I Mr. Griffith I Mr. Griffith votes I Mr. Billis I Mr. Bill Rockus votes I Mr. Hudson Mr. Hudson votes I Mr. Carter of Georgia I Mr. Carter of Georgia votes I Mr. Mr. Palmer votes I. Mr. Done.
▶ 7:35:34Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes I. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Allen. I. Mr. Allen votes I. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes I. Mr. Mr. Fulture votes I. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes I.
▶ 7:36:04Mrs. Harshburgger. Mrs. Harshburgger votes I. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes I. Mrs. Kamik. Mrs. Kamik votes I. Mr. Oberoni. Mr. Obernoli votes I. Mr. Mr. James votes I. Mr. Bence. Mr. Bz votes I. Mrs. Hggin Mrs. Hggin votes I.
▶ 7:36:34Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes I. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Kane votes I. Mr. Roelly. I. Mr. Roelly votes I. Mr. Evans. I. Mr. Mr. Evans votes I. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes I. Mrs.
▶ 7:37:06Mrs. Fedorch votes I. Mr. Palone. No. Mr. Palone votes no. Miss Dette. No. Miss Dette votes no. Miss Shakowski. No. Miss Shicowski votes no. Miss. Matsui. No. Miss Matsui votes no. Miss Caster. Miss Caster votes no. Mr. Tonko, no. Mr. Tonko votes no. Miss Clark.
▶ 7:37:36Miss Clark votes no. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Louisia. No. Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes no. Mr. Vzy Mr. Vzy votes no.
▶ 7:38:04Miss Kelly Miss Kelly votes no. Miss Bagon Miss Bagon votes no. Mr. Sodto Mr. Sodto votes no. Miss Shrier. Miss Shrier votes no. Miss Straan votes no. Miss Fletcher Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Okassiocortez Okasiocortez votes no. Mr.
▶ 7:38:34Oenclaus Mr. Oenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Mendez votes no. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes no. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes no. M. Mlen. M. Mlen votes no. Chairman I. Chairman Guthrie.
▶ 7:39:04Anyone seeking uh to answer the role? Seeing none on the Republican side, any on the Democrat side. Everyone's recorded. The clerk will Chairman Guthrie. On that vote, there were 29 eyes and 24 nos. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. The chair calls up the committee print subtitle C communications and ask the clerk to report.
▶ 7:39:38Title four, Energy and Commerce, Subtitle C, Communications Part One. Without objection, the reading of the print is dispensed with and the committee print will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Is there discussion on or there is discussion on subtitle C? The purpose. What purpose a gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition? Move to strike the last word on the underlying title. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 7:40:04For nearly three years, House Democrats have worked together with Republicans on this committee to restore the Federal Communications Commission's Spectrum Auction Authority and direct the revenues raised to fund bipartisan suspend. Let's let the room come to order. Gentleman has a right to be heard. Please proceed. And that spectrum auction authority uh the idea was to direct the revenues raised to fund bipartisan priorities to enhance security and connectivity.
▶ 7:40:32And that was the case until this January when the Republicans gave up on our efforts to instead chase partisan goals like funding tax breaks for billionaires and large corporate interests. And I'm disappointed that my Republican colleagues are choosing this partisan path. In shaping the spectrum provision before us, Republicans have abandoned their commitments to fund critical public safety upgrades with spectrum auction proceeds. Spectrum is a public resource of which the government is a steward.
▶ 7:41:02So, it's only reasonable to think that revenues raised by its sale or lease should fund priorities that serve the public interest. But instead, my Republican colleagues have made a conscious choice that the $88 billion in spectrum revenue raised by their legislation is better spent on tax cuts for billionaires than on upgrading 911 systems to benefit first responders and our all of our constituents actually in times of emergency. If this bill becomes low, Mr. chairman.
▶ 7:41:31It will set back efforts to upgrade 911 centers for a decade or more. Much of the legislation before us today is cruel, but Republican omission of funding for life-saving public safety communications instead to line in order to line the pockets of the wealthy during police week, no less, is particularly shameful in my opinion. So, I look forward to supporting proposals from my Democratic colleagues to write these wrongs in amendments. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yells back.
▶ 7:42:00Is there anyone on the Republican side seeking recognition for discussion? Anyone? Gentle lady from uh California is recognized. Gentle lady from Northern California is recognized for uh five minutes to speak on the on the underlying bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last Spectrum has historically been a bipartisan issue in Congress.
▶ 7:42:23It should remain so and we should as a bipartisan matter make thoughtful balanced decisions when it comes to a spectrum pipeline. One that promotes innovation and recognizes we need the right mix of unlicensed shared and licensed spectrum. Yet today my Republican colleagues are ramming through a reconciliation bill that tosses this careful bipartisan approach in the trash. This isn't a serious attempt to help American families.
▶ 7:42:54It's a cash grab, funneling tens of billions in auction revenue into tax breaks for corporations. These auction proceeds should be invested in the public good, upgrading 911 systems, expanding broadband, and connecting every American, not tax cuts for the ultra rich.
▶ 7:43:15Instead, through reconciliation, Republicans are delaying the life-saving emergency response upgrades and tossing aside the chance to make broadband truly affordable and accessible.
▶ 7:43:29And when President Trump is already turning independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission into his personal lap dog, this bill does nothing to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that spectrum decisions are grounded in facts and law. Without proper safeguards, these decisions will choke competition, kill innovation, and destabilize billions and existing spectrum investments.
▶ 7:43:58We must be careful when opening up spectrum bands to new uses. The stakes are simply too high to get this wrong. Take the CBRS ban, a shared spectrum ban critical to national security and 5G innovation.
▶ 7:44:14Key American industries, consumers, and schools rely on CBRS for connectivity, smart manufacturing, precision agriculture, and other innovative uses with technology developed by USbased equipment manufacturers. They have already invested heavily in innovations using CBRS, and any change should be very carefully considered.
▶ 7:44:40Jamming a bill through that could kick all current users off the CBRS ban when we have had only 36 hours to review text and only one spectrum hearing this Congress is reckless and risk causing real harm. US national security, competition, manufacturing and jobs are on the line.
▶ 7:45:01We should be pursuing bipartisan inspection policy based on facts, analyses, and full stakeholder input, not halfbake policies. Our consumers, businesses, and federal agencies all stand to benefit when we effectively use our spectrum resources.
▶ 7:45:21That's why I've long championed thoughtful approaches like the National Spectrum Strategy, which teed up a slew of bands for study and gathers input from stakeholders across industry, public interest, and the government to ensure an all of the above approach, including licensed, unlicensed, and shared spectrum.
▶ 7:45:42And it's why I urge my Republican colleagues to work with us to pass comprehensive spectrum legislation that have substantial bipartisan buyin, not jam through a partisan giveaway that enriches the 1% that everyone else at everyone else's expense. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. The gentle lady yields back. Is there any people seeking to speak on the Republican side? None. We have the gentle lady from Illinois is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
▶ 7:46:14Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Ladies recognized. I'm deeply concerned with this Republican crafted budget resolution for subtitle C dealing with communications where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle plan to use spectrum auction proceeds to fund President Trump's tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations. Simply put, it makes no sense to auction Spectrum to to help pay for large tax breaks for the superw wealthy.
▶ 7:46:41Instead of using the funds from Spectrum auction proceeds on the wealthy, Congress should invest this money in ways that benefit local communities and public interest objectives. In addition to my concerns regarding the uses of spectrum auction proceeds, I am worried about the cost of internet services. There is no denying that the exploration of the affordable connectivity program or ACP poses a significant challenge for low-income households that depended on it to afford internet services.
▶ 7:47:11Unlicensed spectrum technology such as Wi-Fi has provided connectivity across all income levels due to its wide distribution and deployment. We've seen schools and libraries utilize Wi-Fi to help connect their students and patrons. And while Wi-Fi can help with the affordability issue, other technologies like Citizens Broadband Radio Service or CBRS have delivered new 5G network capacity, connecting rural areas, and spurring precision agriculture.
▶ 7:47:40Protecting CBRS and ensuring greater use of its rural communities, supports rural economic growth and access to fundamental services like education and health care. Lastly, beyond the concerns I've already addressed, the reconciliation bill contains a broadband on states enforcing their own state laws regulating artificial intelligence artificial intelligence systems for a full decade, depriving them of the ability to prohibit practices that harm Americans.
▶ 7:48:09I urge my colleagues to oppose the so-called AI and information technology modernization initiative initiative that would do nothing but allow big tech to deploy dangerous technologies. Thank you and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments? Gentleman from Louisiana. What purp you seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk titled COM4_XML.
▶ 7:48:44The clerk will report com four an amendment to the committee print for subtitle C offered by Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Page four after line 22. Insert the following section. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 7:49:05My amendment would add the text of the bipartisan next generation 911 act to the Republican budget reconciliation legislation before us today and fully fund the program using the proceeds from future spectrum auctions. Because of technological advances in telecommunications over the past 50 years, Americans can communicate today in ways not not even contemplated when 911 systems were first created.
▶ 7:49:35We take the capability to send texts and video messages in an instant or stream live over the internet for granted. Yet, we haven't always had those tools. We use these tools with our friends, our loved ones every day. Yet, we're not able to use them contacting 911 when it matters most. Hundreds of millions of calls are made to 911 across the United States each year.
▶ 7:50:00However, most Americans may not be aware that 911 call centers lack modern 21st 21 century 21st century communication infrastructure. Each of us has a device in their pocket with extraordinary capabilities unimaginable when the first 911 call was placed. Yet because our 911 systems are stuck in the past, our first responders are unable to utilize the tools we take for granted in this digital age.
▶ 7:50:31911 operators are trained to give excellent stepby-step instructions to callers for every emergency manageable This pro the problem is that every day there are new emergencies beyond our imagination. In the next generation 911 environment, the ability to send multimedia or transmit to live video to first responders in route to an emergency is an extraordinary step for public safety.
▶ 7:51:01For example, firefighters can map out the best point of entry while in a route based on pictures and videos of a burning building and have a plan before they even arrive on the scene. EMTs can coach good Samaritans helping someone in cardiac arrest, adjusting their instructions before what they see in real time.
▶ 7:51:24It also enables the text to 911, which is crucial in situations that do not allow for someone in danger to place a call and speak, like in instances of domestic violence where discretion is paramount. The applications are limitless. When second when seconds are the difference between life and death, our constituents and first responders who put themselves in harm's way to save lives should have the best possible tools.
▶ 7:51:52This gives us that opportunity to have the best possible tools. So when our individuals are putting their lives on the line, we should give them the very best of what our technology has to offer. I can think of no other better way of funding it than using these spectrum funds.
▶ 7:52:11And I'm sure taking this language that is literally lifted from our bipartisan bill from this committee would make perfect sense that if we can't agree on anything today, this is one that we certainly can agree on. I yield. Will the gentleman yield? I yield. Yes. Um I just want to speak in support of this amendment and uh I can think of no other way to spend dollars in in this kind of a system.
▶ 7:52:36I also want to take a moment to apologize to all of the people who came today to talk and to hear about Medicaid because you showed up and you are here. Yet, this committee is not having the health portion of this hearing until after 10 p.m. And it reminds me of the hour when they released the the text for the actual bill in the dark of night after 10 p.m.
▶ 7:53:00And it's really shameful that we have not had this part of the hearing moved up so that you all could be here because we have had scores and dozens of people showing up and coming on this issue who've had to leave, children who've had to leave and advocates who've had to leave. So, I want to apologize to you uh how shameful it is that this committee is waiting until after 10 p.m. to do it.
▶ 7:53:26And we know it can be done because in the past in this committee when we want we move bills around and we move topics around to make sure that they are done. And with that I yield back to Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes Miss Dr. Mr. Hudson for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I wish to speak against the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it's no secret our 911 technology is outdated.
▶ 7:53:56Some systems are even half a decade old. Next generation 911 is a top priority for this committee and for me as chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology. That's why I want to make sure that we can continue this on a bipartisan basis. In places like my own district, this technology is already being deployed. I think it's important that we make sure we have an accurate number of dollars to appropriate for this technology. Considering the last cost estimate for NG 911 deployment we have is from 2018.
▶ 7:54:24Given the mixed deployment across the country, there's no doubt the number we need to appropriate has changed and I want to get this right. I want to thank the gentleman uh who offered this amendment for his commitment to this issue and I believe he's sincere and I've appreciated working with him on it and I commit to you that I will work with you going forward because modernizing our 911 technology is a top priority of mine as the chairman of this subcommittee and getting it done outside of reconciliation ensures the quickest delivery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 7:54:54The gentleman yields back because there are speakers on the Dr. Gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz. I have to call you by name because you have a lot of Californians. So, Mr. Ree, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. I congratulate my colleague, uh, Congressman Hudson for having NextGen 911 in his district. I don't have it in my district. As an emergency physician, I have witnessed firsthand the critical importance of timely emergency care.
▶ 7:55:23I've seen first responders wheel patients into the ER during the most harrowing moments of their lives. In those moments, every single second counts. That's why this amendment is so important. It would fund long overdue upgrades to our public safety communication system through the next generation 911 program. Even shaving a few seconds off emergency response times can mean the difference between life and death, between permanent disability during a stroke or full recovery.
▶ 7:55:54This isn't this issue isn't hypothetical for my constituents. In recent months, part of my district experienced 911 outages. Okay, we can't wait. Residents in crisis couldn't get through to emergency services at all. That's not just a failure of infrastructure. It's a failure to protect lives.
▶ 7:56:15And yet, during National Police Week, when we should be honoring our first responders, my Republican colleagues are pushing legislation that would prevent vital modernization. Because if instead of using the spectrum auction funds to modernize outdated 911 systems, which they can easily do that, they are using it to give billions of dollars of tax cuts to billionaires.
▶ 7:56:40And it is deeply contradictory to praise law enforcement while advancing policies that make their jobs harder and their response time slower. At the same time, the reconciliation plan proposes slashing over 7 hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. 13.7 million people will no longer have health insurance.
▶ 7:57:04They will have no care, meaning they will get sicker and they will be calling 911 more to go to the emergency department. And to add insult to injury, those hospitals or emergency departments, especially in rural areas, are at risk of closing. And for years, expanded access to affordable care is allowed under resourced communities, rural communities to seek help from doctors instead of emergency rooms.
▶ 7:57:35But if this bill becomes law, the progress will be undone. People will wait until it's too late, call 911, and end up in overcrowded ERS receiving more expensive, less effective care. So, Democrats are offering a solution to get faster response times to get patients to the emergency room sooner. And this amendment would improve emergency response time, support our first responders, and save lives.
▶ 7:58:01Meanwhile, Republicans are advancing a bill that will result in more 911 calls, more hospital closures, and more preventable deaths. And let's be clear, this legislation will make Americans sicker and leave them with fewer options for care. If we're going to force 911 and first responders to fill the gaps left by gutted health care, the least we can do is give them the most effective tools they need to do their jobs.
▶ 7:58:27So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in uh honor of National Police Week to fund Next Generation 911, protect public health, and truly honor our first responders, not just in words, but in action. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Um, anyone on the Republican side seeking recognition on the amendment? Dr. Mill or Dr. Miller meets and then I'll come back to Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 7:58:54I was just wondering if the uh gentle woman from California was calling for a vote. Oh. If she wanted to move things faster. You want to yield back? Do you want to yield the time to gentleman from Alabama? Are you asking me from Yes. Yeah. I think Yes, ma'am. Are you calling for a vote? No, I'm calling for your committee. You guys are in charge. You decide what topics you're going to go that you move up the healthc care first.
▶ 7:59:22This is a totally intentional thing you're doing to make sure healthcare doesn't happen before 10 p.m. You have the power to do it. So you I know you want to vote to move things along because you want to just go as late as possible, but you all have the power to do my time on the power. I reclaim my time. For the record, this is Republicans doing. Okay. Do you yield to gentleman from Alabama is what you Oh, you want your own time now? Are you good, M? I reclaim my time. I yelled to the gentleman from Alabama.
▶ 7:59:52Yes. All I was going to say was 911 first call was made in the town that I was born in. And it wasn't because I was born there. Was it Hackleberg? First 911 call was made in Haleyville, Alabama. Haleyville. That's Robert Adhold's hometown. All right. Who? Okay. Do you yield back? Anyone on the Mr. Gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Chairman.
▶ 8:00:21I appreciate uh Representative Carter bringing forward this uh key bill. Billions in telecom spectrum auction dollar should be reinvested in next generation 911 systems, not billionaire tax cuts. You know, we heard already about how Florida gets hit pretty hard with hurricanes. My district got hit very hard with Irma and Ian and Helen and Milton just hit Tampa Bay pretty hard as well.
▶ 8:00:49Um, but you would be surprised to know that we have a dry season in Central Florida in the early spring. And so we actually had wildfires u this past uh couple months, 275 acres uh a brush fire as well as a 600 acre fire near St. Cloud, Florida uh just these past couple weeks. And we do a lot of maintenance uh and controlled burns of our forests. And so I visited St. Cloud Police Department yesterday and met with 911 operators.
▶ 8:01:19Their systems are antiquated. They need more investment. One of the 911 operators was even affected personally by the fires. And so, as we're looking at these investments from telecom spectrum that will generate billions of dollars, it should go right back into spectrum related issues like 911 systems uh so that we could protect our constituents. And I yield back. gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 8:01:48Seeing none, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. La Mr. La votes no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Billis, Mr. Billis votes no. Mr. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr.
▶ 8:02:18Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn, Mr. Krenshaw, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Mr. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no.
▶ 8:02:48Mr. Fulier. Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger. Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kemik. Mrs. Kemick votes no. Obernolulti Mr. Obernosi votes no. Mr. James Mr. James votes no.
▶ 8:03:19Mr. Ben Mr. Ben votes no. Mrs. Houchen Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Ms. Lee. Mrs. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Kane, Mr. Kane votes no. Mr.
▶ 8:03:45Roelly, Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans, Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman, Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedor, Mrs. Fedor votes no. Mr. Palone, Mr. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Gat I. Mr. Gat votes I. Miss Shakowski I.
▶ 8:04:14Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsui I. Miss Matsui votes I. Miss Caster. I. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss. Clark. Miss. Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I.
▶ 8:04:45Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vy votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly votes I. Miss Bagon. Miss Bagon. Votes I. Mr. Sto. Mr. Stoodto votes I. Miss Shrier. Miss Shrier votes I. Miss Treyan. Miss Trean votes I. Miss Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss. Okasiocortez.
▶ 8:05:16Miss Okasiocortez votes I. Okenclaus. Mr. Oenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Mullen Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman Mr. Lansman votes I. M. Mlen. Mlen votes I. Chairman Guthrie.
▶ 8:05:47Chairman Guthrie votes no. How is Dr. Joyce recorded? Dr. Joyce is not Dr. Joyce votes no. Anybody on the Republican side? How is anybody on the Democrat side? No. Seeing none, the clerk will report. Chairman Guthrie, on that vote, there were 24 eyes's and 28 nos. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 8:06:16Are there further The gentle lady from New York. What purp you seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk labeled COM 9. Comm 9ine. Clerk will report.
▶ 8:06:45Comm nine, an amendment to the committee print for subtitle C offered by Miss Clark. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. My amendment would take a small amount of the money you all are confiscating today to further enrich billionaires and put it towards lessening the impact of President Trump's price hikes on everyday people.
▶ 8:07:11Specifically, my amendment would put spectrum auction proceeds toward reestablishing a broadband affordability program that would lower costs for families across the country. The truth is the spectrum that my Republican colleagues are seeking to auction off today does not belong to them. It belongs to the American people.
▶ 8:07:34Proceeds should be reinvested for the public good and not used exclusively to pay for tax cuts for their billionaire friends. Funding a program to help make broadband affordable is now needed is needed now, perhaps more than ever. The affordable connectivity program brought millions of Americans online. But despite its success, Republicans allowed the funding for the program to lapse last year.
▶ 8:08:03As a result, many of the nearly 23 million ACP families saw their internet bills go up. Those who could not afford to pay were disconnected entirely. Little did we know at the time this would be one of the first of many Republican price hikes families would have to face.
▶ 8:08:24In fact, at every opportunity they get, Republicans seem determined to increase costs and widen the digital divide. Last week, the president announced his plans to unilaterally repeal the Digital Equity Act and claw back the money Congress appropriated to implement it.
▶ 8:08:46Digital Equity Act programs were designed to provide devices and training to folks across the country, including seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and those living in rural areas to help them get online. Also, right now, the Trump administration is purposefully delaying broadband buildout projects under the bead program, even though shovels could have been in the ground across the country months ago.
▶ 8:09:16Republicans seem poised to effectively roll back the requirement that providers that take bead money provide an affordable service plan. Republicans voted in the Senate last week to forever repeal an FCC program that would provide Wi-Fi hotspots to school children. This is a travesty considering how many students from low-income households have come to rely on Wi-Fi.
▶ 8:09:43It's almost like they look back at photos of children doing homework at fast food restaurants or in library parking lots during the pandemic and think h those go back to the good old days. Is that what they mean when they say make America great again? I don't see it that way at all. We must continue the incredible cro progress we've made to close the digital divide and finish the job.
▶ 8:10:12Study after study shows consistently efforts to close the digital divide must address the high cost of internet service. I urge all members of this committee to support my amendment which would finally provide some relief to people in this country facing Donald Trump's price hikes. With that, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Is there any discussion for the discussion? Gentleman from North Carolina, you're recognized to speak on the amendment.
▶ 8:10:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak against the amendment. The affordable connectivity program was originally established as a temporary program to ensure that Americans could afford to stay connected if they were suddenly laid off during the CO9 pandemic. It expired when the money ran out and well after Americans were back at work post pandemic. To set the record straight, the federal government already has a program to ensure that low-income Americans can afford service. the lifeline program within the universal service fund which is managed by the federal communications commission.
▶ 8:11:13Second, starting ACP using spectrum proceeds would ultimately harm the very people it seeks to help. This is only a solution. Spectrum proceeds will run out and then all the families that relied on the subsidy will be left without it again. Last Congress, Democrats complained about 23 million households losing their ACP subsidy and now they want to do it again.
▶ 8:11:35Without a permanent funding source, providers will not want to participate because of the burdensome process of reenrolling subscribers only for the program to go away within a few years. Third, this amendment does nothing to reform ACP to address eligibility or the waste fraud and abuse that we saw rampant in the program. Under ACP, we saw people with enormous incomes, even lobbyists here in DC, qualify for the ACP. That's not who this program should support.
▶ 8:12:01I'll also note that as much as Democrats claimed to miss that program, they controlled both the Senate and the White House last Congress and couldn't agree on a proposal that could keep ACP funded. Congress should not restart the ACP until we can all agree on reforms to the program and have a dedicated permanent funding source for any program to help our most vulnerable populations participate in the 21st century economy. and we're happy to work with our friends on the other side of the aisle on changes, but this is not the vehicle for those discussions.
▶ 8:12:31My colleague also mentioned the bead program. I'll tell you the bead program, a lot of money, not one penny has been spent to lay one inch of fiber, though. Um, we need to get that money deployed. And I've offered a a a solution, bipartisan solution called speed to bead, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at that. And finally, this this charge again, you know, it's you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
▶ 8:12:59The other side keeps claiming that we want to give tax hikes to billionaires, but I'll point out that the tax policies we hope to extend affect middle class Americans. In fact, in the author of this amendment's own district, New York 9, the average family will see a tax increase if we don't extend these tax cuts of $2,32 per family. That's a lot of money. That's real money for working families.
▶ 8:13:28Um, one of my colleagues earlier made the same charge from California. I'd mentioned that the average California taxpayer would see a 20% tax increase if we don't extend the 2017 tax cuts for the middle class. In fact, a family of four in California making $95,000, that's the median income, would see a $2,142 tax increase on average. That's real money.
▶ 8:13:564.6 million California families would see their household child tax credit cut in half. 85% of California taxpayers would see their guaranteed deduction cut in half. 3.1 million small businesses in California would be hit with a 43.4% tax 56,821 family-owned farms in California will see their death tax exemption cut in half.
▶ 8:14:26This is real damage to real working families. In fact, if you look at the tax brackets, if you look at the lower tax bracket of $15,300 for a single person, um I'm I'm sorry, $12,150. Their tax rate would go from 10% to 15%. Tax bracket at $49,425 of income would see their tax rate go from 12% to 15%.
▶ 8:14:53These are this this is real pain for real working families out there. So, this charge that we're trying to have these tax cuts for rich people, I'm not going to use the L word because we're not allowed to use that. I'll just quote another famous Californian who said, "It's not that they're wrong, it's that what they know for certain just isn't so." And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Perry's Peters, I don't have Perry.
▶ 8:15:23Peters is is recognized. Mr. Peters, can you go to Mr. Aenclaus first? I didn't realize I never get called on that fast. So, I'm sorry. What did you do? What? Go to Can you come back to me, please? Okay, Miss Dingle from Michigan. You say recognition. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 8:15:53I'm very supportive of Representative Clark's amendment. The Spectrum Auction Program has raised over $230 billion since 1994 and has long enjoyed bipartisan support for funding public safety and connectivity initiatives. As co-chair of the 5G caucus, I know how critical it is that we continue investing in infrastructure, spectrum policy, and innovation to maintain America's leadership in wireless technology.
▶ 8:16:23We've made tremendous progress since the passage of the infrastructure investments and jobs act, but let's be clear, this work is far from done. Affordability remains the number one reason that people don't have high-speed internet access at home.
▶ 8:16:40A recent survey found that 63% of the adults said their internet bills had increased in the la past year and one in five say that these price increases have caused them to downgrade, switch or cancel service. Every time a family must make that choice, we're moving in the wrong direction for this country. I was beyond disappointed when my Republican colleagues allowed the affordable connectivity program to run out of money last year.
▶ 8:17:11ACP connected 23 million families and was the most successful broadband affordability program in history. Representative Clark's amendment writes that wrong and the timing couldn't be better. According to one report, President Trump's reckless trade policies will increase costs for 5G wireless equipment, ultimately leading to higher prices for consumers.
▶ 8:17:37But these trade policies could significantly slow down our deployment of 6G networks, putting us at risk of los losing our global technology technological race with China. something I think we should all be unwilling to do. At the same time, we should be concerned about spectrum provisions in the underlying bill that jeopardize innovation and economic competitiveness.
▶ 8:18:04In Michigan, the CBRS ban supports advanced manufacturing and it powers private 5G networks and automanufacturing facilities. Eliminating access to this shared spectrum would directly threaten these deployments and with no viable alternative ban to shift to. This will harm competition and consumers.
▶ 8:18:27The bill also risk limiting access to unlicensed spectrum like the six gigahertz band which enables campuswide Wi-Fi at the University of Michigan supporting over tens of thousands of students, faculty, and staff. And I'm sure that that's the same universities across the country.
▶ 8:18:47To maintain our leadership and close the digital divide, we must drive down costs and get back on track so that everyone in this country gets connected to cuttingedge internet access. I thank Representative Clark for offering this important amendment which would lower costs for consumers and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. That's what President Trump promised that we would lower costs for consumers. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 8:19:17The gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I want to speak in opposition to this amendment and quite frankly want to join uh my colleague uh Representative Hudson to reject the claims made by our colleagues on the left. $42 billion. $42 billion was allocated in the previous administration.
▶ 8:19:44Not a single family or business was connected to the internet. Not one. Not one. And I represent a district that is exceptionally rural. And let me tell you, there was a lot of hope that there was going to be connectivity. It never So, I reject the notion that now all of a sudden you guys care about connecting Americans to broadband when you had four years and Congress really to do it, but you didn't.
▶ 8:20:12And I I had to stop counting once we hit over a hundred because over a hundred times tonight in the last eight hours, it has been said by our colleagues on the left that this entire package is about tax breaks for I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a nonpartisan a report from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation that just came out that shows that those making between 30,000 and $80,000 annually would pay 15%
▶ 8:20:43less in taxes under the Republican plan. Those aren't billionaires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are not billionaires. That is workingclass American families. Show me in the text where billionaires are getting a tax break. I'll wait. We'll be here all night. I can go through every single one of the districts that are represented here tonight.
▶ 8:21:07And every time someone objects to making these tax cuts permanent, that is them saying they want their constituents to pay more. They want families to pay more. They want to cut the family credit deduction in half. That is a fact. You cannot argue the facts.
▶ 8:21:26And so I reject this amendment and I reject the notion that this package which is designed to support working Americans across this country is about tax breaks for billionaires because again it would be false. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Perry. Mr. Peters. Peters. I said that twice now. That happened the first week I was here. They confused me with Mr. Perry, but I'm sorry. Obviously not the same person. I don't know why I said that. I'd know better. I apologize. My apologies.
▶ 8:21:56No, no, don't worry about it. Uh I just want wanted to address um my friend from North Carolina's uh discussion about um the tax burden. You know, um first of all, this is the bill that the Republicans wrote in 2017. They designed it to expire in 2017. Uh this is by design because it costs a lot of money to extend them. They knew that then, they know that now. But let's just talk about part of it.
▶ 8:22:20One of the one of the parts of it would would take the top marginal rate and restore it back to 39.6% from 37%. Just that change uh would generate according to the um to the Penn Wharton budget model allowing the top marginal tax rate to return from 37 to 39.6% would yield $42 billion in revenue. 400 that's almost half of what we're trying to get out of here. Just that change.
▶ 8:22:48Now, are those people, these small families, middle class people? No. That that marginal rate doesn't even start until you make 609,000 as a single person or 731,000 as a married person. Those are not people who can't afford an extra two bucks per $100 starting at that level because it's a marginal rate. That doesn't mean that all your your income is taxed at 39.6, just the part above that. So, the the bill can be split up. It doesn't have to all be reenacted at once. some parts you made permanent.
▶ 8:23:18Um the business tax tax reduction, the the uh corporate tax, actually I thought 35% was too high, but even Dave Camp, the Republican uh chair of the Ways and Means Committee, all he ever asked for was 24%. And you all put it down to 21%. That's $400 billion right there. More than uh I think Republicans were even asking for back then. So there is room to adjust this without hurting those middle class people. The other thing I just mentioned too is the tax gap.
▶ 8:23:47Do you know we don't even invest in in getting in collecting the taxes uh that people are owed. So without changing one tax rate, a recent study out of Stanford, every dollar the IRS spends auditing complex enterprises help us helps us claw back 20 bucks in revenue the federal government should be collecting under f federal law. Uh the tax gap right now at 2022 was $696 billion. All we have to do is collect that money. And we know we have to invest in the IRS.
▶ 8:24:16And you know what Republicans are doing? Apparently that's too much of a law enforcement thing for them. They're pulling back. They've already defunded 20 million uh $20 million of the money we invested to try to make IRS better. Not IRS not just collecting taxes from rich people who aren't paying them, but that's what the tax gap is. 600, what' I say? 600. and uh uh $696 billion. It's also trying to help people with their re refunds and administration.
▶ 8:24:43I mean, so let's just not pretend that this is some monolithic thing that has to be extended all at once because there's parts of it we could we could turn out. And by the way, if we continue to do this without addressing the annual budget deficit, which is now $2 trillion a year, that the budget deficit is going to go from 36 to 38 to 40. Who's going to pay for that? You think we're not in we're we're not increasing by that deficit by letting that deficit balloon.
▶ 8:25:11You don't think we're increasing taxes on middle class people? We sure as hell are. So, um I don't what I don't want to hear is that this is some yes or no decision. We we can't split this up into the good parts and the bad parts. I think the people over here would work with you on keeping taxes low for for truly middle class people.
▶ 8:25:28People over here like the child tax credit, but but you're telling me you can't go from 37 from 30 from 37 or from um to 39.6 on people who are really really wealthy to help our country. I don't buy that at all. Don't buy it at all. And it's it's fiscally irresponsible and it's one of the reasons we're sitting here cutting cutting 13 million people off of healthcare. I yield back. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes any Republican members seeking recognition.
▶ 8:25:58Gentle lady from Indiana. What purpose is recognized to speak on the amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh we've heard a lot in the last several minutes about bead. Uh I just want to comment that I concur with uh Chairman Hudson uh telecom subcommittee chair on his comments with respect to the bead program.
▶ 8:26:20Thanks to the Biden administration's mismanagement, we're still waiting for the largest broadband investment in our nation's history to connect a single home. The Biden administration added unnecessary and costly requirements on labor and climate change and unlawfully forced the states to regulate broadband plans. Even liberals like Ezra Klene and John Stewart agree that the Biden administration mismanaged this program.
▶ 8:26:47They recently hosted a podcast criticizing the Democrats cumbersome regulations and processes for bead. Not a single dollar for bead has gone out under President Biden. We need to reform bead to eliminate the unnecessary Biden regulations that made broadband deployment more expensive, burdensome, and unattractive. Committee Republicans are ready to do this. Subcommittee Chairman Hudson has introduced the Speed for Bead Act, which I'm a proud co-sponsor.
▶ 8:27:16This will eliminate costly requirements and prohibit rate regulation and ensure that all technologies are able to participate so that we can finally connect every home. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Is there recognition of the gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz, is recognized for five minutes? Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment which would use spectrum auction authority revenue to fund broadband affordability programs or the bead uh program.
▶ 8:27:44The bead programs brings over $1.8 billion dollars to California to deploy broadband infrastructure to the hardestto-reach communities including the eastern Coachella Valley and under served areas across Imperial County. In parts of my district, particularly in rural and agricultural areas, over 25% one out of four households either lack internet access or rely on slow unreliable service. That digital device is unacceptable in the 21st century.
▶ 8:28:14Access to affordable high-spe speed internet is a modern-day essential just like electricity or running water. Students in the eastern Coachella Valley often have to do homework in parking lots or fast food restaurants to get Wi-Fi. The bead program gives these kids the tools to succeed no matter their zip code.
▶ 8:28:34And for our farm worker families, tribal communities, and low-income households, high-speed internet means access to teleaalth, online classes, remote jobs, and connection to vital services. This is also about public safety and infrastructure. High-speed broadband enables better coordination for emergency alerts, disaster response, and deployment of modern technologies like NextGen 911.
▶ 8:28:59So again, you know, we we we tried, but you all refused to use spectrum auction funds for upgrading our 911 systems. Uh now, we're imploring you to support this amendment to use uh uh spectrum auction funds to help fund the broadband affordability programs.
▶ 8:29:22uh if anything uh if we learned anything from the pandemic, we learned that uh many of us uh rely on uh broadband for teleaalth, for school, for commerce. And so uh let's let's continue to improve broadband especially in rural and underresourced communities. And with that, if uh if anybody would like my time, I could yield.
▶ 8:29:50Otherwise, uh I yield some time to uh Mr. Sto. Thank you so much. So, we're going to do this on beat again, huh? 42 billion to bring rural broadband. All 50 states have their plans approved already. All 50 states plans are already. President Trump has been in office for over a hundred days. He's done nothing. nothing.
▶ 8:30:19How many more days does he have to be president before maybe your constituents get wise about this? They start to realize that it's him, that it's you all not doing anything on this. I have two minutes left on my time. We would rather all of our constituents have these bead programs deployed and get them internet access rather than sitting here for four plus months and being personnikity about this and that and this and that. The plans are approved.
▶ 8:30:50Have the Trump administration deploy the money. We've done it. We could all sit here together and talk about how this is a bipartisan victory. I have rural areas. Most people in this room have rural areas. This argument is getting old and older by the day. And I yield back to the gentleman. will uh and I yield to uh Mr. Carter. You know, I'm a real life example of a bead program that was stopped in its tracks.
▶ 8:31:18Everything done, all of the studies, everything in place. Louisiana was ready to go. Trump administration halted it. So, don't say that nothing has happened. Don't say that nothing could happen. Louisiana is a perfect example of a state that did everything right under a Democratic governor and completed under a Republican governor.
▶ 8:31:48Can't blame it on parties. Republican and Democrat both recognized that this was a great program. Our Republican Governor, Jeff Landry, hailed and heralded this program and was ready to go. It was halted within moments of completion and ready to be on its way to do just what it was supposed to do, and that is to lay fiber and to provide connectivity to rural communities throughout Louisiana. And this administration stopped it with no good reason. I yield.
▶ 8:32:20And with that, I yield back my time. Gentleman yells back. The gentleman from Florida is recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I yield my time to Mr. Hudson, the chairman of the subcommittee. Well, thank you. Well, I'm excited. I mean, this is great that we've got bipartisan agreement that we need to get bead funds out and and I I mean, I I believe in the sincerity of my colleagues, Mr. Ruiz and others.
▶ 8:32:45Um, I have a bill called Speed for Bead, and I would love for y'all to get on and work with me on it. I mean, we can get this money out the door fast, and I think we ought to. Um, for the very reasons each of you have have articulated very, very well. Um, there is a there is a new have and have nots in society. It's the people that have access to broadband and those who don't. And, uh, you know, I'll be honest with you, a lot of folks wanted me to kill the bead program. I I went the different direction.
▶ 8:33:15I went to the speed the bead program with the name of my bill because uh the need is so dire out there in our rural communities in particular, but even in some urban communities, we've got areas that don't have access. And uh and I just ask my colleagues, please co-sponsor the bill. Please work with me. Um we can get this we could actually get this bill into law quicker than the reconciliation bill. And so uh so let's let's do it. I yield back. Gentleman yields back to Jim from Florida. I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 8:33:45gentle lady from California, Miss Baragon, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Uh thank you, Mr. uh Thank you, Mr. uh Chairman. I I almost don't know where to start. Uh there's so many things that just transpired. Um why don't we start with uh who's going to benefit from the taxes conversation that my my colleague from Florida who's saying, "Oh, all these Californians, oh, these middle inome people." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put out a a chart that said, and I wish I had it printed, that said, "House
▶ 8:34:16Republican tax plan bestows enormous tax cuts on wealthy. Does little Oh, I don't have this. It's not this one yet. Does little for low and moderate income families. And it basically shows the top 1% would $64,770. The bottom 20%, guess how much they get in tax cuts? 90 bucks. So when you talk about giving the tax cuts to the rich, that's what we're talking about.
▶ 8:34:45It's just making sure that people at the top uh get the biggest benefit and in in some cases of course even skirt the whole uh rules altogether. Um but I I want to uh speak in favor of this amendment. Um Mr. Chairman, this committee is being asked to make a choice. A choice about who we serve and this is where my chart comes in. Spectrum auctions are projected to generate $ 88 billion dollar for the federal government.
▶ 8:35:15That's a staggering amount of money that we should use to invest in public safety, digital equity, and essential services for the American people. But if you take a look at what they're going to do with the $88 billion, like AI deployment funds for Elon Musk and his billionaire friends, it's like this much. You see that? of all this amount of money, right? You think you'd be investing in like actual technology. Uh but you know why they're doing this?
▶ 8:35:43They're doing it because they got to find the money to pay for the tax cuts for the rich and the wealthy and the billionaires so they could take more private jet flights. They think it's funny, but it's true. And it's also the reason why Medicaid is being cut. It's why they're throwing millions of people off of health care. And so, yeah, we have to make a choice. What are House Republicans doing? Tax kits for billionaires and personal favors for Elon Musk.
▶ 8:36:12They want to use the federal dollars to pay for the tax cuts while working families struggle to pay for groceries, for rent, and internet service. They want to funnel 500 million directly into the pockets of Elon Musk and his billionaire tech allies under the guise of deploying artificial intelligence across the federal government. There's no demonstrated need for this. No public demand, just a payday for the rich.
▶ 8:36:37Spectrum auction revenue comes from the sale of public assets and should be invested in public priorities. So, how should we use it? Well, we could fund the next generation 911 program to update our nation's aging 911 system so that first responders can respond quickly and accurately when lives are on the line. Every second counts in an emergency and this funding could mean the difference between life and death.
▶ 8:37:04Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues just voted down an amendment that would do just that. Now, we should make internet access affordable for low-income communities and expand broadband in rural and tribal communities. These investments are needed to overcome barriers that keep people from accessing education, good jobs, and critical health care. There's a troubling pattern here. House Republicans do nothing while the Trump administration destroys broadband programs left and right. So, we talk about the beat program.
▶ 8:37:34The Pete program was set to start building broadband infrastructure months ago, but Republicans have needlessly paused implementation while they work to divert bead funds to Elon Musk Starling. Not only is this unethical, but also will deny rural communities access to affordable and reli reliable internet infrastructure that they desperately need. And and here's another interesting pattern if you haven't heard it a minute ago.
▶ 8:38:03Oh, the Biden administration was so quick to hurry up and get money out the door. They did it recklessly now. Well, the Biden administration didn't get money out enough quick enough on bead, right? Because they had all these regulations. It this is just like listening to this, it has to be confusing for the American public. It's certainly confusing for me and it's totally inconsistent. I strongly support Representative Clark's amendment, but I doubt any Republicans here today will vote for this strong, smart policy. Why not?
▶ 8:38:33Because it clearly doesn't align with Republican priorities of higher prices and favors for Elon Musk and other billionaires. Let's be clear, we shouldn't serve billionaires. We should serve the American people. And with that, I ask that we support the amendment. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Is there any discussion from members on the Republican side? See none on the Democrat side. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.
▶ 8:39:02I gentleman is I support Representative Clark's amendment and the truth is I think we all would. I think there is bipartisan support for taking the spectrum proceeds and investing back into the system whether it's nextgen 911 uh access to the internet for lowincome
▶ 8:39:34uh families. If if we were up to our our own devices, if it was on us, I suspect everyone would support this amendment, we wouldn't spend $88 billion of spectrum proceeds to pay for tax cuts that absolutely overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest people in this country.
▶ 8:39:57The only reason we're having this debate is because the assignment from Republican leadership and President Trump was we want to pass tax cuts. Tax cuts that overwhelmingly support the Americans and you all have to find 800 900 billion in cuts.
▶ 8:40:24And so you went to health care and about $700 billion in cuts there taking $88 billion from spectrum proceeds again to pay for these tax cuts. So it's come up so on the tax cuts themselves as one of my colleagues mentioned the top 1% gets about $64,000 versus the bottom 20% which is around 90 bucks.
▶ 8:40:52So if you look at that uh uh uh you know in terms of daily relief, those making $50,000 will receive $72 per day. Those who are making a million or more will see their wallets padded by $223 a day. That's $310 times more money.
▶ 8:41:16310 times more money for millionaires than middle class families making $50,000 a year. Of the tax relief, 20% of the bill goes to the top 1%. 40% of the bill goes to the top 5%. Which means the vast majority of tax relief in this bill goes to the top 10%. So that means 90% of folks aren't seeing the majority of the benefits here.
▶ 8:41:45If it were up to us, if if y'all didn't have this assignment, I think in this room, but across the board, we would have bipartisan support for tax cuts for working families, for middle class families, for farmers, for small businesses, paid for not by adding a dollar to the debt or taking any money from people's healthcare or stealing from the Spectrum auction revenues.
▶ 8:42:16We would require those at the top to pay all their taxes. As one of my colleagues mentioned that if you just take the top marginal income tax rate and you let that expire, that's anywhere between 250 to$400 billion. If you take the top the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28, not even where it was 5 years ago, that's $1.3 trillion.
▶ 8:42:43There are proposals that would require a a minimum tax for billionaires. That minimum tax produces $500 billion. Meaning that if you just do those things, requiring the folks at the top to pay more in taxes, not all of their taxes, just more in taxes, you would be able to pay for all of the tax cuts for working people, small businesses, farmers. Nobody would lose their health care.
▶ 8:43:12We would be able to invest all of the auction dollars in nextgen 911 and affordable, you know, uh, internet for families all over the country and no one would lose their healthcare. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the gentle lady from Virginia is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 8:43:39As I listen to the Republican complaints about the delays in the bead program, those complaints are inconsistent with their desire to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse. Those complaints ignore how broadband networks are actually regulated and get deployed.
▶ 8:44:00For decades, Congress left it to the states to come up with the details for oversight of in for the infrastructure deployment uh for all communications networks. Bead was no exception. Congress charged the states to run the grant program and to run the process. And the states were all over the map.
▶ 8:44:25Some like Virginia had established broadband offices that were already providing infra infrastructure deployment grants through a competitive bidding process with local government partnering providers with providers. But most states did not. They didn't have a broadband office. They didn't have a process. They needed time to get that going.
▶ 8:44:49hire staff, educate local governments and providers, particularly the smaller providers in smaller localities who weren't used to applying for these type of grant programs. Official state and local activities have to comply with open government and notice requirements to allow public input so the public knows what's in the plan.
▶ 8:45:11And to the extent these states didn't have an open process for the broadband deployments and setting up the office, that would be a problem that could lead to waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, federal dollars need to be spent and should be spent to expand broadband to areas that are unserved. That means that you need to know where is served.
▶ 8:45:41That is why first to avoid waste, we said you're going to use these federal funds for areas and said, "Okay, we need to figure out where they are." So, we're going to have the FCC create a broadband map. The FCC had to create a process for that, a public process with input from every all stakeholders.
▶ 8:46:04And then the providers had to provide their data and make sure they did it in a way that protected competitively sensitive data or national security infrastructure information. They needed to set up a process for that. And the whole purpose of this map process was to make sure we're not overbuilding, i.e. wasting federal money building broadband networks that were already served. All of that took time.
▶ 8:46:29Then you had to have a challenge process because what the maps show wouldn't necessarily account for projects that were in the pipeline but not in the ground. That challenge process took So all of this was not just the Biden administration sitting around saying, "I've got this pot of money.
▶ 8:46:54I'm just going to sit on it." It was we need a process in place to make sure that when we use federal funds, we don't waste it. There's no fraud and there's no abuse. Well, now we've done all that. Now all the states plans have been approved. We're ready to go. And the Trump administration comes in and says, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
▶ 8:47:19We want to change the rules." Even though Congress said these broadband networks have to be scalable reliable. Now the new administration said well we want to use the least cost technology ignoring the fact that the places that are not connected are the most expensive to connect to and you need to make sure that the technology you use is scalable and reliable. But now they want to change the rules that all of these plans were built on.
▶ 8:47:48And so you got to start the plan process over. So, we're ready to go. Now, you're going to take the time to restart the process all over again. And yet, you complain that it took so long, even though the reason it took so long was to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse for federal funds to be used to deploy broadband to connect the people that have been waiting to be connected. I yield back.
▶ 8:48:17Gentle lady yields back. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, there's gentleman from New Jersey. He's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Uh, thank you, chairman. I I speak in support of the amendment. I also f want to follow up on my colleague from Ohio's comments regarding how these tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthiest in America. Uh, our colleague from Florida said that she would wait all night to hear how that would be the case.
▶ 8:48:43And so I just wanted to leave the floor open but to just repeat the facts under a straight TCJA extension the top 01% so not even the one point 1 1% the 01% of earners would receive 10% of the benefits from these extensions. Top 1% of earners would receive a quarter of the benefit from these extensions. Top 5% of earners would receive 45% of benefits from extending the TCJA.
▶ 8:49:12So clearly it disproportionately impacts the top earners. I know ways and means is similarly in a markup but as my colleague from Ohio said um as you go through from the top earners down you see that the top 1% would see a roughly um benefit from the proposed tax language.
▶ 8:49:3499 to 99% would receive 10,000 and it gets lower and lower as you go down the economic bracket. So while there may be beneficial tax treatment to some of our lower middle class neighbors, the bill disproportionately impacts and benefits the top earners. So since it was asked how that's the case, we just wanted to lay out the facts as we understand them for our colleagues across the aisle who had raised the question. With that, I yield back.
▶ 8:50:05Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? none, there's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. La. No. Mr. La votes no. Mr. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Mr. Barakis. Mr.
▶ 8:50:34Billis votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes no.
▶ 8:51:05Mr. Allen Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger. Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kamik Mr.
▶ 8:51:35Obernulti Mr. Oberonulti votes no Mr. Mr. James votes no Mr. Benz Mr. Ben votes no Mrs. Hchen Mrs. Hchen votes no Mr. Fry Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee, no. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr.
▶ 8:52:05Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kain Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Roelly. Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. This is Fedorek. Mrs. Fedor Mrs. Fedor votes no. Mr. Palone I. Mr.
▶ 8:52:34Palone votes I. Mr. Gat I. Mr. Digette votes I. Miss Shakowski I. Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsui I. Miss Matsui votes I. Miss Caster I. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss Clark I. Miss Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr.
▶ 8:53:05Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vy votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly votes I. Miss. Partagon. Miss Baragon votes I. Mr. Sodto Mr. Sodto votes I. Miss Shrier. Miss Shrier votes I. Miss Trean.
▶ 8:53:35Miss Treyan votes I. Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss Okaziocortez. Miss Okaziocortez votes I. Mr. Oenclaus. Mr. Oenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Lansman.
▶ 8:54:05Mr. Lansman votes I. M. Mlen. M. Mlen votes I. Jeremy Guthrie. No. Jeremy Guthrie votes no. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Miss Kamik. Mrs. Kemick votes no. Anyone here to be recorded on the Republican? Anyone on the Democrat side?
▶ 8:54:35Seeing none, the clerk will report. Chairman Guthrie on that vote. There were 24 eyes and 29 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? What purpose? Gentle lady from California, Miss Matsui, take recognition. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk. Take your amendment.
▶ 8:55:00It's comm amendment to the committee print. The clerk will report the amendment. Comm eight, an amendment to the committee print for subtitle C offered by Miss Matsui at the end of without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:55:29My amendment seeks to ensure that before we auction any spectrum, our country's cabinet secretaries have received sufficient cyber security training consistent with our government's established security protocols, including on the use of commercial messaging apps like signal and tele official purposes. Two weeks ago, we had a subcommittee hearing on one of the most on the worst hacks in US history.
▶ 8:55:57Salt Typhoon, a Chinese state sponsored hacking group, breached the networks of at least nine American telecommunications companies. These hackers stole Americans call records and targeted audio and texts from high-profile individuals, including people tied to the Trump administration. Communications networks are the backbone of modern life, which makes them ripe targets for attack. Salt typhoon should have been a wake-up call.
▶ 8:56:28They and other advanced cyber attackers remain an active threat to Americans and our national security. Yet the Trump administration is busy learning the wrong lessons, slashing our cyber defenses and turning a blind eye to his own senior officials cyber malpractice.
▶ 8:56:48As one of his earliest acts in office, President Trump fired the cyber safety review board, cutting the investigation into Salt Typhoon off at his knees. At last month's hearing, the former director of the cyber threat intelligence integration center confirmed that cutting off the Salt Typhoon Investigation this early short changes our national security by limiting our ability to get a full picture from the intelligence community, law enforcement,
▶ 8:57:18and the vict and the victim networks of how to improve our defenses. My Republican colleagues like to talk tough about protecting America against foreign adversaries, but talk is cheap. They refuse to hold this administration accountable for compromising classified government information. Information that in the wrong hands could put American lives in danger.
▶ 8:57:44The President Trump has already weakened the United States ability to respond to and prepare for attacks on a critical infrastructure. His administration is taking a wrecking ball to our federal cyber workforce, including plans to slash the cyber security and infrastructure agency or SISA by nearly 40%. And President Trump's latest budget proposal would continue this carnage by cutting SISA's funding by nearly half a billion dollars.
▶ 8:58:15This is not about trimming the fat but but about crippling America's capability to defend against milit malicious cyber actors. And to make matters worse, President Trump continues to stand by senior officials who broke security protocol.
▶ 8:58:33President Trump is defending the indefensible, rallying behind the blunders of his Secretary of Defense, who has engaged in repeated security failures, including leaking classified war plans to his wife and brother over an unsecure signal chat and reusing compromised passwords.
▶ 8:58:53Likewise, until a couple of weeks ago, the president was standing blindly by his national security adviser and continues to stand by countless other senior officials who use Signal and personal Gmail accounts to conduct sensitive government business. These are not people who inspire confidence that they will follow even basic cyber security practices, much less guard our country's most sensitive secrets.
▶ 8:59:22And it's not just embarrassing, it's dangerous. The world is watching. Bad actors are ready to take advantage of this administration's gross incompetence rather than calling out this administration's security failures. My Republican colleagues are sitting there sitting here today trying to strip Americans of their healthcare and take away the ability of our states to ensure the safe use of artificial intelligence.
▶ 8:59:49Our nation's security depends on our top leaders, but the Trump administration seems to be woefully ignorant of basic security protocols. It's time for the Trump administration to get his house in order and get serious about protecting our communications infrastructure. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for this common sense amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. The gentle lady yields.
▶ 9:00:16The gentleman from North Carolina is Thank you. I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment. Uh last month, Miss Matsui and I held a hearing in the communications technology subcommittee about the importance of secure communications. Our committee led the way to secure our mobile networks by passing the secure and trusted communications act into law. We take threats to the security of our communications infrastructure seriously.
▶ 9:00:44Our adversaries target our communication networks daily. That's why I secure communication platforms for our government officials is crucial. However, this amendment has more to do with politics than our national security. And I would just pledge to all the members of this committee, Republicans and Democrats, as chairman of the subcommittee, I'm happy to work with anyone in good faith to improve the security of our networks, of our communication platforms.
▶ 9:01:11Um, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back. The gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The gentleman from New Jersey is Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a step to move the country in the right direction.
▶ 9:01:33We are currently facing an unprecedented number of threats to our wireless networks from foreign cyber hackers who are often backed by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Most recently, this past fall, the US experienced a devastating Chinese state sponsored attack on these networks known as Salt Typhoon that targeted top Democratic and Republican officials, showing that this is not an issue that only impacts one party, but all Americans.
▶ 9:02:00While we often hear that there is bipartisan support for defending our country against cyber threats, especially when these threats involve matters of national security, I remain deeply concerned about the ways that the Trump administration, including Elon Musk and Doge, have been weakening our country's cyber security defense system without any push back from congressional Republicans.
▶ 9:02:21Indeed, over the last 100 plus days, Musk and Doge have been haphazardly and indiscriminately cutting and slashing experienced public servants, including our cyber workforce. Taken together, these actions have weakened our country and jeopardized American famil family's most sensitive personal data by making it easier for our foreign adversaries to access it. This amendment begins to solve this problem.
▶ 9:02:47Making more spectrum available for commercial use is important, but if we do not have the right people in place to ensure that the wireless networks we use every single day are safe and secure, then we are only harming ourselves. With their recent actions, the Trump administration is clearly leaving us vulnerable to attack. Yet, my Republican colleagues continue to stay silent on this critical matter.
▶ 9:03:11The truth is, Republicans cannot continue to say that they take threats from foreign actors seriously when the Trump administration is slashing our cyber workforce and allowing unauthorized Doge employees to access data on demand. Very recently, there was a Elon Musk um press availers that he has. Perhaps none is more wellknown than Big Balls.
▶ 9:03:40Uh yet a Reuters exclusive states that Doge staffer big balls provided tech support to cyber crime ring records show. So clearly if we don't have more oversight of who's accessing this incredibly sensitive information then all Americans should be worried and calling on their representatives both Democrats and Republicans to take this issue more seriously than our colleagues across the aisle are.
▶ 9:04:08For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile amendment to help this country get back on track to make sure that we're building out our cyber workforce and protecting the Americans that we are tasked with protecting here in Congress. Thank you and I yield back. The gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the vote occurs on the amendment.
▶ 9:04:34The gentleman requests a recorded vote and the clerk will call the role. Mr. La. No. Mr. Lada votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Bill Rakus. Mr. Bill Rackus votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Mr.
▶ 9:05:05Dunn. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce, no. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes no. Mr. Harshburgger. Mrs. Harshburgger votes no.
▶ 9:05:35Mrs. Miller Meeks Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kamik Mrs. Kamock votes no. Mr. Obernolulti Mr. Obernolulti votes no. Mr. James Mr. James votes no. Mr. Ben Mr. Ben votes no. Mrs. Hchin Miss Howchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes no. Mr.
▶ 9:06:04Langworthy, Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kane Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Roelly. Mr. Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchic. Mr. Fedoric votes no. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Get Mr. Get votes I. Miss Shakowski. I Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsuie I.
▶ 9:06:34Miss Matsui votes I. Miss Caster. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss. Clark. I. Miss. Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. I. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Miss. Dingle. Miss. Dingle. Votes I. Mr. VC. I. Mr. VC votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly votes I. Miss Baron. Miss Baron votes I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes I. Miss Shrier said Miss Shrier votes I. Mr.
▶ 9:07:04Han Mr. Han votes I. Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes I. Mr. Accaziocortez. Come on. Mr. Aenclaus. Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Lansman. Miss Mlullen M. Mcclullen votes I. Chairman Guthrie.
▶ 9:07:34Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Fulture votes no. Yes. Mr. Lansman votes yes.
▶ 9:08:06Mr. Mullen is not recorded. I Mr. Mullen votes I Uh, am I recorded? The Mr. Kaziocortez is not recorded. Oh, I please. Mr. Kaziocortez votes I. Mr. Chairman, on that vote there were 24 eyes and 29 nos.
▶ 9:08:35The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The gentle lady from Virginia will report her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk title COM 13. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the committee print for subtitle C offered by Miss Mlen of Virginia.
▶ 9:09:06At the end of section 43101, insert the following. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the general lady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this amendment would ensure that the proceeds from any spectrum licensing or allocation, including the auction authorized under this bill, would not line the pockets of the president, government officials, or special government officials like Elon Musk or their family members.
▶ 9:09:35Uh this amendment ensures that these proceeds would not benefit any entity that the president, a government official, a special government official or their family uh has an ownership in would profit from the sale of this public uh asset. This amendment also would ensure that the FCC does not collude with the president or other government officials to influence the outcome of their legal battles.
▶ 9:10:02Um, no one should use their position in government to enrich themselves or their family members. Yet, we have seen the president and Elon Musk in particular do just that since coming into office.
▶ 9:10:16Whether it's accepting the gift of a luxury plane from Qatar or other questionable payments from foreign officials in violation of the emolements clause and numerous ethics rules or turning the south lawn of the White House into a Tesla showroom or opening an FCC investigation of 60 minutes three months after the president filed a lawsuit against them or whether it's reports of the controlling Paramount shareholder asking her lawyers to settle the lawsuit.
▶ 9:10:46with the president to increase the FCC's chances of approving a mer a merger or whether it's changes to the B program that would benefit Starlink or whether it's any other action that benefits any of the companies that Elon Musk currently has government contracts with with agencies that he is actively engaged in firing workers or cutting their funding.
▶ 9:11:15All of this shows a disturbing pattern of corruption and self-deing in the first and second Trump administrations that should give everyone pause. The FCC was established as an independent expert agency, not a tool of political retaliation, intimidation, extortion, or bribery. Spectrum is a limited public resource and its pro proceeds should be used for the public good.
▶ 9:11:44And we've had many discussions today about ways that that funding can be used to invest in our communications infrastructure to invest in its cyber security to invest in next generation 911 deployment. Um they should not spectrum auction proceeds should not be used to line the pockets of government officials, their families or the ultra wealthy.
▶ 9:12:11And fighting corruption in the federal government shouldn't be a partisan issue. Because whether it's this president or a future president, this special employee named Elon Musk or some in the future, we should ensure that the FCC in taking official actions or in selling public assets does so for the public benefit and not for the benefit of government officials and their families.
▶ 9:12:41Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. The general lady yields. The chair recognizes a gentleman from North Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in opposition to this amendment. Um, you know, I'm honestly uh a little bit at a loss because I'm not sure this is our jurisdiction and and this seems to be a politically motivated amendment. I mean, if if you want to have a serious conversation about this, I'm happy to have a conversation. Um, but this seems like a politically motivated amendment.
▶ 9:13:10I mean, I I agree with Miss Baragon. If we're going to do if we're not going to have serious substantive discussion of this title, let's move on and and get to healthcare. But uh I oppose this amendment because I think it's very The gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? You know, I think I do. I think I do. The gentle lady is recognized. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 9:13:40Miss Mlen, I want to thank you for for offering this amendment. Here we are in the dead of night. Um, as as u there's so many important things to talk about about how powerful special interests want to rip healthcare away from almost 14 million Americans.
▶ 9:13:58you know, maybe rating the spectrum, all of these invisible radio frequencies we rely on that that are there to serve the public, maybe that doesn't quite raise u you know, it's not why a lot of people are sitting here in the audience for this debate tonight, but it this really does highlight the cronyism that's going on right now because uh I remember very well we had a committee meeting just a few weeks ago.
▶ 9:14:25We were talking about spectrum, how important it is to keep it as a a public good. You know, uh Mr. Sodto was absolutely right. When you're in an area that suffers a lot of catastrophes, updating 911 is very important. So, spectrum going to that modernization is very important.
▶ 9:14:44But you've now touched on uh a particular uh point in cronyism because I remember sitting in that hearing that we had in the communications uh subcommittee the day we were talking about the uh broadband funding that's supposed to go out across the country. And lo and behold, what popped up at that time was Elon Musk coming in to cancel those funds that are supposed to go out across the country to help people access Wi-Fi over broadband.
▶ 9:15:13And the reason this article probably popped up via an algorithm uh is because Elon Musk said, "I'm going to cancel those dollars that that have been appropriated by Congress that you explain very well why the process of getting that out without any waste with proper oversight." But see, Elon Musk has his eye on those dollars because he has another company that doesn't re rely on fiber.
▶ 9:15:39and fiber is the the most important thing you can do for a community uh to attach them to to the internet. See, Elon Musk has kind of this satellite Starlink company and boy, he would love to get his hands on those millions of dollars. Uh so you have a few things going on here.
▶ 9:15:59You have taking the public uh public spectrum and using it, selling it to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. And then you have yes cronyism Elon Musk having his eye on those dollars that are supposed to go provide fiber all across America. Uh rural rural and urban alike.
▶ 9:16:27And yet, I think we all need to be aware of what they plan to do to target these dollars to uh their cronies along the way. So, I'll yield back to you, but I just want to thank you for for uh filing this amendment. It's an important amendment. I'm going to Miss Mlullen, u I'm going to send her my time. Thank you, Miss um Thank you, Miss Caster, or I can't say your name, the gentleman from Florida.
▶ 9:16:54Um, the FCC is squarely within this jurisdiction. Spectrum auctions are clearly within this committee's jurisdiction. At our oversight plan um, I offered another amendment to talk about ensuring as part of our oversight duties, we would make sure that the FCC wasn't being against the president's perceived political enemies.
▶ 9:17:23And and one of the ways the FCC is being weaponized is um to also put pressure on entities that are involved in litigation with the president, which I'm very concerned about. And I agree with my colleague Virginia. I would add to the the the duties that we have. He mentioned two. One of our duties is oversight.
▶ 9:17:51And as part of our oversight responsibilities, we need to look at the fact that a man who has been given the keys effectively to the kingdom, who is accessing all kinds of sensitive government data, who is firing people when he doesn't even know what they do, who is cancelling government contracts, who is deciding what should get funded and what shouldn't.
▶ 9:18:16at the same time has multiple companies that have government contracts with agencies including the FCC through Starlink and as you heard would directly benefit from the changes that the Secretary of Commerce wants to make to the B program.
▶ 9:18:35And all this amendment does is say when we sell a public asset in Spectrum, we're going to make sure that it's not used to line Elon Musk's pocket, President Trump's pocket, or any other government employee or their family today or in the future. I yield back. The general lady yields. The gentle lady from California is recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 9:19:04I didn't uh expect to speak but since my name was evoked uh and I think inappropriately because my colleague Mr. Hudson said I agree with Miss Beran that this is political. That's actually the opposite of what I was saying. I was I was talking about the No, I'm going to respond. You're quoting me incorrectly. My name and making my point and that is um generally this ha let me finish my remarks.
▶ 9:19:34This has to be an amendment that's necessary and it may seem political to you but just look at what's going on in the world today. Just today the president stepped on the plane uh that was given to him from cutter. I mean, seriously, guys, this whole amendment is about not benefiting the president of the United States. By the way, President Trump said, and I'm quoting when impressed about the jet, only stupid people reject gifts.
▶ 9:20:04This was the president's comments today. So, why do we need this amendment? For this very reason, the corruption that's happening right now with this administration and dead silence on the other side. So, yeah. Does it feel political? because it's your president doing the corruption. I could see why that would be uncomfortable. I also want to quote this NPR article from May 7th. How Trump family business ventures stand to directly benefit the president.
▶ 9:20:33The Trump family businesses, including their crypto company, are capitalizing on the president's position and creating unprecedented conflicts of interest. So why do we need this amendment? Come on. Do you even have to ask? It is so obvious. the corruption that is happening at the highest levels of government with this administration. How do you just stand silent and say nothing about that and then question why this amendment is even needed?
▶ 9:21:03I mean, frankly, it's a sad day in America when you need this amendment. When you need an amendment that says that a president is not going to benefit or that officials aren't going to benefit. But that is where we are today and what is happening in America. So, I just want to make sure that my name being invoked was not invoked in the uh well, I agree with Miss Bear again. Uh that this is political uh was really taken out of context. And so with that, would the gentle lady yield?
▶ 9:21:32Uh my colleague Robin Kelly would like a moment. Would the gentle lady yield in a second after me? Facts don't matter. Go ahead. I just wanted to make the comment that uh Rep. Mlullen is one of the most thoughtful, brilliant legislators and she's very new to this committee, but I'm so glad that she's on it and that she's a member of Congress and to say what she's doing is political when you clearly said whether it's this president or the future president, which you know will
▶ 9:22:02probably be a Democrat. um that um um so really I just want to speak up about that and this is very necessary as my colleague said because of what's going on. It's a shame that we've been pushed to have to have an amendment like this but it but it is very necessary and again whether it's a Democrat Republican and that that does not matter. We just need to do the right thing.
▶ 9:22:26We need to be lawful and we need not make money off of the presidency or our cronies or how kids make money either. I yield back to my colleague from California and I yield to Mr. Hudson. Thank you. I appreciate that. The what I said that I agree with you is that you said we ought to move on to healthcare and have that discussion. And my what I point I said was if we're not going to have a substantive discussion on this title, let's move on to the next title. So, this is again taking my words out of context.
▶ 9:22:57I did not say let's move on like let's skip over this what I said and let me reiterate. It is shameful, shameful, shameful, shameful that Republicans are in control decided to put Medicaid and healthc care last. We're now after 11:30 p.m. And why is it happening? Because Republicans don't want it to happen during the day when people are up, when people are watching TV. They want the crowd to thin out. And we have seen, by the way, the crowd thin out because people are here with kids.
▶ 9:23:26They're here with disabled kids because they're this is a life and death situation. So if you're going to characterize what I say, at least get it right, please. Because it's offensive to me and it's frankly offensive to the people in this crowd who've come out here to advocate for Medicaid and their rights and their health care. Okay? Again, you all made the decision, Republicans made the decision not to talk about healthc care first. They could have started with that at 2:00. They could have done it.
▶ 9:23:57That's a second that's a second topic. They didn't do it and they clearly are leaving it till the end. With that, I yield back. The general lady yields. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, a vote will occur and there is a request for a roll call vote. The clerk will call the vote. Mr. La. Mr. Lada votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mr.
▶ 9:24:27Bill Rackus. Mr. Bill Rackus votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce votes no.
▶ 9:24:57Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture. Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kamik Mrs. Kamik votes no.
▶ 9:25:28Mr. Obernulti Mr. Obernolulti votes no. Mr. James Mr. James votes no. Mr. Ben Mr. Ben votes no. Miss Hchin Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Roelly. Mr.
▶ 9:25:58Roelly votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mr. Fedoric. Mr. Fedoric votes no. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Deette. Mr. Get votes I. Mr. Shakowski I. Miss Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsuie I. Miss Matsui votes I. Miss Caster. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss. Clark. Miss.
▶ 9:26:27Clark votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Miss. Dingle. Miss. Dingle. Votes I.................... Mr.. VC. Mr. VC votes I. Miss. Kelly. Miss Kelly votes I. Miss Baron. Miss Baron votes I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes I. Miss Shrier. Miss Shrier votes I. Mr. Han. Mr. Han votes I. Miss. Fletcher. Miss. Fletcher votes I. Mr. Accaziocortez. Miss Aaziocortez votes I. Mr.
▶ 9:26:57Aenclaus. Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Menendez votes I. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes I. Mr. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Miss. Mlen. M. Mlen votes I. Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Allen is not recorded. Mr. Allen votes no. Griffith votes no. Mr.
▶ 9:27:26Griffith votes The clerk will report the result. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 29 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Mr. Chairman, for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr.
▶ 9:27:53Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that's titled COM 19, COMM19. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the committee print for subtitle C offered by Mr. Palone. Page six. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 9:28:20The Republicans want to impose a 10-year ban on states ability to enforce their own laws protecting consumers from harms caused by artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems. And let me be clear, this is an unprecedented giveaway to big tech.
▶ 9:28:38This 10-year enforcement ban will allow big tech to run rough shot over American consumers, including our children and teens whose lives at school and at home are increasingly intertwined with AI models and automated decision-making systems. Last Congress, at the request of big tech, Republicans refused to move a bipartisan comprehensive privacy bill that would have provided important guard rails on the use of consumers personal information by AI systems.
▶ 9:29:07By contrast, states across the country have been working hard to protect their residents from harmful uses of AI. They have enacted laws that protect consumers privacy, prohibit the use of AI to commit financial fraud and to steal elections, prohibit algorithmic bias in housing and credit, prohibit harmful uses of facial recognition technology, and protect consumers from AI systems that put their mental health and physical safety at risk.
▶ 9:29:35Now, Congress, in my opinion, should be learning from the work done by the states. We should be working to enact federal laws that protect consumers from the negative consequences of poorly understood AI models and badly designed automated decision-making systems. But instead, the House Republicans are leaving American consumers and especially our children at the mercy of big tech and their powerful and invasive algorithms while the Republicans in Congress sit on their hands.
▶ 9:30:03If this provision becomes law, states will be powerless to respond to harmful uses of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems for the next decade. And that includes threats we know exist today and threats that we cannot currently imagine that arise over the next 10 years. My amendment would strip the ban from the legislation before us today. And I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and stop this big tech giveaway. I yield back, Mr.
▶ 9:30:32Chairman, did you want my time or No, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment. Gentleman's recognized. Uh, Mr. Chairman, let me let me start with the things we agree on, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jerseyy's uh comments on the topic.
▶ 9:30:57Uh, I notice that the amendment he's offered does not strike the first part of this title, which is to appropriate $500 million to the Department of Commerce for the purpose of using artificial intelligence to modernize federal government. And uh, I'm hoping that in choosing to strike the second part of the title and not the first part of the title, it means that we are in agreement about how important this is. This uh funding will bring the same gains in productivity and efficiency that AI has brought to the private sector to federal government.
▶ 9:31:26It'll allow uh our federal employees to do their jobs more efficiently and it'll make us better stewards of taxpayer money and allow us to provide better customer service to our constituents. So, I I'm glad we agreed on that much. But the second part of this title is equally important because it safeguards that investment by imposing a moratorum. And let me explain why that moratorum is so important to safeguard the investment. Right now there are over a thousand bills on the topic of AI regulation pending in state legislatores across the country.
▶ 9:31:57Imagine how difficult it would be for a federal agency that operates in all 50 states to have to navigate this labyrinth of regulation when we potentially have 50 different states going 50 different directions on the topic of AI regulation. And in fact, this is exactly the same circumstance that we are putting private industry in as they attempt to deploy AI. And uh the gentleman was talking about the potential hazards of AI, which I completely agree with.
▶ 9:32:26Uh but article one of the US Constitution gives the ability to regulate interstate commerce exclusively to this body, to the Congress, not to the states. And so much of this deployment of AI is obviously interstate commerce. Now no one is suggesting that AI should be unregulated. I certainly don't believe that. I don't think anyone on this dis believes that but the appropriate body for doing that regulation is the US Congress and colleagues we have the ability to do this.
▶ 9:32:57Last year I had the honor of chairing the house task force on artificial intelligence along with my co-chair congressman Ted Louu. And uh we had 24 very talented and engaged members, 12 from both sides of the aisle, and we had 25 hearings last year. Uh we uh spent hundreds of hours on this topic, and we came up with in December a proposed federal regulatory framework for AI. It's 270 pages long.
▶ 9:33:25We made over 60 key findings and 85 different recommendations. and colleagues. This was unanimously approved by all 24 members of our task force. It was approved by the minority leader and his staff. It was approved by the speaker and his staff. You should have seen what was on the cutting room floor. These 270 pages are what we can all agree on. And we have an entire chapter in this report on the topic of preeemption.
▶ 9:33:50So what I think needs to happen is that Congress needs to get its act together and codify some of the things in this report and that will enact a federal regulatory framework that establishes an appropriate balance between protecting American consumers from harm while simultaneously allowing innovation to thrive because colleagues if we don't do this the people that we're hurting the worst is uh the entrepreneurs.
▶ 9:34:16If you're a Google, I mean that the assertion by the gentleman was that this is a giveaway to big tech. It let me tell you, if you're Google, you might not like regulation, but you've got buildings full of lawyers that can help you deal with it, even if it's 50 different states regulating in different directions. The people who can't deal with that are two people in a garage somewhere trying to start the next Google. And those are the people that we need to be concerned about.
▶ 9:34:44So colleagues, I urge you to uh to vote against this amendment. Uh I think an a moratorum is appropriate. Uh and then that will allow us a little bit of runway to get our job done and regulate this at the federal level. And let me just say in closing here that uh the states, the governors of the various states agree with me.
▶ 9:35:05So, uh, just tonight, Governor Pus of Colorado, who has enacted some of the furthest reaching legislation, state legislation on AI regulation, said he thinks this moratorum is a good idea. And red states governors have said it too. And let me submit to you, when you've got governors from red states and blue states saying this is not something states ought to be doing, the federal government ought to be doing this. We should listen to them. So, uh, I urge rejection of this amendment.
▶ 9:35:30And, uh, once we get this passed, please, let's get together and let's enact a federal regulatory framework for AI because the only way we can do something durable is if we do it together. It's got to be bipartisan. I yield back. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a close call for me. I'd say to my colleague, Mr. Obernalty, I I believe uh very much that this is an issue that requires federal action. And I think preeemption is appropriate.
▶ 9:35:57Just as I said in the context of privacy, I think there should be one standard. My problems with this amendment are two. One is we don't have a standard that we're offering. Uh and I think the the moratorum is too long. Uh we should be able to do it in a much shorter period of time. So I want to just indicate that I will support this amendment, but very interested in working with you and the rest of Congress to get on top of this uh to get a privacy standard here to get a to get an AI regime in place.
▶ 9:36:25Uh and I will certainly support preeemption because I do believe one standard is the right uh standard and I yield back. The gentleman yields. A gentle lady from California, Miss Matts Sui is I move to strike the last word. California not only has been an engine of AI innovation, but my state has also been a national leader in ensuring we balance innovation and competition with transparency.
▶ 9:36:51Transparency and common sense To stall any state or local legislative progress on artificial intelligence for a decade is a slap in the face to American consumers. Not allowing the states to provide common sense safeguards to promote AI safety, transparency, and non-discrimination leaves consumers vulnerable to the harms that AI when left unchecked can cause to their health, their jobs, their education,
▶ 9:37:22and ultimately their lives. For example, California requires consent before using a deceased person's likeness in AI generated replica. There is no federal protection that does this. California law also helps students prepare for the jobs of the future by incorporating AI literacy in their education. At the moment, there's no feder program that supports this.
▶ 9:37:46And there are other AI bills in the pipeline that would help Californians from ensuring safe gener generative AI use on our critical infrastructure to guaranteeing that insurance companies disclose AI use on decisions that impact consumer applications and claims. The US should be leading in the global race for AI dominance. If we don't lead, others will.
▶ 9:38:12However, we can't shoot ourselves in the foot by stopping the good work that states have done and will continue to do. We in Congress should also be working towards tailored and consensus driven legislation that empowers the use of AI. As we do so, the example of what has worked and what has not worked in states will provide critical insight.
▶ 9:38:36I urge my colleagues not to deny us that insight and not deny our states the right to foster innovation while providing crit critical safeguards for rapidly involved evolving technologies. We have done great bipartisan work in this committee before and I hope we can continue to do so. Not jam through a provision that rose back the progress our states have made to protect consumers and advance responsible AI development.
▶ 9:39:06I yield back. Gentle lady yields. Uh the gentle lady from Florida is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, colleagues, this is a shocking surprise addition to the billionaire tax giveaway package. Um, I guess we shouldn't be so surprised, however, because the big tech companies have had all too much power here in Washington DC.
▶ 9:39:30We have watched for many years is they have blocked our efforts to to pass a privacy law so that you are not constantly surveiled and your ga your data personal private data not gathered and used against you and sold uh to data brokers I've watched for years as we've tried to protect kids online whether that's their own privacy through the children's online privacy protection act or maybe it's the way they design apps you know uh we tried to do a design code
▶ 9:40:00or the kids online safety act. Tech companies with the help of the speaker uh blocked that last year even though it passed the Senate in a bipartisan way. But boy, this one takes the cake. A 10year moratorum to on states that they can't do anything to keep the citizens of their state safe from some of the malign uh influences of artificial intelligence.
▶ 9:40:28Well, I thought they and people are they're sending in uh letters on this and I thought I would just read a few of them. Uh Endode and Fair Play says AI companies would get exactly what they want. No rules, no accountability and total control.
▶ 9:40:46uh bills addressing deep fakes, modernizing state child sexual abuse material laws, hypers sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers hands for a decade, sidelining policy makers, and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast evolving technology. Here's one from Common Sense Media.
▶ 9:41:14At a time when parents and kids are looking to their elected lawmakers for reasonable guard rails for safe AI use and when states are beginning to take thoughtful action, the US House Energy and Commerce Committee is instead considering legislation to put industry interests over our kids safety. Consumer Reports says the language would prohibit the enforcement of laws already passed by many states and would prohibit the enforcement of future AI protections.
▶ 9:41:44Congress has long abdicated its responsibility to pass laws to address emerging consumer protection harms. Issue one says preeemption u it's extremely consequential decision that deserves robust transparent debate not a blank check for the tech companies tucked into the reconciliation package that's what this is we've had no hearings on a 10-year moratorum this gift to big tech and we have to pass this Palone amendment to to
▶ 9:42:14reign in these abuses I yield back gentle lady yields the gentleoman from Florida miss Lee is recognized Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and colleagues. It is important for us to understand what this provision uh brings to bear for our government and the future of how we conduct business and provide services to the American people.
▶ 9:42:35First, again, this will allow us to invest in our government infrastructure in a way that brings modern technology to our federal workers, allows us to utilize, to analyze, to understand our data, and to bring efficiency, the same efficiencies that we're all using in our personal lives that are being used in the private sector to bring that to government to increase our capacity and the type of services and the way
▶ 9:43:05in which we can provide them to the American people. Second, moratorum. I agree wholeheartedly that the concept of preeemption is something that we should consider carefully and thoroughly. But this is precisely the type of use case where it is warranted. Artificial intelligence, as we all know, is revolutionizing sectors across America.
▶ 9:43:28to create a patchwork of regulatory schemes from amongst the 50 states will absolutely stifle innovation and growth and the ability of companies across the spectrum, whether large or small, to comply and to continue to innovate and to continue to keep America as the leader when it comes to artificial intelligence.
▶ 9:43:48Most particularly, just as chairman Obernolulti pointed out, the largest of the companies, the big tech companies, those are the ones who will be most able to comply with a patchwork of regulations from 50 different states. The ones who will not are the small companies, the innovators. The ones who are going to bring us the technology of tomorrow that we don't even anticipate today. It is those companies that we most need to ensure are equipped to continue their important work.
▶ 9:44:18that is how we stay a leader in this technology. So for these reasons uh I do believe that this is the moment that preeemption is appropriate. If there was ever something affecting interstate commerce, certainly it is this. Uh and also this is how we ensure not only that we are meeting the needs of the American people, but we also are ensuring that we are not impeding continued progress and innovation in the field of artificial intelligence.
▶ 9:44:48And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Open. I thank the my colleague uh and member of the AI task force for yielding. Uh just to mention a few of the things that have been talked about. First of all, the length of the moratorum. To be clear, no one wants this to go on for 10 years.
▶ 9:45:09I I would be overjoyed if six months from now we were presenting together a bill that established an appropriate level of preeemption and cottified a federal regulatory framework. But as anyone that served on the task force on either side of the aisle will tell you, the landscape of all the different power players in artificial intelligence is very complex. And no matter what's done, there'll be winners and losers.
▶ 9:45:33The moratorum has to be long enough to make it clear to everybody that the federal regulatory system is the only game in town when it comes to interstate commerce. And that's why the moratorum needs to be longer. Uh, another thing that's been said is the it's been asserted that AI is largely unregulated. Now, as we make clear in our report, that's absolutely not true. In fact, what we're all advocating for is is an embrace of sectoral regulation.
▶ 9:45:58And our sectoral regulators already have most of the authorities they need to regulate uh within their sectoral spaces. In fact, the FDA has already approved uh over a thousand permits for the use of AI in medical devices, which is just about the highest risk use case that you could come up with for AI. So, uh we our our regulators are already on the the the case. We need to back them up with a federal regulatory framework, but we've got a little bit of runway to do that.
▶ 9:46:26Uh and the third and last point I wanted to make is that preeemption here is not going to be total. There is room for the states to innovate in this space and we devote an entire uh chapter of our task force report to the issue of preeemption because it's very complex and I apologize uh we've had it out electronically since December. We'll get a copy of this on everyone's desk. It's taken four months to navigate the office of government printing. Probably needed some AI for that. But uh we'll make sure everyone has a copy of this.
▶ 9:46:53But uh what we need is a federal framework that establishes some guard rails for where regulation is preempted as interstate commerce to the federal government. And outside of those guard rails where the states are free to be the laboratories of democracy that they are and I think that we are very capable of passing that and establishing that in a way that makes everyone happy. Uh I yield back. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes a gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 9:47:23I move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you. Um I support the uh amendment by Mr. Palone. Um a 10-year ban. Really AI isn't just transforming our economy. It is reshaping our society, our rights, our workforce, and even our grasp of the truth. But while the risks grow more urgent by the day, the federal government has failed to meet the moment. In fact, it's done the opposite.
▶ 9:47:47Instead of leading, this administration and Republicans in Congress are bowing to please of big tech to enact weak AI policy that will preempt stronger state efforts. In my home state of New York, lawmakers have introduced bills that recognize the urgent threat of unregulated AI and take steps to protect civil rights and promote transparency. These state bills confront threats like algorithmic discrimination headon.
▶ 9:48:12So AI can can't be used to deny people jobs, loans, or public benefits simply because the systems were built and trained on biased data. State action is not a roadblock to progress. It is the driver of progress. That's how we got clean air laws, privacy protection, and civil rights. Strong regulation is not about stifling innovation. It is about safeguarding communities from potential harm like bias, like discrimination, and the erosion of fundamental rights.
▶ 9:48:40I introduced a bill this Congress to protect Americans from the weaponization of AI by sports betting companies. In the absence of federal action on gambling regulation, lawmakers at the state level are pursuing their own. For example, an Illinois state senator took a provision directly from my bill, the Safe Bet Act, that would prohibit sports books from using AI to track their customers habits, offer personalized promotions to keep betting, or create gambling products like micro bets.
▶ 9:49:08If Republicans successfully infringe upon states rights to protect their constituents with this moratorum, sports books will continue running wild experimenting on their consumers and fueling gambling addiction. Gambling addiction, which has the highest rate of attempted suicide of any addiction. While we sit here all night to rip health care away from nearly 14 millions of Americans, why not also turbocharge the next public health crisis? I have no doubt AI can deliver major benefits to Americans.
▶ 9:49:39But AI is just a tool and the use of AI is not inherently good. In fact, there is already plenty of evidence of people with bad intentions using AI to take advantage of and harm Americans. If this is the type of policy being proposed by Republicans after everything we have heard about the development of AI in recent years gives me no confidence that we will rise to the challenge of protecting everyday Americans who are facing a world where supercomputing power is being used against them and their interests often
▶ 9:50:09unknowingly. That's wrong and it's clear at a time when the FTC's independence is under attack. We shouldn't be taking our state regulators off the beat. So I urge members to strike this provision and start an actual transparent conversation just about how to develop safeguards to ensure everyday Americans are indeed the beneficiaries and not the victims of AI. With that, Mr. Chair, I Mr. Mr. Tonka, would you yield to me? The gentleman from New Jersey. Thank you.
▶ 9:50:39I you know, I've listened to my colleagues on the Republican side and I I you know, I just can't believe what I'm hearing. Look, in the last Congress, we had agreement, a consensus, bipartisan on a comprehensive privacy bill that would have had uh some of these safeguards or guard rails, at least been a start. Uh and the House leadership uh killed it, right? Told everybody on the Republican side not to support it. So, it was dead. Now, you're telling me, oh, now, you know, don't worry.
▶ 9:51:09Congress and Republican majority are going to pass these guard rails and they're going to do this. I have absolutely no reason to believe that based on what happened in the last Congress. Then you talk about the agency that can do it. I think you're talking about the FTC. Well, I don't know how they're going to do anything. They fired the Democrats and they were the ones that were the more probably the ones that were the most interested in actually doing this. So, what are we talking about here? I mean, let's be honest.
▶ 9:51:36that there's no way in the world that this Congress is going to pass uh federal legislation. There's no way in the world that the FTC, the way it's constituted, is going to do anything about this. Um and then you say this is preeemption. Preemption is when you pass legislation and the legislation preempts the states. This is an absolute prohibition. There's no preeemption here. There's no legislation here. There's no there's no regulation. There's no nothing. This is just a giveaway to big tech.
▶ 9:52:06Uh, and we're left with nothing and the states now can't even do anything because they're prohibited. It's not a preeemption issue. I I yield back to the gentleman from New York. And I yield back, Mr. Chair. Chair recognizes a gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Shakowski.
▶ 9:52:25As someone who has worked very hard to try and protect consumers um from big tech, it's important to understand the United States Congress has done zero to reign in big tech.
▶ 9:52:44And so when people find that their private information is being used in order to bring to to to help the the tech companies to be able to do what they with consumers information.
▶ 9:53:08All these years we have done zero to say that there ought to be something. And so now we're talking about AI. Okay, that seems to be according to uh uh a a we had we had a uh number of um leaders that talked about the potential dangers of
▶ 9:53:38AI. This is not just great work that can be done, but it can also be going into the work that people want to protect for for themselves.
▶ 9:53:54And it is just outrageous that we have done nothing all these years and now something is going to ask uh is going to last for years that these companies can do whatever they want.
▶ 9:54:10It's just amazing to me that we have not done taken one step to rein in big tech when it comes to protecting privacy of any sort and consumers are being and children are being exploited.
▶ 9:54:31We need to understand what is available to us in order to make sure that the use of com of big tech is reigned in.
▶ 9:54:46And I it's just amazing that we have done zero year after year after year and now we're saying years can go by and nothing has been is going to being done is will be done excuse me um by big tech and AI. I yield back. The gentle lady yields.
▶ 9:55:15The general lady from New York, Miss Clark, is Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Lady's recognized. Thank you. I support ranking member Palone's amendment to strike the moratorum on artificial intelligence regulations at the state level. We're talking about 2035 here. The year 2035. Are you kidding me?
▶ 9:55:43As a member of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, I cannot support this 10-year moratorum on state AI laws. That's just out of control. It is nothing more than yet another unconscionable way to for big tech to give away to big tech at the expense of consumer rights.
▶ 9:56:08Pausing AI regulations for 10 years is extremely dangerous given the rapid proliferation of AI technology. We don't know what AI will be capable of a year from now, let alone a decade from now.
▶ 9:56:23And while we in Congress absolutely must pass federal data privacy legislation and a framework, regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, it is shortsighted and foolish to prevent states from stepping in to protect their citizens in the meantime. This is crazy. I can't even believe that we're sitting here debating this. Let me be clear.
▶ 9:56:46No one stands to benefit from this provision other than Donald Trump's big tech billionaire and our adversaries. What do you think? China and and and and all these other countries just going to sit there like, okay, you know, time out. No, they're deploying weapons against us. What kind of madness is going on this morning? That's right.
▶ 9:57:13It does not protect consumers from the potential for harm. It does not save taxpayers a dime. In fact, it blocks any potential recourse any American citizen may have to hold big tech accountable. The message from Republicans supporting this provision and this farce of a bill overall is clear. They would prefer millions of Americans be kicked off their health care plans just to put more money in the pockets of the billionaire class.
▶ 9:57:43It is shameful. I urge my colleagues to reject this nonsense. And even if you don't know anything about tech, understand that we are not protected as a nation. We have done nothing to advance the privacy that's required to set a platform for us to be protected. So I urge my colleagues to reject this nonsense. People say I'm really smart over there, but let me tell you, 10 years of a moratorum, 2035. Can you imagine that?
▶ 9:58:13I don't even want to tell you how old I'mma be then. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. General lady yields. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Sto is recognized. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. A 10-year ban on state AI laws. What could possibly go wrong? If you were to want to launch a reboot of the Terminator, this ban would be a good starting point.
▶ 9:58:43The states get the ball rolling on these AI laws. And I agree, Congress should be acting to do something about it. But as our ranking member Frank Palone mentioned, internet privacy is a perfect example. It's been several terms and it keeps getting killed by leadership. And then states have stepped up, including Florida, to finally pass internet privacy laws. No one wants 50 laws.
▶ 9:59:12How do we solve the problem? Congress should pass basic AI protections. But since that's probably not going to happen, what will actually happen if this passes is absolute And so I couldn't in good conscience do anything but support your great amendment. Hold back. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes gentle lady from Massachusetts, Miss Tran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word.
▶ 9:59:43Gentle lady is recognized. So very soon, this committee will be debating the biggest cuts to Medicaid in our nation's history. Co cuts that will strip health insurance from over 13 million Americans. all to pay for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest in our country. Now, Republicans will say that they're not cutting Medicaid, that they're simply implementing sensible work requirements. But please stay skeptical.
▶ 10:00:10Republicans are implementing cumbersome requirements because added paperwork will lead to less compliance and ultimately less people enrolled, conveniently giving them enough space to fill the pot for their super rich friends. A group of friends that we should note is headlined by the same big tech CEOs who stood behind President Trump on inauguration day.
▶ 10:00:36a group of friends who will say they want a federal privacy policy, a national AI framework, while spending millions of dollars to make sure those bills never see the floor. A ban on state regulations of AI for 10 years shows where Republicans loyalty is to big tech and the wealthy.
▶ 10:00:58Dismantling states regulations on technology amounts to a financial windfall of EP epic proportions consistent with tax cuts for the rich that the Ways and Means Republicans marked up today. This provision absolves companies of any responsibility to protect consumers from the harms of AI. It is also drafted so broadly as to implicate states privacy and online safety laws directly harming our kids.
▶ 10:01:26Simply put, this provision, this single paragraph that is snuck into a massive budget bill would undermine digital rights duly provided to millions of Americans by their state legislatures. States have taken the lead in regulating technology while Congress has stalled out amidst a barrage of endless lobbying. If privacy and kids online safety are any indication, this Congress will not pass meaningful comprehensive regulation of AI.
▶ 10:01:55And I ask my colleagues, what gives you so much optimism that Congress can pass meaningful protections for AI, privacy or online safety? You claim that states have created a patchwork of regulation. Why do you think that state lawmakers have done that? You think they want to be legislating on difficult questions of technology policy? No. No. State lawmakers have stepped up because their federal counterparts, we have consistently failed to act.
▶ 10:02:25Americans are fed up and instead they're asking state legislators to protect them and their kids online. Make no mistake, this provision is a product of big tech lobbying. Companies including Meta and Google have long asked for it and trade associations for big tech rejoiced when Republicans included it in this bill because what this provision represents is the biggest gift to the tech industry in its history. Put in context, however, this ban on tech regulation is not just bad policy, it's morally bankrupt.
▶ 10:02:56We can work together on modernizing our systems, leveraging our data and our analytics. But Mr. Chairman, think about it. Republicans are effectively eliminating requirements on technology companies to make their products safe and trustworthy while at the same time adding requirements for Americans to receive life-saving healthcare. Under their bill, Americans will have to jump through hoops and complete mounds of paperwork to prove that they are working.
▶ 10:03:24Technology companies, on the other hand, won't have to show their work at all. This handout for big tech and ultra wealthy tech baronss in the same reconciliation bill that guts health care for millions is what people hate about Washington. It's lopsided and it's insulting. If Republicans had chosen to start this hearing with the faces and stories of who they're advocating for, you wouldn't see everyday Americans like us Democrats held up.
▶ 10:03:49We'd be looking at posters of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff requirements, compliance, and paperwork for busy workingclass Americans, but not for billionaire big tech donors. That's the Republican way, according to this legislation. But I'd love to be proven wrong, so vote yes on the amendment. I yield back. The gentle lady yields. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Mendez, is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support ranking member Palone's amendment.
▶ 10:04:20The breath of state laws that the Republican ban would make uninforcable, laws that protect consumers against algorithmic bias, discrimination, and other factors in health care, housing, and more, is staggering. Republicans are trying to fundamentally undercut essential protections for consumers in all aspects of their lives, from health to elections to housing. A few significant examples of laws that states would be prohibited from enforcing for the next decade.
▶ 10:04:47Laws in at least five states that Republican members of this committee hail from, including the chair's home state of Kentucky, prohibit AI deep fakes and elections. Laws in Utah, require the use of AI to be disclosed to consumers and regulate the use of AI chatbots for mental health treatment. States have laws to ensure AI is created and used in a safe and trustworthy manner. At least 17 states have privacy laws that address profiling and automated decision-making.
▶ 10:05:17Laws in at least 10 states ensure that self-driving cars follow the rules of the road and operate safely. This is by no means a list of every state law that would be uninforcable for the next decade under this ill-considered provision. What Republicans deride as a patchwork of AI laws is really a clear expression of need for guard rails governing the diverse and numerous harms that can result from the careless deployment of powerful artificial intelligence and automated decisionmaking systems.
▶ 10:05:48My Republican colleague from California said there was overwhelming support from uh folks in different states. Um earlier today, the National Conference of State Legislators sent us a letter. It reads, "On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislators, the bipartisan organization representing the legislators of our nation states, Territories, Commonwealths, and Washington, DC.
▶ 10:06:13We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed 10-year moratorum on state artificial intelligence legislation, including in the energy and commerce committee's reconciliation measure. We urge the committee to remove this language, as this amendment does, from the bill. This provision is an infringement on states authority to effectively legislate in this rapidly evolving and consequential policy domain.
▶ 10:06:42that seems like the states are not on board with what the bills strives to do. And Chairman Guthrie, I would just note that the staff chair on the National Conference of State Legislators also from Kentucky. So, as you're considering how you vote, a lot of Kentucky happening here. Um, and the last thing I would say is the two most important things that we have to deal with as a country right now are artificial intelligence and cyber security. artificial intelligence.
▶ 10:07:10This bill wants to strip states of their right to legislate around AI. But we've seen this administration with respect to cyber security take the power away from the federal government and put it back in the states and municipalities hands which we know is dangerous. So it's confusing to hear on the two most important issues Republicans would take two different approaches on AI which I agree is a big is a giveaway to big tech.
▶ 10:07:37They're saying, "No, no, let's keep it at the federal government 10-year moratorium on what states can do a cyber security, right, which makes us more vulnerable, and we already have a federal uh system infrastructure in place, they're allowing the administration to say, "No, no, no. States and municipalities are responsible." It literally makes no sense. And if you're still considering how you're going to vote across the aisle, I just want to say, uh, Georgia from our office who covers the committee celebrated her birthday at the stroke of midnight.
▶ 10:08:06So, it would be really phenomenal just to give us a nice little gift here, birthday gift. Uh, so I hope you'll consider that for all the additional substantive reasons that I've covered in my four minutes. With that, I yield back. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes a gentle lady from Washington, Dr. Shrier. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 10:08:29I I'm going to be voting for this amendment uh just because I feel like what is in this bill and I'm just going to read this to you here um is this is outrageous. It says that no state or political subdivision may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period, beginning on the date that this act is passed.
▶ 10:08:58I mean, I just can't imagine this is a gift to big tech. It is terrible for all of us. I just want you to think about the fact that we've had essentially no regulation on social media and how that's turned out for us and our kids. This committee, uh, this Congress has not even been able to pass the Kids Online Safety Act. That's nothing compared to taking this on.
▶ 10:09:23I mean AI is the most potent technology with unimaginable potential benefit and unimaginable potential danger. We do need federal regulation. Mr. Obernoti uh show showed us a big book of agreed upon good ideas for how to get started with regulating AI. So why aren't we taking that up? Like, wouldn't that seem to be the first order of business to take on?
▶ 10:09:53But we're not. Instead, we're voting on stupid stuff like Gulf of America. You know, we ought to be taking this up seriously. It's the biggest issue of our time. And you're kicking the can down the road 10 years on any regulation. So, I think what we need to do is vote yes on this amendment. Trash this part of the bill.
▶ 10:10:18get our butts in gear and get that bill regulating artificial intelligence because the danger posed to not just our children but to all of us frankly to the entire world is really serious. Uh so I encourage my friends, my colleagues uh to vote yes on this amendment and get rid of this absurd and outrageous part of the bill. Are you yielding? Yeah, I will now yield to my my friend and colleague Lucy Fletcher from Texas.
▶ 10:10:47Uh, thank you, Representative Shrier. I want to associate myself with your comments with um the excellent comments from Congresswoman Tran and and all my colleagues on this side of the aisle. And I think we're all scratching our heads at this 10-year moratorum as we talk about uh just the rapid pace at which things are happening.
▶ 10:11:03You know, I've seen times in the past where somebody said, "Let's let's do a one-year so we get have incentive to get the bill done and get it to the president's desk to be signed into law." like there are ways that you're trying to give Congress incentive to legislate. This doesn't do any of that. And I can't help but wonder as I I read this I guess this is a question maybe for council um it I understand on decisions that I think are very important that we'll be coming to later.
▶ 10:11:33The president has said repeatedly he thinks the so many issues are issues for the states and in fact as I understand it this I don't know what happened to the party of states rights. That's not my view, but what happened to states rights here? Uh can can anyone explain to me the can you explain council what the uh where the states rights are in this in this proposal? Thank you for the question, ma'am. Uh that appears to be a policy question. Okay. U Mr.
▶ 10:12:02Chairman, can you can you enlighten us as to uh how this comports with the policy of the Republican party to support states rights? Mr. Chairman. Oh, I was looking at Mr. Joyce, but I could also look at Mr. Guthrie. Well, I just had a question. I mean, looking at this amendment, a 10-year moratorium on, you know, Mr.
▶ 10:12:28Menendez went through a lot of the the work that states have done um to to regulate AI to stop the harms that are affecting their citizens in the absence of action from this committee. And I've heard repeatedly from folks on this committee, folks in the Congress, and the president himself that Republicans believe in states rights and that many important decisions like whether and when to bear children should be left to the states. So why are we having a 10-year moratorium on states ability to uh legislate around AI?
▶ 10:12:57Well, there so there clearly our founding fathers and and I agree we clearly have entered state commerce. So anytime that a uh an economic activity includes more than one state, it's just difficult to have this patchwork of state laws in an industry like AI because the data centers are someplace people use it all over the country. And so what we want to do and and do it in a bipartisan way because that's what Mr.
▶ 10:13:22Obernoli said because it it's it has to be sustainable is that we have a single standard for AI across the country and we have to do our work on that. I'm not saying we have. I'm saying that we will and we're going to hopefully find a solution. But if we continue to have a patchwork of state laws because our big concern if we've had a lot of hearings on energy that are required for AI and we've had a lot we and we have to also get the policy right. And so that's what we want to do.
▶ 10:13:48We want to have the opportunity to make sure as we as as our federal government uses AI, we we protect our our taxpayer dollars in doing this by having this moratorum. But we know we have to have a national standard. Well, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate that answer. I mean, it it sounds to me like this is a a policy decision. Um, and it also, you know, I agree with you that there should be federal guarantees and federal laws, and that is what we are here to do.
▶ 10:14:15Um, and certainly, I think on our side of the aisle, you'll find a lot of agreement. Um, but I hope it doesn't take us 10 years to do this. Uh, that's five Congresses from now. And so, I really think we should uh consider this amendment. Get to work. I'm happy to work in a bipartisan way on this uh on this very important work regulating AI and I will yield back to Congresswoman Shrier. Thank you. And you know before I yield back I just want to say this is not just a big giveaway to big tech. This is a huge giveaway to big insurance.
▶ 10:14:44The general using AI to deny people services. Your time is expired. Uh the chair recognizes a gentle lady from New York, Miss Arazio Cortez. Thank you so much uh Mr. chairman and I just want to uh revisit a question with council quickly.
▶ 10:15:03Uh following up on my my colleague from Texas's question, it would instituting this is a a weird sorry with respect to a 10-year on state policy changes with respect to AI um instituting this moratorum where there previously was not one. This is a policy change, correct? Yes, ma'am. And this is a policy.
▶ 10:15:33Thank you very much. Um, uh, now following up on that, um, I want to speak to the AI task force report that was held up earlier. You know, the last two years we spent really a remarkable and fascinating amount of time on the AI task force and it was genuinely a a wonderful experience.
▶ 10:16:02It was a rare experience of bipartisan uh legislators coming together tackling some of the most fascinating questions with respect to AI, with respect to the frontiers of our technology. We spent two years discussing everything from public investments in large language models, the national labs to how we protect victims of child uh you know sexually exploitative materials.
▶ 10:16:31And this was thoughtful. Democrats and Republicans came together. We identified several many different policy areas where we actually had agreement despite many areas where we had disagreement. And after two years, we could not pass nearly any of it. Any of it.
▶ 10:16:56And in the absence of that action, in those two years, people committed suicide from their interactions with AI chatbots. children.
▶ 10:17:12One in eight teenagers and kids had a friend or someone that they knew become victim to uh false falsely generated sexually materials. We had people whose privacy was violated by AI platforms.
▶ 10:17:36And so in the inaction of Congress, states decided to act. States are passing legislation to protect people's privacy. States are protecting states are providing action are are instit are pursuing action to try to protect people. Thank you very much. And in fact, we have several examples here.
▶ 10:17:58Last year, Utah passed a law to force AI chatbots to protect the private information of people seeking mental health care and disclosed if they were paid to advertise any products. That would be gone. This month, New York passed a law to require chat bots to include a protocol for detecting self harm expressions and directing users to real resources. That would be wiped out.
▶ 10:18:23facial recognition technology that uses AI to identify people against large and mostly unregulated databases where these AI um particularly some that that uh that are used sometimes in pursuit of law enforcement falsely identifying disproportionately these algorithms falsely identify black Americans and Americans of color and identify them and accuse them falsely of committing crimes. times.
▶ 10:18:53Last year, big health or recently big health insurers have been using AI to deny care claims to patients. And last year, California passed a law requiring that health care providers actually retain the ultimate responsibility of whether or not uh a a a patient receives care and that they can't just knock that off and blame an algorithm for denying people their cancer treatments, denying people other kinds of treatments
▶ 10:19:24uh due to AI algorithms. All of these protections are protections that Congress refuses to take up, refuses, and so states are taking up this responsibility. The idea that we would ban people from being protected from these abuses for 10 years.
▶ 10:19:44And we've seen the AI lobby and Palunteer and Peter Teal and Elon Musk and the force of their lobby here in Washington DC will ensure that action continues to not be taken. Let states protect people and a moratorum is a deeply dangerous idea at this moment. Thank you and I yield back. The gentle lady yields. The chair recognizes a gentleoman from Virginia, Miss McClen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 10:20:11I graduated law school one year after Congress passed the Telecom Act of 1996. And I remember running into a member of the committee um who asked, "Well, what are you doing now?" And I said, "Well, I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you pass the Telecom Act because my first job was as an outside counsel to GTE implementing it." And he said, "Well, when you figure it out, let me know." and the process of implementing
▶ 10:20:42the telecom act. I learned words matter. I learned that courts interpret the plain meaning of the words that Congress uses. I learned that when you put a list of exemptions in place and you exclude things, courts assume you did that intentionally.
▶ 10:21:08And yes, Congress regulates interstate commerce, but AI is not just interstate commerce. AI is an application used across all of our systems. In 2018, I attended a legal where a expert was explaining mega trends and all the different effects and he talked about AI and he predicted in 2018 the
▶ 10:21:38ability of AI to create fake news will outpace the ability of AI to detect it in 2018. And the more he talked about AI in 2018, he scared the living daylights out of me. At that point, I was both a regulatory lawyer and a state legislator.
▶ 10:22:00And I I I won't tell you literally what I said because you might strike my words, but Listen HS was involved. None of our systems are ready for AI. This was 2018. This body had its first AI hearing in 2023. The House now.
▶ 10:22:23Meanwhile, in 2018, China had a plan for global dominance in AI by 2030. Since then, AI has been used across a wide variety of things that states do regulate like law enforcement, like insurance, like education, like crimes.
▶ 10:22:52And AI is used in all of those. And this moratorum says no state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence etc etc. Doesn't say regulating the creation of doesn't say regulating the development of not the of any.
▶ 10:23:19So if a state wants to regulate how law enforcement can use AI to surveil its citizens, it can't. If a state wants to regulate how AI is used in the education system, it can't.
▶ 10:23:39If a state wants to how to punish how to how to how to change its laws to address the use of AI to commit crimes in a way that the state law doesn't account for now it can't.
▶ 10:24:00any law is broad and the exemptions are very very narrow and what you're doing is saying for 10 years while Congress does nothing. Oh, by the way, we've already said the president has said everything having to do with education needs to go back to the states and I don't have time to go through everything else the president or my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has said the states can do.
▶ 10:24:25you are handcuffing the states and localities ability to regulate how AI will be used in the very things that they do have the power to regulate. And by the time Congress acts because I've been here almost three now and if you after doing this task force as the gentleoman from New York said where there was broad agreement and you can't pass anything out of that you're not going to be able to regulate every aspect of how AI
▶ 10:24:55is going to be used at the state and local level in 10 years. And in the meanwhile, AI rampant and we're not ready for it. And you know, science fiction sometimes comes true. A lot of stuff from Star Trek now exists. While I certainly hope that Terminator, the general lady's time has expired and we need to be careful. I yield back.
▶ 10:25:23The chair recognizes a gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'm going to hand it to my colleague from California. Before I do, I'd like to ask the ranking member, is it the Democrat position that you do not want a federal standard for Would No, I I would very much like to see a federal standard. I just don't think that this the Republican majority is ever going to do it. And I think that I'll I'll I'll take the time. Thank you very much.
▶ 10:25:53And uh I'll hand it to my colleague uh yield to Mr. from Uh thank you very much my colleague from uh Texas for yielding. Uh first of all I want to say how much I've enjoyed this colloquy tonight. Uh the passion and the interest that everyone has shown on this topic gives me some optimism that Congress is actually capable of acting on this. So I want to thank everyone for their engagement. Uh just to be clear I want to take us back up to 30,000 ft.
▶ 10:26:19purpose of this title is to appropriate $500 million for the federal government to use AI to modernize and make more efficient federal government operations. And it's nonsensical to do that if we're going to allow a thousand different pending bills in state legislatores across the country to become law. It would be impossible for any agency that operates in all the states to be able to comply with those regulations. So, uh, I would like to ask a question of councel, uh, just to to clarify that issue.
▶ 10:26:49Uh, my understanding is that the purpose of this provision is to spend $500 million to modernize federal IT and cyber security systems. Uh, to be clear, the moratorum is a necessary term and condition to execute the primary purpose of the provision. Is that correct? That is correct. All right. Thanks for clearing that up because I think there was some confusion. Uh there was some talk about national security. That's something that worries me a lot. That's something that we touched on in the task force.
▶ 10:27:17We had a whole hearing on it and there's an entire chapter in our task force report on it. Uh competition with China is very real. China is is bent on establishing dominance uh in this uh in this space. But let me say this to have a thousand different state regulations on AI is the fastest way to secure Chinese domination of AI. Right? that would be a barrier to the use of AI within the United States, which is exactly what China wants.
▶ 10:27:46Another one of my colleagues, in fact, a couple of them have brought up privacy uh as kind of a a warning sign where Congress has failed to act to establish a federal privacy standard. Uh I completely agree but the issue of privacy is uh an illustration of the reason why we need this moratorum because if we had this moratorum the states uh wouldn't have gotten out ahead of us on data privacy and we would have had an opposite situation there where we would have established
▶ 10:28:16that federal standard and I would encourage anyone who's upset about it and I'm one of them because I voted for APPPA last year you know let's get together and fix that problem uh you know to uh the letter from from the National Council of State Legislators. Well, I'm I'm shocked that they uh that they would uh oppose our moratorium. That's like asking my two-year-old grandson if he should get to regulate what he has for dinner. I mean, he will tell you yes, but it's not necessarily wise to give him that power.
▶ 10:28:44Uh and then, you know, lastly, you know, we we've been talking about the fact that Congress has not actually been able to do this yet. It's not because we haven't tried. Uh, as it was pointed out, we spent an entire year last year working through a bipartisan task force to come up with a proposal that we think everyone could agree with. That was just in December. Uh, there hasn't been any legislative oxygen in this chamber yet to get going on this, but I am hopeful with the backing of some of the people in this room that we can get working on this.
▶ 10:29:14Uh and and lastly, a couple of uh of my colleagues, including the author of this uh amendment, have expressed skepticism that the this Republican majority can pass meaningful AI regulation. And you know what? We can't. Not alone. Neither can you. The only way this gets done is on a bipartisan basis because we have companies out there making billion-dollar decisions on research and development and procurement.
▶ 10:29:40And what they want the most is some certainty about what the rules are going to be. And we need to give them that certainty. The most destructive thing is if there's fear out there that every few years as the winds of political fortune shift, the rules governing the use of AI completely change. We can't allow that, colleagues. So please, let's work together over the next few months to pass something into law. And you know what?
▶ 10:30:04I hope that this moratorum only lasts that few months and we replace it with something that makes clear what the rules of preeemption are. But until then, this moratorum is necessary and I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, yield back. The gentleman yields. Uh the gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 10:30:25I um share in Congressman Obel's um optimism that we can get something done with AI. Um I disagree with a 10-year moratorum on any states enforcing their regulations on AI or consumer protections on AI. Um and I have reason to.
▶ 10:30:54I am reading from this AP news article that actually uh happened was published in October 25, 2024. It's entitled, "An AI chat box pushed 18 to kill himself. A lawsuit against its creator alleges." So, there was a 14-year-old boy who used a uh chatbot for uh a relationship.
▶ 10:31:25Uh and he openly discussed his suicidal thoughts and shared his wishes for a pain-free death with the bot named after the fictional character Daenerys Targaryen from the television show Game of Thrones. that uh chatbox relationship was quote unquote in a highly sexualized uh in this young adolescence uh relationship.
▶ 10:31:54On February 28th, the boy told the bot that he was quote unquote coming home and it encouraged him to do so. The bot the bot encouraged him to do so. Quote, "I promise I will come home to you. I love you so much, Danny." the boy told the chat box, "I love you, too." The bo the bot replied, "Please come home to me as soon as possible, my love." Quote, "Uh, the boy said, "What if I told you I could come home right now?" He asked.
▶ 10:32:24"Please do, my sweet king," the bot messaged back. Now, this was after the boy was talking about potentially killing himself. And just seconds after the character uh I AI bot told him to quote unquote come home, the teen shot himself. According to the lawsuit file filed this week by his mother of Orlando, Florida.
▶ 10:32:51In addition to that, a 2023 report by Thorne revealed that 11% of American children aged 9 to 17 were aware of peers using AI to create nude images of other minors. Additionally, 15% of high school students reported encountering deep fake images depicting peers in sexually explicit contexts.
▶ 10:33:15In 2023, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's Cyber Tipline received approximately 4,700 reports concerning AI generated child sexual abuse material. By October 2024, the organization was fielding about 450 such reports monthly.
▶ 10:33:35Experts caution that these figures may be under reportported due to the increasing realism of AI generated images, making them difficult to distinguish from actual photographs. In May 2025, the FBI revealed it has opened investigations into 250 individual affiliated with 764 and other online networks of predators who befriend minors and other vulnerable people and coers them to create sexually explicit
▶ 10:34:05material and commit acts such as harming themselves or animals. They use AI to generate images. So this is why we can't wait. This is why we we need to put a halt to to states implementing their protections, their consumer protections against AI. This is why we can't wait.
▶ 10:34:29What what what's the numbers going to be in 10 years from now when these atrocious crimes are happening right now? That's why I support the amendment and I yield back my time. The gentleman yields. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Lada. Mr. La votes no.
▶ 10:34:59Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Billis Mr. Billis votes no. Mr. Hudson Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer, Mr. Dunn, Mr.
▶ 10:35:31Krenshaw, Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Allen Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulture Mr. Fulture votes no. Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs.
▶ 10:36:01Harshburgger Mrs. Harshburgger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Mrs. Kamik no Mrs. Kamik votes no Mr. Obernulti Mr. Oberonulti votes no Mr. James Mr. James votes no Mr. Bence Mr. Bence votes no Mrs. Hggin Mrs. Hggin votes no Mr.
▶ 10:36:32Fry Mr. Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Mr. votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorek. Mrs.
▶ 10:37:02Fedorich votes no. Mr. Mr. Palone votes I. Mr. Digette. Mr. Gette votes I. Miss Shakowski I. Mr. Shakowski votes I. Miss Matsui I. Miss Matsui votes I. Miss Caster. I. Miss Caster votes I. Mr. Tonko. I. Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss Clark I. Miss Clark votes I. Mr.
▶ 10:37:33Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Mrs. Dingle. Mrs. Dingle votes I. Mr. Vzy. Mr. Vzy votes I. M. Kelly. Miss. Kelly votes I.................... Miss. Bagan. Miss Bagon. Votes I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes I. Miss Shrier, Miss Shrier votes I.
▶ 10:38:03Miss Trean, Miss Trean votes I. Miss Fletcher, Miss Fletcher votes I. Miss Okaziocortez, Miss Okaziocortez votes I. Arinclaus. Mr. Arinclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen votes I.
▶ 10:38:33Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Miss. Mlen. M. Mlen votes I. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Palmer is not recorded. Mr. Palmer votes no. The clerk will report the result.
▶ 10:39:07Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 29 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further I move that the committee do now approve and agree to transmit to the House Committee on the Budget Subtitle C budget reconciliation legislative recommendations relating to communications. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the Mr.
▶ 10:39:37La I. Mr. La votes I. Mr. Griffith I. Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Barakus. Mr. Barakis votes I. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes I. Mr. Carter of Mr. Carter of Georgia votes I. Mr. Mr. Palmer votes I. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 10:40:08Mr. Krenshaw votes I. Mr. Joyce. I. Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Allen I Mr. Allen votes I. Mr. Balderson Mr. Balderson votes I. Mr. Mr. Fulture votes I. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes I. Mrs. Harshburgger. Mrs.
▶ 10:40:37Harshburgger votes I. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes I. Mrs. Kamik. Mrs. Kamik votes I. Mr. Oberonulti. Mr. Oonulti votes I. Mr. Mr. James votes I. Mr. Bence. Mr. Bence votes I. Mrs. Howchin. Mrs. Hchin votes I. Mr. Fry.
▶ 10:41:08Miss. Lee. Miss. Lee votes. I. Mr. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Kane votes I. Mr. Roelly. Mr. Roelly votes I. Mr. Evans I. Mr. Evans votes I. Mr. Go man.